The lecturer argues that Congestion pricing is not as advantageous as it is known to be. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing poses a number of significant benefits. First, the lecturer asserts that although congestion pricing allows people to drive faster, it is not responsible for reducing the accident rate. He explains that the reality is actually the opposite; as the traffic gets better, people attend to drive faster, further resulting in much more personal injuries. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing protects people from getting injured by car accidents. Next, the lecturer points out that as more people use public transportation, it is likely that confusion will occur. For example, the buses would be overcrowded, and people would even suffer from catching the buses since there are too many people at the bus stops. This opposes the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing would favor the people's access to transportation. Lastly, the lecturer claims that congestion pricing does not necessarily benefit the economy. He says that since the consumers who are entering the city would not want to pay charges, and therefore, spend less money. To support his statement, he pinpoints that the retailers actually blame congestion pricing for the lag in sales. This counters the reading passage's claim that businesses would prosper if congestion pricing gets implemented.
|