@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 10mos agoActive 4wks ago

Should cities implement congestion pricing to reduce traffic in busy urban areas?

Congestion pricing is a system where drivers are charged a fee to enter certain high-traffic areas during peak times, aiming to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Proponents argue that it effectively reduces traffic and emissions while generating revenue for public transportation improvements. Opponents argue that it unfairly targets lower-income drivers and may simply shift congestion to other areas.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 3.3k Germany voters.

48%
Yes
52%
No
48%
Yes
52%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 3.3k Germany voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 3.3k Germany voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Germany voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B2WXB9Vanswered…4wks4W

Understand the need to reduce traffic. However, for such amount to exist, it is due to a lack of transports and/or the absolute need of the people to go there. May be too punishable to the latter.

 @B2928TVfrom Florida  answered…2mos2MO

Instead of congestion pricing, a practical public transportation system should be implemented.

 @9NYB5QXfrom California  answered…9mos9MO

Yes, as long as there is other ways to enter the city

 @9N85ZJWanswered…9mos9MO

No, cities should re-design to be people friendly, and less car friendly with better public transportation. The situation will resolve itself then.

 @9MMB6X9from Ontario  answered…10mos10MO

Yes, but the revenues generated from this scheme should be allocated to bolstering the country's public transit system.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies