Here’s a convenient list of affordable cities in the US.

https://youtu.be/IKxR06isoLU

Even if it was a quarter million bucks, it would quickly pay itself off. Keeping a taxi car available and operating 24/7 is a big deal for operational costs. $25/hour on a $250k device is a recovered in just over a year. It’s all profit after that.

This is a good, and quite common, question regarding congestion pricing. The fact of the matter is those with less means often cannot afford a car. It’s usually not their car if they’re driving into a city (e.g. a work truck).

But let’s say we have low-income people who do have a car and need to drive for whatever reason. There’s programs for that. Two of them.

• If you’re a low-income car owner, you get reduced congestion pricing. It’s 50% off the normal fare. They can drive in and pay less than affluent drivers.
• If you’re low-income, you would qualify for the Fair Fares program. It too is 50% off for subways and busses. That prices trips to well below the cost of fueling a car into NYC.

Congestion pricing is also funneling money into metro services, meaning the affluent drivers are actually making low-income access to transportation cheaper while also improving reliability and service levels to those riding transit.

Low-income residents stand to win the most with congestion pricing. Personally, I would focus more on how to better help businesses with legitimate car needs, like dog groomers, mobile mechanics, delivery workers, etc. For example, zero fare for businesses licenses at nighttime periods (to encourage shifting delivery schedules). Programs like that could help small business, which in turn helps boost the income of low-income employees.

I’m not a fan of this article, mostly because Evan Christenson contemplates the darker side of charities working in underdeveloped countries without actually exploring them beyond criticizing WBR. It’s, likely unintentional, FUD propaganda.

It should not be a shock to find out that charities have overhead and many of them have unfortunate side effects. For example, Evan brings up Doctors Without Borders as a charity with lower overhead and a leader less compensated. That’s true, but did you also know they sell your personal information when you donate to them? That’s part of how they lower their costs. Also they provide doctor services for free. What does that do to the doctors who are there trying to make a meager living? DWB is undermining what little medical infrastructure the country has.

Is that a bad thing? Is it a good thing? That depends on you, the donor’s, perspective. Selling my data to provide more doctor is fine with me. Same with undermining the countries’ medical market because it’s a temporary thing and usually in a crisis where not providing help is definitively worse.

I’ll continue donating to WBR because their expense ratio is acceptable, even good, for physical good imports given the shipping overhead (aka bribes) in Africa. Admim is ~15% and fundraising is ~23%. Everything else goes into the bicycle and into families with kids who cannot afford one. That’s a lower margin than buying just about any good from your local shops, and it’s lower than many other charities working in Africa!