Groundhog Day 2 is a bit grittier than the original.
I had somewhat of a longwinded reply but edited it to say it would be based on the assumption that rent is reduced about the same amount by the income received from user fees, since the owners would no longer have to pay as much to maintain the elevator. Whether that assumption holds true would be true is some cases and not true in others.
So, everyone seems against this. But, given that elevators are very expensive to maintain and repair, why shouldn't the users who use it the most pay more than those who don't? Catoblepas mentioned disability, so yes you could exempt those people. But for example in a high rise, those on a higher floor typically will have a higher market value than those on lower floors (or a higher rent, but similarly are likely to be relatively higher income). And people who are particularly heavy users will otherwise cause maintenance and repair costs to be spread over other people who aren't heavy users, and that's not really fair either.
America is not featured in this article.
Honestly I think they should bring average speed cameras here. They would be very effective on a few choice corridors.
Ehh, there's a not-insignificant chance someone of that age with vascular problems may have dementia, which does a number on people's personalities.
Source for that? I can only find some statements from the daughter.
jonzobot
joined 3 years ago
I'm sure disabled people could be exempted in such a system. Then again, a disabled person might choose to pay lower rent or ownership costs with a user fee for the elevator if they don't use the elevator much.