Alainna Thomas

This paper examines how equity claims were mobilized in the public debate over New York City’s Central Business District Tolling Program (CBDTP). We analyze approximately 8300 public comments submitted during the environmental review and use large language models (LLMs) for stance/equity classification followed by structural topic modeling to surface latent themes. Proponents’ equity arguments clustered around a compact set of frames: drivers paying their fair share, non-drivers reclaiming public space and road safety, air-quality improvements, and benefits to transit riders. Opponents advanced more varied arguments, ranging from fee regressivity and affordability pressures to distrust in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s management. Many opponents framed the fee as inequitable where driving is not discretionary—for example, medical/disability trips, off-peak and emergency workers with equipment, and contexts with unsafe or unreliable transit. These objections reflect Sandel’s critique of the market society, where willingness to pay (WTP) is mistaken for value, while ability to pay is overlooked. We extend this insight to transportation by highlighting unequal abilities to avoid paying. Even in New York, many commenters characterized the toll as an unavoidable levy. Congestion pricing’s legitimacy may depend not just on distributional effects, but also on whether payment is experienced as a genuine choice. Public comments reveal the enduring relevance of two choice-enhancing strategies in the literature: funding new mobility options for those who cannot pay, or preserving non-tolled alternatives for those who would rather wait than pay. If these concerns are being raised in New York, they are likely to dominate debate elsewhere in North America.

Despite a marked increase in electric bicycle (e-bike) research, few studies have looked at how parents or caretakers use e-bikes specifically to transport children. This is a missed opportunity, as parenthood often results in increased auto dependence. Getting more parents or caretakers on e-bikes or to continue biking would align with policies aimed at decreasing automobile dependence and increasing physical activity. This paper presents findings from in-depth interviews aimed to understand how families used e-bikes daily to transport their children, what factors motivated them to start, and what encourages them to continue this practice. Twenty parents and caretakers in the San Francisco Bay Area of the United States participated in the interviews which resulted in the following findings: e-bikes increased accessibility to communities, provided opportunities for greater physical activity, substituted for car trips, and allowed for more family quality time with the added benefit of reducing stress. The interviews also uncovered barriers like price and social stigmas, especially among less experienced or less committed cyclists. Finally, context matters. Bike infrastructure, local policies, and a supportive biking culture make it more likely that barriers would be overcome. More research is needed to understand the prevalence of family use of e-bikes, particularly in places with less supportive bike infrastructure and culture.