This is more like conditionally charging people more to drive on the roads that already exist, based on destination, rather than vehicle.
And it's pretty easy to see where that could lead to discrimination.
And it's pretty easy to see where that could lead to discrimination.
The argument seemed to imply something like "charging people money for different qualities of service is classist, because poor people have less money".
So, if you were starting in New York City, it would cost a lot more to travel to Buffalo than it would to White Plains.
Some roads are used more by people of some cultures than others, sometimes roads get congested when lots of people in one neighborhood are all trying to get to the same place at the same time.
Would it be discriminatory for R to spend more on upgrades to the roads to some locations than at other locations? What if all the roads that were best to get to Chinatown were completely neglected?
These new rules are explicitly about 'traffic shaping', by price, by destination, existing traffic along existing routes.
So this is less like using toll roads to cross New York State and more like selectively saying "everyone in New York State that's driving to a Starbucks needs to travel 10/mph slower -- however they're getting there -- or kick in $2/mo to drive the old speed limit."
[1] Microsoft pays Comcast gobs of money to ensure a performant network connection for XBox Live. This is quite different from Comcast being able to say "Sony isn't also paying us money for better service. Let's slow them down -- to protect the network -- until they pay up."