321–330 of 700 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should motorcycles have a discount? How big should it be in your opinion, and why?
Not OP but: mcycles don't contribute as much to congestion given their smaller size and maneuverability. Also they get about 50mpg.
My main concern as NYer is the governments inability to build transit, and not for lack of money. NY will find it relatively easy to institute a new tax on drivers, but will the billions collected actually make transit better in any tangible way? NYC is also hamstrung by having its streets controlled locally by our DOT, but our transit & bridges controlled by a state agency. We just caved (again) entirely to the tran…
To be fair, London has looked at the platform screen doors thing a few times too and dismissed it as unaffordable. New lines get PSDs but there doesn’t seem to be a realistic prospect of retrofitting existing ones any time soon.
Nobody really wants to drive or park in that sort of congestion. If they would just make public transit better, then there would be less congestion naturally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good start but nothing about luxury vehicles :)
Surely if you're concerned about identifying how rich someone is, using value of their car is a much worse proxy than using their actual income .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I saw London doing that, I expected cities in the US to start that. I am surprised it took so long. I expected this because of the push of toll roads to make people use EZPASS. Depending upon the City, I think this makes sense. But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass migration of people out to the suburbs ? In the US, people are more addicted to their SUVs than heron addicts are to their drug.
It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won’t fix the MTA’s money woes; the unions will just slurp any available cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I saw London doing that, I expected cities in the US to start that. I am surprised it took so long. I expected this because of the push of toll roads to make people use EZPASS. Depending upon the City, I think this makes sense. But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass migration of people out to the suburbs ? In the US, people are more addicted to their SUVs than heron addicts are to their drug.
It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won’t fix the MTA’s money woes; the unions will just slurp any available cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've taken both the Underground and the MTA and you're overstating the difference. Aesthetically, the Underground is far better, no question. But most commuters are focused on functionality. And functionally the MTA is just as good, if not better. The trains run extremely frequently - every few minutes during the day on weekdays. The parallel local-express tracks give the MTA a big speed advantage. And the inside of…
I live in NYC, have taken the tube when I lived in London. I've also lived in other cities like Seoul, Tokyo with superior public transportation. The "aesthetics" aspect that you describe is an incredible understatement. The nearest MTA station is covered in feces and used syringes and I'm not exaggerating. Trains are constantly late. Apparently building a barrier and a gate on the platform is a 10 year, trillion dol…
For those unfamiliar with NYC, street parking is free basically everywhere so the space cars take up is already heavily subsidized.
The most expensive waterfront property in the world is cannibalized by 2 coastal roads in West St & FDR drive. Unlike Europe, the roads are littered with massive SUVs, clearly out of proportion from the roads and built environment around them.
When alternate means of transport and cars interact, cars get precedence. There are no BRT lanes, especially on the crowded LaGuardia -> JFK -> WTC -> Newark corridor. Cycling infrastructure in Manhattan is under-developed despite being completely flat and the availability of a robust bike-sharing setup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, everyone also ignores that public transport can be supported through taxes and operated at a loss. In the US, we have a weird obsession with all public goods/services paying for themselves. We should ditch that, operate at a loss, and pull the difference out of progressive taxes. There's no reason your CEO or office shouldn't foot part of the bill to transport you into work. Heck, were I king I'd fund public tr…
The weirdness of the obsession is even stranger when you compare it to basically any other public service. Like, are schools supposed to pay for themselves? Airports? City infrastructure like streets, parks, and rec centers? The military? No, of course not. All of these things are essentials for the which the benefits are felt across the economy, but those benefits are far too diffuse to be individually tallied up an…
In many countries, airports are privately owned and operated and make a profit. The US is, perhaps, a bit unusual in that airports are owned by governments and often subsidised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regressive if you ignore all of the other costs associated with driving. Drivers always love to make this argument, but it presupposes that everyone already owns and insures a car. At the end of the day it’s car dependence that is regressive.
> Drivers always love to make this argument, but it presupposes that everyone already owns and insures a car. Have you ever been to New Jersey? The entire state is set up to make it as difficult as possible to live without a car.
Just north of me is a car sewer though, so your point stands.