Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City will charge drivers going downtown

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#411

Post by steveBK123 »

woodruffw wrote: post #400
steveBK123 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of his history, and it's always interesting to me how few bad things people can point to that he actually did.. when weighed against all the transit/bridges/tunnels/highways build under his watch. I mean the first thing is a crime of omission, made in basically every other city of the country - where have we seen land be purchased along highways to build transit done anywhere in this country? Even new…

> I'm well aware of his history, and it's always interesting to me how few bad things people can point to that he actually did.. when weighed against all the transit/bridges/tunnels/highways build under his watch. Nixing the Staten Island tunnel is a pretty bad one[1]: you could argue, not unrealistically, that Staten Island would be a far denser and better integrated borough with mass transit access had that project…

See these are better examples!

But also, it's easier to find fault in the actions of someone who takes action. And especially to judge them based on the values of our time rather than theirs.

It's hard to fault anyone since for bad major road/transit/bridge/tunnel projects because there really haven't been any!

And we look at things like projects NOT built by Moses and ask - if they were so good, so obvious, and Moses so bad not to build them, what has the city been doing the last 70 years and how many people are as bad or worse to not have built them?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#412

Post by EatingWithForks »

cyberax wrote: post #392
jrockway wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest, it's far from factual that dense housing is problematic in any way. It's just your opinion, and you're mad about it because you stand to lose the most in a world where you have to pay cash for your externalities. The sewer and water system to your house is subsidized. Snow removal from your cul-de-sac is subsidized. Most people couldn't afford the suburbs if someone else wasn't paying for those thing…

> Let's be honest, it's far from factual that dense housing is problematic in any way Densificatoin causes enshittification spiral. Each successive generation lives in worse conditions. This is an inherent property of densification. > The sewer and water system to your house is subsidized. It isn't. I'm paying for it from my taxes (that's why in Seattle my water is more costly than in the middle of a freaking desert)…

> Densificatoin causes enshittification spiral. Each successive generation lives in worse conditions. This is an inherent property of densification.

Could you uh, explain this a bit more? This doesn't seem to correspond with the desirability of dense cities atm. All of the most desirable places to live seem to either be dense or easily commutable to somewhere dense.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#413

Post by steveBK123 »

returningfory2 wrote: post #368
steveBK123 wrote: post #282

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…

I agree with your points, but I don’t think they undermine congestion pricing. Even if you take all the congestion tolls and, like, toss them in the Hudson River, the program is still worthwhile. Just getting people to pay to drive into Manhattan is good in-and-of-itself.

I'm not convinced the congestion IN the city is caused by people coming in from OUT of the city. The density of for hire vehicles in the ride hailing era is tremendous.

Further, given how expensive tolls already are to get into the city, whats another $20 for many people?

A lot of reactions I've heard from people have been either "great it will keep those bridge & tunnel people out" or "great, now I can pay the toll and have less traffic". Neither of these seem like the congestion pricing is going to work as intended. It probably needs to be 3x the price, and have onerous per-ride charges for ride hail users.

I think we can also expect a lot of arbitrage of people congesting up the area just outside the zone to hop onto transit there, which would be fine if we planned to actually build any or expand service to accommodate! Great if you live in SoHo, bad if you live in Harlem.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#414

Post by polygamous_bat »

lr4444lr wrote: post #347
comte7092 wrote: post #209

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.

A substantial majority of outer borough households own a car compared to much wealthier median income non car owning Manhattanites. It is regressive.

It's because the public transit in outer boroughs tends to be much worse.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#415

Post by steveBK123 »

master_crab wrote: post #397
steveBK123 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city should abolish or extremely tax all on street parking. Then you could have sensible loading zones for deliveries and garbage containerizing. That said… given how many trucks bring goods into the city, I don’t see how abolishing the BQE is remotely tenable.

Asking for truck-only transit routes does not necessitate a 6-lane BQE. But that’s a good first step. Lot’s of other Moses era boondoggles also need to be re-imagined

The problem is no one is proposing tenable truck infrastructure when proposing "knock it down". We have dangerous enough roads all over the city, especially Brooklyn & Queens. Look at the tragedy recently in south Brooklyn. Keeping trucks/trade vans/people transiting the borough on a highway and off surface streets is beneficial.

There's lot of infrastructure & services I don't directly use that I don't demand be torn down. I am also aware that I indirectly use lots of infrastructure when I order goods online, buy groceries at the store, have a plumber service my sink, buy furniture, etc.

No one alive in the city today can say the BQE was suddenly foisted upon them.

I live right next to a bridge in the city, I'd have a better view, quieter life, and higher property value if they tore down the bridge. I work remotely so I don't even use it. I don't believe I have the right to tear it down though.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#416

Post by calgarymicro »

amiga386 wrote: post #204
desas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes for Scotland and Wales but not for England. The discrepancy is known as The West Lothian Question

Not really. The West Lothian Question is "why can Scots vote on English laws but not vice-versa?", which wasn't true at the time it was asked (1977), and especially isn't true now. Firstly, note that all constituent countries elect MPs to the UK's Westminster parliament, because there are many laws that affect the entire country, and are controlled centrally. Between 1707 and 1997 (20 years _after_ asking the questio…

>The main part of the West Lothian question, which is where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries without any formal process.

Did they? Wikipedia says this:

> In establishing foundation hospitals and increasing student tuition fees in England, Scottish votes were decisive in getting the measures through.[10] The vote on foundation hospitals in November 2003 only applied to England – had the vote been restricted to English MPs then the government would have been defeated.[11] Had there been a vote by English MPs only on tuition fees in January 2004, the government would have lost because of a rebellion on their own benches.[12]

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#417

Post by xen2xen1 »

miley_cyrus wrote: post #332
Jolter wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you have a better idea for financing the investments, instead of congestion tax?

He's saying it's not going to finance any "investments" - the extra money is just going to the unions.

Hasn't the state also been directly taking money meant for mass transit in general for years?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#418

Post by cyberax »

mdorazio wrote: post #389
cyberax wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is too misleading to be unintentional. It's not misleading. On average, buses in the US carry around 15 people. A car carries around 1.5, so the raw multiplier is just 10. But wait, there's more! ALL buses have an incredibly polluting component that is fundamental to their functionality: the driver. You need around 3 drivers to cover the useful service time (from 5am to midnight). And drivers are POLLUTING AS…

> It's not misleading. It's very misleading because you're starting from the supposition of EVs rather than the actual mix of personal cars. If you choose EVs for the cars, why not choose ZEV buses that are starting to enter the market as well? > And drivers are POLLUTING AS HELL. What? I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. > No. It _destroys_ affordable housing to pack people into smaller and…

> It's very misleading because you're starting from the supposition of EVs rather than the actual mix of personal cars.

If we're talking about planning, then we should look at least 10 years ahead. By that time, most of new vehicles are going to be EVs.

Mind you, the subway construction around here is planned 20 _years_ in advance. All the current proposed projects are going to be finished some time in 2040-s.

> If you choose EVs for the cars, why not choose ZEV buses that are starting to enter the market as well?

ZEV buses still retain the most polluting part of regular buses: the driver.

> What? I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here.

One average US citizen produces around 20 tons of CO2 per year. A bus needs 3 of them working full-time. This completely dwarfs the emissions due to fuel use.

> It doesn't destroy affordable housing, though, it shifts it to other areas while increasing density near stations.

Bullshit. New density does NOT create ANY affordable housing. Never has, never will. And dense housing near stations is certainly not cheap.

Heck, here's an article from urbanists that admits that: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might...

> Most urban planners and economists would say that increased density is a good thing and that Tokyo is an excellent example of a city done right.

Most oil executives say that oil is great and that the large trucks are good!

Tokyo is a great example of young people forced to live in "microapartments" while just a couple of hours away, beautiful old houses sit empty.

> You seem to have a personal bone to pick with high-density cities that's just not shared by most other people.

Most other people haven't heard ANY opposing opinion in their lives. And neither have they researched it themselves. Thus, I routinely hear utterly risible nonsense like "we need more density to allow affordable housing" going unopposed.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#419

Post by loeg »

wldcordeiro wrote: post #405
steveBK123 wrote: post #282

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…

> We just caved (again) entirely to the transit unions in the last contract negotiation. We have subway lines & trains wired up for 1 man operation but run them staffed with 2 due to union work rules. I don't think this is a good point to make when we've literally had several disastrous derailments thanks to poor regulations and rules around safety and train companies attacking unions. The transit unions are absolute…

Most subways around the world operate with a single driver and are at least as safe. The two worker rule to appease the union is one of the major drivers of cost disease in operating subways in NYC.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#420

Post by lotsofpulp »

nonethewiser wrote: post #289
lotsofpulp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything brings in wealth disparities, except for redistributing wealth. That’s an inherent part of one person having more wealth than another, it allows them to buy more. It is a waste of time to bring it up every single time. We know being poor sucks, but that is its own issue with its own solution separate from solving too many vehicles in certain parts of Manhattan at certain times.

How does increasing free parking bring in a wealth disparity? Or increasing capacity or lowering the price of public transit?

> How does increasing free parking bring in a wealth disparity?

Increases distances between destinations, which means more energy and time to travel between them, which means higher cost.

> Or increasing capacity or lowering the price of public transit?

This would qualify as redistributing wealth.

Post reply on HN