451–460 of 700 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trickle down?
Quite the opposite, I'd call it a tax on the rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s obviously true though, isnt it? Poor people cant afford the ~$20 toll like a rich person can.
If you're poor, you probably aren't driving in Manhattan in the first place. And in all honesty, if you are driving in Manhattan, you should probably stop doing that.
If you're poor, you probably aren't getting your cancer cured anyway. And in all honesty, if you are getting chemotherapy, you probably should stop doing that.
See how none of this makes sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The train is not moving or being driven when the doors need to open and close. Why can't one person do it? I am sure there is an interlock, but this makes the tasks sequential, so the doors must be closed before taking off.
Yes, that's my point. One person very much can do it. There are train lines that have their signals & stations setup for this, and the trains prepared for this mode of operations. The MTA keeps caving to the unions so that the trains remain staffed with 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The last time I drove into downtown Manhattan, just inches form the bridge, I was immediately pulled over by NYPD and given an excessive $150 ticket for the window tints on my car. I demonstrated to the officer that Range Rover made them that way from the factory *limo tint" and that it was legal in my home state, but they had shown that they apparently have always had the inclination to pull people over for bogus mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Excuse my European understanding, but isn't it the state's right to make such policy, and isn't it NY's not to care about it too?
The main complication comes from the interaction between the states and the federal government.
Let's be real, nobody drives into Manhattan when a truly better option is available, so the only deterrent this offers is how much of a pain $20 really is for someone.
If I am a doctor or a wall street guy and driving saves me an hour a day, I am still gonna drive if that costs me an extra $20.
If I don't make a lot and $20 is a lot for me, maybe I'll suck it up and take the two busses and two trains that it takes to get to my job from my house in outermost queens.
Yeah 5% reduction in traffic volume sounds about right, it will come from the absolute poorest but of course the real play is the extra revenue from those who'll continue to drive in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Making it worse for cars in the short term without any concept of how we will make transit better is not great.
Sure we're going to collect money.. estimated at $1B/year, and then what? More $3B/mile boondoggles? Maybe we'll have a new subway line funded by the year 2100.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents. Of course if the land is owned by other people, the increase in value provided by transit should be recaptured through a Land Value Tax which is then used to fund the transit.
> Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents. So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it. There are no unsubsidized urban transit services in the US. Even operating costs are not paid from fares. And new transit construction is COMPLETELY subsidized. I live in Seattle an…
Yes, it's better to have transit company use that money to fund operations than some numbered corp generating profit for wall street investors
Tokyo transit is highly profitable and don't require tax-payer subsidies because they own the land around stations