61–70 of 165 posts
This idiocy will only hurt the working class employees who drive in from the outerboros.
They should jack the price to >$50. Anyone paying $8000/no for a 1bd in Manhattan can afford an extra 50*30=$1500 for the privilege of congesting everyone else's roads.
This seems like a great start, but unfortunately it will likely be so lucrative, it will make it even less politically acceptable to further reduce/ban cars in the future.
When the income pays for more transit and reduces transit times for buses, why would the public want to stop that trend?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My alternative are things that, unfortunately, would never fly politically: 1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water. 2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other. Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for po…
Urban sprawl is perhaps the most environmentally devastating behaviour that humans do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My alternative are things that, unfortunately, would never fly politically: 1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water. 2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other. Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for po…
Urban density doesn't cause the issue of traffic. The issue of traffic is caused by cars. Urban density allows public transportation, the only current viable alternative, to be financially sound on a large scale.
Take San Francisco, for example. We have transit. But riding at peak hours sucks and will always suck because everyone is going to the same place.
Concentration of offices downtown makes transit to anywhere else less viable - hence the only subway in SF goes to one place.
The growth of fines, licenses and taxes in the USA is substantial over the last 100 years. Very few things do not require fees these days (even visiting public lands).
There are 2 kinds of people in the world, those who understand incentives and those who don't.
Given that vehicle traffic is non-uniform throughout the day, maybe it would make sense to have separate prices per hour, but there reaches a point where the marginal increase in complexity does not drive marginal improvements in allocation.
This seems like a great start, but unfortunately it will likely be so lucrative, it will make it even less politically acceptable to further reduce/ban cars in the future.
When the income pays for more transit and reduces transit times for buses, why would the public want to stop that trend?
Otherwise, they can just use the toll money to divert general funds away from transit to other stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My alternative are things that, unfortunately, would never fly politically: 1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water. 2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other. Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for po…
Urban density doesn't cause the issue of traffic. The issue of traffic is caused by cars. Urban density allows public transportation, the only current viable alternative, to be financially sound on a large scale.
> ’The city will charge $15 to passenger cars that enter the central strip of Manhattan, $24 to vans and $36 to buses and large trucks.’ Shouldn’t they charge progressive less the higher the occupancy is of the vehicle. This pricing seems backwards to me.
That is progressively less per person even though it's not less per vehicle.
As a Manhattan resident, I’m excited. There should be at least one city in the USA built for people instead of cars. I understand it’s not for everybody, but 75% of the residential space in the county is only zoned for insipid, paved single-family home suburban hellscapes. Leave one city for people who want a European-style walkable city.