231–240 of 735 posts
The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
The best decision would be to completely forbid individual transport. Now the common space dedicated to streets is for who can pay extra. Forbid individual transport and create some parks and pedestrian streets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were that delivery driver using a car instead of a bike, then your wife would likely be dead instead of in the ER. (At least in the US, having a driver's license is in no way, shape, or form an indication that the driver is capable of driving correctly, much less their willingness to do so.)
Car drivers are very routinely punished for running red lights. That is far less common than cyclists doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m impressed. This is one of the strangest opinions I’ve ever seen. What is special about “at use”? Presumably because it lets you avoid the question of whether everyone should get a free car. Does a monthly car payment count as “at use”? Why not if a monthly transit pass does? The other replies point out that different forms of transit compete with each other, so the more cars we have, the fewer bikes and trains.
Because once an investment has been made in a car and roads or in a train line or whatever there should be no artificial distinctive for people to use it as they deem appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time is a cost though. You're looking only at monetary cost.
Exactly. The janitor has every right to sit in gridlock beside the CEO. If either doesn't like it they can adjust things but realistically the CEO's got the most ability and incentive to do so. These artificial price distortions wind up most benefiting the people who were in the best position to alter their behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trains and subway are right there...
[flagged]
Concern about public order is fair. But instead of fighting for the privilege to avoid it cheaply, why not fight to actually fix it. Triple the prison population, or whatever your solution is.
The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
And anyone who takes a taxi. Or needs an ambulance. Or orders anything delivered during the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear that noise pollution in Manhattan has gotten better since congestion pricing started. Cities aren't loud; cars are loud.
Cars aren't nearly as loud as sirens and garbage trucks. Whenever I stay in a dense city those tend to keep me up at night.
Guess what forces emergency vehicles to fire their sirens, or garbage trucks to linger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cities aren't loud; cars are loud. EVs have entered the chat Still, I'd always prefer less cars and more transit.
In my experience, EVs are nearly as loud as IC, as the majority of the noise at typical stroad speeds comes from the tires, not the engine.
It comes from honking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's funny how the urban design forcing poor people to pay car insurance and auto loan, just to survive, is fine; yet charging a hundred or so to use the highly valuable space in the city is outrageous. Concern about public order is fair. But instead of fighting for the privilege to avoid it cheaply, why not fight to actually fix it. Triple the prison population, or whatever your solution is.
This cannot be solved. To force women on transit is to flip a coin whether they will be assaulted. You’re not going to beat a car culture with that strategy.
I heavily doubt that New York City has the appetite for incarceration that would be necessary, for even a remote chance, to turn public transit into a merely neutral option versus a car.
What about bikes? I thought they were great too, until someone was careless with their dog and left me bleeding and weighing the probabilities of serious disease. Just like that, the dream was dead and I realized we will never escape car culture.
Cars are bad. The alternatives are too flawed and dangerous in their own ways, to have any serious chance at unseating the incumbent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already had A/B testing of congestion pricing. The A test was without congestion pricing in NYC, and has been tested for decades.
That's not an A/B test because it has no way of controlling for broader economic trends over time. How do you figure out if what you're seeing is because of that one thing that changed, or the enormous list of other things that also changed around the same time? A more valid design would be randomly assigning some cities to institute congestion pricing, and other cities to not have it. Obviously not feasible in pract…
Cities are stupidly heterogenous. These data wouldn't be more meaningful than comparing cities with congestion pricing to those without. (And comparing them from their congestion eras.)