Wow, that's not nearly enough
Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
221–230 of 267 posts
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FWIW, roads were for people first, not cars. That isn't true. They are for people. First people in wagons, then people in cars. But always for people.
It will be interesting to see how unoccupied robocars will deal with random aggressive pedestrians. I'm almost as hopeful as you seem to be here.
You will be able to just walk out into traffic once automated cars own the streets.
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone keeps talking about Manhattan, but the GWB bridge serves more than Manhattan. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I would guess the vast amount of traffic over the bridge serves commuters between Jersey and the other boroughs.
I'd actually wager that the vast majority of people commuting in from Jersey work in Manhattan, rather than the other boroughs. I grew up in central Jersey, and everyone I knew who commuted in on NJ Transit (along the Northeast Corridor line) were commuting into Manhattan. If you worked in Queens or Brooklyn, you'd live somewhere on Long Island. If you worked in the Bronx, you'd live in Westchester (or north). Some f…
Don't forget the other direction. I commute from Queens to Jersey daily so my perspective might be biased. While I don't have to pay the GWB going towards Jersey, I still have to pay the toll going home (along with RFK or Whitestone). Looks like I pay between $400-$600 per month just in tolls.
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also not noted is the portion of people driving in new york city that do not live in new york city...
They're driving in so that the people living there don't have to drive out.
??? They NEED to drive in from NJ CT etc instead of taking public transit?
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are stuck in old modes of thinking about the city. When my parents lived in the city during the 80s, it wasn't safe to take the subway. Everybody owned a car, even in Manhattan. Now, none of my (20-something) friends own cars, but I imagine a lot of older people don't want to give it up. It does seem pretty nice to drive to work rather than cramming into a subway car for a half hour, even if you're stuck in tr…
I can’t imagine where you came up with that. In 1980, 80% of Manhattan households did NOT own a car. There has never been a time where the statement “everybody owned a car” was remotely true in Manhattan.
Yeah, my parents moved from NYC to Dallas in 1979 (a few years before I was born). Driving everywhere was something they had to get used to. When I was a little kid we took a few trips to NYC to visit extended family, and to prepare me for how different it was I remember my mom telling me that Manhattan may be the only place in the country where most people don't drive anywhere or even own cars. That had to have been in the late '80s, and it was based on memories my mom had of the '70s.
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know guidelines frown against this kind of response, but this is one of the stupidest rebuttals I've ever seen on here...
Maybe it went over your head. The point that people live outside the city evaporates when their driving is useful to people inside the city. Only if they were driving through without stopping would there be validity to the idea that outsiders are taking advantage of the city.
Their presence is potentially useful but their driving is not. Each person who takes an empty seat on a bus into the city instead of driving is just as useful to people inside the city without causing traffic.
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transit advocates like to point to New Yorkers as evidence that not everyone likes to drive, but I think NYC shows exactly the opposite to be the case, which is that people will put up with insane amounts of inconvenience to avoid public transit. The fact that even a quarter of Manhattanites own a car demonstrates that people are willing to absorb enormous costs to continue driving. (A much higher percentage than tha…
Many New Yorkers own cars for weekend trips or recreation, not commuting— if you've ever seen how long it takes for many cars to get dug out and moved in NYC after a snowstorm when alternate-side parking is suspended, this becomes very clear.
That represents an even bigger devotion to car ownership that does an insistence on commuting by car! These are people for whom car ownership is totally unnecessary, but who are willing to put up with enormous costs and hassles in order to keep a car available.
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#228a friend was once visiting me in manhattan and decided to drive. He came over on the george washington bridge ($15 toll), missed his turn to my block and ended up getting turned around and going over to brooklyn (tunnel, of course: $8.50 toll), realized he was in the wrong place and turned around ($8.50 back through the tunnel). This, of course, was after driving up from Virginia via I-95, which has its own $20+ wort…
Oh, we needed the money. :( I live on the OTP on the east side, so GA400 toll didn't hit me. There was a political promise to end the toll when the improvements on 400 were finished. Initially, the DOT wanted to keep the toll booths open to pay for additional improvements (GA400-I285 interchange, expansion of GA400, etc.) but the cries of broken promises ended that plan. Let us not forget the congestion pricing for t…
I have already started seeing congestion pricing signs on I-75
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously there's no "right" for a kid to get into one of those high demand schools though. Otherwise we're already violating the rights of everyone who doesn't get a spot (and/or their parents, if you believe the primary reason they're so motivated to get their kids into these schools is so they can brag about it to other parents).
Obviously there's no "right" for a kid to get into one of those high demand schools though. Otherwise we're already violating the rights of everyone who doesn't get a spot That's not obvious, since it depends on the state and even the district. In districts that determine enrollment geographically, a child does have the right to go their local high school if they are within the zone assigned to that school. This has…
"In districts that determine enrollment geographically, a child does have the right to go their local high school if they are within the zone assigned to that school"
So, separate but equal then?
Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably more that 50% of what makes a school good are the students that go to them. Once this is realized, fairly assigning students to the good schools becomes problematic.
...what makes a school good are the students... This claim seems probably true for university and probably false for kindergarten?
For school age children, the parents are very relevant.
Some of the youngest schoolchildren already know how to read, count, say the alphabet, listen, and so on. Their parents read books to/with them, buy educational toys and so on. Other children have to learn all this at school. The parents of the children in the first group would prefer that the other children were similar.
Parents who care more are also more likely to get problems solved -- whether that's a problem their own child has (e.g. a learning disability) or with the school.
So in general, the quality of the teaching is often less important than the children and their parents.