Live data from Hacker News

New York City will charge drivers going downtown

cnn.com

431–440 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but: mcycles don't contribute as much to congestion given their smaller size and maneuverability. Also they get about 50mpg.

Motorcycles should be charged according to the decibel volume of their engine.

I’m extraordinarily noise sensitive and I find this appealing for emotional reasons. But I don’t think it’s good policy nonetheless. IME motorcycle drivers are generally among the most respectful about the noise they make, relative to all drivers of all vehicle types. They scoot through and move on.

I’d definitely like to charge drivers for their relative noise impact, but I’d start with the recreational sports car drivers and work my way up to industrial vehicle operators who don’t seem to give any fucks, before I even bat an eye at anyone on two wheels.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#433
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You certainly can subsidize large populations because taxes cover all income but are being used specifically to encourage just one more of transportation. If driving wasn’t so heavily subsidized, people would use other options because the true cost is much higher than what people see directly – it’s not just roads but also things like below market rate storage, zoning rules requiring owners to build more car storage…

> You certainly can subsidize large populations because taxes cover all income but are being used specifically to encourage just one more of transportation. It can be argued that rich people subsidize poor, since they pay more taxes. However, that's pretty much it. Transit users in the US overwhelmingly do NOT subsidize car users. While the inverse is true, transit users on average don't pay even half of the true cos…

> > If driving wasn’t so heavily subsidized

> BY WHOM?

You’ve had multiple people tell you so at this point I would highly suggest doing some homework before getting angry. Here’s a summary:

* Roads are paid for around 50% by general tax revenue. Thar keeps the upfront price of driving low compared to alternatives and decades of studies have found this creates a massive number of extra car trips. If we used more efficient transportation modes we would also not need the massive highway projects sold to taxpayers as rush hour alleviation but delivering only more traffic thanks to the principle of induced demand. * Most cities subsidize street parking below the cost of providing it, much less market rates. This encourages driving but takes a significant amount of public space and generates a huge amount of congestion and pollution (emissions and noise) as people circle looking for subsidized spots rather than paying for garage parking. * Most cities require minimum amounts of parking to be provided for solo drivers even if the owner of a property doesn’t want it (we require bars to encourage drunk driving!). Everyone pays more for that even if they don’t drive because they’re paying for more construction and maintenance and many businesses have less revenue generating space because, for example, instead of a restaurant having tables for 40 more patrons they have parking for 8 vehicles. Since housing is required to have at least 1-2 spaces per home, a given piece of land will house fewer people and many large projects require expensive garages, which you’re paying for whether or not you want it and traffic is also a common argument against the density which would lower costs. Making housing more expensive causes more people to need longer commutes and the consequent lower quality of life. * Car owners are not charged for the negative health impacts of driving - a leading cause of asthma and all kinds of cardiovascular conditions – or to compensate city residents for the quality of life reductions their commuting causes. * Drivers are not charged for the expensive city infrastructure created to protect pedestrians and bicyclists from unsafe driving. All of that concrete, flexposts and barriers, various pedestrian light systems, etc. are car infrastructure. * Drivers are not required to have sufficient insurance to cover the full cost to anyone they hit. This intersects really badly with our horrific healthcare system and is a common cause of people falling out of the workforce or into substance abuse over chronic pain following collisions. * Last but not least, driving is the most expensive way to commute in common use when it comes to greenhouse gases. EVs promise a 50% reduction but that’s still far higher than any mainstream alternative. There are many other factors in climate change but driving is something like 30% so it’s going to have to go down a lot to reduce the trillions in economic damage we’re facing.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They are not redundant and fail safe. One sits at the front & controls the driving. The other sits in the middle of train, 5 cars back & controls doors. Nothing about having the two of them creates redundancy.

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.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Dense cities create a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. It's more efficient for employers to create office-style jobs in the Downtown, because they can more easily attract talent.

In turn, people want to live close enough to their jobs. So this drives up the price of housing in and around the Downtown. In turn, this incentivizes developers to build new buildings as high as economical, and to make units as small as feasible.

Thus the new construction in Downtowns tends to be smaller than the existing one ( https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-sma... ). This drives up the price of existing larger apartments even more, making them unavailable for younger people. So if you don't work in tech, you'll have to make do with a small apartment.

But no worries, by the next generation your small apartment will look positively spacious!

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#436

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. 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 Mose…

> And especially to judge them based on the values of our time rather than theirs.

More than a few of Moses' projects were egregious, even for his time. What made Moses a great (as in powerful) urban planner was his ability to mold policy decisions to his values, not the values of the neighborhoods that he bulldozed, much less the values of the elected officials who represented those neighborhoods.

> how many people are as bad or worse to not have built them?

This requires us to think counterfactually: we just don't know how the city could have turned out, because the political energy, financial capital, and plain old physical space that could have gone into mass transit systems went into highways instead.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#437
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not redundant and fail safe. One sits at the front & controls the driving. The other sits in the middle of train, 5 cars back & controls doors. Nothing about having the two of them creates redundancy.

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.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#438
post #314
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorcycles don't cause congestion. Motorcycles can travel through congestion when permitted to lanesplit.

They’re not as bad as cars but they still take up a fair amount of space and pollute (noise, fumes) heavily. A modest discount seems appropriate but they definitely should still cost more than transit.

They do not pollute heavily fume-wise, and most motorcycles other than Harleys or sport bikes with racing exhausts with the dB component removed are not that loud. I get 60 mpg and the engine is efficient. A car gets half or less that mpg, so is 2 to 3X more polluting than a motorcycle when you have 1-to-1 driver/passenger comparison. 2 people on a moto is even better than a car.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

> 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.

Are you trying to say that these people wouldn't already exist without the bus? So everytime we commission a new bus, 3 fully grown licensed drivers appear in a flash of smoke from the storage compartment of the bus?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#440
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are also an increasing number of subways out there that operate with zero drivers.
Post reply on HN