1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…
Metered parking everywhere. Please no. Just tax me at the end of the year if you really need more money. Stop paywalling everything.
1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…
Metered parking everywhere. Please no. Just tax me at the end of the year if you really need more money. Stop paywalling everything.
The point wasn't supposed to be to raise more money, it was to decrease the amount of people using the roads. Taxing more would, if anything, incentivize people to use those parking spots to "get their money's worth." More realistically, it would not add a barrier to actually parking on a day-to-day basis. Making you think about and reconsider it every time you go to do it with the paywall is what they want (and what is arguably necessary in order to fix the underlying problem, unless those tax dollars are going to go towards multi-level parking garages that add spaces and not just the existing roads).
1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…
Advocates did worry that reducing it from $15 to $9 would create a sort of "no-mans land" — not quite high enough to deter traffic but high enough to annoy people. I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.
Where else have you lived? I live in nyc today and whenever I hear people say that , it turns out they mean “New York City is the greatest city in the world of New York City and Waterloo, Wisconsin.” And even then , I’ve seen photos of Waterloo… looks like the air is nice and breathable there. And apparently you can afford to rent a place on a normal salary. You don’t have to agree but at least try and get out of you…
I mean it's not hard to figure out. Here's an easy test. Think of the city you currently live in. Ask people where you live if they think this city you're living in is better than New York. They'll have a lot to say about it. If you ask people in New York if the place you live is better than New York they'll say "Huh, where is that?"
I mean… yeah; I think we agree there. That’s kinda my point: people here whom I know to claim New York City is the greatest city in the world don’t actually know a lot about the world.
Much of SF didn't even exist until the 1930s-50s. For example, most of Sunset and Richmond is tract housing built during that era - before then it was sand dunes and chicken farms. People underestimate how new much of the Western US is. For example, Dallas only began expanding in 1891 after the railways were built, LA was a small town until the 1910s-30s era expansion, modern San Jose only formed in the 1960s-70s aft…
While that’s true of the outer communities (San Jose, etc) I took the OP’s message as referring to SF core/downtown which was already pretty developed by the 1950s. Unlike LA, SF was a major city far earlier.
Much of SF's core/downtown was rebuilt after the 1906 fire and earthquake, plus there was massive "urban redevelopment" that made the core much more car friendly.
Where else have you lived? I live in nyc today and whenever I hear people say that , it turns out they mean “New York City is the greatest city in the world of New York City and Waterloo, Wisconsin.” And even then , I’ve seen photos of Waterloo… looks like the air is nice and breathable there. And apparently you can afford to rent a place on a normal salary. You don’t have to agree but at least try and get out of you…
I mean it's not hard to figure out. Here's an easy test. Think of the city you currently live in. Ask people where you live if they think this city you're living in is better than New York. They'll have a lot to say about it. If you ask people in New York if the place you live is better than New York they'll say "Huh, where is that?"
Such metric would just indicate that respondents are unaware of other cities, no? Majority of new yorkers never lived in good cities. I guess many just repeat 100 years old notion that NYC is the best city in the world and just never doubt it.
1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…
You also have to factor in any reduction (or increase) in traffic fatalities and injuries. 34 traffic deaths and roughly 7500 injuries occurred in Manhattan in one of the nation's highest GDP-per-capita area, so the loss of economic output from these fatalities and injuries is likely fairly high.
And further, if I am already paying $50 fare to take an Uber, a $1.50 toll is not deterring me or reducing my usage at all. It is less than the rounding error on the tip I give the driver. I probably won't even notice it amongst the 5 line items of fees, taxes, surcharges, etc on the digital receipt.
This is where the dogma gets in the way of reality. Uber and cabs are the glue that fills the gaps that public transit has left unfilled for decades. The policy goal is to reduce congestion by discouraging personal vehicles in the zone and generate revenue for transportation as a whole, not to turn the city into a pedestrian park. The state took an approach that does that without nuking the city. Based on the fact th…
The congestion relief zone is probably one of the single densest transit zones on the planet. Rideshares and cabs are definitely useful for filling in the gaps in the boroughs, but you basically never need one in downtown Manhattan.
> So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?
There are several points. Some want it to get people to not drive, but work from home or drive elsewhere instead is fine with them. Some want it to get more people on transit. Some want it to fund transit expansion. You can belong to more than one of the above groups. Nobody belongs to them all.
> Nobody belongs to them all.
Why not?
IMO, ideally:
- Some people work from home or drive elsewhere
- Others take transit instead of driving
- The remainder pay a fee that they didn't previously, which can fund more transit
I mean it's not hard to figure out. Here's an easy test. Think of the city you currently live in. Ask people where you live if they think this city you're living in is better than New York. They'll have a lot to say about it. If you ask people in New York if the place you live is better than New York they'll say "Huh, where is that?"
I mean… yeah; I think we agree there. That’s kinda my point: people here whom I know to claim New York City is the greatest city in the world don’t actually know a lot about the world.
I've literally been to 80+ countries and have spent time in every U.S. city of significant size. If you can't look at the world and figure out the obvious fact that New York is the greatest and most significant city that has existed since we climbed down out of the trees I'm not sure what's going to convince you.