Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#611

Post by genewitch »

ghaff wrote: post #536
gmueckl wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not call ~20% of the US population an outlier. It's a very different situation from urban areas, but just as valid And even cities in the US are vast sprawls compared to organically grown very old cities in other parts of the world. That makes a huge difference for walkability.

Furthermore, the 80% urban stat from the US census gets routinely misinterpreted. Just going through some property line details with a couple neighbors on collectively about 75 acres plus adjacent conservation land. The census considers this urban. And, as you say, Urban != dense city downtown.

yes, the cutoff for "urban" to not is 2000 housing units in an area. I don't consider that urban, 2000 homes is a decent "town". This is just "othering" of people who live more than 25 minutes from a metro which is what i consider "urban". i am 25 minutes from my nearest metro, and the metro population is smaller than the city i grew up in in california, population-wise.

my point is, talking about Berlin and then carrying that thought over to "americans just love cars" is silly. Germany is smaller than CA, and double the population of california. Most people "in california" live in the "san angeles" range or in the "bay capital" area. a half hour outside of any of those areas and it's either sand or farms or mountains.

and i wish i was "rural", there's ~600 houses within 6mi radius, that's not very rural. It's rural compared to Manhattan, i guess.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#612

Post by creaturemachine »

steadicat wrote: post #474
ochoseis wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re either exaggerating or don’t spend much time in NYC. Half of Broadway is closed to cars now, same with Wall Street. We have summer streets where they close many on weekends. Lots of dedicated bike lanes and a few isolated paths throughout the city. Could there be more? Sure. Are they completely absent? No.

I think we just have a different idea of what it means to be closed to cars. I live right by the stretch of Broadway you mention, so I’m very familiar. This is what it looks like: https://flatironnomad.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/4.2-Pla... There is no restriction of through traffic. Effectively pedestrians are still confined to tiny and overcrowded sidewalks. By comparison, here’s what a pedestrian street looks l…

Those photos say it all. The NYC reduced street still manages to park a Chevy Silverado smack in the middle of it all, and all those planters aren't there for the sake of having plants, but rather as crash barriers protecting the patios from traffic.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#613

Post by sMarsIntruder »

sMarsIntruder wrote: post #210
neves wrote: post #36

Impressive how cars are harmful to society. This is just a small example. We should be more radical in preventing the use of individual automobiles. If it works in a country where the auto is so ingrained in the culture and lifestyle, it can work anywhere.

This comment goes against any individual freedom common law and common sense.

ok commies

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#614

Post by cmeacham98 »

munificent wrote: post #599
ben7799 wrote: post #566

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

> You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car.

The solution to this problem is not to have more cars, it is to have less (and probably stricter standards on obtaining and maintaining a driver's license).

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#615

Post by abdullahkhalids »

yodsanklai wrote: post #589
ben7799 wrote: post #566

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

Cars are slow but you're less likely to get mugged (unlike pedestrians) or hit by cars (unlike cyclists). Also, bikes get stolen. These things happen rarely, but in the long run, the risk isn't negligible. I avoid cars as much as I can and commute by bike in my European city. I used to live in NYC: I've been mugged there, and I've seen cyclists injured by cars. I don't want to cycle there and I do take cabs in the ev…

Indeed safety is a very important consideration. But safety in different types of vehicles is determined by which type of infrastructure is emphasized.

If you design your city to be more pedestrian and biking friendly, there are more people walking and biking compared to cars, which naturally reduces the amount of mugging and car-bike accidents. For example, as number of cars on the road go down, police can invest resources into stopping muggings, instead of investing resources into catching car traffic violations.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#616

Post by [deleted] »

steadicat wrote: post #438
Thorrez wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IMHO the real problem is cars. The US still can't imagine itself without cars. All of the US except NYC. In NYC 45.6% of households own a car. In Berlin it's 49%. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/u-s-cities-with-th... https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/en/car-free-berlin-li.113268

You’re kind of proving the point here. NYC has fewer car owners and yet NYC doesn’t have a single pedestrian street or street closed to through traffic. Sounds like a city that can’t imagine itself without cars even though it’s completely realistic.

[deleted]

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#617

Post by dns_snek »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #287
aynyc wrote: post #271

As a long time NYC resident who moved out during Covid but commute to work in the city. I definitely noticed less traffic on the streets and less noise. I see a lot of talk of other cities that don't have good public transportation. For example, between Flushing in Queens to 8th Ave in Brooklyn, there are privately run buses at affordable rate and get you there at half the time of trains. There are buses from a lot o…

>>> I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)? It turns out, there are some private buses. Take for example, Santiago, Chile. It succeeded in terms of profits and customer satisfaction. The problem is they do not survive. There comes a time when they don't pay sufficient "political capital" and get taken over (nationalized) by local politicians.…

If one failed public transport project can be used as evidence against the viability of all public transport projects, will you accept my example of one failed privately owned transport project as evidence against the viability of all such projects?

In other words, why are you trying to use one cherry picked example of gross mismanagement to argue that all publicly run projects are doomed?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#618

Post by manwe150 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #125
listenallyall wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the slippery slope concept surprise you? It actually happens often - banning smoking indoors, for example - started in just one city, once they tweaked the model and overcame the legal challenges, it spread rather quickly. Legalized casinos, same thing. Uber, drinking age, pot legalization, more. Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? (Idaho's Sun Valley probably already implements somethin…

> Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? The answer is actually quite simple: It won't be different. Prove to me it won't spread, because almost every new tax spreads. When is the last time a tax has existed in one state, and not spread to other states within 5 years?

Dunno, but NH hasn’t had sales tax for much more than 5 years, despite all the states around it having it

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#619

Post by micromacrofoot »

munificent wrote: post #599
ben7799 wrote: post #566

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

> Cars aren't bad

Most people saying "cars are bad" are actually saying "cars are bad at their current rate of utilization"

This is like "black lives matter" usually means "black lives matter as well"

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#620

Post by OkGoDoIt »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #498
steadicat wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re kind of proving the point here. NYC has fewer car owners and yet NYC doesn’t have a single pedestrian street or street closed to through traffic. Sounds like a city that can’t imagine itself without cars even though it’s completely realistic.

Also, many of the cars we see in the city are bound to be from outside the city (like New Jersey). Just look at the traffic in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels at rush hour. A less abrasive approach than congestion pricing might just be pedestrian streets or narrower streets/wider sidewalks. If you make the city unattractive for cars, there will be fewer of them, and I am willing to bet that programs like these are le…

I feel like that’s the path San Francisco has been on. Over the last decade they’ve made it more and more painful to drive anywhere in the general downtown area. Market street and a few others are closed to cars, more and more streets don’t let you turn, many of the traffic lights have been replaced by insanely inefficient pedestrian-favoring traffic lights that seem hell-bent on making the traffic worse.

That being said, it takes me nearly an hour to take public transit between my home near Forest Hill and my office in the dogpatch whereas it takes 20-25 minutes to drive (plus an extra five minutes to park and walk from the parking lot to the office). This is not a long distance, on a map it looks like it should take me 10 minutes but San Francisco is so incredibly inefficient.

I would love to not own a car but it’s just not realistic. Also when going to Costco or when the weather is bad, public transit becomes a lot less of a fit as well. I got a bike, only to find out that you’re not allowed to bring bikes on the Muni train which is frustrating, and in the end means my commute isn’t any faster than not involving biking at all. I tried a scooter, and I got in an accident because apparently the brakes don’t work well in the rain, especially when there’s an intersection at the bottom of a hill, so I’m not doing that anymore. I guess they’re trying to make driving as bad as all of the other bad options. I wish instead we could make some good options.

Post reply on HN