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

621–630 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#621

Post by zahlman »

taeric wrote: post #489
frosted-flakes wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average annual cost of owning a car in Canada is >$16000 CAD. In the US it's even higher at >$12000 USD. Obviously owning a bike, taking public transit and taxis, and occasionally renting a car isn't free, but if you live in a walkable neighbourhood and can take public transit to work it's easy to keep your monthly transportation expenses under $200. The great part about not needing to own a car is that there's n…

"If you live in a walkable neighborhood" is doing a ton of work there. The increase in housing cost almost certainly eats at whatever savings you might see. And the opportunity costs of having fewer work options is not nothing.

My original point was that I'm a little perplexed at how high other people's standards seem to be for a neighbourhood to qualify as "walkable".

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#622

Post by donohoe »

askafriend wrote: post #229
vb234 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. We live in Manhattan with two kids and owning a car is just an added expense without much benefit. To be fair, if you lived further out in Brooklyn (Bayridge, Sussex Beach and Coney Island) you probably need a car for the day to day.

Overall, would you recommend Manhattan (or nearby) with kids? What's your experience been like and do you see staying long term? Hope you don't mind me asking, I'm just super curious about this topic!

You didn't ask me, but I can say that Manhattan and Brooklyn both are great for kids. It does vary be neighborhood though and I can speak to Brooklyn the most. Overall great parks, good schools, lots of culture and things to do. Beaches accessible by subway etc.

If you are considering a move to NYC with young kids the real thing to look at are the public elementary schools and the zones for them. That should be the north star for choosing where to live unless your kids are older.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#623

Post by abdullahkhalids »

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…

> Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.

People with mobility issues have every right to use motorized forms of transport. That could be cars or other smaller vehicles (like motorized wheelchairs).

However, we should recognize that the number of people with mobility issues in a society where everyone grows up walking and biking a lot is less than one in which everyone travels by car. There are two opposing feedback loops here. In car-society there is feedback towards more mobility issues which cases even more motorized transport. In a walk-society there is a feedback toward less mobility issues leading to less motorized transport.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#624

Post by dlivingston »

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 isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions.

Does this refer to celebrities / public figures? Or what's the subtext here?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#625

Post by windowshopping »

kazinator wrote: post #606

> Evidence has mounted that the program so far is achieving its two main goals — reducing congestion It's reducing congestion by removing the people who don't want to pay $9 to drive to town. Paying to be there: what a lovely concept! It works wonders for reducing density, too. Fewer people live in a desirable area, and they are richer and more pleasant, what are the downsides? Maybe it should not be linked to afford…

Obviously we would like to have high quality public transportation that makes the city easily accessible to people of all economic classes. See European cities for examples.

Our infrastructure isn't there yet. We are doing poorly. This is a first step. Yes, it will favor the wealthy for now. But its longterm effects will be to favor everyone. Stop being shortsighted. I don't believe that the ends always justify the means, but this is not a particularly horrible short-term sacrifice to make.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#626

Post by genewitch »

soperj wrote: post #552
genewitch wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire country of Italy is only twice the size of the state of New York.

And they can manage it, why can't New York?

New York City has more people in it than the 4 most populated metro areas in Italy. Italy has ~3x the population of the state of New York, half the population of the state lives in NYC area.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#627

Post by josephcsible »

walthamstow wrote: post #420
josephcsible wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With regular toll roads, if you don't want to pay the toll, you can drive on a different road instead and still get to the same place at the same time.

The same time? Why does anyone use the toll road?

With regular toll roads, you can choose to leave sooner and take a slower way to avoid the toll. With this, the toll is mandatory no matter which way you go.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#628

Post by jkubicek »

dlivingston wrote: post #624
munificent wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions. Does this refer to celebrities / public figures? Or what's the subtext here?

My assumption was that the OP meant “women traveling late at night”

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#629

Post by [deleted] »

windowshopping wrote: post #625
kazinator wrote: post #606

> Evidence has mounted that the program so far is achieving its two main goals — reducing congestion It's reducing congestion by removing the people who don't want to pay $9 to drive to town. Paying to be there: what a lovely concept! It works wonders for reducing density, too. Fewer people live in a desirable area, and they are richer and more pleasant, what are the downsides? Maybe it should not be linked to afford…

Obviously we would like to have high quality public transportation that makes the city easily accessible to people of all economic classes. See European cities for examples. Our infrastructure isn't there yet. We are doing poorly. This is a first step. Yes, it will favor the wealthy for now. But its longterm effects will be to favor everyone. Stop being shortsighted. I don't believe that the ends always justify the m…

[deleted]

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#630

Post by Aloisius »

atoav wrote: post #321
tzs wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horses caused worse problems than manure. The NYC pedestrian death rate from horse accidents in 1900 was higher than the pedestrian death rate from car accidents in 2003. See this comment [1] for references. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42329211

Yeah but back then streets were for people and horses. There were no clear markings separating the sections, there were no laws making it illegal for you to walk on the streets. If there were traffic laws, nobody knew them and people wouldn't know which way to go to avoid a head on collision. If you'd just replace cars with horses today it would go a lot different.

Uh. Sidewalks existed and pedestrians mostly stayed on them for their own safety. Jaywalking wasn't made illegal until the 1950s, well into the car era.

And it wasn't just horses. It was horse-drawn carriages. There wasn't that much difference, traffic wise, between carriages and cars. There were traffic jams, out of control vehicles, drunk drivers, street racers, collisions, etc. all back in the 19th century.

Post reply on HN