The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
replies(11):
Anecdotally that seems to be the case. The largest burden of this tax is falling on low income commuters who live off the train lines and have to drive into Manhattan, yet all of the money is going to... the train lines (MTA). Understandably they're not too happy.
Already 85% of commuters to lower Manhattan take public transit. Of the remaining 15%. An analysis found that only 2% of working poor New Yorkers would pay the charge. Otherwise low income New Yorkers would overwhelmingly benefit from the better transit funding
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/eric-goldstein/busting-myths-new-yo...
Car infrastructure takes up a huge amount of space and is incredibly hostile to any kind of mixed use. Having near-zero cars means there is suddenly space available for an order of magnitude more pedestrians. It's why reducing car traffic almost always results in a significant increase in revenue for local shops and restaurants - which means more taxes are being paid.
Converting all of NYC into a huge pedestrian-only zone obviously isn't going to work, but having a few pedestrianized superblocks could greatly improve the quality-of-life.
Car-centric urban planning is hell with kids. You have to load them up into the car for any small trip. You can't walk or bike anywhere because cars make it so dangerous.
My only regret about living in the US is this car hellscape that is so hard to avoid. It's mandated by law, not chosen by the market.
It's not like NYC doesn't have cameras everywhere and couldn't probably figure it pretty easily in an afternoon by crossing the ALPR DB with the tax DB (after spending 48mo of political wrangling to allow that to happen).
EVs have entered the chat
Still, I'd always prefer less cars and more transit.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-american-households-hav...
[2] https://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report
[3] https://inhabit.corcoran.com/nyc-residential-rental-market-r...
[4] https://www.brickunderground.com/rent/nyc-manhattan-brooklyn...
[5] https://www.elliman.com/corporate-resources/market-reports/n...
The issue that people apparently think that the horn makes the red light turn green faster or will magic away the car blocking the box.
I wonder what % (presumably low) of the population can live in SFHs and achieve this cities like Seattle.
I should try finding if there's available work that's made visualizations of this sort of things ("How many homes could be within X miles or minutes of A B and C" for SFH, Quadplex, 5-over-1s etc.)
Everything will be connected and commutable, especially the suburbs. Automated, on-demand delivery will become a part of everyday life.
Instead of busses and semis, we'll have small pods for smaller cargo and small parties. Highways will turn into logistics corridors, and we'll route people and goods seamlessly.
All the clamor for trains and rail will go away when our roads become an even superior version of that. Private commuting to any destination, large homes with lots of land, same day delivery of everything.
Hope you don't mind me asking, I'm just super curious about this topic!
And anyone who takes a taxi. Or needs an ambulance. Or orders anything delivered during the day.
Guess what forces emergency vehicles to fire their sirens, or garbage trucks to linger.
It comes from honking.
The problem with self driving cars is that they can only optimize road bandwidth a bit more than they are now (and even then, only if you outlaw human drivers), they aren’t a magical shortcut to increasing bandwidth beyond indicated demand (like mass transit can).
Why? Do you want to know something other than the second statistic?
(When they're teenagers who knows, you have new problems)
People who live outside of Manhattan have more space and sometimes the optional car.
The professionals are paying an absolute fortune for child care, a salary's worth, and more for bigger apartments in nice neighborhoods.
It's no joke. You'd better be obsessed with the city, or a short commute, because otherwise you're moving to Westchester or NJ or LI.
I have spent over a decade without owning a car in multiple cities. It's definitely possible but I've been fortunate enough to have friends and family with personal vehicles I can use.
My social life as a teenager was incredibly limited by the fact that I couldn't just jump on a bus and meet up with everyone else who lived in areas with PT coverage.
Lifting a 2 toddler stroller up and down narrow, crowded NYC subway stairs is the exact opposite of bliss. Perhaps you are unaware that many subway stations still don't have elevators (or escalators, for that matter) - only stairs. And where the elevators exist, it seems half the time they are out of order...
I have no doubt that Manhattan is expensive, but my greater point is that it would be great. A lot of very expensive things are great.
I used to work on the second floor. My colleagues would all push the button for the elevator, and wait, wait, wait. I'd be at my desk before they reached the 2nd floor. (Some of them were jocks.)
In my 20s, I worked a stint on the 6th floor. I'd run up the stairs to try and beat the elevator. I'd poop out on the 5th and have to walk the last flight.
I don't understand why I am the only such person. It's just pure joy to run up and down the stairs. One day I won't be able to anymore, and that will make me sad.
Driving is almost always more convenient on many levels, so it’s not really the best argument start from “it’s just easier”
You have 2 toddlers. You frequently wish to take them to visit friends / parks / supermarkets / libraries / doctors / coffee shops / whatever other places near your location. Such places happen to be 10-20 minutes adult-speed walk from you. Kids are young enough that they cannot reliably walk towards a fixed goal for 10+ minutes, and certainly not at adult speed; they often get either tired or distracted or decide they want to go somewhere else. Kids are old and heavy enough that neither of them can be carried in a carrier. Optimal solution: 2 toddler stroller.
In the case of CPUs, there's sync and communication overhead; for highways, there's more turbulence and slowdown generated by lane-switching.
As a mode of transportation, self-driving cars already exist--they're basically a taxicab service, the main difference being that some people hope that self-driving might magically make the cost of providing a taxi service cheaper.
> Instead of busses and semis, we'll have small pods for smaller cargo and small parties. Highways will turn into logistics corridors, and we'll route people and goods seamlessly.
"Lots of small things going point-to-point" is a much more difficult problem to route, especially at high throughput, than "bundle things into large containers that get broken apart near their destination." In the space of transit, your idea is known as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), and PRT systems have invariably underwhelmed every time they've been built, as they struggle to live up to their promise.
Rail transit is incredibly efficient at moving large numbers of people--a metro line can easily move a dozen lanes of highway traffic--and there is nothing that you can do to roads to make them approach that level of efficiency, in part because the routing problems are insurmountable.
For all of the doom and gloom that I expected on my trip there, I thought that system was amazing. The rest of the city was too, if anything there’s more vacancy in Manhattan, but more crazy people in SFO.
this was charming to read!
If you want to head east, you’re running into the real estate aftermath of Microsoft making tens of thousands of millionaires in the 90s and 00s. You won’t save much money there.
[1] https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/transport-access-p...
When the MTA prioritizes accessibility projects they take this into consideration and prioritize stations that have few options for alternatives.
I will also point out that buses exist in NYC.
Chicago has (recently?) put a lot of focus on their bike infrastructure (protected bike lanes, bike signals, bike only paths, etc) and it seems pretty widely used.
Are they? Based on what?
Many people can't reasonably ride bikes for many reasons, especially in NYC bike lanes with delivery people flying around on e-bikes. Public transit isn't always sufficient - people end up switching buses four times, etc.
The roads are a public good; again policy 'innovation' is merely dismissing responsibilities and difficult requirements - as long as the rich people's requirements aren't the ones dismissed.
My mom commuted to Redmond from Bothell when I was in high school, horrible traffic…and that was early 90s. You don’t want to do anything on 405 during rush hour.
You can also head west if you dare. I have a coworker commuting in from Vashon Island. I don’t think prices are that great on the islands though, maybe 30-20% less than Seattle, but you live by the ferry schedule and if you want something near the ferry dock you’ll pay a lot more for that walk on convenience.
The only people I see carrying a pram up/down stairs without help are dads who were happy to do it themselves.
If you’re sensitive to commute time, you’ll want to live in the same ‘city’ as you work, for instance, or at least nearby. But it will cost you a lot of money, and you’ll get a closet.
If you want the ‘big house with a lawn’ experience, you’ll pick a distant ‘city’ or even another ‘state’ (in this case, a city in a nearby suburb).
Typical case, it’s an hour+ end to end from one side to the other even on the fastest transit for Tokyo or London, and they have really good transit systems.
Singapore similar when it’s busy (which is actually quite a feat considering how small of an island it is).
It’s been awhile since I’ve been in Manhattan, but I remember it being roughly 1-2 hrs too.
Mega cities like Mumbai? Double that.
Like, it's 20-goddamn-25, everyone with an IQ above room temperature should be instantly red flagging these sorts of minor but potentially very meaningful omissions.
Like maybe the number is 10% of something instead of 2%, IDK, but with the surveillance dragnet and statistics firehose NYC policymakers have access to it's hella sus that they didn't just give an outright or more preciously bounded answer.
Younger kids, you need to live where you can reach everything you’ll need to acceptable quality within walking distance or a limited number of subway stops, unless you really like dealing with a Stroller in the subway. Not always an easy feat.
Areas like that tend to be very expensive, and be very difficult to actually find spots. You then are susceptible to quality changes hurting your ‘investment’. People who can afford that can also afford one or more Nannies and other helpers.
In my experience, a lot of the skill set required is to be very competitive and have a lot of money to throw around, which requires a mindset that most would not call ‘cushy’ or easy going.
The ‘mandated by law’ bit is a bit of a misnomer. It’s structural due to a number of other market conditions, including available land (leading to lower population density, etc), which are impacted by laws, which also impact market conditions.
It’s an ouroboros, not an arrow.
South Asia has ~ 8x US pop density, Western Europe ~4x, and East Asia roughly 3x.
It’s no surprise it is how it is. The US is low density. The math generally works out differently.
And of course there are different types of disability. You’d much rather be blind in NYC than blind in Omaha Nebraska in regard to your ability to get around.
The idea of walking/biking to school or walking with your friends to the cafe after school to hang out, or bumping into friends while walking home from a bar is so alien to Americans that it's not even on their radar.
We get a glimpse of it when we go on vacation to Prague or Disneyland or something. But when we return home, we immediately relegate the experience to something exotic you do on vacation rather than something you can actually have.
With regards to children, some couples do have them and concluded that a car in the city is not worth the hassle; famous example:
* https://www.instagram.com/cargobikemomma/
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PoKcQRlDGs (interview)
Car share would also be handy in some situations. Or even going from two cars to one.
Alternatively, you rent a car from a car sharing service for the few times a year you want to do this.
[0]: https://betterabound.familybikeride.org/img/winter-kit.jpg
I'm certainly not opposed. But my observation in the relatively nearby city when I go in and sit on the sidewalk at a restaurant is that the fairly new protected bike lanes have a fairly terrifying combination of transportation modes (bikes, ebikes, things that I guess are ebikes but look almost like small motorbikes, escooters, and pedestrians crossing). And then, because they're in a bike lane, many seem to assume the signal at the next street doesn't apply to them.
Not sure of the best answer.
With fewer cars on the road, thanks to the congestion pricing, we'll probably see safer roads for all users, as well.
The real cutoff point for commuting to Seattle is just past exit 34, because that's where they close Snoqualmie Pass when there's too much snow.
As you say, the solution of course is to not go that far on a daily basis. You can make your life convenient, as long as you are living alone.
I remember coming here mid-pandemic and having white picket fences in my eyes as the company pointed me to a real estate agent. Thank god I didn't pull the trigger and buy because I would've been financially trapped (upside down) in some very unsafe urban area (e.g. south Seattle) or far-flung place (like Sultan).
When I was bike only I had my arm damaged in a way that it took close to a decade to get back to normal. On another occasion I was knocked unconscious. Both occasions were drivers who left turned into a parking lot without looking, crossing a lane then going right into me in the bike lane.
A car provides a nice cushion for those sorts of happening. I think if I had a child in either case there is a good chance they would be dead.
While I support the right of people to make their own risk assessments for their family, I fear it is only a matter of time until they come to understand what I did about Chicago biking.
This is factually inaccurate on so many counts. People who drive into the congestion pricing zone have a higher income than the median in the city. Not only is the number of low-income people who commute by car into the zone is incredibly small, but those people are already eligible for a waiver, so they wouldn't have to pay it anyway.
On top of that, the money is all going to the MTA, but that is not synonymous with "the train lines", because the MTA is also responsible for the robust bus network throughout the five boroughs, and the money raised from congestion pricing has already been earmarked for a whole number of projects, several of which would apply to people who are reliant on buses.
To be clear: you're basing your understanding of the effects of public policy from an offhand conversation with a person who has no reason to know any of the actual details of the policy, and who has a vested personal stake in the matter, rather than on any of the many numerous objective sources of data, whether that be the 4000 page report that was issued last year before the policy took effect, or any of the many studies and analyses that have come out since?
Yes, I'm sure that some bartender told you that he is unhappy with it. But that doesn't mean that anything he's saying is based in reality. Congestion pricing opponents have routinely repeated talking points that are verifiably counterfactual or even nonsensical, and it's silly to take them at their word when the objective facts are so readily available.
He passed away from a heart attack.
Philadelphia is also an odd choice to bring up since there's a train from the center of Manhattan to Philly, and it's even a common commute for people to go back and forth.
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.
Like, yeah, eventually you will die, so yes, the number of heartbeats you'll have is finite. But it's not like you get some limited allocation and when you consume them all, you're toast.
The reality is the opposite which is counterintuitive to those folks: The more heartbeats you use, the more you get. At least, that's true if your extra heartbeat usage is from aerobic exercise, not just being unhealthy and having a high resting heart rate.
Another kvetch: using car seats in taxis. Maybe it's different now with Uber but 20 years ago the drivers hated it because you have to find the seat belt and secure the car seat...
Just take the 15% gross salary raise and move on with your life.
Small errands also completely defeats the point of Costco. Running to a corner store to buy 4 rolls of toilet paper ends up being way more expensive than going to Costco and picking up 30+ at a time.
Ubers/taxis with car seats are no big deal as long as you’re quick about setting them up. And even then, kids are only in full blown car seats for a few short years.
