You're viewing a single thread.
Nice. Now cars are only for the rich like they should be.
Real solution: Ban cars in parts of NYC.
Right because everyone needing a car means everyone who can't afford one just automatically gets one.
Step one of reducing car-dependency is to reduce their number on the road. Then you can start bulding shit that accommodates the poor through actually nice-to-use public transit, bicycle paths, and walking routes.
Charge the rich. Build for the poor. Better yet, charge the rich, build for everyone. Not just cars. Because not everyone has cars.
Like FFS "good job now the poor can't drive" is hardly a comeback when it's like the most expensive mode of transit, massively subsidized with taxpayer money, just to kind of make it work. It wasn't something that could be made affordable or even efficient enough for everyone to use on a daily basis to begin with.
Zippity zoppity let's redistribute some property
Cut to me dramatically removing my "fuck cars" jacket like a Yakuza character to reveal a "fuck private property" t-shirt
Step one of reducing car-dependency is to reduce their number on the road. Then you can start bulding shit that accommodates the poor through actually nice-to-use public transit, bicycle paths, and walking routes.
Why can't you start building shit before reducing their numbers? I don't see what one has to do with the other.
Of course you can. I'm using "step one" as a figure of speech to express importance.
Controlling vehicle numbers is a very "low hanging fruit" that can do a lot to improve things for a very low cost.
What was that saying again, something along the lines of: A great city is not where the poor own and drive cars, but the rich take public transportation.
A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.
- Gustavo Petro, current president of Colombia, former mayor of Bogota
I feel like what this good intentioned quote misses is that the poor are priced out of the city core entirely and pushed into banlieus
Now cars are only for the rich
More that roads are for high occupancy or professional vehicles - buses, ambulances, construction vehicles, commercial trucks - that still need access to Manhattan but can't be placed on a train.
Buses --> tram
Ambulances --> single lane road/biking path
Construction vehicles, commercial trucks --> single lane road
Problem solved, no need for cars inside the city
Ambulances --> single lane road/biking path
I should not need to explain why running an ambulance down a bike lane is a bad idea.
Construction vehicles, commercial trucks --> single lane road
Why would reducing the number of road lanes without implementing congestion pricing be a preferable solution? How would this improve access to construction vehicles and wide-body trucks?
No, you should explain why ambulances using bike lanes is a problem as multiple european countries do that and it works perfectly.
Because reducing lanes means less people will use the road because if you literally cant get anywhere with a car you will use an alternative(of course that has to be provided). Also this is another european thing but you can just ban cars that are not there to do stuff(idk what they call it english but in hungarian its "célforgalom").
multiple european countries do that and it works perfectly
You know that ambulances also cause accidents on roads?
What does that have to do with the OP?
True wealth is not needing to drive a car at all.
Banning cars actually works really well if you can prepare parking spaces or fully focus public transport
Source: Taksim Street
Please elaborate the "if you can prepare parking spaces" part.
Multistory and underground parking spaces with a toll on how long a car stays, turkey has İSPARK which maintains this
This'll both allow people with cars to travel here, and will also lead to people preferring to walk or use public transport
The profit incentive to build parking is through the roof in NYC, they can charge a ton for parking, and there's still not enough.
The poorer you are the less you can afford paying for it. This is really just a method of opening the streets just for the rich.
Regressive solution.
Counterpoint, this funds public transport which is cheaper than car ownership and driving.
If you are poor, this pushes you to take a train or bus which saves you money.
The only people this taxes is the rich which makes this a progressive solution.
Cars in Manhattan were already "just for the rich".
It's simply making the rich think for a moment, before taking their car to the street. Which makes the streets safer for everyone who's not rich.$9 doesn't make any rich person think twice.
You might think that, but - they sure do like to complain about $9!
It adds up. There's plenty of wealthy, but not obscenely wealthy people in NYC who would think twice about paying $9 for no reason even if they can easily afford it.
I don't think they would ever have to pay it. It would be travel expenses on their accounting.
I think you might be misunderstanding the non-$100s of millions wealthy class.
They still do normal stuff, like go to shows and eat McDonald's while driving themselves instead of having a chauffeur.
Having your business pay the toll for a personal trip is embezzlement and most people wouldn't risk that over $9.
If companies are reimbursing people for commutes into work, that's probably not an approved tax exempt benefit so you would still need to pay income tax on that $9.
Having business pay for your tolls is absolutely not embezzlement. It's part of your compensation package. When charges increase or even gas prices, you list it and get paid back. Of course that rarely applies to poor people.
Decades ago my outside accountant passed all travel expenses to my business as part of his fees. His hourly time even included driving travel time to the office.
You'd think so, but the data clearly disagrees
Can you show the data? Because I find it extremely hard to believe multimillionaires would take the bus instead of being driven into the city in their limo.
The data this whole thread is about.
And you're making assumptions about what "rich" means.
People only making half a million are rich. They still drive their own car. Those are most of the personal vehicles being driven in Manhattan.
The people you're thinking of, are the wealthy. There are only a few hundred of those people in the city, they aren't a major driver of traffic anyway, so nobody cares about them.Is there any data that shows people making $500k a year are deterred by a $9 fee?
Going to work 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year is $2,250. The average garage price is $15 a day.
The lower traffic numbers are the data. That's what the screen shot shows. None of the bridges or tunnels are backed up.
I claimed the fee means that now only the rich are driving in NYC. You said the data said that's not true. Yes, the poor outnumber the rich. I didn't question that. The poor can no longer afford to drive into NYC making it a new luxury for the rich. They no longer have to deal with the poors on the road with them. The rich aren't going to take a bus to save $9.
$9 doesn’t make any rich person think twice.
That was the claim. The drop in traffic, proves that's not the case.
Your new idea that "now only the rich are driving in NYC" always was the case anyway. The middle class and lower don't bother owning cars in NYC. The public transit being the best in the nation, and permanent parking spaces to store your car costing hundreds of dollars per month, after the cost of the car and insurance that everyone everywhere pays; most born and raised NYers don't even have drivers licenses, because cars are such a waste of money there.
This is really just a method of opening the streets just for the rich.
Anyone who takes the bus knows this is bullshit
You mean like how most things are anyways?
I'd say almost anywhere in the US besides the NYC area, this would probably be true. Given public transit is the norm there, it hardly seems regressive. I don't think giving the rich the privilege of taking care through the city is a good thing, but at least the city gets to take some money from them. It would be much better if health care ceos all took public transit. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure an outright ban on private vehicles would be strongly opposed by such people right now...
congestion pricing doesn't apply to public transit, which is the point. Take the damn bus to work. If it's a long walk from your stop, you can buy an ebike with money saved from not maintaining a car.
It's only regressive if you assume cars are a necessity, they're really not in NYC. I sold my car after moving down from New England and haven't regretted it, and it's not an affordability issue for me either.
Also the rich will always have access to luxuries that poor people don't. There will always be fancy restaurants and nicer clothes than are inaccessible to the poor, but that is separate from them having decent quality food and clothes, and maybe can go out to a nicer dinner every so often, just not a $500 tasting menu.
Public transport won't be built?