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 of residential areas in NJ that are closer to NYC that go to port authority (west side, 42nd st) very quickly. In fact, those buses are getting there faster and more comfortable than ever due to congestion pricing.
I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)? I know public transportation would be great, but having a competitive environment for privately own bus services might be the answer to a lot of cities.
It's curious but unsurprising that privatization of public transport is considered an answer to congestion when existence of good (or great) public transport is the working answer one can find in many places around the world.
When I visited NYC two years ago, I was blown away by how unbelievably bad public transport infrastructure is.
The most flabbergasting thing was the absence of Metro ring lines around the center. The fact these have not been built, in 2025, when Metro transport networks in most cities are now over a century old, is telling.
IMHO the real problem is cars. The US still can't imagine itself without cars.
I live in Berlin center. The only reason for me to own a car is prestige. So I don't.
During rush hour any destination I go to, even outer city, would take me the same time by public transport as by car. At least.
During non-peak hours going by car can be from 25-40% faster than by public transport if you trust Google Maps & co.
But these estimates only consider travel time. When you add finding a place to park at the destination (and walking to the destination as the place may not be right in front) this shrinks to either negative numbers or max. savings of maybe 25%.
My average travel time is around 30mins by public transport. This includes walking to and from the station.
Why would I own a car to save maybe, on a lucky day, 5mins?
At the same time bike infrastructure is being improved. Lots of side streets have been declared bike streets, cars may only enter if they have business there (you live there or deliver something).
The city has enforced this with blocking off intersections on such streets with permanent structures that let only bicycles pass.
Big streets have bike lanes that are often separated by a curb or bollards from car traffic.
This makes it also less nice to drive a car. You can't use Waze any more to guide you through side streets to avoid congestion because these streets can't be passed through any more by car, only on foot or by bike.
Which means the chance of being stuck in traffic increases. When at the same time you have options to be there just as fast with public transport and almost as fast but more healthy and with less likeliness of being ran over by a car, by bike.
These ideas are not new. And there are many more things other cities do to reduce car traffic/need for cars.
If you think of private mini busses, the best examples IMHO is actually ridepooling, e.g. Volkswagen's Moia in Hamburg and Hannover.
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.
Which one? Berry is semiclosed, but people routinely remove the wooden barriers so they can drive on it and delivery app e-bikes/motor bikes routinely blast down it at speeds that make it uncomfortable to walk.
Broadway has expanded the sidewalk but it is definitely not closed to traffic.
Also 2 partial closures in a city of 10 million kind of proves the point.
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 less likely to trigger the outrage congestion pricing has, because it doesn't target car owners directly and en masse. You can sort of pick away at it, street by street. There will be less of a show of solidarity, because, hey, it's not my street.
The only thing that seems silly is penalizing delivery trucks. This only raises the costs of goods and services. This is one reason I would favor narrower, one-way streets over pedestrian streets. You still want vehicles. The issue is that many if not most vehicles in NYC are a luxury item and do nothing but negatively impact the common good. They don't even make transportation easier for their owners, on the whole. Of course, this should be combined with other policies that improve public transportation and improve availability of good and services in the city to reduce the burdens that cars alleviate.
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.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Ireland pedestrianised streets are usually open to deliveries in the early hours of the morning. I think they open to one-way traffic some time after the pubs and clubs close, and late-night foot traffic is reduced. Then the bollards go up at the entrance end at around 7am, and go up at the exit a little later.
Certainly I've seen delivery vehicles on Grafton Street in Dublin and Shop Street in Galway in the early hours.
I don't think they were trying to disprove the point. They admit that the US is largely car centric EXCEPT NYC, which is why congestion pricing has worked well. Also, car ownership rates are probably extremely correlated with density/efficiency of public transportation.
There is probably no other city in the US where you can truly eschew car ownership (this includes metro "dense" regions like San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston). Maybe you could include Chicago where there is a heavy amount of density/walkability in most of central Chicago neighborhoods.
You could eschew car ownership in NYC because the public transport network is better than in the rest of the country but it's still shite compared to what is considered 'barely ok' outside the US.
E.g. I. Berlin metro timing is about 5mins between trains and that is long compared to Tokyo metro timing.
But when it comes to density/how direct a public public transport connection exists between two arbitrary points in the city, Tokyo and Berlin are very close (and far ahead of NYC btw.).
What I'm saying is that the feasibility public will be seen as a real alternative or even improvement over using a car only if both topological as well as temporal improvements are blatantly obvious to commuters.
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.
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.
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.
The obvious answer is more public transport infrastructure & bike lanes.
If you think population density is an excuse for public transport infrastructure not coping or need for more people owning cars I suggest taking a long hard look at e.g. Japan to have that hypothesis reality-checked.
I'm btw. not saying you did, just reading between the lines.
As I wrote in an earlier reply to parent, NYC hasn't managed to even build ring Metro lines around its city center – since a century!
And that is for one reason and one reason only: not nearly enough (political) pressure from the public to improve public transport infrastructure.
And that in term gets us to the root cause again: the US can't imagine itself without cars.
This is not a critique. It's just an observation that is very plain to see if you grew up in Europe (and possibly many other places, too).
When/if that changes, ever, the above things will just happen naturally.
What would a ring metro look like in NYC? Manhattan is an island. Directly west of it is a body of water, then land that is not NYC, in fact is not NY.
It doesn't have to be a closed ring. Or resemble a ring.
Many metro systems in other big cities with comparable topological constraints have metro lines that are orthogonal to those going out in roughly a star pattern from the center.
But NYC almost only has the latter.
Underwater sections are not an issue, really. There are many cities that have metro lines going under bodies of water.
And even the length or depth required is not an issue if you want to build it.
That's why you can go from England to France, by train, in roughly half an hour, under the English Channel.
in context, i am specifically talking to “the US can't imagine itself without cars” point here and in my other reply upthread. I live ~36 hours from Los Angeles, driving at legal highway speeds, assuming no stops or delays. It's all about perspective. California is larger than germany. New York isn't a small state by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're comparing it to texas, alaska, or california. The car/public transportation stuff in the US is partly because of the ruralness of the country in general, plus culture. A lot of people have the idea that public transit is for the poors.
I live in Canada, a bigger country with less people and better public transport. A bunch of provinces are bigger than Texas, doesn't stop the public transport from being decent inside the cities.
Man, there are street that are closed to traffic, and you just are either lying or being dumb.
They just don't look like streets anymore, as they are turned into plazzas or parks.
EG:
E25st at Lex, Baruch College is truned into a plazza/walkaway. No cars.
8th/st Saint Marks, by A Ave, is off cars, (It is part of the Tompkins park).
Irvin Avenue is part of a park (gets interrupted by Grammercy Park)
etc...
There are plenty of places like that, but over time they turn into plazzas or parks, and you think they were not streets at some point.
It's not the only reason, but in general in American history, "why is this weird thing this weird way?" is usually answered in part by "racism".
Avoiding public transit has historically been one way affluent white people avoided contact with poor people in general and black people specifically; underfunding or shutting down public transit in turn disproportionately hurts those populations.
Again, not the only explanation, but it's the simplest for a number of things.
Oh, that's very much so. In new york, several bridges were explicitly designed by Robert Moses so that they were too low for buses in order to prevent public transit from getting to certain parks and beaches. In Chicago, several expressways were routed to separate "black" areas from other parts of the city.
I claim it's normal to hate public transport. Online, there are some loudmouthed public transport enthusiasts. To them, everyone who isn't doing public transport is a racist, boomer, redneck, luddite, and whatever aspersion you've got.
The real reason America has so many cars is people like cars better, and America developed in a time where people were rich enough to make it happen. People don't like public transport. I asked someone who grew up in another country, in a huge city with only public transport--and reputedly good, clean public transport at that--what they think of public transport, and they said it's gross and for poor people. (It wasn't a code for racism, their country was ethnically monotone.)
People like that don't visit threads like this though. You just get this echo chamber of young, childless, cosmopolitans who only care about a certain kind of efficiency in transport.
In northern cities, the black population is quite recent, and urban renewal programs predate much of the Great Migration. The Great Migration was itself weaponized by WASP elites against the European and very often Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in northern cities (who were out-procreating the WASPs given their stance on contraception, for example, which differed from the Protestants who had began to accept its use in the 1930s).
To disguise the project, terms like "white flight" were invented in order to frame the disintegration of these European neighborhoods as a racist reaction. This worked especially well during the Civil Rights movement, because it played on black/white categories in the forefront of everybody's minds. But were these European ethnic groups "white"? We already know that the Irish and the Italians weren't considered "white" until recently.
Perhaps you've seen videos of "white people" in Chicago throwing rocks at black marches led by MLK into these ethnic neighborhoods? These were people, like Lithuanians, who were defending the integrity of their neighborhoods from an invasion. That the marching masses entering their neighborhoods were black is completely irrelevant: any mass migration of another cultural group into a host population harms and destroys the integrity of the host population. And that was the point. White flight destroyed the ethnic neighborhood through mass migration and the subsequent dispersal of them across the newly created suburbs. This process hastened their assimilation into an amorphous mass shaped by the mass media. These assimilated groups formed a buffer between WASP neighborhoods and the neighborhoods of the new black arrivals from the South. The construction of highways played a similar role by erecting psychological or physical barriers between these neighborhoods. They were also used as excuses to demolish "undesirable" neighborhoods.
Part of the reason is that public transit for whatever reason appears to be unusually sketchy in many places in the US. For example, a few years ago, there was an incident with a man with two chainsaws threatening passengers [1] in the local transit system.
In contrast, the transit systems I've seen in Europe and Asia appear well maintained, clean, and relatively safe.
Biking is also safer in European cities that have proper bike infrastructure.
It’s funny how the one time it has ever happened that someone wielded a chainsaw on the subway it’s memorable news, and becomes evidence of a narrative that all of public transit is ‘sketchy’. That article’s from 7 years ago, and nobody got hurt and the guy was arrested. (BTW, I wonder why they used a photo from 2009?)
In the mean time, the number of shooting deaths by private car drivers in the US has more than doubled since 2018, to more than 1 per day. That doesn’t count threats with other weapons, nor any other kind of road rage, nor does it count accidental crashes. There are more than 120 deaths per day in the US in cars (the vast majority of “private transit”), and more than 2 million ER visits by injured riders per year.
And public transit is sketchy? Not compared to driving cars it isn’t.
As an outsider (Australian) living in the USA there's non stop propaganda for anything that could make a dollar if privatised. To the extent that many don't believe public run systems can function at all.
Anything disparaging public transit is played up to the extend even sitcoms will have disparaging scenes that are essentially "you took public transport? Are you poor?". The tax system is basically privatised, it's a pain to do anything without paying for tax software now with a lot of lobbying and propaganda that it's the only way. A lot of US citizens actually seem to believe that anything government run is inefficient (despite the lack of academic data on this) and demand the dismantling of all government institutions (see DOGE). Even utilities are often privatized with no competition (you just pay what you're told).
It's a bit crazy coming from a country where i had fibre internet at my regional home (the recently rolled out national broadband network) which is faster than the best connection i can get in the middle of silicon valley, i had affordable public transit with a universal tap on/off card that worked for all of them so no change/cash needed. Universal healthcare. A free online tax system that would start pre-filled by the numbers my employer+stockbroker entered in, i just had to quickly check through any federal or state specific exemptions i might qualify for. Etc.
Like it's madness the level of propaganda for this viewpoint that privatization is better and it's blatant why that propaganda is there - you privatize something essential like healthcare and you can leach vast amounts of money from everyone.
To this day my home country pays a fraction of US salaries yet the median wealth per capita is more than double the USA (Australia's 261k wealth per capita vs USAs 112k wealth per capita) since we don't get leached at every turn by privatized essential services. Yet in the USA they are clamouring for more of this as if that makes them wealthier.
I heard about that one too, very unique and weird for sure! But we could go through the stories of each of the few hundred fatalities that happened on public transit last year, and it wouldn’t even be a blip compared to the tens of thousands of people killed in gruesome accidents in cars. Incidentally I still remember the description of Paul Walker’s death for kinda the same reason that subway chainsaws and necrophilia are so memorable… it was freaky.
People get robbed at gas stations, convenience stores, parking lots, and streets at fairly high numbers. I’m not sure what we’re comparing or debating here, but does your example actually count as a “robbery” if they died first? Would it not have happened if they hadn’t died? The anecdote you brought doesn’t seem to reflect on safety at all, it’s unclear what relevance it has.
Speed is absolutely a huge factor in driving injuries, one of the biggest. Again not sure how or even why to compare that to assaults on the subway, but googling briefly, the result I got suggests there were around 2k reported assaults of any kind. It’s a drop next to the nearly 3M ER visits, which may leave out large numbers of unreported, uninsured, or less serious injuries.
> People get robbed at gas stations, convenience stores, parking lots, and streets at fairly high numbers
Not where I live. the comparison/debate is:
> In contrast, the transit systems I've seen in Europe and Asia appear well maintained, clean, and relatively safe.
I think the point is, although (public) necrophilia is rare, so presumably is access to dead bodies, so the fact this happened is telling.
> does your example actually count as a “robbery” if they died first?
Of course it fucking does. picking someone's pockets is also robbery even if no confrontation is involved, and I'm pretty happy this guy is being charged with "attempted rape"; the fact the guy was dead doesn't make it not rape.
> The anecdote you brought doesn’t seem to reflect on safety
you don't see a correlation between safety, and the presence of people you cannot trust to be around?
> speed is absolutely a huge factor in driving injuries, one of the biggest. Again not sure how or even why to compare that to assaults on the subway
Speed, or speeding i.e. inappropriate levels of speed. The comparison is that an individual can control their speed, and the authorities can police it. There's not much you can do if you run into the wrong person on the subway.
Sure people have the option to control their own speed, and authorities can police speeders. The accident rate we have already accounts for that. Speeders are still dying, and they’re taking out more non-speeders with them than the total number of public transit deaths, by multiples.
Still not sure what the argument even here is. You’re being pretty forceful about one single, weird incident. Fine, but the fact of the matter is that driving in cars is causing a lot more injury and death than public transit, by several orders of magnitude.
? Japanese subways were infamously the site of a nerve gas attack in the 90s. 33 people were killed in mass knife attacks in Kunming, China in 2014. France has had a handful of subway and train attacks.
However, the point is that these incidents, along with the BART one, are unusual. Avoiding public transit because of them would be like avoiding flying because of air accidents or avoiding going to a theater or musical event because of the various massacres that have happened at them over the years.
BART crime is up over the past decade. People don't avoid BART because of that headline with the chainsaw man. They avoid it because of everyday crime and violence.
I'm sure it's similar for many other metro transport options in the USA. California in particular has a rough go for many reasons.
It doesn't even have to be something bad or happen to you. One "my buddy had his bike stolen off the light rail" and several people will be turned off of ever trying to use it.
The "crime" story has been so twisted by propaganda and lies-by-statistics that you'll have to forgive me for saying that I can't take your word for it and will need numbers. Truthiness certainly can drive people to make poor, (unfounded) fear-based decisions.
That’s rare enough to not keep people away from public transport. Speaking from experience in Portland OR, it’s more the daily low level stress of having to keep an eye out for the meth crazed lunatics around you. There always seems to be one and they’re wildly unpredictable.
> Part of the reason is that public transit for whatever reason appears to be unusually sketchy in many places in the US.
Police and policing culture is heavily biased in the United States to the protection of property and the interests of capital, so it makes complete sense they wouldn't give a fuck about keeping public transit or spaces that aren't highly trafficked by the wealthy very well protected. Maybe a little tinfoil hat, but if you take that into account, I think it makes perfect sense.
It's perceived as a problem around NYC that a lot of people might want to go from Brooklyn to Queens or to Harlem and the Bronx but public transit funnels everyone through downtown or midtown Manhattan. NYC doesn't need a ring but it could use a supplementary arc.
Yes! I'm going to see Underworld[0] play tonight in Brooklyn, exactly 7500 feet from my house, and according to google maps the options are a 14 minute taxi ride or 53 minute train + bus journey. I think it's insane that we don't have efficient intra-boro public transit outside of manhattan.
In the 1990s the RPA proposed reviving an abandoned rail line connecting Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx into the Triboro X line as a supplementary arc. The truth is the boroughs were well connected. In the postwar era the many of light-rail lines connecting Brooklyn and Queens were demolished. As were three elevated lines in Brooklyn/Queens and four elevated lines in Manhattan.
The MTA still has a gap in the funding for the 2020-2024 capital plan due to Andrew Cuomo's raiding and Kathy Hochul's incompetence, so I wouldn't expect much from the 2025-2029 capital program! It is $48 billion short of maintaining existing levels of service, "with a focus on areas in need of urgent investment".
I live ~33 miles away, round trio, from the nearest grocery store. No trains, no uber, no bus. The US is massive. It doesn't look like it on the mercator projection, but the US is massive. It takes days to drive across it at highway speeds.
I tire of "you guys just love your cars too much". I've lived in several states and only when I lived in Los Angeles county was there ever a bus within "walking distance" - but still that was a 25-30 minute walk.
Oh, and in case you were curious, California is about 60,000 square kilometers bigger than Germany.
And I live 36 hours away from California in the United States. At highway speeds.
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.
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.
Without looking it up, I think it's also related to adjacency to a significant metro. But, yeah, the US census uses a binary classification that makes a lot of people assume "urban" means a big walkable city when, in reality, it often includes very dispersed exurbs (including places many would consider basically rural) that are never going to be serviced by public transit among other things.
So a lot of people tend to translate 80% urban into 80% cities which is manifestly not true, and even less dense cities.
> Consistent with previous decennial censuses, changes were made to criteria classifying urban areas following the 2020 Census. Key changes to the Census Bureau’s urban area concept and criteria include:
> The use of housing unit density instead of solely population density. The minimum population threshold to qualify as urban increased from 2,500 to 5,000 or a minimum housing unit threshold of 2,000 housing units.
> The jump distance was reduced from 2.5 miles to 1.5 miles for 2020. Jump distance is the distance along roads used to connect high-density urban territories surrounded by rural territory.
> No longer distinguishing between urbanized areas and urban clusters. All qualifying areas are designated urban areas.
We agree (i think), i'm just quoting the census bureau document.
I hadn't looked in a while and, yeah, the definition seems to have switched a bit though the overall result seems to be fairly similar. The bottom line is that "urban" in the census has a lot broader definition than what a lot of folks think of as urban colloquially.
> The most flabbergasting thing was the absence of Metro ring lines around the center. The fact these have not been built, in 2025, when Metro transport networks in most cities are now over a century old, is telling.
I'm having trouble imagining where a useful ring line could exist in the New York metropolitan area or within the city itself, given its geography, longstanding commuter movement patterns and other characteristics. Maybe you could have a relatively small ring just in midtown Manhattan?
The Interborough Express is one example. Going from southern Brooklyn on the water up to queens. Previous proposals had it also connecting to the Bronx. If you want to be really ambitious, connect Bayridge to Staten Island and continue on with branches to Elizabeth and Bayonne. Up north, it's surprising there isn't rail from the Bronx, through Manhattan, across the GW Bridge to NJ.
That's not what I'd understand as a "ring" though. I guess something like that could be useful in providing an alternative to what's mostly been car options for travel between Brooklyn and Queens. Edit - your more ambitious idea could be a "ring", yes, but I'm not seeing how it would be especially useful. Why would it be helpful to provide a single line allowing someone in Bayonne to get to Jackson Heights, for example (given what are probably more pressing transportation improvement needs)? As a visionary means of facilitating a longer term integration of eastern New Jersey communities to New York City, maybe.
You can never build enough parking spots if the cost of parking is $0. Optimally managed parking charges variably so that there is always about 10% of spaces free in a block.
The entitlement of drivers to think they have a right to park a metal box wherever they want for free in the middle of the most expensive real estate in the world is staggering.
As an anecdote about any amount of parking winds up being used if it's free: there's a guy a block over from where I live in dense, transit-connected Brooklyn who has, at any given moment, at least 6 cars parked on the street, that he tinkers with and seems to occasionally buy and sell. The houses on that block sell for around $3-4 million these days, but the parking is free.
The neighborhood is also quite clearly full of cars that basically never get used—given there's no cost to store them, the owners save them for an occasional trip and in the meantime they accumulate snow/leaves/pollen etc the rest of the year, in proportion to how long they sit without being used.
The dysfunction of this system is particularly aggravating when you have an actual need to park nearby your home, e.g. if you're loading/unloading heavy things, and there's never any space. I would love if every block had temporary loading zones, but people freak out about the idea because it requires taking away some free parking.
its hard to really get how culturally tied to cars Americans are. Politicians in NYC essentially act like 'a car' is the unit of citizenship in the country, and not 'a person'. We make laws so cars dont get offended, we prioritize them over lives and safety. Its honestly pretty crazy.
The decline public transportation, in my view, reflects a shift in priorities within the Democratic Party. Back in the 1990s, Democrats were more focused on tangible public services—things like infrastructure, roads, transit systems. Today, the emphasis seems to have moved toward issues like environmental policy, DEI, and gender identity.
As someone who’s deeply frustrated by the lack of progress on projects like high-speed rail between SF and LA, completing the BART loop around the Bay, improving public schools in San Francisco, and addressing homelessness, I find it maddening. These are real, urgent issues, and yet they often seem sidelined.
Of course, Republicans generally oppose these kinds of initiatives altogether.
Trying to push for change within the Democratic Party has been incredibly difficult for me. It often feels like the space is dominated by highly educated, well spoken, intellectually confident people (far more so than myself) which can make it hard to even participate, let alone influence policy.
So I just think: screw it, I’m a Republican now. And that is not going to make public transport any better.
Wasn't Musk's whole hyperloop project determined to be just a way to sabotage the SF-LA high-speed rail?
California's so-called Democrats are in love with the idea that private industry (i.e., Silicon Valley) will swoop in and do the government's work for them. And they'll sideline any government project if they think someone else might shoulder the burden. LA almost elected a real estate billionaire as mayor whose solution to homelessness was to build a bunch of "housing" out in the middle of the desert.
Ezra Klein talks about everything bagel liberalism where the left tries to layer every cause (diversity, unions, low income housing) onto a core good idea like building more housing or transit infrastructure. It gets in the way of the goal. housing is good because otherwise people would be homeless.
In Ho Chi Minh City (and probably Vietnam in general but not 100% sure). Our commercial district is very concentrated.
The busses in general are some form of public-private partnership. Several private bus companies operate the city busses. There are some annoying edge cases. For example, pre-purchased tickets are a mess -- better pay cash. If another operator takes over your route, even temporarily, your tickets can't be used.
Mostly it seems to work though, I take the bus fairly regularly and it's quite nice. It's clean, has OK air conditioning, and arrives frequently enough that I don't have to check the schedule. There's someone to help elderly people and children on and off the bus. Elderly people ride free, reduced price for students, etc. It's pleasant.
Some of these busses are mini-versions for less popular routes. I think I've even seen a couple of other vehicle types, like some form of van (rarely). One or twice a sort of truck with benches.
In Moscow there are 2,5 cases of commercial buses: routes that differ from city-owned ones (both local and between parts) and downtown-to-satellite-city_name where there is no other public transport. Both mini and normal buses are being used, as you might guess they are still operating because they fill the niche and are faster than public buses because those have stops each 2-3 minutes. Subway there is far more preferred if it's even remotely an option, due to congestion and reliability.
In Japan there are almost only private buses. many are run by and around the private train companies as a way to get their trains to be more useful to more people like when a 25 minute walk from the closest station is a 10 minute bus ride and the busses come often enough to be convenient
The train companies in Japan, while private in name, can only be described as hybrid. They have massive gvmt concessions for land to build their malls and make profit. The gvmt also has a lot of direct and indirect influence on them (and the other way around). In fact I'm literally now in one cafe in one of those malls, I haven't used the train today but still a part of my money goes to the train company thanks to these concessions.
I'm not complaining BTW, love the train system here, it's only when someone tries to describe them as either a purely "private" or "public" company it's never so straightforward IMHO, so wanted to clarify.
How is buying land a consession and building on it a consession? Any normal private company can by land and build on it. Are you sure you're not considering it a consession because you're used to "public" transporation (in which case it would be a consession) and not just the normal things any private company can do (in which case it's not a consession)
Even if they are consessions I think they are a positive. They provide a positive feedback loop for the train companies. Better trains = more customers for their other interests and visa versa. If the trains start to suck people don't want to be on that line and choose a different line for their businesses, houses
Compared to public transporation where it's just politians who decide budgets and with few exceptions (Netherlands for example) they almost never decide well.
Yeah, the big JR (Japanese Railways) companies that were created when the JNR (Japanese National Railways) state owned company was privatized really do seem to operate in some form of hybrid way - not really either private or public/state owned.
But its also important to note there are other still big but much more private players like Kintetsu, Hankyu, Keio or Tobu that also follow the same playbook - having not just rail lines but also malls, hotels and other businesses, like:
* cableways (like the Kintetsu Beppu Ropeway)
* zoos (Tobu Zoo)
* theaters (Takarazuka Revue - all-female musical theatre troupe based in Takarazuka - a division of the Hankyu Railway company - all members of the troupe are employed by Hankyu)
And you can see this replicated on the smallest level - when we went to Izumo, we found out the Ichibata company does not just run the line to the Izumu shrine, but also owns a hotel next to the Izumo station, runs local buses and even runs the gift shop in the Izumo museum. :)
I think this can to a degree explain why public transport is so well connected with other services in Japan & why the stations are clean and convenient - it has a direct benefit for all the many side businesses the public transit companies have.
That's interesting - the main Dutch train company provides dirt cheap bike rentals for the same reason. (For arrivals only; people can use their own bikes to get to the station.)
A lot of the UK did this in the 1980s and it’s turned into such a disaster, most mayors and local authorities are trying to move to the London model: companies can bid a flat rate to deliver a bus service (effectively, they commit to providing drivers to deliver the timetable). TfL collects all fares. They also - I think - supply most of the buses to ensure they are of a certain standard, but the companies need to lease them, and maintain them.
This means you get private companies trying to lower costs and so costs are privatised, but the profits (if any) are socialised into a public authority.
This then allows TfL to offer system-wide passes making bus travel over all 43 boroughs cost effective.
I don't know about London, but many places systems like this results in terrible working conditions for drivers. Pay is lousy, shift arrangements are in some cases insane, like work from 5:30-10:00 and then 14:00-17:00. Minimal time in between routes to go to the toilet and so on.
Yep, it does! However the net benefit to society at large - and being public transit, to the less privileged in particular - is still gigantic compared to any of the alternatives, and this is blatantly obvious if you've been in multiple countries/locations that use this system, as well as ones that don't use it. The job is generally still better than driving for e.g. Amazon, as well as honestly a whole load of 3D jobs[1] that we rather forget exist and people carry out every day, including in "wealthy" countries.
Perfect is the enemy of good. This is the #1 thing other progressives need to learn. Everything is a tradeoff.
It has been a huge improvement in places like Manchester which the OP mentioned has switched to the London model. Before it was unbelievably expensive and fragmented in terms of the service with different providers requiring different fares or weekly/monthly passes. Also never knowing when a bus was going to show up.
Now their an app which shows you when your next bus will arrive tracked by gps so you can leave the house on time to get there, and fares are standardised at £2 per trip or £5 all day.
Before the standardised pricing you had people on minimum wage who would be paying an hour or two of their wage just to get to work.
All this came due to the local Government mandating it, these things could have been implemented before by private companies as they have existed in London for years but they simply chose not too.
As a former Mancunian, this was the city I was thinking of.
I remember having a meeting about a completely unrelated matter with TfGM many years ago, and they bemoaned not having the same sort of sway as TfL to fix public transport - buses in particular.
The bus situation was madness for decades: there was weird operator specific passes on the Fallowfield/University corridor (the busiest bus route in Europe when I was a student there), so you had to choose at the start of the week if you wanted a Stagecoach or a Finglands pass and then you were stuck with it. The North/South operator divide meant that everyone trying to get from say Cheetham Hill to Rusholme, had to pass through Piccadilly Gardens because that's where different companies "owned" different stands. That just led to all the problems of... well, Piccadilly Gardens...
I've not tried the Bee Network myself yet on any of my recent visits, but it looks like the fix that was needed, and it sounds like they have at least one happy customer in you. I genuinely believe it will contribute to better working conditions, cleaner air, and even economic development for Manchester.
And all it took was fixing the buses, something everyone knew needed doing more than 20 years ago...
What are the brands/types of busses you're talking about? In my city, Greyhound, Chinatown busses, etc., handle city-to-city connections, but they don't connect the residential areas to the city center. It's not lucrative enough (one reason being car use is so heavily subsidized). This is one of the reasons the concept of public transit exists. Like delivering mail to Americans who live in remote areas, we spread out the costs because the benefits are necessary to a thriving society.
These minibusses or dollar vans don't have strong brands that you would recognize. They often operate in a legal grey area, so they're deliberately anonymous looking if you aren't in the know.
I volunteered to do some work in a rural village in the Dominican Republic years ago and got instructions to take several forms of public transportation from the airport to downtown Santo Domingo and then the town of Ocoa and finally either walk up the hill to El Limon or ride on a motorcycle with somebody.
I saw motorcycle taxis and minibuses that run between cities and have the cobrador hanging out the side to rustle up passengers and where you might sit next to somebody holding a chicken. I rode in a "public car" which was painted red and drove in a circle and got out at a place that I thought was a bus station until I realized the tickets on the wall had the names of US college football teams and it was really a sportsbook.
In the developing world it is common to see many forms of less formal transit. Maybe standards aren't that high and maybe I'd feel different if I'd missed the last bus to Ocoa, but it struck me as an economical, fast and efficient system.
This is my experience travelling as well--Latin America has public transit that is an order of magnitude better than anything I've used in Canada or USA.
The success in s.a. highlights how much of a problem cars are causing in n.a. cities. Even if a well financed public or private bus service wanted to run frequent lines at rush hour, those buses would be stuck in slow car traffic. In nordic countries, the bus and trams have dedicated lanes, and mass transit is generally faster than cars.
I don't think London has private mini buses like that, just a huge amount of buses.
They are operated by companies for TFL (though they are all red, you can read the company name).
I'm not sure at what point that arrangement happened, somewhere between the outright privatisations of the 80s, or the stealth ones of the black years, which used PFI.
The existence of private minibuses is a clear indication that the transit authority has failed.
The experience of bus deregulation in Britain outside of London tended to go one of two ways. In most of the country it simply created a private monopoly while in a few cities like Manchester there were routes so popular (busiest bus route in Europe!) that multiple companies competed for custom and the city council had to employ stewards to ensure fair play.
This level of success was really an admission of failure. Anywhere else would have built a subway or at least a tram. (Metrolink is great it just doesn't even attempt to serve the busiest transit corridor in the city.)
London was of course treated differently. While the operators were privatised they remained regulated by government. Public transport in London is simply too important to the UK to be allowed to fail as it was in other parts of the country.
Anyway it's good to see central government allow Greater Manchester to regulate its buses again. After smashing it up local transport in 1986 the Tories finally relented in 2023 and allowed Greater Manchester control. Quite what Labour were doing for local transport outside of London between 1997 and 2010 is open to question. But it certainly resulted in renaissance of London public transport.
I think citymapper ran an experimental private bus line because they had identified a gap. But their article doesn't have a date, and I seem to remember this was years ago, so not sure where it's at.
I vaguely remember hearing about it but never tried it out. Not sure when it was canned. The software part sounds very interesting but could also be sold to existing transit companies and government agencies to improve their network.
After communism fell in Poland there was a period of privatization of public transport. It was reverted in last 2 decades in most big cities because it usually had worse quality standards (only competed on price), only served the few most profitable routes, and was uncooperative regarding the schedule (for example city buses were speeding to get to the bus stops before the time to get more passengers ahead of competition).
So in theory there was a schedule with buses from lines 1,2,3 interleaving every 5 minutes - but in practice line 1 was going slower and line 3 was going faster and all buses were there at the same time and then you had to wait for 15 minutes for the next round :/
The worst part was that people outside the most profitable routes had no access to public transport - because public transport had to be subsidized more because the profitable routes were taken over by private buses.
Yes, the jitneys. There is the Hampton Jitneys which transport folks from NYC to the Hamptons during summer months. Those jersey buses are better than NJ Transit.
>>> 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.
The result of the private bus system nationalization by socialists is macabre, at least this the Santiago case. First, the newly minted public bus service went from $60M USD profits, to massive $600M in losses [1] overnight. That is a negative 10x return. And service declined as well. [1] But that in itself is not a new story.
Now, fast forward ~12 years. The system bleeds so much money that the govt is forced to increase bus fares. The increase in fares activates the biggest riots the country has seen in decades [2]
Out of the riots, one young protester rises to the top. He comes with ideas of a new constitution. He is a young socialist leader. A certain Gabriel Boric [3], who had ran and won for president of University of Chile Student Federation against the leader of the Communist Party of Chile [4]
So now we come full-circle: A working private bus service was replaced by socialist politicians into a public bus system that hemorrhaged 10x more money than it earned previously in actual profits. The public bus funding crisis and subsequent fare hikes led to massive riots, which were a direct on-ramp for a socialist to ascend to power as president of Chile. In short, successful private local bus enterprise was replaced with a socialist bus system, which then proceeded to implode. This implosion of a socialist idea led to the spread of even more socialism, but now at a national level.
This chain of events from beginning to end, only took 20 years.
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?
Yes, if you can name 1 example of a failed private transport project that led to
1) the biggest riots in 4 decades.
2) the requested resignation of all cabinet ministers
3) a new (socialist) constitution.
My point was not "you will die every time you play russian roulette" .
Because that's not the point. My point is, Santiago was playing it safe for many decades. Then they switched to russian roulette. Bad idea, and it showed in less than 1 decade (9 years, to be exact)
Lots of places in the world run public bus systems - it seems by far the most common to me. It's hardly a thing of 'socialism' (always a bad word on HN).
I don't know about Chile, but I think the issue isn't so much the system being public, as in run by some form of government. Rather, the issue is in how "socialists" tend to run systems: everything is great until they run out of other people's money.
Now, I'm not in the "free market will solve all our woes" camp, either, especially when it comes to what we call "public service" in France. Over here, transit systems are facing a push from the EU bureaucrats for "opening up to competition". I'm bracing for the shit to hit the proverbial fan.
Sure, our national rail company is world-famous for being on strike all day every day and twice on Sunday. But, when they do run, they work fairly well and serve most of the country, including random, middle-of-nowhere towns. New companies coming in for the competition only serve the most profitable routes. Of course, I don't know all the laws, but I haven't heard of any obligation for new companies to serve the less profitable routes. So, the SNCF will have less money from the profitable routes to subsidize these lines. This means that either service will degrade, or the State will have to increase funding [0]. Now, I'm generally fine with paying (reasonable) taxes and whatnot, but I'm less fine with having to pay more taxes just so that some random foreign company can make money.
So, what will become of these people? When, at the same time, there's a push to restrict private vehicle ownership, and, especially, to limit access to town centers for older cars? Think these people can afford brand spanking new electric cars? Think again.
---
[0] I think the EU doesn't allow States to directly subsidize the rail company, it would be some form of unfair competition or similar. But the State is allowed to spend on social programs, so there could be some kind of program to help with transit, which, in the end, is the same thing: the people will have to subsidize service for less profitable routes because a chunk of the income from profitable ones has moved to a private company which doesn't care.
EU does allow states to subsidize transit (including trains) but the subsidies are subject to all sorts of regulations. They have to be of "public interest" and to not generate (excess) profits for the companies. At least in theory.
Look, if you're that uninformed, why bother commenting at all? Especially if you're in France, your takes on what constitutes socialism are weird to say the least.
SNCF operate those unprofitable routes in the middle of nowhere only because they get told and paid to do so by the state (Intercités) or the regions (TER). Private operators can bid to operate those routes too, and some do (soon Keolis, an SNCF subisdiary operated as a private company, will operate the first non-SNCF TER network).
Besides that, any operator with a license can apply to operate any route they deem profitable. And so far this has been a roaring success, with Trenitalia on Paris-Lyon (and now Marseille) and Paris-Milan being better and cheaper than SNCF. SNCF added low cost (Ouigo) trains on multiple popular routes mainly because they knew competition is coming (postponed by Covid), they probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise. This is a win-win-win for the average user.
The services that need to be maintained will be, regardless of who is the operator. Some of the profits of the private operators will pay for them (because they pay for network access, which covers the costs of the infrastructure + profit margin).
> the issue is in how "socialists" tend to run systems: everything is great until they run out of other people's money.
That would seem true of any organization other than a self-funded one. All corporations, banks, governments, etc. use investment by others (including taxpayers) and cease operations if that investment stops.
The bland generalization about 'socialists' isn't meaningful without some evidence and a specific falsifiable claim. We can make statements like that about anything.
I was living in London when congestion pricing was introduced and went into the West End the day before and the first day of and the difference was night and day. The difference along Oxford Street, Regent's Street, Green Street, etc was astounding.
And in the 20+ years the evidence seems to back up how much of a net positive it has been.
NYC congestion pricing took way too long because the New York Democratic Party sucks and, as usual, legal efforts were made to block it, much as how well-intentioned laws like CEQA (designed to protect the environment) are actually just weaponized to block development of any kind.
What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC. Americans love the slippery slope argument. It's like "well, if they make driving cars slightly more expensive in Lower Manhattan then next the government is going to take away my gas-guzzling truck in Idaho".
What's also surprising is how many people who live in outer Queens and Brooklyn chose to drive into Manhattan and were complaining how this changed their behavior. Um, that was the point. I honestly didn't know how many people like that there were.
What really needs to happen but probably never will is to get rid of free street parking below about 96th street or 110th.
Also, either ban or simply charge more for combustion vehicles. Go and look at how quiet Chinese cities are where the vehicles are predominantly electric now.
Wow - there's free street parking in Lower Manhattan?! Yep, there's your problem!
Here in Sydney Australia, we don't have any congestion charge (there's been some talk about introducing one, but it's not really on the cards at this time). But it's pretty much impossible to find parking in the CBD (Mon-Fri 9-5) for less than around AUD$60 (USD$40) per day. There is literally no un-metered street parking anywhere in the CBD (also the parking inspectors are everywhere). Plus many of the routes in are tolled (although by no means all routes). Plus, things like the numerous one-way streets, bus-only lanes (with cameras), and ultra-low speed limits, makes it an extremely unpleasant driving experience (with a high risk of getting fines), for folks who are used to just driving in the suburbs. All of that effectively acts as a congestion charge - most people choose public transport over driving, when heading into the city centre, because in practice the cost of regularly doing the latter is prohibitive.
> most people choose public transport over driving
Is that true? I was surprised when looking at the actual stats (most people in Sydney drive to work), but maybe there are many more people working in places other than the CBD skewing this.
When I was cycling in from Balmain, there were a huge number of cars stuck in traffic getting into the CBD every morning. Despite it only being an easy 15 minute cycle (or a 15 minute bus ride) from the peninsula.
Yes, there are a lot of people working in places in Sydney other than the CBD, and yes, a much higher proportion of those people drive to work.
And yes, there are still enough people who drive into the Sydney CBD in peak hour, to cause massive traffic (and to keep the carparks, aka parking lots, being very lucrative businesses!). Nevertheless, they're a minority - more than 75% of people commute to the Sydney CBD on public transport [1].
Also, re: traffic from Balmain in peak hour. Plenty of places you can be going to, eastbound on the Anzac Bridge, apart from the CBD! I'd say a significant number of those drivers would be heading north of the harbour to work (eg North Sydney, St Leonards / Crows Nest, maybe Chatswood, maybe Macquarie Park), and they'd be bypassing the CBD thanks to the Western Distributor (could also be connecting to Cross City Tunnel to eg Bondi Junction, also Eastern Distributor to Randwick / Waterloo).
> What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC.
Because NYC is gonna be used as a case for selling congestion charges elsewhere. This may cause decline in more effective and equitable policies like car bans and restrictions that are working really well in many places.
> What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC.
All kinds of seemingly local issues are getting sucked into the vortex of the national political scene in order to stoke outrage against "the enemy." See also all the people who have never been to SF and will never go to SF who have very strong opinions about SF homelessness/street crime (or, on the other side, the various "library in a small town you never heard of banned some books" stories that were popular a couple of years ago).
I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it.
I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well positioned to take advantage.
While the NY government can probably extract this rent from this area without damaging anything serious but it is not something that should be allowed to proliferate.
INB4 environment/pollution, the richer we all are the better custodians we will be of the environment. Nobody cares if their energy is clean when they can barely make ends meet.
I’m impressed. This is one of the strangest opinions I’ve ever seen. What is special about “at use”? Presumably because it lets you avoid the question of whether everyone should get a free car. Does a monthly car payment count as “at use”? Why not if a monthly transit pass does?
The other replies point out that different forms of transit compete with each other, so the more cars we have, the fewer bikes and trains.
Because once an investment has been made in a car and roads or in a train line or whatever there should be no artificial distinctive for people to use it as they deem appropriate.
As others have said, you are describing a totally imaginary world where money is the only cost. “Artificial” is doing all the work. But the very investments you’re describing are “artificial”, and more than that, they require constant spending to maintain. Why should cost at point of use be the only artificial incentive? What about the environment created by those investments? The quality of roads, the cleanliness of the train? Your distinction is contrived in service of your predetermined conclusion.
But when there are multiple competing forms of transit, or high externalities caused by use (or overuse) artificial disincentives are optimal. As an example, if you have access to both a car and a train, and the car pollutes less than the train, some artificial incentive to only use the car when necessary and to use the train otherwise is actually optimal.
You're also, it seems assuming that investment is a one-time thing. Once an investment has been made in a train line or a car, you still need to afford maintenance over the thing over the lifetime of the thing. Including the opportunity costs of doing other things instead.
Taking up space, degrading public infrastructure, polluting the air, and killing pedestrians are real ongoing costs of transportation. The cost does not magically end at vehicle purchase.
I’m in the side of transit should be free, but as I understand it, the fare is often a pretense to more easily enforce problematic behavior on the train. Fare evasion and other antisocial behavior often come together.
California has quite the gas tax, but it seems to do little to change behavior. Likely because the alternatives to driving are generally not great, but rolling the taxes back shouldn’t be the solution.
This is precisely the reasoning I bring up. In essence traffic congestion is an externality not unlike pollution. What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time. We've made explicit a cost that was already there, and by doing so the system can respond to it and behave more intelligently.
> What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time.
Where it gets to be a problem is when instead of spending 40 minutes to get somewhere because of time stuck in traffic many people become priced out of driving and now have to spend 1.5 hours on public transportation to make the same trip. The cost of wasted time in this specific case might not be as extreme, but as more public roads are paywalled off around the country I expect we'll see more people forced to use inadequate public transportation suffer.
your reasoning falls apart because mass transit options are inherently faster due to the geometric-space efficiencies gained by their form factors. You just need to induce enough people to participate in it to cross a tipping point where it becomes financially viable to run regular service, e.g., in NYC taking a train is often the fastest.
Exactly. The janitor has every right to sit in gridlock beside the CEO. If either doesn't like it they can adjust things but realistically the CEO's got the most ability and incentive to do so.
These artificial price distortions wind up most benefiting the people who were in the best position to alter their behavior.
Gas taxes (partially) pay for the roads. Get rid of those and you've just decreased your tax base, which means you're going to have to pay for it from another tax. It's just shifting the tax burden. We can argue about what's a better tax policy, if a certain tax is progressive or regressive and so on but wherever the money comes, somebody needs to pay for the roads.
NYC is one of about 2 places in the US that actually has usable public transit, barring certain outer boroughs where car ownership dominates. It's largely a hub and spoke model though so it's good for going into and out of Manhattan but not so good for, say, getting from Red Hook to Flushing so driving will dominate that kind of travel.
But that's why congestion pricing is targeted at Lower Manhattan and can't really spread beyond it. Like see how far you get trying congestion pricing in Houston or Dallas, let alone Bakersfield, Boise or Lexington (KY).
Economic incentives work. They're probably most responsible for the drop in smoking. Congestion pricing consistently changes people's behavior and every metric shows it. Some bus lines in NYC now move nearly 30% faster.
I don't know what island you're talking about and what happened but will generally agree that people are struggling all over. It's well-known that real wages have largely been stagnant for 40-50 years.
But that's not a problem caused by gas taxes. It's caused by capitalism.
Excessive car use lowers mobility for EVERYONE. Restrictions to car use, lower speeds via traffic calming, removing car lanes and adding bike and bus lanes, all of this IMPROVES transportation times including for cars!
Yep, except for public holidays where I'm going by car I never spend time in traffic. In my small city I can e-bike everywhere on almost entirely separated bike paths and if the weather isn't good I can take the bus or subway. If all else fails there's still Uber and Bolt
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 something similar). And ICE vehicles are definitely in many politicians' crosshairs, if you don't already see that coming in the next decade, you aren't really looking.
These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere").
(Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would prevent the local economy from collapsing. NYC is one of a very small handful of cities in the US where this is true, although that's largely a function of 80 years of car-centric design. Maybe it will change.)
Sounds like an arbitrary distinction, but in any event, it was the OP who used "slippery slope" to refer to going from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car."
The distinction is important: a change in a law isn’t always a slippery slope towards other things. Implementing congestion pricing isn’t a slippery slope towards seizing peoples’ cars, which was GP’s point (which I agree with).
To make it obvious: universal suffrage is a change that happened, but it wasn’t a slippery slope towards giving dogs the right to vote. Some changes result in new stases.
But nobody was claiming congestion pricing would absolutely lead to seizing cars. The OP was talking about the fear that more things may happen, which is perfectly logical. Today, nobody (including you) can say whether 10 or 20 years from now, ICE cars will be banned. But observing steps that appear to lead in that direction, and being concerned or fearful, is rational and logical.
Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles.
This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places is one thing. But we live in a capitalist country that celebrates individual freedom. Or do we? Beverly Hills CA and Manhattan Beach CA have both banned the sale of cigarettes entirely. Massachusetts banned all flavored cigarettes and is trying to permanently ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone a born after a certain date.
These go beyond "normalization", it is exactly slippery slope... get a small foothold then keep expanding the position.
People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.
New York's congestion pricing was just implemented. It's far too early to know whether it will, or to claim it won't, lead to further restrictions, such as banning some vehicles altogether.
Over 300 recreationally used molecules have been banned outright by UN conventions alone. Not saying this is good, but cigarettes are very much an exception to the norm.
I think the slippery slope has long happened and also gone away.
There are a ton of roads with "turnpike" or "pike" in their name. Some cost money [1] others are free. What's the big difference between NYC's congestion pricing and the Florida Pike?
I guess you can fight congestion pricing in order to slow the spread of toll roads but it's not the beginning of a slipper slope. Usage fees are a very old concept (price discrimination by time is pretty old as well).
New York State already has a major toll road (NY Thruway) and tolls to enter New York City. So do New Jersey and Connecticut, the other states you must drive through to enter New York City. The congestion pricing is a new charge on top of longstanding toll roads and bridge/tunnel tolls, so it feels like a new category and the start of something new, rather than being equated to "usage fees" as you state, at least in the minds of many drivers.
The people's intense response - from supporters to opponents - plus the media coverage and political posturing, demonstrates that it's not "simply another toll"
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.
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.
Well, yes. Once you demonstrate that a good idea works and the doom doesn't come to pass, it gets copied. It's easy to claim that something doesn't work when nobody's doing it. Making the same claims when someone nearby is doing it and it works requires a higher level of reality-denial. Now, there's a lot of reality-denial to go round in politics these days, but occasionally a good policy slips through.
I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.
This is all plainly false. Community members who are sincere about wanting to make HN better or just holding the moderators to account can easily do so. They can email us with URLs, or include URLs in their accusatory comments. Plenty of community members do that and we always take action or explain our thoughts on the matter.
Accusations like this one, without any evidence that would enable other community members to check for themselves, serve only to deflect from the accuser's own conduct, and achieve nothing but make the site worse.
If you're sincere in being concerned about the patterns you claim are so pervasive here, please cite the evidence so we can all understand what you're talking about and enable the moderators to take the appropriate action.
I maintain that the claim inflammatory content is equally treated is plainly false. I would even say that your post above serves only to deflect from your own conduct.
Case in point, just today, of what I have seen hundreds of times in just the last year:
This does not pass guidelines, this does not satisfy curiosity, I have rarely seen a warning for content like this. Sometimes it gets flagged, more often it doesn’t.
It's funny how the urban design forcing poor people to pay car insurance and auto loan, just to survive, is fine; yet charging a hundred or so to use the highly valuable space in the city is outrageous.
Concern about public order is fair. But instead of fighting for the privilege to avoid it cheaply, why not fight to actually fix it. Triple the prison population, or whatever your solution is.
Japan has a 99% conviction rate, and still has 56% of women reporting having been groped on transit.
This cannot be solved. To force women on transit is to flip a coin whether they will be assaulted. You’re not going to beat a car culture with that strategy.
I heavily doubt that New York City has the appetite for incarceration that would be necessary, for even a remote chance, to turn public transit into a merely neutral option versus a car.
What about bikes? I thought they were great too, until someone was careless with their dog and left me bleeding and weighing the probabilities of serious disease. Just like that, the dream was dead and I realized we will never escape car culture.
Cars are bad. The alternatives are too flawed and dangerous in their own ways, to have any serious chance at unseating the incumbent.
Japan is not NY and arguments based on sociatal/cultural behavior don't apply universally. Do you personally use these scary subway systems in the US that you have so many stats about?
Interesting; instead of trying to answer my statistical objection, you are now forcing me to provide anecdotal evidence; to then most likely reject it for being anecdotal evidence. Pass.
As for “it doesn’t apply universally,” that’s not an argument because almost nothing applies universally - not even a sunrise and sunset, if you’re at the North Pole. My point can still be valid in almost all metro areas.
Finally, let’s say I did use these systems (and, sometimes, I do use public transit). I’m a man, you are 90% likely here to be a man, we’re not the ones getting groped, therefore our personal opinions on the likelihood are obviously irrelevant. You should be asking your wife and your 15 year old daughter to ride for a year and rate their comfort level.
Now think real carefully why you had to jump all the way over to Japan in order to be able to make your point at all. Cherry picking at its finest. Japan is very culturally different from the West and such issues are tightly tied to that culture.
> What about bikes? I thought they were great too, until someone was careless with their dog and left me bleeding and weighing the probabilities of serious disease.
You know you can trip, fall, hit your head and die on the spot anytime you walk anywhere right? A piano can randomly fall on your head too. Nothing is 100% safe; it's unfortunate you had an accident, but that's just anecdotal evidence, which is worthless.
I can't find any source online that says felony assaults on the subway are up 9% this year. Even the Post, which is typically inclined towards hyping crime rates, reports that felony assault rates are flat this year[1]. The same source claims that major offenses have dropped 18% YoY so far.
As with so many other things about NYC, salacious stories are given a funhouse mirror effect: you wouldn't want to fill your car's gas tank next to someone who has a victim in their trunk, but that person isn't being given national news coverage like the corpse abuser was.
This Post article doesn't provide a source. Mine claims the NYPD as a source but doesn't link it either, though. It seems like only one of these can be correct: there would have to be a very large spike in felony assaults in a single month for the number to go up by 9% YoY.
The Times article doesn't mention this year's stats. Last year's were definitely worse, so it's not surprising they mention that.
The fun question of course is, are you actually safer on the road, or does it just feel safer? Which is more likely, a subway assault or a dangerous road-rage incident? There's tons of examples of road rage incidents in NYC where people have guns pulled on them or worse. But that isn't a particular visceral fear folks have (and you shouldn't!), but the likelihood of you getting shot on the subway is about the same, if not lower, than being shot elsewhere.
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 that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions.
* Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.
* You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.
(The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)
Bringing up these points when talking about improving urban transit is harmful.
These points always appear in reaction to urbanist policy and all of a sudden care about the minority transit user.
The problem is that the assigned proportion of road space is unfairly weighted to cars and is impossible to shift because people often say things like “cars make it easier to shift things around” and “some people have mobility issues”. Yes, this is true. What is also true is that people with mobility issues can more likely ride (cheaply) modified bikes than drive motor vehicles and people regularly haul heavy loads on cargo bikes (couches, refrigerators) in places where bike infrastructure makes it safe to do so.
If you care about speed in a densely populated city, you’d bike or walk. Flip it around; comfort isn’t the only reason why people prefer to use a car over walking or cycling. You said it yourself already, it’s because you can literally get hit by a car all because drivers won’t give up 1 lane out 4 for a segregated bike path that would stop you getting hit by a car.
The point of bringing this up is that you won't convince anyone to stop driving by pointing out that biking isn't slower if speed isn't the reason they drive in the first place.
If you want to convince people, you need to understand their actual motivations.
> If you want to convince people, you need to understand their actual motivations.
Yes, but if we did that we would have to deconstruct the history behind the American fixation on private automobiles and, of course, the racism and "think of the children" rhetoric that comes with it.
It's a losing battle. I can't convince people driving is more dangerous than the subway even if all the stats in the world make it plainly true. This is a culture problem, and much like every single one of America's cultural problems, it stems from hundreds of years of systemic racism. It has to be brought down slowly and deliberately.
> 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).
You're even safer in a low speed tank-to-tank accident.
Which is the direction the car size and weight war is going anyway, after all "My family is safer in a massive SUV". Well then. Who cares about everyone else anyway. People outside of vehicles should just stop being poor and get one.
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
> (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)
While true that injuries exist, halving your chance of early death is a pretty remarkable statistic, and would make me say that you are (if you are a statistically average person) much safer bike commuting than commuting by car: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-...
> 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.
> 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?
Right, we're not talking about going from 99% of zero percent. We're talking about going from 99% to 95%, which is still, decidedly, pro-car in every sense of the word. This outrage is fake.
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
Are you serious? That's a lot to type without realizing what you're saying at some point. You could not get a more backwards argument - so many cyclists have had crashes with cars, so lets have more cars. Wow.
> I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.
Your idea of "more people" is clearly still massively lopsided towards cars. You're thinking on the order of increasing the current 1% of people walking&biking to maybe 5%, whereas you should be thinking 80%+. Completely wrong mindset.
This kind of hyper-aggressive response is exactly what turns regular people off cycling.
I am a bike commuter. I biked to work for years. I fill up my gas tank about three times a year.
I'm on your side but you are so gung-ho about bikes that if I'm not as zealous as you, you think I don't even understand how "backwards" my argument is.
I never ever said there should be more cars. I said that if you want to get people out of their cars you need to understand why they are in them in the first place and speed is only a fraction of that answer.
> * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.
A simple bullet, but with many nuances buried. There is no single answer. Below are several observations. No one of these is intended to be an answer. But there are a panoply of choices a city can make that improve access and mobility for all.
Yes, and good bike/ped infra is good for them, too. Everything that makes a good bike lane (smooth pavement, wide enough for passing, minimal bumps and potholes, at grade without having to go up and down to cross streets) also makes a great place for a mobility scooters.
Not everyone uses a mobility scooter. Cities with extensive pedestrianized areas typically do not close these to deliveries, and many leave them open for pick-up/drop-off for those with mobility issues.
The items mentioned above are about stopping general car traffic either in portions of a street or on a whole street.
Not all traffic reduction necessarily means a reduction of car-navigable streets. Traffic reduction can take the form of reducing through-traffic. There are many implementation mechanisms for this. One mechanism is a modal filter, which allows through-traffic for non-motor vehicles, but prevents through-traffic for motor vehicles (side note, such filters can be constructed such that emergency vehicles can still pass through). Thus through-traffic is prevented, but door-to-door vehicle traffic is still possible.
But modal filters can make routes more circuitous. Yes. Optimizing a city does not mean optimizing just the transport infrastructure, and optimizing transport infrastructure does not mean just prioritizing a single mode above all others. That said, generally reducing traffic improves driving experience and reduces times, because there is less traffic. A more circuitous route can be made faster with sufficient traffic reduction.
But circuitous routes increase emissions. They increase emissions for those cars which make the trip, but save emissions based on all trips that are shifted to other forms of transportation. Even those marginally longer trips for the remaining cars may be emission-neutral (or at least not as bad as naively expected) based on reduced idling time and smoother travel.
Nothing above is to say cars should be banned. Just observations about design choices that are routinely made around the globe that are generally considered good urbanism and have not led to major negative outcomes. Nothing to stop you or any individual to choose a car, just design decisions that do not prioritize cars above all else.
> * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain.
Yes, so do all forms of public transit. Shelters are routine in good transit systems, and any form of metro or rail will typically have buildings or underground stations.
There is, of course, wait time for transit, which is all the more reason to optimize a system for frequent service with dedicated rights of way or grade-separation. Frequency is also one of the greatest drivers of ridership.
In urban areas it is common that a vehicle is not directly outside your front door or in a covered garage. Similarly, that parking at the destination may be some distance from the door of the destination. This is analogous to the walk to a transit station. Obviously this varies by person and situation.
Cars avoid the dwell time at a station, emphasizing the value of shelters and facilities at transit stations.
Certainly a car is more convenient than transit in inclement weather. This is not a reason to design transportation infrastructure optimizing solely for personal vehicles.
> * Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.
The vast majority of day-to-day trips do not require hauling, unless that is part of your job. Certainly, if it is part of your job, you either have such a vehicle or it is provided by your employer.
Such hauling-based jobs are vastly improved by traffic reduction measures. Less traffic means better delivery times, and more importantly, more reliable time estimates for delivery. I know of no one in logistics who would decline to trade a small fee for improved times and reliability.
For personal use cases, as I mentioned hauling is rare. For the vast majority of people, the justification of hauling is better met financially by a van or truck rental as needed than by owning and maintaining a vehicle full time.
To be 100% clear, I am not saying, "you should not have a car, because vans are good at hauling." I am saying that "I occasionally need to haul things, so I need a car" is a specious argument. I am not saying you or anyone else should not have a car. I am simply pointing out that "occasional hauling" is not a good reason to own a car. If you want a car, have a car! If someone else wants a car, let them have a car! If you value the convenience of using your own vehicle for hauling at a per-use rate that is a large multiple of the rate of renting a van/truck, that is your own value judgment and you are welcome to it.
This is simply an observation that for the vast majority of people, the financial analysis suggests not a car, but a van/truck rental for hauling purposes. If you are not part of this majority, then please recognized that I am not trying to say that you are.
Hauling is a totally valid use case for vehicles and I've never seen anyone make an argument that the transportation of goods and stuff should be forbidden. Certainly I hope no one interprets my statements above as such an argument. The need to transport things, again, is not a good reason to build an entire transportation system in a city to optimize always for personal vehicles.
Again, a very common feature of reduced traffic, and even traffic-forbidden areas in cities is that they are close to most traffic, but still allow deliveries and mobility assistance vehicles.
And also, again, a reduction in traffic is a boon for those use cases.
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
And you are much safer not having an accident in the first place. If we want to observe the world, there are cities that have done a great job at reducing all vehicle related fatalities and injuries: those injuries to drivers and passengers in any vehicle involved, and also those injuries to anyone outside of the vehicle.
There are two commonalities in these cities: 1) they have many viable options for transportation, including high quality bike infra, pedestrian areas, trains, buses, metros, trams, and personal vehicles; and 2) they reduce traffic and speed in all areas where personal vehicles are potentially in conflict with other forms of transportation.
You'll recognize in the first point the same refrain I have been repeating: optimizing a transportation system does not mean optimizing primarily on just one mode of transit. It's not about forcing one mode or banning another. It is about options. There is a near universal observation about transit times within and into/out of urban areas that the time for car travel tends toward the time for public transit. This is generally understood to be because humans optimize their transport, and if one option is faster or more convenient, enough people choose that until it is not.
The second thing those cities do, though, is the leading cause for the reduction in accident frequency, lethality, and severity of injury: the reduction in traffic quantity and speed.
The road-street distinction is very important here. If you are not familiar with it, the distinction is this: roads are high speed connections between places, optimizing for vehicle throughput; streets are complex environments where a wide assortment of destinations are, where living is done, businesses exist, and the general activities of life and city happen. If you want more detail, this video is a good primer (linked to a relevant portion: https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM?t=536); the video is coming from a very strong place of opinion. I am not asking you to accept all the opinions, but am simply sharing the video, because it provides lots of good real-world examples in laying out the distinction.
It is essential that, within a city, there are affordances for people out of cars and people in cars. This is simple reality. If we recognize this reality, and we understand that humans are imperfect and prone to failure, then the conclusion is that if we want to reduce the injuries and deaths associated with traffic, we must build systems that tend toward this outcome. The practical implementations of such systems that are proven to be effective in achieving this outcome are:
1. separate through-traffic
2. ensure mixed-mode areas force low volumes and speeds of cars
The first is by designing transportation networks that force through-traffic to roads designed for it.
The second takes many forms, generally known as traffic calming. I have mentioned a few already. You can search for more. The other side of this is recognizing that cities are for people (the people in the cars and the people out of the cars, though at some points the people in the cars become people out of cars). There must be areas where people want to go. And those areas where people are must minimize the risk of negative interactions with vehicles. Again, traffic calming and pedestrianizing.
Regarding injury: the most likely cause of death and severe injury for a shockingly wide swath of adults in the US is a car accident, whether in the car or out of it. I do not make this as an argument against cars. I make this as an argument for design of car infrastructure in ways that makes me safer regardless of which side of the steel I am on.
I wonder in NYC if elevated bike trails could be built economically that separate bikes from cars, or at least provide a "superhighway" for them. Maybe even a suspension scheme of sorts.
With e-bikes and e-scooter, I would actually argue that New York City should build underground tunnels, well, the overall goal of being able to enable these types of very efficient compact transportation to get from various parts of the major boroughs at an average speed of about 15 mph
I believe this will provide enormous livability benefits. Or you elevate the entire tunnel.
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 evenings or nights.
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.
Cars also let you carry stuff over distances that would be awkward/uncomfortable/impossible walking or cycling. They’re also more comfortable, particularly in inclement weather.
I’d absolutely love if I could get away with having no car. I can’t. My life would be markedly, instantly, and demonstrably worse. I feel like a lot of people in the “no cars” camp neglect these issues.
The centre is much more pleasant to walk in, as are most places in the zone.
Pollution is much, much better: if you came to London and travelled on the underground you would have black snot when you blew your nose, this hasn't been the case for a few years now.
London has changed for the better for sure but black snot on the tube hasn't changed at all. I get it from 20 minutes on any deep line like the Victoria. It's from train brake dust, nothing to do with vehicle emissions.
Victoria might be one of the worst for this. You can hear the wheels screaming the abrasion off for long sections of it. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Piccadilly gets better for you when the new trains arrive over the next couple of years.
Because of how old they are there is some really interesting long term data as the earth itself around the tunnels reaches a new thermal equilibrium. In looking for a source, i found a good wikipedia article on tube temp in general.
These comments and the article made me see how much of it is/was due to braking. TIL.
Travel of low-income people also declined significantly while high-income travel did not. So quite literally the London congestion pricing got the poor off the zones.
From the report: "the highest income earners contributed to more of the revenue than the lowest income earners, making the scheme progressive in the scale of its equity impact"
It is quite likely that the lower income users are mostly retired people, and students, and they shouldn't be crowding the system at peak times unless willing to pay.
If you price out low-income people, you do get relatively more revenue from high-income earners. But the low-income people also get less service.
The non-charge eligible trips of the low earners declined as well. The paper did not differentiate between sources of income, and I'm not sure how relevant that is.
So the "poor off the zones" stands. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether this is desirable or not.
How would limiting access by adding a cost not obviously impact people differently based on their income? I'm struggling to see why this would even need to be verified by research.
What's not obvious is how strong the impact is, does it cause substitution of travel modes or just decrease in travel, how does it change when travel takes place, what share of people are those who still have to drive etc.
In general cost, travel time, difficulty of parking, etc. all affect optional travel. (And, also, just age and inclination.) I know I'm way less inclined to go into Boston/Cambridge for something in the evening for some combination of those reasons than I used to be. I can take commuter rail in for a day event but it's pretty much a non-starter for something in the evening.
As someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car.
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.
I live in Chicago and use a cargo ebike with a child seat for probably 90% of my trips. I can take my kid to school, go shopping, and go to my office on my bike, often quicker than if I were to take a car.
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.
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.
The bigger problem in the winter is the drivers get even crazier and the roads can occasionally get icy.
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.
You can live in an urban neighborhood and only use your car a few times a week (mostly on weekends and for yearly kid doctor visits). Its not just Manhattan, Seattle supports this as well (well, you still "need" a car, but you can get away with not driving it very often). You need to be strategic about where you live (e.g. buying the house 7 minutes away from your kid's K-8 and 10 minutes away from his future 9-12, with grocery stores and dentists nearby).
Seattle is weird in that drive til you qualify is not a thing unless you start getting really far out. Some inner ring neighborhoods and suburbs are comparable or more expensive than the core.
If you want to head straight south or straight north you won’t have to go further out than 1 hour before rents and property values fall significantly from city center Seattle. Tacoma is 30 minutes away without traffic and has a median home price 40% less than Seattle. Drive till you qualify is real.
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.
With traffic, Tacoma isn’t very viable. Also I have a relative who commuted to his job in Tacoma from…west Seattle (granted they bought in the late 80s). It was an easy reverse commute (so close to actually 30 minutes?), going the other way is hard and you can only win with the train (sounder) or maybe bus. Link is making its way down to federal way soon (or already?) but that assumes you work near a station or it quickly becomes not competitive with driving.
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.
It depends how often you need to show up at the office. Honestly, if you live near the dock and work downtown, and only need to show up 2 days a week, it can work. Otherwise it sounds like too much if a hassle to me..
Yeah, it varies in a lot of cities. I live about an hour (given not a lot of traffic--hah!) west of Boston and the real estate prices aren't cheap but not crazy. A lot of the tech industry was out that way anyway historically until pharma and outposts of west coast companies took over Kendall Square. But certainly a lot of the coastal towns north and south of the city are pretty pricey.
Yeah, the Eastside is a real estate hellscape. Everything east of Lake Washington till highway 203/18 is genuinely quite bad. I had cheaper rent on top of Queen Anne, 1 block from the Trader Joe's, than any place of comparable walk/transit on the east side ($2065/month for a 2 bedroom 1.75 bathroom apartment+1 parking place, ~950sq/ft).
Why stop at WA-18, though? I-90 is wide and not particularly busy past that point even at peak times, so you can easily get to North Bend in only a few more minutes.
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.
Really curious what would amount to 1.75 bathroom, I'm unfamiliar with the concept. One full bathroom and a second with just a a toilet/sink combination?
You make a tradeoff. You are still going to plop down $1 million for a home unless you live way out there, but instead of a 2000 foot SFH in Bothell or Lynwood, you make do with a 1250 foot townhome in Ballard (same price, less property taxes, more urban). Ballard isn't exactly Capitol Hill or Queen Anne either (we thought about Magnolia just across the locks, but it made me think that I would at least need an electric cargo bike to make most days work without a car).
Totally agree. I'm renting on the eastside at the moment, but places like Ballard and Magnolia are on my list of places to look to buy for the very reasons you mentioned. Having more space in these exurbs is "nice", but you pay the time tax every time you want to do something.
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).
You probably wouldn't be upside down in south Seattle, just maybe not that happy. But if you don't have kids, Georgetown is (or at least was) the hip area to be in ATM.
> You need to be strategic about where you live (e.g. buying the house ...
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.)
You aren’t exactly going to find an SFH in the suburbs that is much cheaper. So you have a point, but you have to choose between an SFH, a similar priced townhome (basically an SFH without a yard), or a condo with an HOA, all basically unaffordable unless you want to commute from Kent or Marysville. Seattle still has density (the townhome I live in in Ballard is one of three that used to be one SFH).
Self-driving cars are going to turn America's car-centric "hellscape" into a superpower with untold second order benefits.
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.
Self-driving cars are the magic pixie dust of transportation planning, brought out to justify noninvestment in public transit.
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.
China is going to reap more benefits from self driving cars, but they also have (in many cities at least) mass transit in place to truly do multi-modal trips (self driving cars at the end tips of subway rides).
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).
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I just got back from Beijing and long journeys across the city in a taxi...they aren't really feasible. Yes, comfortable, but no, the traffic is still really really bad. Subway is much quicker, but the routes are often indirect and require one or two changes, but at least you know you'll get where you need to go.
If you ride the subway enough in Beijing or Shanghai, eventually you will come to the conclusion that both cities are just way too big. No matter how many subways that you build, getting from one place to another takes a minimum of 45 mins (including some walking on both ends). New York, London, Seoul, and Tokyo all suffer from similar problems -- giant metro systems, but these cities are huge.
At least you can often sit down in Tokyo if you aren't traveling on peak. In Beijing, you never get to sit unless you are clever about your route (e.g. taking the line 10 the long way around when going to West Beijing, rather than transferring to line 1 in guomao). A 1 hour+ trip standing feels a lot longer than 1 hour.
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.
That’s why you often end up with ‘cities within a city’ (ala wards, boroughs, districts, etc) and in those cases it’s easier to mentally model the overall city more like a small state.
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.
> As someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car.
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...
We bought a very fancy and expensive 2 toddler stroller when we had two toddlers and it saw almost no use because it was a hassle pretty much everywhere. I advise all new parents to avoid purchasing one until there's a proven need, and I don't know any other parents that thought it was a good idea to purchase one. I'm sure it's great for some kids, but certainly not mine or even most kids. I honestly don't understand the use case for it except for nap-time strolls around the neighborhood (and how often do they both sleep at the same time?) or maybe amusement parks when there's 3+ hours on your feet.
My twins spent several hours in their stroller (bugaboo donkey) on many days, back when they were toddlers (a lot of that time being spent having their afternoon nap in the stroller). Living in Sydney Australia. Similar car-centric problems to most US cities. But I guess we're lucky to live walking distance from parks, supermarkets, childcare centres (and now school), and a train station. And the stroller fitted folded-up in the boot (aka trunk) of our (small hatchback!) car. And our train station (and our most common destination stations) has a lift (aka elevator - Sydney has successfully been rolling out a project [1] to install lifts in more and more of its ageing train stations over the past decade). I couldn't imagine having managed, back then, without a 2-toddler stroller.
The donkey is an amazing stroller. We also used a double decker trike with larger wheels, worked very well. Can’t remember the exact model, unfortunately.
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.
I did that it wasn't so bad. Definitely preferable to not finishing work because you need to drive one kid to gymnastics and the other one to jiu jitsu
How great then that a large injection of revenue from the congestion pricing is coming to help add disability accommodation to the subway stations in NYC.
When I can, I always take the stairs. It's usually vacant, while the escalator is packed.
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.
>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.
A friend of mine when I worked at Boeing advised me to always take the elevator, because one is only allocated so many heartbeats, and he wanted to conserve his.
That line of logic to me was always just absolute wild.
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.
The nyc subway is incompetent at building and has been for decades. But since nobody cares they get buy with ignoring disability and calling it hard even though cities around the world with things just as hard have managed. Those other cities have also done subway expantion is much harder situations at far less cost.
My little kids looove transit. We take the bus all the time in my small town. We visit San Francisco almost weekly it's how we get around after parking. And we usually start our day in SOMA, an area that is not the nicest. We also frequently take the new central subway. I have not experienced a nightmare yet. Maybe Manhattan is more of a nightmare.
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.
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.
It depends on the age of the kids - if the kids can effectively self ambulate (8+ is usually old enough to have the stamina for a lengthy trip on public transit), then your options aren’t super limited by dealing with them.
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.
Having a dinky appartment that is still expensive is not worth it unless you’re young and don’t have kids and want to be around everything you care about. Or you’re rich and don’t mind paying a fortune to live in a nicer appartment in Manhattan. If I had the money I would still prefer something outside Manhattan just to be able to avoid the noise pollution, the crowds and all that Manhattan commotion.
You’re really claiming that a congested street isn’t meaningfully more noisy than an uncongested one, including in terms of frequency and duration of horns and sirens?
More noisy? Of course. But even in nice places like Chelsea - at 2am when there are no cars or congestion at all - the cops/ambulances and garbage trucks have no problem being incredibly noisy.
Without cars, emergency vehicles could have their sirens at 10% of the volume. Garbage trucks and busses are slowly being replaced by electric versions which are much quieter.
Yes. I live in a small city. Along a moderately busy avenue with speeds around 25 mph, it’s hard to carry a conversation. 30 feet down a side street, totally different story.
Almost 60% of US households have no kids in them [1]. We can infer demand for Manhattan housing stock by vacancy rates and rent levels [2] [3] [4] [5].
This statistic looks really bad but a large number of subway stations are very close to each other, so it's rather easy to find an alternative accessible station somewhat nearby in many cases (especially in Manhattan)
When the MTA prioritizes accessibility projects they take this into consideration and prioritize stations that have few options for alternatives.
The NYC buses require you to take the kid(s) out of the pram and fold it up. A total PITA
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...
NYC parents already know this and have strollers that fold up to backpack size. The stroller market has progressed incredibly in recent years, there are strollers designed to fold with only one hand.
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.
I also think it’s funny that people bring up NYC transit accessibility statistics when it’s not like the cars that people are forced to drive in just about every other city are accessible.
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.
I'm already imagining what kind of arguments you are preparing. Kids are infinitely better off somewhere they can just bike places with their friends, compared to a car-centric hellhole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
I hated feeling completely stranded as a kid since nothing was accessible by foot or PT. Even today visiting my parents outer suburban house feels like being dumped on an island.
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.
Yeah, most of us have no idea how bad we have it until we live somewhere where it's different.
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.
A meaningless statement unless you've tried a reasonable number of alternatives. As it is, you're just stating that you've grown accustomed to what your environment forces you to do, e.g. "I like breathing air". Good for you, but not relevant.
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.
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.
Whether there will be net increase in these investments remains to be seen. Even if the revenue does get into these investments, there's no reason it can't be offset by reduction in e.g. tax revenue investment, or even a tax cut. There's also no reason why investment couldn't be done without the congestion charge revenue.
> public transit and bike paths are excellent for those who can't
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.
Yes, this is absolutely more than vindication. If you pay a toll and then become stuck in traffic on that toll road, you are a victim of highway robbery. The fact that NYC traffic is flowing fulfills our simple toll contract and makes everyone whole.
Oh well then. Either spend less on the train (also saving money on gas and maintenance) or stay in suburbia. We pay a premium to live in the city, much more than the $9 so I’m not gonna shed any tears that it’s not much less convenient for someone to not drive
Driving is almost always more convenient on many levels, so it’s not really the best argument start from “it’s just easier”
The best decision would be to completely forbid individual transport. Now the common space dedicated to streets is for who can pay extra. Forbid individual transport and create some parks and pedestrian streets.
These threads tend to devolve into, "Americans are so unsophisticated everyone else in the world is banning cars and turning downtown into walkable utopia" but what they really mean by rest of the world is a few crowded European cities. If you look at all the new rich mega cities built in the Middle East and East Asia cars continue to exist alongside good public transit as aspirational status icons and the preferred means of transit for people who can afford them. Cars are never going away.
There are plenty of cars in Paris and London. It just feels as though people walking are a priority more than they are in NYC. Cars feel compelled more often outside of NYC, where they also block intersections and park next to crosswalks and block visibility.
It works really well in quite a few other cities, actually.
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.
How do you get all the food in? Manhattan is an island. Without constant food deliveries by truck it will die. This food is delivered to countless restaurants and grocery stores, not to some central warehouse, so delivery by train doesn't work.
A few pedestrian streets or blocks might be worth doing, banning all private vehicles from the entire downtown probably not going to happen or be well received if tried.
this is worth thinking about. The idea that the small toll charge actually pays for the streets it covers is flat out untrue. The citizens of the US vastly subsidize the streets and roads of the country. Just purchasing the land used for roads in Manhattan would cost a massive fortune and the people paying taxes in the US have and are paying for it. Not to mention the cost of maintaining the roads (physical infra) and policing the roads. So if NY put the land to more productive use and didn't have to maintain the roads I think they could save a lot of money.
we still need roads for ambulances and deliveries and bikes and shared cars / busses, and there obviously would be enormous costs to peoples time for what already is one of the biggest cities in the world.
If I live in a NYC like this how do I visit my friends in Philadelphia? What if they live in Towson MD? Now what if they live in the suburbs? How would I visit anybody in the country side anywhere? What if I want to buy in bulk at Costco? What if I just want to buy anything I can't carry on the subway?
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.
Funnily enough there is a Costco in NYC, in Astoria (Queens) decently close to Manhattan. You can take the ferry there from Manhattan, or the subway, or busses, or bike there even, or heck just take an uber if you bought a lot of stuff.
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.
You get a train or bus to the nearest stop to your friends and they come and pick you up. This is what city dwellers in countries with developed infrastructure are used to.
Alternatively, you rent a car from a car sharing service for the few times a year you want to do this.
This is crazy. Costco just exists because America is an auto addicted society. In sane places you can make multiple small errands. Maybe you could even get to know some neighbors
Costco has many locations internationally. They're kind of nice in that the pizza is the same if you ever feel home sick in a country with terrible pizza.
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.
>The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
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.
Those people simply don't drive into Manhattan, parking is already $30-$40 a day, driving from Jersey means you are already paying at least a $15 toll (you can drive from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx without paying a toll). An extra $9 simply doesn't matter.
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
Again, anecdotally. This point came from a bartender in the east village, who has indeed driven into the city every day for years. Longtime locals who know where to park are not paying $30-40 (in fact that is at the high end of anywhere I've seen in Manhattan).
> Again, anecdotally. This point came from a bartender in the east village, who has indeed driven into the city every day for years.
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.
While I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning that with the huge efforts that went into quantifying this they couldn't come up with something more precise.
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).
> I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning
Why? Do you want to know something other than the second statistic?
Why the heck wouldn't I want to know what fraction of people actually subject to the new policy fall with in the group of interest?. There's nothing that says the 2% of the overall group aren't the same 15% who will be taxes. Now, obviously we know from common sense and observable reality that that's not the case but it still begs the question what the number is. Saying "85% of people in the affected area are not subject" and then "2% of the interest group city wide is subject to the policy" implies some upper and lower bound but it doesn't actually say much about what percent of those subject to the tax are subject to it.
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.
> 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.
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.
This article reminds me of the 1990s because it was a time when you believed that America was getting better all the time and that we had reason to feel hopeful.
There was a time when there were no automobiles in New York City, but there was lots of public transportation. (Ok, there were horses and the consequent manure, and the population was way smaller then. But still...)
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.
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.
The city's price control on the cost of a subway ride was a spectacular policy failure that crushed the system into decline and operators into bankruptcy.
It's nice that all those numbers are up, but it would be great also to see some metrics that attempted to measure the overall utility of the change. Something like avg time spent commuting, or really commute_time * dollars_spent_commuting^B where B is some parameter for the relative utility of time and money. Of course B is different for everyone but something like this could be attempted.
Stated another way, if they made congestion pricing $1000 instead of $15 or whatever it is, all those numbers mentioned in the article would go way way up and it would look like a smashing success. The article doesn't make any attempt to measure anything that could potentially be a downside.
I would add another metric: how are businesses doing since the change? I was walking around the city on a Wednesday evening and it was utterly eerie how empty it felt. This past weekend seemed to be the exact opposite thanks to the nice weather, but I haven't seen that level of emptiness.
I notice empty storefronts and anecdotally, I feel like there is an increasing number. I have a friend who opened a store downtown just before this happened. I don't dare ask yet, but I can't see it being a benefit for small businesses.
Empty storefronts in lower Manhattan have become more prevalent especially as Walgreens has been downsizing their Duane Reade locations and banks have reduced branch numbers. Historically I've heard that landlords try to hold out for high rent paying large corporations but in the past few years there are less and less of those tenants. Also I'm sure it's tied to the 10 year lease renewal/rent increase cycle.
Anecdotally, I notice a lot more foot traffic in Fidi than last year and far less traffic when I do need to take a taxi or uber. It seems like greater foot traffic would be a benefit for your friend's store unless it's a destination store that sells large products (furniture/appliances/etc).
The cool thing about congestion pricing is that you can still keep a car in Manhattan for free as long as you don’t leave the congestion zone.
Keeping a car in Manhattan is the closest thing to having superpowers most will ever experience - and I’m sure with congestion pricing the equation is even better.
What exactly is the superpower here? Having a large chunk of steel you need to micro manage the location of, or pay up the nose to have a dedicated space for?
Have you ever ridden a bike? Taken the subway? Heck, you can just use a taxi to get around. Why would you want to deal with having a car in somewhere like Manhattan? Do you hate your fellow citizens so much you need to be constantly insulated from society?
The only issue with this tax is that I doubt MTA is capable of putting new revenue to good use.
Effectively we added a barrier to travel (this IS a tax), with some positive externalities for some people (including me), but whether that tax revenue will be deployed well is doubtful given MTA track record.
(Yes, it was/is underfunded; but also somehow everything is 10x of what it “supposed” to cost)
Everything tends to optimize to benefit the rich. Just like tax incentives on expensive electric vehicles.
Of course every other metric section is beaming but the one about affecting lower income is "it's too early to tell".
It's not fair economics or policy making if it always skews one way. It's like "carbon tax to force people not to fly or move, while elite private planes are essential".
I think you have a distorted sense of what fairness is. Charging the same price to the rich that you charge to the poor for the same service is fair. Charging different prices would be unfair.
Charity/philanthropy is a good thing, because human life is inherently valuable, but it's not a matter of fairness. People don't have an inherent right to benefit from the labor or ingenuity of others.
> think you have a distorted sense of what fairness is. Charging the same price to the rich that you charge to the poor for the same service is fair. Charging different prices would be unfair.
Nice strawman. No. Charging for something that changes behavior in the poor but not in the rich because it's an exclusinary device is definitely not fair. I also didn't suggest different prices but simply not doing exclusion via money or taxation, which doesn't affect the rich.
> Charity/philanthropy is a good thing, because human life is inherently valuable, but it's not a matter of fairness. People don't have an inherent right to benefit from the labor or ingenuity of others.
What are you on about? I'm sorry to tell you but the likes of corporate magnates and rich politicians don't create more value just bend the rules to stay on top. It's easy to throw money at things to create more money when you have it. When you can put your capital in a tax haven and the rubble pays it in full.
Next time you come with inspired strawmen takes, prep a bit.
Great comment from that video: "When cars were banned from Central Park drivers whined and now we can't imagine it any other way." Everything is impossible until it is done.
I see this with new apartment buildings in my small, NIMBY-dominated town.
Building proposed: "It will be too expensive! We need housing for those making 10% of median income, not for those making the median income!"
Building mid-construction: "This building is unbelievably ugly! How could we let this happen to our town?!"
Building completed: "This building is completely vacant! Why did we allow this to be constructed? It's just proof we should never build anything again, it's not needed."
18 months later, building fully occupied, lots of happy residents with mixed incomes: Silence, because they are too busy complaining about all the other buildings.
I heard a similar statement recently, which is that due to the nature of politics, there are decades where nothing is possible, followed by a couple of years where everything is possible, and you spend the former preparing and pushing for the work that will happen in the latter.
Crime is down, but it's been trending down since the pandemic ended. In fact, the crime rate on the subway was never very high. The few high profile cases made national news, but given the millions of daily ride, the actual odds of being victimized have always been low. Very few people who live here were ever very concerned. It's routine for kids to ride the subway alone to attend middle or high school in NYC.
I wonder if adding congestion pricing in small cities to certain intersections or stretches of road would work the same way. if people really want to go through the busiest intersections or areas, then they’re going to have to pay a little bit.
Then people question whether they are going to go through, or pay a little bit to keep up the infrastructure if they do.
I think that would have the opposite effect. Instead of most cars going through the busy intersection (which is probably busy because it's the main way to get from A to B) more cars would go through side roads to avoid the toll. And then you have more cars going through mainly residential streets.
Google Maps and Waze are already causing this without the toll. In my town, you'll always be routed down two residential, 25 mph roads to avoid the congested part of Main St.
My town combatted this by allowing free parking on the bypass on both sides. Now it is practically a single lane road and you will hate every second you spend on it if you don't live there.
It's one thing to have it for a whole downtown area, applying it to individual intersections or roads is going to be a nightmare for drivers and just generate more and more surveillance infrastructure.
Isn’t the surveillance battle already lost? For at least a couple years now? At least in Europe it feels like you’re passing a camera every couple minutes.
She delayed it by 6 months because she thought it would hurt some candidates in House elections, and then she reduced the fee by a significant amount when it did go into effect in January, but it's still working incredibly well.
I don't think it made sense either, especially because cutting the congestion pricing revenue last-second meant she had to start talking about raising taxes on the entire state instead, but that is the consensus on what she was thinking.
She delayed it by many months and lowered the fee, but eventually it went through. There was a theory that she wanted to delay it to win some contested seats in the November election, but that did not bear fruit. Now those voters still hate her, as do all the people that wanted congestion pricing. She was not well liked at the Democratic National Convention.
The reason she's not well liked is because she did absolutely nothing about probably one of the most corrupt mayors in the history of NYC.
The congestion charge is nowhere on the DNC's radar nationally. The mayor of the largest city in the country engaging in blatant quid pro quo with a president from another party, certainly is.
I'm not quite following here. What is Hochul supposed to do about Adams? The DoJ suit against Adams didn't happen until a month after the DNC. Blatant quid pro quo with a president from another party couldn't have happened until long after the DNC.
> I'm not quite following here. What is Hochul supposed to do about Adams?
Remove him from office? That's a power the governor has, and which the previous governor (Cuomo) threatened to use for petty personal disagreements with the previous mayor (DeBlasio), so actually invoking it to remove someone who has been indicted on federal charges is clearly fair game.
> The DoJ suit against Adams didn't happen until a month after the DNC.
The indictment didn't happen until the fall, but Adams had his home raided and phone seized long before that. The perjury also happened before that, I believe.
This guy is so cool, he uses the word "ratfucked"! Twice! Not just "fucked", but "ratfucked". Of course, congestion pricing was in fact implemented and remains in effect, so maybe not entirely "ratfucked"? Guess I'm not cool enough to understand. And because of his choice of words, people who are unfamiliar with this project don't even know what action(s) Kathy Hochul actually took that was/were detrimental.
My guess is that she lacks the essential political skill of reading the room. It's not like NYC is the first city to attempt congestion pricing. Anyone who has spent any time in London can see its benefits. So I think Hochul had her political focus on the wrong things.
It took a lot of time and effort to bring the stakeholders together for congestion pricing. And to withhold her approval at the last moment was shocking. It's hard to imagine what she was really thinking and even harder to understand how she felt she would be rewarded for it. That's not a real answer to your question, but her reasoning on both congestion pricing and Eric Adams just seems opaque.
Perhaps it's a social sign for being one of the NYC local. They also referred to a person by a single name, further emphasizing they were speaking to the select few who would know what they were talking about.
If only they could also write with a heavy NYC accent, their comment would be even cooler. Forget about it.
That's interesting. It must be that I associate rats with NYC. You used some terms that not everyone is familair with, I jump to the wrong conclusion, taking some guesses as to what you're talking about, and here we are.
ratfucking as a term in political context was dramatically popularized by the movie All the President’s Men, where a (historical) character describes his covert political actions thusly.
Seems to be working fine, I know the large city about 60 miles from me looked at this, and I am all for it. But its mass transit is a awful mess, at times walking is faster that taking a subway.
I wish they would start this, but its politics is such a mess nothing really gets done there. New Ideas there gets implemented far slower than then ideas in Roman Catholic Church.
Transit always seems to be kind of a chicken and egg problem. You can’t have good transit unless you have good ridership, and you can’t have good ridership if you don’t have good transit.
Everywhere I know of in the US with decent transit already had it before the culture of car dominance really took hold, so it was already good enough to maintain sufficient ridership to stay good. Does anyone know of anywhere that managed to bootstrap good public transit after the fact?
Anyway I wonder if congestion pricing could potentially be such a bootstrapping force, pushing enough people to use transit to start the virtuous cycle of increasing ridership and increasing quality.
Vancouver. The first section of SkyTrain was built in 1985 (40 years ago) well after cars had dominated the city. I couldn't find historical figures for transit mode share, but today more than 50% of all trips are made by public or active transportation, and 90% of residents live within 10 minutes of a frequent transit line.
For context, in most US cities that figure is 2-3%.
This is really interesting, thanks! I haven’t found a good summary of the history in a couple of minutes of searching. Do you know if it was just huge government investment that drove the increase? And what drove the public sentiment to want transit vs more highways or whatever?
Another fact you may find interesting because it's unique, I think, for a North American city of its size: Vancouver has no freeways.
Within city limits, there are no roads with speed limits over 50 km/h (30 mi/h), lots of traffic lights, lots of bus/bike lanes, and lots of congestion. The Trans Canada highway skirts along the side of the city but does not enter it. Things get slow, very quickly.
There are complex historic reasons behind this. Politics, activism, lack of federal funding, etc.
Thank you for the link! This potentially helps to explain the relative popularity of public transit. I’m glad at least some places saw the writing on the wall early with freeway-dominated cities.
I think Detroit is an amazing example in the US of how much a sole focus on building our highways can cripple a city for decades.
> Does anyone know of anywhere that managed to bootstrap good public transit after the fact?
Shanghai. Amsterdam up to a point - they never completely lost their transit, but it was in pretty bad shape.
> Anyway I wonder if congestion pricing could potentially be such a bootstrapping force, pushing enough people to use transit to start the virtuous cycle of increasing ridership and increasing quality.
It can help. You need improving transit and densification to happen together so they can reinforce each other, so you need coordination between transport policy and housing policy, I think that's the key.
The other good reason to choose congestion pricing as the start to breaking the chicken/egg problem is that, outside of NYC and maybe Chicago, public transit in the US is primarily buses on streets shared with car traffic. It's hard to attract ridership and improve buses when they're always stuck in car traffic, so starting by reducing traffic via congestion pricing is particularly pragmatic.
> Does anyone know of anywhere that managed to bootstrap good public transit after the fact?
Central Tokyo (inside Yamanote line) has almost no national railway lines (just one/two called Chuo between Shinjuku and Tokyo station). Most of its subways are inside central Tokyo. The second subway line didn't open until 1954. Tokyo is much later to build than London, Paris, or New York. I also think that Seoul started building trains very late.
It also wasn’t really a major city historically over the types of timeframes as London, Paris, or even New York.
Modern Tokyo is more of a ‘new’ city, and the subways were constructed along with a lot of the new construction - that central Tokyo was almost completely destroyed in the war certainly removed the friction that would otherwise have made that hard, eh?
The free market model is to built transit first. You buy cheap land somewhere and build a rail line or metro to it, so the land value increases. At the same time you develop your real estate there. That's how it began with American rail towns and it is also why Japanese rail and metro companies are also real estate investors.
LA. The rail system is about 25 years old and is pretty heavily used. Helps that some of it parallels some of the busiest bus corridors in the continent (vermont ave).
I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes. Will the cities of tomorrow regulate traffic between individual buildings?
Make no mistake, bikes are much, much, better for urban centers than cars. But the overall problem isn't cars, it's individual traffic in densely populated areas.
Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.
Public transportation, however, is naturally biased. It can be much quicker to get 10km north-south than 5km east-west, or the other way around, depending on the city. And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.)
Bikes just don't take up nearly as much space as cars and don't really block each other as much: gridlock is a problem for cars but not really for bikes. In the Netherlands there are a number of famous intersections where there are no signs nor right of way rules and people on bikes and pedestrians just pass through each other by slowing down and taking turns. These intersection rules were chosen because of the high density: individuals in them can simply deal with the conditions better than formulated timeslots for right of way that waste time while changing priority. Some of these intersections also permit cars but the number of cars in such areas is generally small or limited to buses.
There is a natural limit to how far people want to bike (in a statistical sense, as the distance increases the number of people willing to bike that far drops). The highest density ends up occurring around train stations which is a focal point for foot and bicycle traffic and necessitates large bike parking lots. Those people then switch to trains although they might pick up a bike on the other side. Some people prefer bike rental for these reasons, since when you drop off your bike someone coming the other direction can take it and you can pick up another one at the end of the train ride.
"15 minute city" is the most misinterpreted policy of our times. The idea is to try to make sure that there are enough services near enough to residential areas that short trips are possible, not to enforce this. It's just the oppposite of "simcity mode" where a huge area is zoned as only housing.
That combined with some anti-rat-run measures in Oxford (and any anti car measure ever) into outraged paranoia.
Less cars + overflowing bike lanes = hey what if we mark more of the street as being for bikes. (Possibly with an interim step of "the cyclists have already claimed pretty much the entire street for bikes".)
> Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.
I think you have causality backwards there — 15 minute cities are to make it possible to live a life where going further is rare by ensuring it is not necessary.
To quote the wikipedia page: "The 15-minute city (FMC[2] or 15mC[3]) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city."
I was born and raised in a place that matches this description: Havant, on the south coast of the UK. 15 minutes from there is the entirety of not just Havant itself, but also most of the surrounding towns and villages including the majority of Portsmouth island. A lot of the people I grew up with, never moved out of the area — but they can all travel whenever they want to.
I now live in Berlin, which is likewise. The "work" part is mostly dependent on the specific employer, and perhaps even if they're happy with WFH, because the travel time between any two randomly selected points of the city is about 45 minutes; but all the other stuff is replicated so much all around the city that I have five stand-alone supermarkets a building supplies store and two shopping malls, a couple of schools, five doctors (GP/Hausarzt), an entire hospital, some historical sites, a huge lake, a beach, several hotels, lots of woodland that's great for pleasant walks and cycling, and a few public parks within that travel time — and that despite being in one of the quiet backwater parts near the city limits.
As far as I can tell, any two places in Davis CA are within 15 minutes of each other, so for people who both live and work there, that too would be a "15 minute city".
There are a couple of places in the Netherlands with congested bike lanes, which is a great problem to have. It's crazy to imagine all those people in individual cars; we'd have reached congestion so much sooner. (Note that this is after decades of continuously improving bicycle infrastructure; basically everywhere else won't run into this problem any time soon.)
The problem isn't so much density (I think NYC is much denser), as much as it is the existence of really popular destinations; you'll see this close to some big train stations in rush hour, for example. Solutions are smarter road layout, and providing more and more attractive alternative routes, and alternative destinations (e.g. more train stations nearby).
Bike lane congestion is wholly unlike car congestion. It happens, and for busy routes, you do need affordances in the bike lanes and infrastructure.
That said, I've never missed a light cycle while bicycling, even in rush hour in major metro areas with many people on bikes. The busiest bike intersection in the world, in Copenhagen, devotes less space to bikes than most US streets devote to one lane of vehicle traffic.
Every single US city I have seen has ample space for bicycle infrastructure. Many have lots of roads with sufficient space for dedicated transit lanes, and bicycle lanes, and widened sidewalks while still maintaining space for personal vehicles.
Even if we take your hypothetical to the extreme, with only bicycles and no personal vehicles, every US city has enough space for the bike traffic on its existing streets.
> And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.)
Well, it doesn't have to be like that. Riding a bike in July is atrocious where I live, even with an electrical one. I'll end up drenched after my 20-minute commute, even though it's mostly flat.
Cars didn't use to have AC, either, now they do. Newer metro lines where I live also started having AC a few years ago. This can be improved. They also automated some lines, and we now have trains every other minute during rush hour. They're still full to the brim.
What's missing, however, is some kind of reasonable policy. But not only of the government kind.
Why do we all have to commute at the same exact time? Yeah, some people have kids and need to get them to school on time. Others need to absolutely be physically at their work place at a given time.
But huge swathes of the population are not in this situation. Why do they insist on taking the metro at the same exact time as the others? When Covid was still a thing, the government tried asking the people who could, to move their work schedules a little before or a little after rush hour, so as to lower density. Nobody cared. I had already doing this before covid: the commute was much shorter; I had ample seating available. Yet I didn't see any change after this recommendation.
It would be nice to have some kind of government policy that would force companies to prefer WFH except where it's really necessary to be in the office. Maybe some kind of tax on non-remote employees.
But US cities today actually push back against this because more people coming to work at the office from suburbs = more sales tax for the city.
People have been doing this, but the majority doesn't have this sort of flexibility[0]. Particularly any customer-facing job is going to require being there at a certain hour.
[0] Those who do typically could well be working remotely instead.
I think it doesn't need to be a majority for the situation to be a net improvement.
Among my colleagues (~20 people) nobody has a customer-facing job, and only one needs to manage children. The others either don't have kids at all, or the kids are old enough to manage on their own. They all come in the office around 9:30 AM. We rarely schedule meetings before 10 AM and after 5 PM. I'm pretty sure that if even 10% of the people would change their schedules a bit, comfort would improve for everybody. It's the same thing with lunch. Everybody goes down at 1 PM on the dot and complains about there being too many people. I go around 12:30 and never have to wait in line for ages.
Of course, WFH would be even better, but I understand not all people like it. The company I work for is actually quite flexible, but the people do tend to prefer working from the office. I, personally, prefer WFH (which is what I do generally). But my point isn't to push a particular working arrangement, rather to point out that even when there is some inherent flexibility in the system, people seem to choose not to use it.
I get your point, but mine is that transit isn't all that bad. For my needs, it works better than private transportation. I don't have space to store a bike at work nor at home, and theft is rampant where I live. Bike sharing is nice, but it can be hit and miss, especially if you need to get somewhere at a specific time. I also sometimes like to grab a drink with colleagues after work and would rather not ride a bike afterwards.
I'm not saying there should only be transit and no bikes. I think each means has its own merits, but my point is that these should be improved such that we can take full advantage of them. Just like bikes require infrastructure, or else they're much too dangerous, so do trains require maintenance and being kept up to date, or else they're a PITA to use.
The other problem with public transport is anyone wanting to go from, say, the northeast to the southeast outskirts of a city. Public transport will tend to take everyone via the centre whereas a direct route would be much shorter.
That’s a problem if the public transit system is solely geared towards sending people to the center. As a counter example there are lines in Tokyo that take different paths, like JR Musashino and Nambu lines, which do a big arc in the outskirts, or the Tokyu Oimachi Line, that does a line through southern suburbs, to name a few. Buses also fill in connections between lines that lack a direct rail connection (or you can go with scooter/bike shares)
The skew you mention for mass transit exists for individual vehicles too. In New York it's baked in that the avenues, running north-south, are wider than the east-west streets and have longer greens at intersections.
The 15-minute city idea is now a real trigger issue. It's originally urban planning concept so I understand it's more about design the city in such a way that you /can/ live most of your life within a 15mins journey rather than assuming that's already the case (or worse as some conspiracy theories assume).
> I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes.
I mean, there's only so much more dense you can make Manhattan.
> Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.
... Eh? Which country is that? Like, in any city with any sort of mass transit system, that is presumably not any sort of policy, because the mass transit system is explicitly for going to places that you can't easily get to. The idea with the "15 minute city" thing is that you don't _need_ to travel far from home for essentials, not that you don't travel far from home. Like, I live within 15 minute walk of all essentials, but I often go places which are further away.
We already do. It’s called the value of your time. If there’s too much traffic, chose another route. We don’t need more tech shit trying to improve mobility when the solution is clear- fewer cars, more mass transit (and not hyperloop crap)
NYC is an extreme outlier. The city itself is older than America, older than the British colonies even. It was built by the Dutch. It's infrastructure is closer to Tokyo's[0] than any other American city. Congestion charge works in NYC because anyone driving solo into Manhattan is either an idiot or a cop[1].
In any other city, congestion charge would be an effective tax on mobility, because every other city is so comically car-dependent. You might as well just raise the gas tax. Most cities don't even have a downtown to protect from cars, they're just suburban sprawl forever.
The actually radical solution for places outside the Tri-State Area is as follows:
- Ban mixed streets and highways ("stroads"). That is, any road in the network must either be built to exclusively service local properties, or carry high-speed thru traffic, not both. Existing stroads must be segmented into feeder streets and high-speed roads with ramp lanes on and off.
- Level the zoning code. Allow mixed commercial everywhere, get rid of lawn setbacks, and allow up to four story buildings basically anywhere the soil won't collapse from it. The only limitations to this policy should be to prevent existing tenants from being renovicted immediately.
- Require all new streets above the speed limit for (formerly) residential zoned streets have dedicated lanes for bikes and transit vehicles. The lanes must be segmented for safety. The transit lanes can start off as BRT and then get upgraded to LRT cheaply. If you don't want to run a BRT system then rent the lanes to private transit companies.
I'm not sure how any of this would play in the motosexual parts of America, though. Even nominally blue states like California would shit themselves if you tried to even slightly inconvenience car owners.
[0] To be clear, Tokyo as we know it today was basically rebuilt by America after we leveled it with firebombs. It was specifically built in the image of Manhattan.
[1] I can imagine several reasons why NYPD cops might not want to take public transit which I won't elaborate further on here.
> In any other city, congestion charge would be an effective tax on mobility, because every other city is so comically car-dependent. You might as well just raise the gas tax. Most cities don't even have a downtown to protect from cars, they're just suburban sprawl forever.
Nah. Almost any city built pre-motor-car has a decent downtown that can make for a starting point. And these things grow when policy supports them.
> Existing stroads must be segmented into feeder streets and high-speed roads with ramp lanes on and off.
Nah, this would just result in a wave of urban highway building that also drained transit budgets.
The way forward is to make street parking permit-only, give permits to existing but not new residents, and allow development. Do that and the rest will sort itself out.
> - Require all new streets above the speed limit for (formerly) residential zoned streets have dedicated lanes for bikes and transit vehicles. The lanes must be segmented for safety. The transit lanes can start off as BRT and then get upgraded to LRT cheaply. If you don't want to run a BRT system then rent the lanes to private transit companies.
BRT is a spook that has never worked (or rather it's worked very well in diverting transit efforts and stopping effective transit).
> To be clear, Tokyo as we know it today was basically rebuilt by America after we leveled it with firebombs. It was specifically built in the image of Manhattan.
I tried to research this topic. I cannot find anything about it. Can you share some sources? Tokyo was mostly low-rise until the 1990s, except some small areas in Otemachi (near Tokyo station) and Shinjuku.
Cars are only harmful in dense cities. They work just fine everywhere else. For example in small cities kids can play in the road without fear of cars. It's only in dense cities where they can not.
Dense cities are also the only places where public transit works, so it kind of balances out.
> This is just a small example.
New York city is a small example? New York city is the largest city in the US, and pretty much the ONLY city where you can do this. And the mediocre results (10% is very little) from even NYC show that this will not even come close to working anywhere else.
I live in a low density city and my neighbors are constantly complaining about how fast cars speed by and how it makes it unsafe for their kids.
Dense cities are too congested for speeds to get that high. As an example, I felt safer biking in downtown San Francisco than I do on the country roads near me because people are constantly speeding and on their phones.
Part of this is the politicization of some of these issues. I previously lived on the outskirts of the suburbs and when I would bike out into the country I would receive a lot of hostility from dudes in big trucks that called me names as they drove by. Anecdotally, this seemed to happen way more frequently in the last two or three years.
The converse is how helpful cars are. It allows people to have the ability commute from areas they live at to where they work. It brings down the cost of living by expanding the commute availability circle, instead of driving up land values for the desirable areas.
Expanding the commute availability circle does not increase the supply of housing, because people build sparser neighborhoods with larger lawns. If you want to increase the supply of housing, you need higher density, not longer distance.
What longer distance does is make the closer areas more valuable, because people will pay $$$ for a shorter commute. And for those who can't afford the closer housing, they get to pay $$ on a car and gas instead.
Cars are only helpful in exactly two scenarios:
1. You live in a remote rural area where any sort of transit infrastructure is comically infeasible. 99% of the people posting here do not quality for this.
2. You live in a city so maliciously planned out that living without a car is unthinkable and that any other option to get to where you're going is not available.
I use the word "malicious" because the gutting of American cities' transit infrastructure was a deliberate act by American car companies giving their competition the mafia bust-out treatment.
> Expanding the commute availability circle does not increase the supply of housing, because people build sparser neighborhoods with larger lawns.
This is not true. It is true in some circumstances, but definitely not in all. The fact that it’s presented as absolute fact hurts the point you’re trying to make imo.
In my region of the world they enable having any sort of housing at all. Plenty of people don't have the credit score to buy anything livable within city limits, so they resort to buying apartments in the suburbs and small, adjacent cities.
Public transport hasn't caught up because these places developed too fast and even though their inhabitants live and pay taxes there, the businesses they work for don't, so the tax base is all the lower due to that.
Your point is valid, but the lack of affordable housing in your city is most likely due to the lifestyles that cars allow us to live. Single family homes and parking lots as far as the eye can see.
Nope. More like commie blocks as far as the eye can see, as it's in eastern EU.
I moved out BTW, because I figured that being able to afford at most a 1-bedroom, 55m2 apartment as a software engineer is a deal I'm not willing to take.
Real estate has been going up in price all over the world in the past decade and it doesn't matter if it's apartment blocks or detached homes.
My new place is a city 40% the size and far from there, but my friends by and large drove until they qualified. Typically less than 30km, but that's already a 1h commute by car.
I feel like its often people talking past each other.
I currently live in NYC and am very congestion pricing. Cars are a major negative to most people in the city.
But I have also lived in rural parts of America. Yes, it is annoying you can't walk to a corner store, but cars are not that big of a deal. You can bike or run in the streets without concern that cars will come by. And housing is so cheap it makes it so worth it.
If public transit even remotely resembled anything in China or Japan, Americans would ditch their cars in a heartbeat. But every train ride I've been on to Manhattan is like commuting through an open sewer while being harassed by strangers doing an obnoxious dance with a bluetooth speaker in my face, dodging puddles of urine, and wondering if today's the day I'll be thrown off the platform.
Of course people would rather commute in a gas guzzling SUV. I don't even know how it's controversial. It must be a form of Stockholm syndrome to think that this would be attractive to any normally adjusted human being.
I’ve taken the train a lot in and around NYC, including a ton of subway trips. While the experience you’re describing is certainly not so rare as to be nonexistent, it’s also far from the norm. The large, large majority of subway rides I’ve taken (99% at least) were complete non-events. Perhaps you’re unlucky?
1. A <1% risk of loss, if catastrophic (e.g. thrown off the platform into an oncoming train), is unacceptable to bear, when there exist alternatives.
1b. Of course, people get in car accidents all the time. However, rightly or wrongly, people feel more in control when they're driving compared to when they're using public transit (or similarly, taking a commercial flight), which makes them feel better about it. And there is some element of sense here: accidents do not occur evenly among the population, because some drivers are better and more alert than others.
2. If you're traveling with small children, the various (however rare it may be) unpleasantries of NYC public transit become an order of magnitude more unpleasant.
3. There certainly is an element of Stockholm syndrome among NYC transit users, in that other very large cities around the world with ridership comparable to NYC have very little antisocial dysfunction, but in NYC it often gets waved away as "part and parcel of living in a big city".
Not common. From what I've read, each year, 50-80 people are killed on the tracks (either by hitting trains or touching the third rail), with only a handful being caused by somebody else pushing them onto the tracks.
I didn't bring it up, a commenter above did. I was adding color in response to another commenter saying that unpleasantries experienced (of various levels) in the NYC transit system is an outlier.
You and everyone else of course has their own barometer of what is an acceptable tradeoff. I'm not trying to convince you in particular that NYC transit is a good or bad experience overall; I'm explaining why it is reasonable for someone to come to the latter conclusion.
Anyone claiming more concern about being thrown into an oncoming train than being in a serious car accident is either being disingenuous or deluded. The solution isn't to just excuse it because they feel in control. The solution is to solve their delusions.
That imagery isn't the norm, but there are dozens of annoying behaviors, smells and experiences on the subway that make the daily grind an RPG dice roll in terms of if it's not a new story you'll be telling.
Please, this is the absolute least intelligent response to anything I've read today. You do nothing to further the conversation in anything resembling an informative way.
Wouldn't it be nice if policy changes were accompanied by an A/B testing plan to evaluate their impact? I have always thought so.
I have also seen a major pitfall of A/B testing that real humans can hand-pick and slice data to make it sound as positive or negative as wanted. Nonetheless, the more data the better.
That's not an A/B test because it has no way of controlling for broader economic trends over time. How do you figure out if what you're seeing is because of that one thing that changed, or the enormous list of other things that also changed around the same time?
A more valid design would be randomly assigning some cities to institute congestion pricing, and other cities to not have it. Obviously not feasible in practice, but that's at least the kind of thing to strive toward when designing these kinds of studies.
That would be a bad design for an A/B study (and NYC congestion pricing is not a “study” anyway), because cities are few and not alike and have an enormous list of other things that are different. What NYC equivalent would you pick?
In any case, not every policy change needs to be an academic exercise.
Yup, that is indeed a part of the problem. You'll notice I did say, "Obviously not feasible in practice."
I've got a textbook on field experiments that refers to these kinds of questions as FUQ - acronym for "Fundamentally Unanswerable Questions". You can collect suggestive evidence, but firmly establishing cause and effect is something you've just got to let go of.
> randomly assigning some cities to institute congestion pricing, and other cities to not have it
Cities are stupidly heterogenous. These data wouldn't be more meaningful than comparing cities with congestion pricing to those without. (And comparing them from their congestion eras.)
What you're telling me here is that you aren't aware of what the randomization is for in randomized controlled trials.
"Our treatment units are stupidly heterogeneous" is exactly the problem it solves. A century's worth of developing increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques for making do without random assignment has thus far failed to accomplish anything than provisional mitigations that are notoriously easy to use incorrectly in practice.
The real world isn't A/B tests. No government is going to spend millions on equipment and infrastructure on a congestion zone because some engineers are like "Let's just test this out. I have done zero research on what could possibly happen, but it would be fun to see what the results are."
When you write it out like that, it seems to make total sense! But then you read grant proposals that get funded - in things like the social sciences and humanities, and even conventional science and health - millions of dollars essentially just throwing darts to see what sticks.
> Wouldn't it be nice if policy changes were accompanied by an A/B testing plan to evaluate their impact? I have always thought so. I have also seen a major pitfall of A/B testing that real humans can hand-pick and slice data to make it sound as positive or negative as wanted. Nonetheless, the more data the better.
Policies have different effects depending on how likely people judge them to be long-term changes. Construction along a route will cause people to temporarily use alternative forms of transportation, but not e.g. sell their car or buy a long-term bus pass.
Yes, the inability to know counterfactuals will make judging policies more subjective than we might like. The closest we get to A/B testing is when different jurisdictions adopt substantially similar policies at different times. For example, this was done to judge improvements from phasing out leaded-gasoline, since it was done at different times and rates in different areas.
Unfortunately, the possibility exists that the moment of introducing the A/B test requirement will be strategically chosen to freeze the status quo in the way the chooser prefers.
unfortunately, building a second NYC for the purposes of A/B testing isn't feasible.
but we have before and after data to compare - that's what this article is about. and the congestion pricing plan included requirements to publish data specifically for the purposes of comparison between last year and this year.
“A/B in time” suffers from inability to control for other factors that might vary over time. In this case, that could be the economy or other transit policies.
Generally, that's considered to introduce counfounding factors on the time axis ("did we see improvement because we changed something or because flu season hit and people stayed home") that you'd prefer to mitigate by running your A and B simultaneously.
But in the absence of the ability to run them simultaneously, "A is before and B is after" can be a fine proxy. Of course, if B is worse, it'd be nice if you could only subject, say, 5% of your population to it before you just slam the slider to 100% and hit everyone with it.
yes, but how the hell he proposes to make A/B testing of "whole Manhattan policy"?
build another Manhattan just for test? makes no sense. whole manhattan is important. not 5%. so no 5%. a/b test can be done only for things which affect one person, like for example GUI etc, big group under test but effect on individuals,
in such big scale a/b test is tool to deceive, not to get to right conclusion
It is, indeed, much easier to do A/B testing online in environments you control than IRL.
(Purely hypothetically: one could identify 10% of the island as operating under the new rules and compare outcomes. This is politically fraught on multiple levels and also gives messy spatial results.)
"before" and "after" introduces a large axis of noise
The problem is that for A/B testing to really work you need independent groups outcomes. As soon as there is any bias in group selection or cross group effect it's very hard to unpick.
My pregnant wife was hit yesterday in SoHo in broad daylight by a delivery driver on an e-bike. He ran a redlight. He hit her in a crosswalk. She was wearing a bright orange dress. She was not on a phone or listening to music. She went flying ass over teakettle. We spent 6 hours in the ER yesterday evening to make sure our unborn baby was okay. Fortunately, everyone is OK despite her being banged up.
The goddamn lawlessness of electric bikes is a consequence of NYC implicitly encouraging their illegal use. Meanwhile, I get to pay $9 MORE to drive my licensed, registered, insured vehicle on increasingly narrow roads filled with increasingly negligent 2-wheeled asshats because it's the preferred business model.
Were that delivery driver using a car instead of a bike, then your wife would likely be dead instead of in the ER.
(At least in the US, having a driver's license is in no way, shape, or form an indication that the driver is capable of driving correctly, much less their willingness to do so.)
Perhaps if there is a no bikelanes and cyclists are bothering you on the sidewalk you should walk in the middle of the road, as the real danger is bikes, right?
Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits. Unless the speeding is bucketed, this alone is enough to skew the results to say motorists are worse than bicyclists. Remember, speeding tickets are a revenue source and the incentive is to set limits that produce revenue.
> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk - which is because of cars, and it doesn't happen when there is a bike lane
This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame-- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal and we would hold the driver accountable. Bikes, not so much.
> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.
>> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk -
> This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient
???
The dissonance is insane
Also, between cyclists and motorists, which one is always grown adults, who passed an exam to use their vehicle, and which one includes children, the mentally disabled and all of those who can't drive and their right to the road cannot be stripped away?
Whoops, I gave it away.
You can in fact blame it on cars
Actually, do you remember that the report mentioned bike lanes solve this problem? You can blame street design, too. Except if cars weren't there, you wouldn't even need the bike lanes.
> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.
And you think the average driver is qualified to make that assessment on a moment-by-moment basis?
Hell, I don't know you, but given the chances I'm gonna go ahead and say you don't know the intricacies of road design either. Most drivers do not even fully grasp the concept of line-of-sight, much less anything more complex than that. Hence, the easy to understand speed limits decided by experts.
But hey, go ahead, tell me specifically where the speed limits are commonly too low in your opinion and why.
> these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
No, "inconvenient" is e.g. what drivers find yielding to pedestrians. Riding a bike amongst cars is dangerous and unsafe.
> A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal
Speeding is illegal too, so clearly "illegal" is not the reason. It'd be unreasonably dangerous to pedestrians to operate a motor powered vehicle on a sidewalk in a way that a bicycle isn't.
> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.
This is still illegal. Blaming it on what you feel the speed limits "should" be is lame - these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
...okay, okay, that's a bit too forum-argument, but hopefully it demonstrates the contradiction here.
Further, I'd argue that, while speeding is universally a response to perceived inconvenience, sidewalk cycling can sometimes be a response to perceived safety problems, not just inconvenience.
Obviously it's still illegal and unsafe for pedestrians, but I think handwaving car-based lawbreakers and assuming their violations are justified, while also assuming the least generous intentions for cyclists... just hammers home the initial claim: people perceive car lawbreakering as forgivable when it's common and rare when it's worse, and cyclist lawbreaking as both egregious and universal, because they emphasize more with drivers than cyclists.
I have seen as many car drivers punished for running a red light as I have seen cyclists running one--zero in both cases. Enforcement of traffic laws is painfully lax.
Was absolutely not intended as an excuse for bad behaviour. I just care about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater: just because someone on an e-bike displays bad behaviour, it's still preferable to have people switch from cars to e-bikes.
Yeah, just imagine. I did. For hours yesterday evening I imagined.
Had a car killed my wife or unborn child, there would have been a legal trail and insurance.
Had the e-bike killed my wife or unborn child, there was neither. I doubt I could ever find the killer of the unborn child if the baby died later due to injuries-- there's neither license nor registration on an e-bike.
Pushing powered transportation into the unregulated, uninsured space is madness.
You would likely be unhappy if you saw the outcomes of almost all vehicle manslaughter cases. It’s the easiest way to kill someone and get away with it consequence free
Having been a juror on a civil trial against the MTA, I assure you that the New York public is perfectly willing to hold people accountable for injury.
Drunk driving was reduced over my lifetime [1] by calling attention to it (e.g. MADD), shaming the practice, lowering BAC thresholds, and increasing enforcement.
Similar approaches could be done for pedestrian injury by vehicles. Sure, it takes more time (and does not scam $9 from my pocket in the meantime) but public behavior can be changed.
The perpetrators of most vehicular homicides face little to no consequences.
You'd have to be an utter asshole (like a kid totaling three cars in a year, all going 70-100+ mph on urban streets), or the world's dumbest criminal (motorcyclist out on parole running a red, killing a pedestrian, fleeing the scene, and ditching the motorcycle in a field) for killing someone with a car to be more than a 'whoopsie daisies, at least nobody important got hurt'.
In my town, just last year, a cop running down a young woman when she had right of way in a crosswalk, while doing 74 mph in a 25 mph zone at night, with no sirens, got a $5,000 fine for it.
That's how much the life of a grad student is worth.
---
Look, I'm all for traffic enforcement, but anyone who thinks that bikes are the big problem on the road is nuts.
Reckless behaviour in traffic should be prevented, and
The same reckless behaviour is more dangerous when performed in a car. (People rarely actually get killed by an e-bike. It happens all the time with cars.)
In other forums there are lots of complaints about the NYC crackdown on e-bikes. NYC has taken steps to discourage their use. Maybe not enough, but definitely more than in most other parts of the country.
Beyond the obvious lack of registration plates, it's basic physics.
A fat guy on an e-bike is what, 100+30kg of mass? How fast do they go, maybe 35km/h (22mph) tops? That gives us the kinetic energy of roughly 6242J.
Let's compare with a silly lightweight 1,400kg car + 100kg driver moving at the same speed: 72,030J - 11 times greater.
At 50km/h (31mph) that becomes 144,907J - 23 times greater.
70km/h (43mph)? 46 times.
100km/h (62mph)? 94.
So the worst case possible for an ebike compared to the best case for a car has the car be 11 times more dangerous. More realistically, a car will be over 20 times more dangerous, with essentially infinite potential for more (do cars in cities travel at 31mph tops?).
Now, in another comment [1] you went ahead and said speed limits are set too low and mild speeding is all good and fine. Does it still seem so?
Look, I don't care if there's a spherical cow in a vacuum or a witch with a broomstick going at 0.98c, your fat guy on an e-bike can endanger people and property if he's in the street.
Whatever $OPERATOR on $CONVEYANCE at $SPEED works out to, I would hope that each jurisdiction has a vested interest in safety on their roads. Indeed, the lack of registration plates, and the lack of licensing is a huge impediment.
I find that motorists with licenses tend to obey all relevant traffic laws. They are not prone to running red lights or swerving around or otherwise operating their cars dangerously. And I attribute this behavior mostly to the fact that driving is a privilege that can be restricted or revoked.
If you fine a pedestrian for jaywalking then they can pay that fine or not. You cannot prevent a pedestrian from walking around in the street. You apparently cannot prevent people from riding bikes or scooters, either. Since there is no licensing and no "privilege" to do so, it's more or less anything-goes on the streets with such conveyances.
Nevertheless, I've been that fat guy on an electric scooter, and I'm telling you, it would not be surprising to maim or kill a vulnerable pedestrian (and my own self) if I'm going along at 17mph in the road.
Perhaps the cameras can't catch or target them, but hopefully some enforcement can be brought to bear on such dangerous activity.
It would be interesting to force eBikes to be registered which the owner then receives a number plate that must be placed on the bike. The owner would be subject to fines any rider of the bike incurs unless the bike is reported stolen so that the video is proven to be after the bike was stolen.
Gotta give those automated systems something to use
> Meanwhile, I get to pay $9 MORE to drive my licensed, registered, insured vehicle on increasingly narrow roads filled with increasingly negligent 2-wheeled asshats because it's the preferred business model.
It sounds like measures to limit the danger of electric bikes might be warranted, but that’s a separate issue. Even if electric bikes are a problem I’d be shocked if they came anywhere close to causing the pedestrian fatality rate of cars (even when controlled by frequency of use) in an urban environment, not to mentioni the additional impacts of things like emissions (including non-tailpipe), noise, space, etc. of cars. I don’t know much about motorcycle statistics. I can imagine the group that rides motorcycles might be less likely to hit pedestrians than those of e-bike riders, but I don’t know.
If we have to choose only one of these problems to tackle at a time—which we don’t!—I’d rather they tackle the one which is killing hundreds of people a year.
In London it is now just a toll. It started off at just the busiest times but now you need to pay it 24/5, and even on Saturday and Sunday afternoons when there is no rush hour. Not only have the hours expanded, but so has the size of the zone. So now even right out in the suburbs you need to pay if you drive a diesel but I fully expect them to include petrol cars, then eventually all EVs too.
The prices are quite cheap too - the price is like 2 adults return tickets on the tube so you may as well just drive it since the price is the same but public transport is so utterly utterly awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible in London.
If they were serious about changing people's behaviour and serious about trying to prevent congestion and/or pollution they'd price it so that it is a real deterrent to usage (so instead of £15, it would be like £250/day or something). But if they did that then no one would pay so they'd not get the revenue. So they price it just right so that people pay.
They say all the proceeds are ring-fenced for reinvestment etc etc. This is disingenuous - it's not like transport suddenly gets 125% extra funding, they just set the budgets so the "extra" they get from congestion charging and cameras etc tops-off the budgets so things balance out at ~100% of what they'd get anyway and the difference just used for other vanity projects by TfL.
I've never understood what people mean when they say public transportation is "dirty". I've never had to sit or stand in or near muck or sick or anything like that. If there's a bit of grime in the corner or animals or something... Okay? I don't have to touch any of that. I care about as much as getting onto a slightly groady amusement park ride, or seeing bugs or squirrels in the park; it's not going to so traumatize me that I won't ride. Is it the people? I've had to sit next to one or two people who smelled in my hundreds of train and bus trips. Or is it an ethnic/class dogwhistle sort of thing?
> I've never understood what people mean when they say public transportation is "dirty".
They are forced to share air with obviously poor and non-white people and that is simply intolerable...
One of the biggest adjustments I went through in moving from SF to London was accepting that busses were a viable mode of transit for any time of day. In SF I would crawl over broken glass to avoid having to take a Muni bus while in London my wife and I have taken a bus in dinner jacket and couture dress to an event at a club. There will doubtless be people to chime in with examples of bus systems that are better, but TfL busses are not 'awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible' by any possible metric.
Having lived in several European cities so far (Brussels, Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Berlin, Bucharest), London's (where I have lived since 10 years) public transportation is one of the best I've seen so far. It's not without its zonal imbalances, but calling it terrible, unreliable, etc. is something I do not subscribe to, and, I suspect, neither do many of its residents.
You might be right though: what is your commute/experience that made you describe it so? Am genuinely curious to understand in how much of a privileged bubble I might be in.
> public transport is so utterly utterly awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible in London.
Completely disagree with this statement. Living in London for 4 years now and despite the occasional late train or "ghost" bus it is quite reliable and at reasonable speeds. Unsure what you mean about "dirty", the buses and tube rarely seem messy.
However I agree that the toll should be higher and applicable to all private vehicles.
Slow: many many journeys via bus are usually at least 4 to 5x slower than driving. Typical example for me to go to the nearest large supermarket from where I live (approx 2 miles) is a 7 minute drive (so average 18mph) and pennies in fuel/energy costs or a 44 minute bus journey with a 9 minute walk at the end (each way) that requires changing buses half-way and costs £1.75 x 2 = £3.50 return unless you get a hopper fair. it's actually quicker to walk-tube-walk (38 minutes) but that is I think £4.20 return just for a quick shop at the big Tescos! It would only take 41 minutes to walk the whole way, so a bus is actually slower than walking.
Unreliable: just this week the tubes all stopped due to a "power blip" meaning I missed an appointment. This morning the train I was on changed it's destination after I got on it, meaning I had to get off and go back to a junction and get another train, which incidentally I had to wait 7 minutes for and it was packed. There is a joke about "TfL minutes" because the minutes they show on the countdown clocks at bus stations and tube stations are typically significantly longer than real minutes. There barely goes by a month without at least the threat of industrial action either, meaning you have to reschedule things just incase (and usually these are called off at the last minute meaning the union got what they wanted, TfL can say they avoided the strike, but you and I have already had to alter our plans or rebook meetings or pay for extra childcare etc already but because it is called off within 12-24 hours you are too late to cancel your own plans without penalties etc etc)
Dirty: look at your hands after getting the tube and holding onto a handrail. Or blow your nose. It's dirty. No one can deny this. The air in the tube is worse than the air on the street in terms of PM2.5 etc - there have been many studies on this
General awfulness: try getting on a rushhour train. If you can physically squeeze on to a train that is. And if you do, it's a pretty unpleasant, sweaty, gross, frottagy horror story.
People who think that it is this amazing nirvana are deluding themselves. Are there worse places? Sure. But let's not delude ourselves that it is by any regard "good". I guess if you are visiting from somewhere else on vacation then there is a novelty-factor, but if you have to do the 9-5 grind for decades at a time, if you have appointments to keep, a boss that yells at you if you are late, kids to collect on time from school (or they grass you up to social services because you can't answer the phone because you are trapped underground), or anything that requires a cheap and reliable service that you can count on then it sucks.
This is one of those things that I struggle to have a strong opinion on from a personal experience standpoint as I can't imagine wanting to drive in Manhattan...
I find transit and traffic to be a complex topic and sometime I see changes to a road locally and "yeah that makes sense to do taht there" but the next street over "no way". The New York City dynamic, I've zero clue how that plays out...
The traffic has a negative effect on more than just car owners--smog, noise, accidents, slower taxis, to name a few. Why should only car owners, who are a minority in Manhattan, vote on a problem that affects everyone?
The democratic way is we let our elected officials pass laws and that's what happened. You're ignoring the massive externalities that car owners impose on non-drivers. You're also (very Americanly) assuming car owners have special rights of any kind. We could vote to ban driving and parking and just turn all the paved roads into greenspaces. There's no Constitutional right to drive wherever you want.
The downsides are all dismissed one way or the other ...
Restaurants, Broadway Holding up
Pollution Too soon to say
Lower-income commuters Too soon to say
Public opinion Not great, but improving
I think highly of the NYT, but this is a fan's article. At the top they say,
The reporters sought information from everyone they could think of, including the M.T.A., the Fire Department, restaurant-booking platforms, researchers and one yellow school bus company.
Agreed, this article is a love letter to congestion charges. My guess is that nearly nothing has changed and will change. The fact is that the public transit systems are simply unable to modernise and Union Labor makes it next to impossible to make changes.
When I bought a NJTransit when I started working a monthly ride card for a 1hr commute cost $500/month approximately. The same commute with a car was 45 minutes and fuel/maintenance was $250/month + I needed the car anyway.
A 1hr commute in Switzerland costs me like $1.5k per year.
The congestion charge changes the math, but I’m not sure it changes the service.
> 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 affordability; it should be a lottery, for fairness.
For instance, if your license plate ends with certain numbers or letters (changing daily, and known months in advance for any given day), you don't get to drive into town.
Knowing well in advance the days when your car is admissible into the city allows you to plan. E.g. reschedule certain appointments so they occur on an allowed day, or else make alternative transportation plans.
Imperfections in lottery systems:
- Not fair toward people who often have to drive to town for whatever reason: they drive everyday or many days out of the week or month. Still translates to an extra cost, like driving to some parking lot outside of the city core, paying for parking there, and then paying for transit into the city. This could be people who are not well off: they work some job in the city that is not well paid, and have to live far away. In America "have car" != "affluent".
- Unfair advantage enjoyed by people who own multiple vehicles; we have not entirely eliminated pay-to-drive-here.
If you have a car, you can already afford purchase/lease, insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, etc., so affording a reasonable and variable toll is not an issue. If your need to take that vehicle into that zone at that specific time is so great, a $9 toll will not be a deterrent, and if it is just convenience, then rearrange your schedule or transport mode to a time/mode that balances the cost and convenience.
Sure it sounds nice to have it done by lottery system (e.g., plates with the rightmost numeral = "3" are banned next Tuesday), but that is much harder to tune and could present a far more serious impediment.
Far easier to tune it with price: Tuesday mornings have an extra-high traffic spike, ok, "Fee increases to $11 Tuesdays 0:830-13:30". We want to get to 15% less traffic instead of 10%, now we need to say "plates with the rightmost numerals in the range '00'-'15' banned Tuesdays", etc. etc.. Every time they make a change, everyone must check... what a mess.
And for people who MUST be there at a specific time, e.g., your cancer treatment center has only a Tuesday 10:20 AM slot for you, being banned because of a license plate is a real hardship, whereas an extra $2 toll is a trivial inconvenience compared to the reason for the trip.
Sounds vaguely like, why are you begging, and why should I give you anything, if you can afford cigarettes?
A lot of low-income Americans drive cars, and would be way more fucked without them, because of the way things are.
> that is much harder to tune and could present a far more serious impediment.
What impediment, and how is it harder to tune?
In principle, you can tune the system to such a fine granularity that, for instance, one specific license plate is permitted to enter the city, every four years on February 29th. And that is no easier to declare than any other tuning, like alternating daily between two halves of the license plate space.
>>why are you begging, and why should I give you anything, if you can afford cigarettes?
The expense profile of a motor vehicle in the USA in 2025 is quite different than cigarettes. And yes, if you are buying two packs per day of cigarettes, at $11.96 NY State average [0] you can skip one to drive into the congestion zone in congestion time.
>> A lot of low-income Americans drive cars
Yup. It is near-absolutely critical to have a car in rural America. But that is a long drive from Manhattan. How many of them NEED to drive cars into Manhattan during congestion periods? When I lived in Manhattan long before congestion pricing, I sold my car because it was such a hassle to have while living there.
>>What impediment, and how is it harder to tune? In principle, you can tune the system to such a fine granularity that...
I already provided such an example. There are many types of appointments that are very difficult to get, and adding the hassle of being ILLEGAL to drive your car on that particular day will be a real hardship, not a mere inconvenience.
Sure, the city planners could tune any license plate scheme down to an individual vehicle, but only at the cost of a massive hassle to everyone involved. The general algo of "ya, it'll cost me to go during congestion times; oh woah, they just added $2 to the 11h-14h time slot" is waaay different from "I have a doctor appointment Tuesday, is the third character of my plate 4, 5, M, or N?...[runs out to look at plate]...damnit, I've got to change to... oh, no appointments for another seventeen weeks?... (real example from my own doctor)" The person who could have taken care of it for a $9 fee is now either seriously delayed or needs to pay $80 for an Uber.
Meanwhile, you want to add all that burden to everyone to accommodate a population of low income people, near Manhattan, who want to drive their cars into the city on a regular basis. But they will NOT be able to do this to get to their job daily, so will still need to make other arrangements initially every other day anyway.
This convinces me there is even less of a case for lottery allocation than even the first post.
You're not trying to argue that random selection for a benefit is unfair, compared to selecting for people who are willing to pay?
About appointments, there could be a very simple website where you punch in your license plate, hit Enter, and see a calendar with all your days highlighted, for the next 6 to 12 months.
There could be some flexibility in the system. Everyone gets a small number of tokens (which expire: must be used in a year or something) that provide a free pass on any day whatsoever. You use those for those situations like getting a sudden appointment that couldn't be planned around the regular system (e.g. someone canceled and you were next on the waitlist, and the time is the time).
The token system could be automatic in fact. You just drive to the city on an off day when you aren't supposed to, and your "ding count" increments by one. On the same website where you punch in your plate number to get a schedule, you can see the number of dings against your license plate. (The system wouldn't have to track all license; just ones that triggered a ding.) (Not sure about the privacy implications. Someone who enters your plate number and sees a ding count knows that your car has been to the city sometime in the past few months on an unassigned day. If that's something you need to hide from someone, then maybe just don't go by car on those days.)
I agree adding exemption tokens or 'ding count' is a good idea. But YES, I am arguing:
1) random selection creates both substantial unfairness and cost on people who through no fault of their own have schedule issues, when compared to a modest congestion toll,
2) random selection creates widespread inconvenience for everyone especially when changes are made to 'tune' the amount of traffic; everyone needs to check if the new lottery numbers match their plates, vs just increasing prices at specific which will at most cost someone a few dollars extra if they don't check in advance, instead of a costly ticket
3) The lottery system would not help anyone who wants to commute in everyday, since they would be banned on whatever days they are banned. In contrast, the cost system is trivial for one-off trips, but a significant cumulative cost to people who want to use cars in the congested zone every day. The one-off trips are not the problem, the GOAL is to reduce habitual trips. The toll system addresses that most specifically and gives no advantage to two-car households, whereas a lottery is basically a free pass to two-car households to continue congesting.
Having a lottery system with ~4 free passes per month may solve some of these, but at the cost of a lot of additional tracking and overhead. Still thinking basic economics is a good solution here. More ideal in some ways would be a sliding per-visit scale (e.g., scaling by some exponent per visit per month...), but again likely not worth the overhead.
This overhead is relative to doing nothing, or relative to imposing tolls?
Does not the congestion pricing setup in N.Y. rely on license plate cameras?
Under the lottery model, the same cameras are used. When a license is scanned which is permitted on that day, no further tracking is required. The event contributes to statistics, but otherwise can be dropped.
When a license is scanned which is not permitted that day, it added to a local database with a count of 1, or else has its count incremented if already recorded. Further processing deeper in the system is only applied to licenses which are over a threshold. The counts are periodically aged down, and records which hit zero are deleted.
I'm talking more of the overhead for every single person who might want to come into the city on a given day — they will need to check and work their schedules around 1) being sure to check the current permitted/denied license plate character pattern and 2) work their schedules around that.
As we've already seen, we already need substantial work-arounds for critical can't move medical appointments. Events can be even worse; working in a business displaying at the biggest trade show for their industry all year, they've got to come in all four days, using their personal cars. Oops, nope, banned two of those days... etc. It is bullshit. Whereas with congestion tolls, it's just a trivial expense part of doing the show. We can think of thousands of such examples where a toll is simply a trivial inconvenience whereas a traffic violation is not. Of course, for each one, we can find a work-around ("just add another layer of indirection...."). And each one of those work-arounds adds to the workload of everyone who might come into the zone.
In contrast, the congestion toll workload is always simple: "Is it worth the extra $X to go in during the busy time, or can I go in a different time?"
And, traffic violations — especially accumulating traffic violations — are a LOT worse for low-income people, as the consequences tend to compound.
You are definitely convincing me even more strongly that congestion tolls are the better idea and lotteries are both far more inconvenient and more unfair.
I think that if the license plate appears as a URL parameter, you could just save a browser bookmark. Click on it, and there is your schedule for the next umpteen months.
Ideally, they wouldn't change it more than, say, nine months out. I.e it is set in stone for three quarters of a year. A month is added each month. No "tuning" anything closer than 9 months.
> we already need substantial work-arounds for critical can't move medical appointments.
Trivial workaround of free passes associated with counters tied to license plates, together with the stability of the schedule being set in stone for months into the future.
> And, traffic violations — especially accumulating traffic violations — are a LOT worse for low-income people, as the consequences tend to compound.
What's the difference? Low-income people will just drive past the cameras and get a shocking bill in the mail. Isn't that how it works?
It's not a "violation" because you called it a "toll": word semantics.
I think, go easy on the violations under the lottery system. E.g. send a warning to first time abusers and whatnot.
>>Ideally, they wouldn't change it more than, say, nine months out
So, the system is highly unresponsive compared to adjusting a toll +/- a small amount for changing conditions
The system is also completely unresponsive to time-of-day issues, so e.g., if they want to dampen traffic in 11:30-15:30...
>> free passes associated with counters tied to license plates
Right, another entire kludge system to attempt to accommodate a weakness, and then it only works for one-offs. Nevermind the week-long events that often bring people into the city, which now need yet another work-around...
>>traffic violations ...What's the difference?
The difference is a bill for a $9 toll vs a $150 violation for driving in the congestion zone on a forbidden day.
Yes, a toll is different from a violation. OFC, if you fail to pay the toll, it can turn into a violation, but that is NOT the same thing
>>go easy
Right, which reduces the effectiveness of the entire system because the abusers will game it even more to take advantage while the poor people will get hammered even more.
I love technology, but I also know that adding ever more complex tech to "solve" a problem is often a bad solution. In this case, it will literally not even help the poor people, and will help significantly the people with two cars.
If you want to work better for low-income people, just scale the congestion tolls to the value of the cars; those are already only one lookup away from the license plates. E.g., the basic toll is $9, but for cars over $100K value, it scales proportionally.
Now you aren't handing out traffic ticket violations to people who must come in on the 'wrong' day.
> I love technology, but I also know that adding ever more complex tech
Says the person who wants to adjust prices by the hour in response to real-time data, LOL.
Why would we care about fine tuning by the hour, when we can just make 75% of the cars disappear, all day long.
I would apply the ban 24 hours a day. If your car is not allowed tomorrow and you don't want to use a free pass, and you must absolutely drive, then get there before midnight tonight and sleep in your car.
Umm, the simplest tech to actually do the job. I wasn't talking about adjusting prices by the hour, more like by the week or month, but as you point out, with a toll system, it would be straightforward to do real-time updates. So, zoom out a bit.
The point is to use the simplest practical system that does the job, in this case managing traffic congestion.
With no system, the costs of making extra traffic are externalized from each driver onto every other driver and city resident.
A congestion toll puts back on every driver coming into the zone a small fraction of those externalized costs. The toll costs are small, typically a fraction of what it would cost to even park for any time in the zone, or buy fuel. This system allows EACH INDIVIDUAL to freely, for themselves, decide if it is worthwhile to bear that fractional cost. And the system is paid for largely by the drivers making the congestion.
In contrast, a lottery system is a government agency controlling everything with an extremely blunt instrument (or, if it is tunable, a blunt instrument with a kludged-on rat's nest of spaghetti-code to handle every fairness exception).
The entire burden is on the city and the NON-driving residents to foot the cost of implementing it. It costs the drivers massive inconvenience (as discussed earlier), gives a free pass to multi-car households, and people who need to come in on "off" days are penalized with moving traffic violations, which have a much higher cost, especially for low-income people.
Lotteries are even worse for your dude wanting to drive in and sleep in his car to avoid the 24hr ban; with a lottery, he still cannot drive anywhere the entire next 24hr day, but to avoid the toll, he needs only come in before the congestion time and park until the congestion time ends.
Seriously, this discussion has clarified that a lottery is worse in every way, for the drivers, including the low-income drivers, overhead for the city and it's residents, and for the system itself which will work much less well.
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.
You're not explaining why my idea doesn't have long-term effects compared to the currently implemented idea, only arbitrarily calling it short-sighted.
Or do you mean that declining any opportunity for a rent-seeking cash-grab is categorically short-sighted? I can accept that.
My problem with congestion pricing is that it still doesn't provide great incentives for cities to improve walkability and public transit.
"What do you mean our transit is bad, look, our ridership numbers are 3x higher than all our neighbors combined!" *Does not mention the fact that congestion pricing in neighboring cities is 3x lower.*
In the worst cases, it could even become a regressive tax of sorts. If your city has safe districts with good transit where rich people live, and unsafe districts with terrible transit where poor people live, congestion pricing will allow rich people to choose between the convenience of taking a car with no traffic jams versus the cheapness of transit, while forcing poor people to choose between a car they can't afford versus walking down a street where they may be assaulted.
It's even worse if you have rich people living in the city center where they work, and poor people who also work there living in towns much further away. Then, only the rich are able to vote on congestion pricing.
This probably doesn't apply to New York specifically (not an American, have never been), but it's definitely something to have in mind in general.
>In the worst cases, it could even become a regressive tax of sorts.
When I lived in Atlanta, there were people, mostly YIMBYs and other urbanists, who wanted to charge a significant congestion fee to anyone living in surrounding towns like Alpharetta, Roswell, Duluth, etc., who commuted into the city to work.
It would effectively be a car vice tax paid by the working class, as most of the people I knew out there lived there because Atlanta rents and home prices are insane.
Congestion pricing is ok when there are alternate methods of transportation that are usable enough that you could expect a person to just switch to them rather than pay the fee. But when there's not such an alternative, the people will simply pay the fee because they have no other option, and now you've just further immiserated peoples' lives.
The closest thing to a response I've heard is that they think such a situation would encourage people to vote and push for better transit options. I just don't see it though. Ignoring that in my case, Atlanta, the city was a de facto one party city in which primaries were mostly determined by media endorsements and more emotional issues than transit and urbanism development, I just don't see that this kind of policy making that shapes the incentives (both carrot and stick) for the masses works in practice. Peoples' decisions are so much more complicated and subject to tons of other factors that this approach can't control.
People said the same thing about New York City, but it is absolutely not true at all about NYC. Rich people drive into NYC, others take transit.
It may be true in Atlanta, but it wasn't passed in Atlanta. I'd want to see a ton of data before I believed your claims though. Typically suburbs are where the wealthier people live.
It's not hard. Just go on Zillow and look at the relative costs of a 3 bedroom place in Atlanta's central neighborhoods (Midtown, O4W, Virginia Highlands, Edgewood, etc.) and compare it to the cost of a 3 bedroom in Alpharetta or Tucker. Last time I was there, I saw shitty little 1200 sqft condos in areas that were barely walkable going for upper $500k prices.
Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious.
The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like highlighting how many fewer chicken deaths would occur if we created an omnivore or meat tax.
IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas. How much fewer social interaction is happening across the distances that those car based trips used to occur. And how much harder is it to get goods into the areas. Is less economic activity happening.
In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.
> IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas.
There’s a section dedicated to this which indicates visitors to business zones are up and OpenTable reservations are up.
If anything, the reduced congestion should be a boon for business deliveries and the congestion pricing should be a rounding error for those users.
IMO, people think driving is their preferred transportation method because it gives the illusion of independence. The subway goes everywhere in lower Manhattan and you don’t need to deal with the time, cost, or inconvenience of parking, traffic, driving stress, etc.
It would be really interesting if it turns out that something like this improves the city's overall economy by encouraging people to go to neighborhood businesses instead of driving all the way across town to go to whatever place is currently trending.
I'm thinking here of when I lived in Milwaukee, WI. Milwaukee has a strong culture of driving across town to a small number of trendy neighborhoods. Which leads to hyper-concentration of commercial investment in those areas, since they're the only ones that get any traffic. Which might be fueling a vicious cycle that helps explain Milwaukee's rather extreme neighborhood-to-neighborhood prosperity disparities. It's harder for people in a neighborhood to have income if there aren't any nearby jobs. It's hard to hold down a job across town from where you live if you aren't wealthy enough to own a car.
I can understand why poor families might save enough money to make the trip across town to a nice restaurant or a high end shop in a wealthy neighborhood they could never afford to live in. I can't understand how making it prohibitively expensive for poor people to drive into those nice neighborhoods will result in them becoming rich enough to open fancy restaurants and shops in their own poor neighborhoods where no rich people will ever travel to. The people in the poor neighborhood can't afford to eat/shop in such places often enough to support them and rich people won't go into poor neighborhoods for them either.
Shutting poor people out of wealthy neighborhoods by making it too expensive to drive into them will just cause poor neighborhoods to become ghettos. People living there will have to effectively take a pay cut to commute to work in nice parts of the city and they'll be less likely to ever be able to move out.
I don’t understand. This family saved to afford a fancy meal, parking, and possibly tolls, but can’t afford the congestion pricing?
It’s not about bringing fine dining to every neighborhood, but if it costs (money or time) more for the poor and rich alike to leave their neighborhood business owners could be incentivized to step up their game.
Poor families take public transit, they don’t drive. Reducing congestion makes public transit better. If you’re in a place where everyone drives, even the poor, then this thread is irrelevant.
Driving into NYC is one of those things that is most convenient at the beginning (driving in, stay in my car) but has a high cost at the end (looking/paying for parking, traffic, on a parking time limit, etc.) I do think if people grow ACCUSTOMED to taking the subway in, they will prefer that in most cases.
I don't think you can infer that people were using their preferred method just from the fact that they were using it - after all, the status quo was also the result of policy.
> IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas.
I think the article mentions this?
> In March, just over 50 million people visited business districts inside the congestion zone, or 3.2 percent more than in the same period last year, according to the New York City Economic Development Corporation (its estimate tries to exclude people who work or live in the area).
See also the "Other business measures are doing OK so far" heading.
There were critics who predicted that it would not reduce traffic and congestion. They argued people had no choice but to drive and would just be forced to pay.
> In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.
The article highlights that was $45 million in the month of March alone:
"In March, the tolls raised $45 million in net revenue, putting the program on track to generate roughly $500 million in its first year."
It's sort of weird, because taken to its logical conclusion (nobody drives into lower Manhattan) they would be collecting nothing. They are disincentivizing the thing that they are counting on to provide revenue.
Of course, practically that will not happen, but it could be that they are overestimating the long term revenue stream. As more and more people get used to not driving into downtown, that will become the habit, and then their kids won't be used to it and they won't do it either.
The cool thing about pricing is you can make the pricing variable to achieve whatever ends you want… if you’re desperate for more cars for some reason you can just lower the cost and the ‘market’ will respond. You can have lower costs in the afternoon or at night, or no cost on weekends.
They are tracking that sort of thing. One of the line items is "vistors to the zone - up". Another two are restaurants and Broadway receipts which have no data yet.
I'm a little unsure how to read you. These results look, frankly, amazing. The benefits to schools and busses alone would have been good. That traffic is faster everywhere is a cherry on top of it all.
And you did see that they had a section on restaurants, right? Those are up. They polled stores and found only 25% that report a negative impact. That looks concerning, I agree. Would love more polling on it with quantification.
Could this still be a bad policy? Of course. Could it be a good policy today that trends to bad some day in the future? I'd think so. But we have tools to monitor this stuff that flat didn't exist before. We should be in a good place to try stuff like this. And, again, these results look amazing.
Getting business stats is fraught. If a business is struggling, the owners opinion on the cause is important, but is it accurate?
In Wellington, New Zealand, failing business love to blame cycle lanes for their woes. The government sacking a significant number of people and an economic downturn is apparently not the cause.
To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference?
Now, if it was claimed as a superior method, that would be different. I could easily see it being people's preference as much from habit and availability as from any active preference. Certainly few people want to sit in traffic. But without an obvious immediate cost, many will jump in the car to drive somewhere.
> To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference?
Good point, but I don't think people prefer the car. Rather, I think they prefer the convenience a car provides. Sure, there are some people that love driving, but for the rest of us, I'm pretty sure driving is a means to an end. (As an aside, I'm also pretty sure that by-and-large people that love to drive aren't wanting to drive into NYC ).
Rather, if people prefer the most convenient method of travel, and if something becomes more convenient, they will take that.
All this is to say, driving isn't their preferred method of travel. Rather, it just happened to meet their preferred levels of convenience. And not all of that is money related. Being able to take public transit and sit and relax and enjoy the ride and not deal with traffic and listen to an audio book, I love that. And if it's good enough, I don't drive. But I do still have a car and drive more than I take public transit. Not because my preferred method of travel is car. Rather, my preferred method of travel is whatever gets m to my destination in a reasonable amount of time, price, comfort, and safety.
I'm sure this is more likely a thought experiment and not as useful, but you had an interesting question, and it got me thinking.
If you would normally do one behavior because it is being heavily subsidized by other people and you are not bearing the cost of that behavior. Of course people have a preference to not bear the cost of their own externalities
Every time my mom comes to visit us in the city, at some point she says she could never live here because she couldn't imagine having to drive in city traffic every day. And every time she does that, I remind her that her car hasn't moved even once since she first arrived a week ago. Mostly we walk everywhere. And every time she responds, "Oh, you're right. You know, that's been really nice."
She's lived in suburban and rural areas her entire life. The idea that she simply has to get in a car to go anywhere is so ingrained into her psyche that even a solid week of not driving is insufficient to dislodge it.
>She's lived in suburban and rural areas her entire life. The idea that she simply has to get in a car to go anywhere is so ingrained into her psyche that even a solid week of not driving is insufficient to dislodge it.
I'm in a suburban area. When I was a child, I got driven everywhere - until I was old enough to take public transit by myself.
I'm about to walk ~3km (2mi) each way to a grocery store, something I do regularly. I save thousands of dollars annually like this. I could feed myself several times over with that money.
It will never stop being strange to me that people actually get that car-dependent mindset ingrained into them.
1. Possibly reasons like this: https://archive.is/tjdZ2 ... to save you the click, the title/subtitle reads:
> When Getting Out of Jail Means a Deadly Walk Home
> Nearly every day in Santa Fe, N.M., people released from jail trudge along a dangerous highway to get back to town. Jails often fail to offer safe transport options for prisoners.
2. You must have a preference for walking, since a bicycle would be at least 3x and as much as 10x faster than walking.
3. The thousands of dollar number seems misleading. If you bought a car solely for this purpose, yes, I believe you're right. But that seems unlikely. The actual marginal cost of using a car you already owned for this purpose is on the order of $3-500.
I commend and support what you do (though I prefer to use my bike when I can). But I don't think the financial benefits should be overstated. There are, of course, other benefits.
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 no sunk cost that incentivises you to choose one option over another.
"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.
I don't think revealed preferences are the only reasonable way to define "preference."
To use an extreme example: Does the homeless alcoholic divorcé really prefer to be homeless and divorced?
For a more abstract example, consider games like the Prisoner's dilemma, where "both defect" is worse for both players than "both cooperate" but choosing to defect always improves the result for a player. Surely both players would prefer the "both cooperate" solution to the "both defect" but without some external force, they end up in a globally suboptimal result.
This is always a time/cost/convenience/habit formula to everything. If you change anything in there of course people adjust to their optimum.
If you introduce large roadworks in the heart of manhattan you'd get less cars too because people go by train/bike.
> The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some.
Do you think people in medieval times also preferred commuting by car but had to suffer through using horses? There's no such thing as "preference" that's somehow not influenced by the environment you exist in.
There are plenty of places where consumption taxes DON’T have a strong effect, like vice taxes on tobacco and alcohol. It’s absolutely worth actually testing it.
Vice taxes on tobacco have an incredibly strong direct effect.. especially on preventing youths from starting to smoke and on poor people continuing to smoke…. It’s something like a 7% reduction in the number of youth smokers for every 10% increase in price.
A consumption tax isn't going to make meat suppliers any more conscious of environmental effects from poor processes though, if any thing it will push them further away from it to try and lower prices more.
Also steak is a terrible example, cows eat alfalfa which is a nitrogen fixating crop and reduces artificial fertilizer usage that doesn't require pesticides and is basically free to grow anywhere it rains. And we don't grow alfalfa in arid places to feed US people meat, we grow it in arid places because it is near the ports and container ships need some sort of cheap bulk weight to send back to China as ballast.
Think about it more; if the vegan and steak options were ~equivalently priced - more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive. The idea isn't to make it prohibitive; insofaras don't make the most environmentally-expensive choice also the cheapest.
To compare it to traffic; everyone is miserable sitting in traffic; so giving people an excuse for a bit more WFH is a WinWin.
> more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive.
If?
Getting protein from vegan sources can already be done much more cheaply than getting it from steak, though the quality of the amino acid profile may be lower.
Getting protein from "the vegan option to a steak" - i.e. something marketed to be a direct substitute for a steak, with its vegan nature as an explicit selling point - is a different story.
I presume that, generally, people eat steak because they subjectively enjoy the experience of eating steak, and perhaps because they don't enjoy a carefully planned out plate of legumes and whole grains in the same way. But some seem to be much more extreme about this than others.
I personally eat meat (and dairy) regularly - but probably overall less than the local average, and usually not beef.
As a committed meat-eater: I have no idea what vegan food costs, as the label almost immediate makes me skip over them. To make me look at them, you'd have to make the non-vegan options prohibitively expensive.
Well most raw vegan food is already way cheaper that raw meat:
Quality organic dry chickpeas, lentils, beans, soy etc… already are around 2€/kg where I live and when you add water they double/triple in weight so you end up at 1€/kg. You’ll probably eat a bit more weight than meat but still the price is nowhere comparable. Add some whole cereals instead of white bread for nutrition and better satiety: they’re more expensive but you got the price back on the quantity you eat (you won’t stuff yourself that much T165 bread or brown rice: the fibers will make you feel full super fast). And for the vegetable you usually can find stuff super nutritious for cheap : apples, leak, cabbages and alls sorts of oignons.
Even fancy organic quinoa is like 10€/kg but also double in weight and you only eat ~1.3 times the meat weight you’ll eat in meat-meal.
Industrial chicken is 5€/kg un the shop and "good" one 15€/kg. Quality beef is nowhere in that range.
Missing the point, which was that you're not going to convince people like me who ignore the vegan options just by having them be cheaper than meat, because I won't look.
The only thing that would make me look at the vegan options would be if I felt I couldn't afford the meat options.
1. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone. In fact people always convince themselves, you only can share facts and opinion with them and they do their own arbitrage. Eat what you want to eat.
2. Speak for yourself. "People like me" doesn’t mean much, you may share some thought but everyone have a whole life of different experiences. Your argument on price and affordability makes sense may be shared by others but is probably more complex and nuanced than only that sentence, and others sharing that thought with you today may have a slightly different one yesterday and tomorrow.
3. Not many admit it, but people do changes opinion sometime, framing it as a logical conclusion to thinks they discover, read etc… nobody wakes up and become vegan out of nowhere. They had experiences, process it and make they own arbitrage just like you’re doing. In that sense I know my message has been read by more that only you and hope it helps understanding that many vegans eat more that impossible-burger only.
4. Genuine questions : why do you eat meat ? I guess it’s more than the affordability only. otherwise you’ll smoke, fentanyl yourself and drink only sodas if you can. When I have long talk with someone it usually comes down to habits or tradition. I’d be happy to read your opinion on that question.
I know not aimed at me, but honest answer: because I grew up eating it. Environmental/moral concerns have never been a prime concern as I don't consider them problems reasonably solved or helped by individual choices. Having sat don for a lengthy talk with an adherent, veganism itself comes off as smug self righteous delusion to me.
But that's my opinion, and opinions are much like assholes in general cleanliness and presentability in public.
Good for you. For those who are trying to convince, the cost increase on meat needs to be substantial, is my point. When I was a child, we didn't have much money. That didn't mean we chose to eat vegan. It meant there were smaller amounts of meat, or cheaper types of meat (such as whale; back then whale meat was a cheap beef substitute in Norway - you'd buy meat if you could afford because whale meat is a lot of effort and tough).
To your argument I should speak for myself: We have clear evidence on the basis of seeing that people rarely end up on a vegan, or even vegetarian diet even when meat is expensive - such as it was during my childhood - to suggest that this is the case for far more people than myself.
> Not many admit it, but people do changes opinion sometime
Yes, but my point is that if you want people to change opinion, it isn't going to cut it if the other options are cheap, as long as people so strongly prefer the more expensive option that they will buy it anyway.
> why do you eat meat ?
Because I enjoy it. I don't need any other reason. I love the taste. I love the texture.
One thing I realized a number of years ago is that my childhood instilled biases in me.
A Few Examples:
Sushi/Raw Fish/ethnic/spicy food == Bad
Apple Products == For Suckers
Ford == Found On Road Dead (bowtie life)
AMD >>> Evil Netburst Intel empire.
When I realized just how irrational I was on soo many subjects (I had never seen sushi or really any ethnic food until I was at my first SDE job as a 20somthing) - it made me re-evaluate.
> pointless to spend time considering it
Since then; Anytime I've ever considered something pointless to consider - it's been a trigger to consider it. Has honestly been kind of life changing revelation; has led to a much more varied and interesting life than I would have led otherwise based off my upbringing/predispositions. I'd even venture as far as to say it's made me inherently happier as a person as I no longer sneer at the apple user/sky diver/snow boarder/ebike rider/mountain climber/etc - now I look into it and possibly plan a trip.
I'm not saying "vegan > Meat" - I myself BBQ fairly often; but I'd also advise one to consider the vegan entree you sneered at prior; it may well just surprise you. And if it doesn't; the punishment is a deeper understanding! (.. and maybe paying for second lunch. but that's the risk)
> Anytime I've ever considered something pointless to consider - it's been a trigger to consider it.
This is a great motto, probably a root of self-actualisation path. It has been one of my value too but its too easy to forget, thanks for the reminder.
As you talk about barbecue and you like experiences, have you tried Tempeh [0] ? It's off the radar in some parts of the world but a daily staple in others. God for at marinade of your choice for the first time (not raw) or crumble it in a sauce you already know. That stuff is really surprising at first (like... cheese maybe?) but it's really an interesting ingredient. If you can't find it in your "health food store" you may google it for a almost-local seller that ship, for exemple [1] in UK.
My view of vegan food has been shaped by occasionally suffering it (ok, so I' exaggerating with the "suffering")
Heck, my breakfeast at the moment is vegan, because I'm on a diet and cutting real milk out of it let me drop a few more calories, not because I find it more enjoyable, because I very much detest the milk substitute. But cutting a few more calories makes it easier to add plenty of meat to my other meals.
It's not even that it's always bad. It's again that cost isn't going to get me to consider the vegan options unless the cost difference is absolutely brutal.
Other factors might on occasion, such as diet.
> cutting real milk out of it let me drop a few more calories, not because I find it more enjoyable, because I very much detest the milk substitute.
Way off topic now, but: emphasis on few. Surely you don't use more than a couple ounces on a bowl of cereal? You might lose about 20 calories this way - but if you find it that unpleasant, you'll surely find them somewhere else.
> But cutting a few more calories makes it easier to add plenty of meat to my other meals.
Sure - perhaps an extra third of an ounce of steak.
A few here and there adds up. Once I've reached my target weight, I'll ease up gently, and that's certainly one of the things I'll ease up on. For now, it's finding savings everywhere that doesn't affect my sateity.
(Also, I realised I was wrong - I forgot my breakfast has plenty of whey produced from milk in it, so vegetarian but certainly not vegan)
I'll reword it. The idea isn't to make everyone skip meat; but to make the non-meat options more competitive. I say this as one with multiple briskets in my chest freezer waiting for some good weather.
https://archive.ph/NRCcg
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 of residential areas in NJ that are closer to NYC that go to port authority (west side, 42nd st) very quickly. In fact, those buses are getting there faster and more comfortable than ever due to congestion pricing.
I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)? I know public transportation would be great, but having a competitive environment for privately own bus services might be the answer to a lot of cities.
It's curious but unsurprising that privatization of public transport is considered an answer to congestion when existence of good (or great) public transport is the working answer one can find in many places around the world.
When I visited NYC two years ago, I was blown away by how unbelievably bad public transport infrastructure is.
The most flabbergasting thing was the absence of Metro ring lines around the center. The fact these have not been built, in 2025, when Metro transport networks in most cities are now over a century old, is telling.
IMHO the real problem is cars. The US still can't imagine itself without cars.
I live in Berlin center. The only reason for me to own a car is prestige. So I don't.
During rush hour any destination I go to, even outer city, would take me the same time by public transport as by car. At least.
During non-peak hours going by car can be from 25-40% faster than by public transport if you trust Google Maps & co.
But these estimates only consider travel time. When you add finding a place to park at the destination (and walking to the destination as the place may not be right in front) this shrinks to either negative numbers or max. savings of maybe 25%.
My average travel time is around 30mins by public transport. This includes walking to and from the station.
Why would I own a car to save maybe, on a lucky day, 5mins?
At the same time bike infrastructure is being improved. Lots of side streets have been declared bike streets, cars may only enter if they have business there (you live there or deliver something).
The city has enforced this with blocking off intersections on such streets with permanent structures that let only bicycles pass.
Big streets have bike lanes that are often separated by a curb or bollards from car traffic.
This makes it also less nice to drive a car. You can't use Waze any more to guide you through side streets to avoid congestion because these streets can't be passed through any more by car, only on foot or by bike.
Which means the chance of being stuck in traffic increases. When at the same time you have options to be there just as fast with public transport and almost as fast but more healthy and with less likeliness of being ran over by a car, by bike.
These ideas are not new. And there are many more things other cities do to reduce car traffic/need for cars.
If you think of private mini busses, the best examples IMHO is actually ridepooling, e.g. Volkswagen's Moia in Hamburg and Hannover.
>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.
There is a street in Williamsburg that has been pedestrianized. I cant remember which one.
Broadway has had large expansions to its curbing from the flatiron building to union square.
Its a slow process but its getting there.
Which one? Berry is semiclosed, but people routinely remove the wooden barriers so they can drive on it and delivery app e-bikes/motor bikes routinely blast down it at speeds that make it uncomfortable to walk.
Broadway has expanded the sidewalk but it is definitely not closed to traffic. Also 2 partial closures in a city of 10 million kind of proves the point.
> There is a street in Williamsburg that has been pedestrianized. I cant remember which one.
One street in a city the size of NY?
I thought you were joking when I read that reply. I thought it might have been straight out of a Monty Python sketch. ;)
On that note, if you want to get an idea what pedestrianization does to cities, enter "Barcelona Superblocks" into your fav. search engine.
GP's premise was there "Are none" -- I shared the progress I'm aware of.
NYC needs more, but I think the tide is turning the right way.
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 less likely to trigger the outrage congestion pricing has, because it doesn't target car owners directly and en masse. You can sort of pick away at it, street by street. There will be less of a show of solidarity, because, hey, it's not my street.
The only thing that seems silly is penalizing delivery trucks. This only raises the costs of goods and services. This is one reason I would favor narrower, one-way streets over pedestrian streets. You still want vehicles. The issue is that many if not most vehicles in NYC are a luxury item and do nothing but negatively impact the common good. They don't even make transportation easier for their owners, on the whole. Of course, this should be combined with other policies that improve public transportation and improve availability of good and services in the city to reduce the burdens that cars alleviate.
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.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Ireland pedestrianised streets are usually open to deliveries in the early hours of the morning. I think they open to one-way traffic some time after the pubs and clubs close, and late-night foot traffic is reduced. Then the bollards go up at the entrance end at around 7am, and go up at the exit a little later.
Certainly I've seen delivery vehicles on Grafton Street in Dublin and Shop Street in Galway in the early hours.
Not true. E25st by Baruch college has turned into a plaza. There are some more, that I can think off. (8th/St Marks by A Ave, is a park) etc.
This used to be a regular street at some point https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZivSNhiEnn2Q4pjr6
There are plenty of other examples, just now they look more like plazas, and not streets.
I don't think they were trying to disprove the point. They admit that the US is largely car centric EXCEPT NYC, which is why congestion pricing has worked well. Also, car ownership rates are probably extremely correlated with density/efficiency of public transportation.
There is probably no other city in the US where you can truly eschew car ownership (this includes metro "dense" regions like San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston). Maybe you could include Chicago where there is a heavy amount of density/walkability in most of central Chicago neighborhoods.
You could eschew car ownership in NYC because the public transport network is better than in the rest of the country but it's still shite compared to what is considered 'barely ok' outside the US.
E.g. I. Berlin metro timing is about 5mins between trains and that is long compared to Tokyo metro timing.
But when it comes to density/how direct a public public transport connection exists between two arbitrary points in the city, Tokyo and Berlin are very close (and far ahead of NYC btw.).
What I'm saying is that the feasibility public will be seen as a real alternative or even improvement over using a car only if both topological as well as temporal improvements are blatantly obvious to commuters.
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 like in the non-US city I grew up in: https://sana.ae/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Corso-Italia-Stre...
Keep in mind that cars are still allowed for emergency services and (night time) deliveries. But the difference is night and day.
This is exactly what “the US can't imagine itself without cars” means to me.
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.
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.
The obvious answer is more public transport infrastructure & bike lanes.
If you think population density is an excuse for public transport infrastructure not coping or need for more people owning cars I suggest taking a long hard look at e.g. Japan to have that hypothesis reality-checked.
I'm btw. not saying you did, just reading between the lines.
As I wrote in an earlier reply to parent, NYC hasn't managed to even build ring Metro lines around its city center – since a century!
And that is for one reason and one reason only: not nearly enough (political) pressure from the public to improve public transport infrastructure.
And that in term gets us to the root cause again: the US can't imagine itself without cars.
This is not a critique. It's just an observation that is very plain to see if you grew up in Europe (and possibly many other places, too).
When/if that changes, ever, the above things will just happen naturally.
What would a ring metro look like in NYC? Manhattan is an island. Directly west of it is a body of water, then land that is not NYC, in fact is not NY.
It doesn't have to be a closed ring. Or resemble a ring.
Many metro systems in other big cities with comparable topological constraints have metro lines that are orthogonal to those going out in roughly a star pattern from the center.
But NYC almost only has the latter.
Underwater sections are not an issue, really. There are many cities that have metro lines going under bodies of water.
And even the length or depth required is not an issue if you want to build it.
That's why you can go from England to France, by train, in roughly half an hour, under the English Channel.
That is a seriously hand-wavy response to a complex task.
So they need it more than Italy. You can handle wayyy more traffic without cars on the road than you can with.
in context, i am specifically talking to “the US can't imagine itself without cars” point here and in my other reply upthread. I live ~36 hours from Los Angeles, driving at legal highway speeds, assuming no stops or delays. It's all about perspective. California is larger than germany. New York isn't a small state by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're comparing it to texas, alaska, or california. The car/public transportation stuff in the US is partly because of the ruralness of the country in general, plus culture. A lot of people have the idea that public transit is for the poors.
I live in Canada, a bigger country with less people and better public transport. A bunch of provinces are bigger than Texas, doesn't stop the public transport from being decent inside the cities.
Man, there are street that are closed to traffic, and you just are either lying or being dumb.
They just don't look like streets anymore, as they are turned into plazzas or parks.
EG: E25st at Lex, Baruch College is truned into a plazza/walkaway. No cars. 8th/st Saint Marks, by A Ave, is off cars, (It is part of the Tompkins park). Irvin Avenue is part of a park (gets interrupted by Grammercy Park)
etc...
There are plenty of places like that, but over time they turn into plazzas or parks, and you think they were not streets at some point.
Ps https://maps.app.goo.gl/Df6U3DkPpUxirG5B9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZivSNhiEnn2Q4pjr6
You can see throw time that it used to be a street at some point.
Anyways, there are plenty of examples like that. Just stop exaggerating.
This only showcases how bad the US is in this area, when the city that most relies on public transportation still has such a bad service.
It's not the only reason, but in general in American history, "why is this weird thing this weird way?" is usually answered in part by "racism".
Avoiding public transit has historically been one way affluent white people avoided contact with poor people in general and black people specifically; underfunding or shutting down public transit in turn disproportionately hurts those populations.
Again, not the only explanation, but it's the simplest for a number of things.
Oh, that's very much so. In new york, several bridges were explicitly designed by Robert Moses so that they were too low for buses in order to prevent public transit from getting to certain parks and beaches. In Chicago, several expressways were routed to separate "black" areas from other parts of the city.
[dead]
I claim it's normal to hate public transport. Online, there are some loudmouthed public transport enthusiasts. To them, everyone who isn't doing public transport is a racist, boomer, redneck, luddite, and whatever aspersion you've got.
The real reason America has so many cars is people like cars better, and America developed in a time where people were rich enough to make it happen. People don't like public transport. I asked someone who grew up in another country, in a huge city with only public transport--and reputedly good, clean public transport at that--what they think of public transport, and they said it's gross and for poor people. (It wasn't a code for racism, their country was ethnically monotone.)
People like that don't visit threads like this though. You just get this echo chamber of young, childless, cosmopolitans who only care about a certain kind of efficiency in transport.
In northern cities, the black population is quite recent, and urban renewal programs predate much of the Great Migration. The Great Migration was itself weaponized by WASP elites against the European and very often Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in northern cities (who were out-procreating the WASPs given their stance on contraception, for example, which differed from the Protestants who had began to accept its use in the 1930s).
To disguise the project, terms like "white flight" were invented in order to frame the disintegration of these European neighborhoods as a racist reaction. This worked especially well during the Civil Rights movement, because it played on black/white categories in the forefront of everybody's minds. But were these European ethnic groups "white"? We already know that the Irish and the Italians weren't considered "white" until recently.
Perhaps you've seen videos of "white people" in Chicago throwing rocks at black marches led by MLK into these ethnic neighborhoods? These were people, like Lithuanians, who were defending the integrity of their neighborhoods from an invasion. That the marching masses entering their neighborhoods were black is completely irrelevant: any mass migration of another cultural group into a host population harms and destroys the integrity of the host population. And that was the point. White flight destroyed the ethnic neighborhood through mass migration and the subsequent dispersal of them across the newly created suburbs. This process hastened their assimilation into an amorphous mass shaped by the mass media. These assimilated groups formed a buffer between WASP neighborhoods and the neighborhoods of the new black arrivals from the South. The construction of highways played a similar role by erecting psychological or physical barriers between these neighborhoods. They were also used as excuses to demolish "undesirable" neighborhoods.
> That the marching masses entering their neighborhoods were black is completely irrelevant
LOL. sure it was.
Part of the reason is that public transit for whatever reason appears to be unusually sketchy in many places in the US. For example, a few years ago, there was an incident with a man with two chainsaws threatening passengers [1] in the local transit system.
In contrast, the transit systems I've seen in Europe and Asia appear well maintained, clean, and relatively safe.
Biking is also safer in European cities that have proper bike infrastructure.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/man-armed-chainsaw-threatens-bart-r...
It’s funny how the one time it has ever happened that someone wielded a chainsaw on the subway it’s memorable news, and becomes evidence of a narrative that all of public transit is ‘sketchy’. That article’s from 7 years ago, and nobody got hurt and the guy was arrested. (BTW, I wonder why they used a photo from 2009?)
In the mean time, the number of shooting deaths by private car drivers in the US has more than doubled since 2018, to more than 1 per day. That doesn’t count threats with other weapons, nor any other kind of road rage, nor does it count accidental crashes. There are more than 120 deaths per day in the US in cars (the vast majority of “private transit”), and more than 2 million ER visits by injured riders per year.
And public transit is sketchy? Not compared to driving cars it isn’t.
As an outsider (Australian) living in the USA there's non stop propaganda for anything that could make a dollar if privatised. To the extent that many don't believe public run systems can function at all.
Anything disparaging public transit is played up to the extend even sitcoms will have disparaging scenes that are essentially "you took public transport? Are you poor?". The tax system is basically privatised, it's a pain to do anything without paying for tax software now with a lot of lobbying and propaganda that it's the only way. A lot of US citizens actually seem to believe that anything government run is inefficient (despite the lack of academic data on this) and demand the dismantling of all government institutions (see DOGE). Even utilities are often privatized with no competition (you just pay what you're told).
It's a bit crazy coming from a country where i had fibre internet at my regional home (the recently rolled out national broadband network) which is faster than the best connection i can get in the middle of silicon valley, i had affordable public transit with a universal tap on/off card that worked for all of them so no change/cash needed. Universal healthcare. A free online tax system that would start pre-filled by the numbers my employer+stockbroker entered in, i just had to quickly check through any federal or state specific exemptions i might qualify for. Etc.
Like it's madness the level of propaganda for this viewpoint that privatization is better and it's blatant why that propaganda is there - you privatize something essential like healthcare and you can leach vast amounts of money from everyone.
To this day my home country pays a fraction of US salaries yet the median wealth per capita is more than double the USA (Australia's 261k wealth per capita vs USAs 112k wealth per capita) since we don't get leached at every turn by privatized essential services. Yet in the USA they are clamouring for more of this as if that makes them wealthier.
Fairly recently: https://nypost.com/2025/04/15/us-news/cause-of-death-still-a...
A man died while riding the train, one person robbed the corpse, then another had sex with it..
I heard about that one too, very unique and weird for sure! But we could go through the stories of each of the few hundred fatalities that happened on public transit last year, and it wouldn’t even be a blip compared to the tens of thousands of people killed in gruesome accidents in cars. Incidentally I still remember the description of Paul Walker’s death for kinda the same reason that subway chainsaws and necrophilia are so memorable… it was freaky.
Except that wasn't a fatality. How often do people get robbed while driving in the highway.
For that matter, how many who came to harm on the highway were speeding vs random subway assaults.
People get robbed at gas stations, convenience stores, parking lots, and streets at fairly high numbers. I’m not sure what we’re comparing or debating here, but does your example actually count as a “robbery” if they died first? Would it not have happened if they hadn’t died? The anecdote you brought doesn’t seem to reflect on safety at all, it’s unclear what relevance it has.
Speed is absolutely a huge factor in driving injuries, one of the biggest. Again not sure how or even why to compare that to assaults on the subway, but googling briefly, the result I got suggests there were around 2k reported assaults of any kind. It’s a drop next to the nearly 3M ER visits, which may leave out large numbers of unreported, uninsured, or less serious injuries.
> People get robbed at gas stations, convenience stores, parking lots, and streets at fairly high numbers
Not where I live. the comparison/debate is:
> In contrast, the transit systems I've seen in Europe and Asia appear well maintained, clean, and relatively safe.
I think the point is, although (public) necrophilia is rare, so presumably is access to dead bodies, so the fact this happened is telling.
> does your example actually count as a “robbery” if they died first?
Of course it fucking does. picking someone's pockets is also robbery even if no confrontation is involved, and I'm pretty happy this guy is being charged with "attempted rape"; the fact the guy was dead doesn't make it not rape.
> The anecdote you brought doesn’t seem to reflect on safety
you don't see a correlation between safety, and the presence of people you cannot trust to be around?
> speed is absolutely a huge factor in driving injuries, one of the biggest. Again not sure how or even why to compare that to assaults on the subway
Speed, or speeding i.e. inappropriate levels of speed. The comparison is that an individual can control their speed, and the authorities can police it. There's not much you can do if you run into the wrong person on the subway.
Sure people have the option to control their own speed, and authorities can police speeders. The accident rate we have already accounts for that. Speeders are still dying, and they’re taking out more non-speeders with them than the total number of public transit deaths, by multiples.
Still not sure what the argument even here is. You’re being pretty forceful about one single, weird incident. Fine, but the fact of the matter is that driving in cars is causing a lot more injury and death than public transit, by several orders of magnitude.
? Japanese subways were infamously the site of a nerve gas attack in the 90s. 33 people were killed in mass knife attacks in Kunming, China in 2014. France has had a handful of subway and train attacks.
However, the point is that these incidents, along with the BART one, are unusual. Avoiding public transit because of them would be like avoiding flying because of air accidents or avoiding going to a theater or musical event because of the various massacres that have happened at them over the years.
BART crime is up over the past decade. People don't avoid BART because of that headline with the chainsaw man. They avoid it because of everyday crime and violence.
I'm sure it's similar for many other metro transport options in the USA. California in particular has a rough go for many reasons.
It doesn't even have to be something bad or happen to you. One "my buddy had his bike stolen off the light rail" and several people will be turned off of ever trying to use it.
The "crime" story has been so twisted by propaganda and lies-by-statistics that you'll have to forgive me for saying that I can't take your word for it and will need numbers. Truthiness certainly can drive people to make poor, (unfounded) fear-based decisions.
That’s rare enough to not keep people away from public transport. Speaking from experience in Portland OR, it’s more the daily low level stress of having to keep an eye out for the meth crazed lunatics around you. There always seems to be one and they’re wildly unpredictable.
That's another way of saying that we need more public investment (in addiction intervention programs, for one), not less.
> Part of the reason is that public transit for whatever reason appears to be unusually sketchy in many places in the US.
Police and policing culture is heavily biased in the United States to the protection of property and the interests of capital, so it makes complete sense they wouldn't give a fuck about keeping public transit or spaces that aren't highly trafficked by the wealthy very well protected. Maybe a little tinfoil hat, but if you take that into account, I think it makes perfect sense.
Not every city needs a ring line, or has a geographical shape where it would be practical.
Manhattan is a long rectangle, whilst Berlin has a more rounded shape.
Its faster to cross the small width of the rectangle than to go all the way around.
It's perceived as a problem around NYC that a lot of people might want to go from Brooklyn to Queens or to Harlem and the Bronx but public transit funnels everyone through downtown or midtown Manhattan. NYC doesn't need a ring but it could use a supplementary arc.
Yes! I'm going to see Underworld[0] play tonight in Brooklyn, exactly 7500 feet from my house, and according to google maps the options are a 14 minute taxi ride or 53 minute train + bus journey. I think it's insane that we don't have efficient intra-boro public transit outside of manhattan.
0. https://www.underworldlive.com
In the 1990s the RPA proposed reviving an abandoned rail line connecting Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx into the Triboro X line as a supplementary arc. The truth is the boroughs were well connected. In the postwar era the many of light-rail lines connecting Brooklyn and Queens were demolished. As were three elevated lines in Brooklyn/Queens and four elevated lines in Manhattan.
The MTA still has a gap in the funding for the 2020-2024 capital plan due to Andrew Cuomo's raiding and Kathy Hochul's incompetence, so I wouldn't expect much from the 2025-2029 capital program! It is $48 billion short of maintaining existing levels of service, "with a focus on areas in need of urgent investment".
I live ~33 miles away, round trio, from the nearest grocery store. No trains, no uber, no bus. The US is massive. It doesn't look like it on the mercator projection, but the US is massive. It takes days to drive across it at highway speeds.
I tire of "you guys just love your cars too much". I've lived in several states and only when I lived in Los Angeles county was there ever a bus within "walking distance" - but still that was a 25-30 minute walk.
Oh, and in case you were curious, California is about 60,000 square kilometers bigger than Germany.
And I live 36 hours away from California in the United States. At highway speeds.
That's why we "love our cars"
You "love" your car because you live in the middle of nowhere. There is no "we" in that sentence.
> when I lived in Los Angeles county ... bus within "walking distance" ... a 25-30 minute walk.
Most of the US population lives in metro areas of large cities. You are an outlier, that’s fine for rural areas.
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.
Without looking it up, I think it's also related to adjacency to a significant metro. But, yeah, the US census uses a binary classification that makes a lot of people assume "urban" means a big walkable city when, in reality, it often includes very dispersed exurbs (including places many would consider basically rural) that are never going to be serviced by public transit among other things.
So a lot of people tend to translate 80% urban into 80% cities which is manifestly not true, and even less dense cities.
> Consistent with previous decennial censuses, changes were made to criteria classifying urban areas following the 2020 Census. Key changes to the Census Bureau’s urban area concept and criteria include:
> The use of housing unit density instead of solely population density. The minimum population threshold to qualify as urban increased from 2,500 to 5,000 or a minimum housing unit threshold of 2,000 housing units.
> The jump distance was reduced from 2.5 miles to 1.5 miles for 2020. Jump distance is the distance along roads used to connect high-density urban territories surrounded by rural territory.
> No longer distinguishing between urbanized areas and urban clusters. All qualifying areas are designated urban areas.
We agree (i think), i'm just quoting the census bureau document.
I hadn't looked in a while and, yeah, the definition seems to have switched a bit though the overall result seems to be fairly similar. The bottom line is that "urban" in the census has a lot broader definition than what a lot of folks think of as urban colloquially.
Yes, designing a city for cars will make cars the most convenient way to get around. That is part of the whole "americans love their cars" thing.
> I live ~33 miles away, round trio, from the nearest grocery store.
So you've explicitly chosen to live far away from everything, in effect you've chosen to have to own a car. What bearing does this have on anything?
> The US is massive. It doesn't look like it on the mercator projection, but the US is massive. It takes days to drive across it at highway speeds.
Unless you drive across the US on a regular basis, this point has precisely zero relevance.
> The most flabbergasting thing was the absence of Metro ring lines around the center. The fact these have not been built, in 2025, when Metro transport networks in most cities are now over a century old, is telling.
I'm having trouble imagining where a useful ring line could exist in the New York metropolitan area or within the city itself, given its geography, longstanding commuter movement patterns and other characteristics. Maybe you could have a relatively small ring just in midtown Manhattan?
The Interborough Express is one example. Going from southern Brooklyn on the water up to queens. Previous proposals had it also connecting to the Bronx. If you want to be really ambitious, connect Bayridge to Staten Island and continue on with branches to Elizabeth and Bayonne. Up north, it's surprising there isn't rail from the Bronx, through Manhattan, across the GW Bridge to NJ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interborough_Express
That's not what I'd understand as a "ring" though. I guess something like that could be useful in providing an alternative to what's mostly been car options for travel between Brooklyn and Queens. Edit - your more ambitious idea could be a "ring", yes, but I'm not seeing how it would be especially useful. Why would it be helpful to provide a single line allowing someone in Bayonne to get to Jackson Heights, for example (given what are probably more pressing transportation improvement needs)? As a visionary means of facilitating a longer term integration of eastern New Jersey communities to New York City, maybe.
Ring lines around which center? Midtown? It's already a criss-cross of lines, NQR does a semicircle..
Yet your example purposefully sabotages cars by blocking streets to cars, and by not having city planners enforce enough parking spots for cars.
The system can prioritize either method of travel. It's no surprise that when this happens, one is faster than the other.
You can never build enough parking spots if the cost of parking is $0. Optimally managed parking charges variably so that there is always about 10% of spaces free in a block.
The entitlement of drivers to think they have a right to park a metal box wherever they want for free in the middle of the most expensive real estate in the world is staggering.
As an anecdote about any amount of parking winds up being used if it's free: there's a guy a block over from where I live in dense, transit-connected Brooklyn who has, at any given moment, at least 6 cars parked on the street, that he tinkers with and seems to occasionally buy and sell. The houses on that block sell for around $3-4 million these days, but the parking is free.
The neighborhood is also quite clearly full of cars that basically never get used—given there's no cost to store them, the owners save them for an occasional trip and in the meantime they accumulate snow/leaves/pollen etc the rest of the year, in proportion to how long they sit without being used.
The dysfunction of this system is particularly aggravating when you have an actual need to park nearby your home, e.g. if you're loading/unloading heavy things, and there's never any space. I would love if every block had temporary loading zones, but people freak out about the idea because it requires taking away some free parking.
its hard to really get how culturally tied to cars Americans are. Politicians in NYC essentially act like 'a car' is the unit of citizenship in the country, and not 'a person'. We make laws so cars dont get offended, we prioritize them over lives and safety. Its honestly pretty crazy.
[flagged]
The decline public transportation, in my view, reflects a shift in priorities within the Democratic Party. Back in the 1990s, Democrats were more focused on tangible public services—things like infrastructure, roads, transit systems. Today, the emphasis seems to have moved toward issues like environmental policy, DEI, and gender identity.
As someone who’s deeply frustrated by the lack of progress on projects like high-speed rail between SF and LA, completing the BART loop around the Bay, improving public schools in San Francisco, and addressing homelessness, I find it maddening. These are real, urgent issues, and yet they often seem sidelined.
Of course, Republicans generally oppose these kinds of initiatives altogether.
Trying to push for change within the Democratic Party has been incredibly difficult for me. It often feels like the space is dominated by highly educated, well spoken, intellectually confident people (far more so than myself) which can make it hard to even participate, let alone influence policy.
So I just think: screw it, I’m a Republican now. And that is not going to make public transport any better.
So this is why…
This whole comment is insane but I’ll just say the last administration helped fund transit, but is of course being rolled back by the new one.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-administ...
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-ad...
So what should I do?
How can I blame Trump for what is happening with public transport in SF and CA? Both CA and SF are 100% democrat for last 20 years.
Wasn't Musk's whole hyperloop project determined to be just a way to sabotage the SF-LA high-speed rail?
California's so-called Democrats are in love with the idea that private industry (i.e., Silicon Valley) will swoop in and do the government's work for them. And they'll sideline any government project if they think someone else might shoulder the burden. LA almost elected a real estate billionaire as mayor whose solution to homelessness was to build a bunch of "housing" out in the middle of the desert.
> So I just think: screw it, I’m a Republican now.
Complain and vote all you want but the best way to fix the government is to become the government.
Ezra Klein talks about everything bagel liberalism where the left tries to layer every cause (diversity, unions, low income housing) onto a core good idea like building more housing or transit infrastructure. It gets in the way of the goal. housing is good because otherwise people would be homeless.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberal...
The Democratic Party of 2025 is the Republican Party of 1992.
What a stupid self centered excuse for supporting fascism.
In Ho Chi Minh City (and probably Vietnam in general but not 100% sure). Our commercial district is very concentrated.
The busses in general are some form of public-private partnership. Several private bus companies operate the city busses. There are some annoying edge cases. For example, pre-purchased tickets are a mess -- better pay cash. If another operator takes over your route, even temporarily, your tickets can't be used.
Mostly it seems to work though, I take the bus fairly regularly and it's quite nice. It's clean, has OK air conditioning, and arrives frequently enough that I don't have to check the schedule. There's someone to help elderly people and children on and off the bus. Elderly people ride free, reduced price for students, etc. It's pleasant.
Some of these busses are mini-versions for less popular routes. I think I've even seen a couple of other vehicle types, like some form of van (rarely). One or twice a sort of truck with benches.
How has the new metro line worked out? I was there all the time it was getting built, but I left before it finished.
In Moscow there are 2,5 cases of commercial buses: routes that differ from city-owned ones (both local and between parts) and downtown-to-satellite-city_name where there is no other public transport. Both mini and normal buses are being used, as you might guess they are still operating because they fill the niche and are faster than public buses because those have stops each 2-3 minutes. Subway there is far more preferred if it's even remotely an option, due to congestion and reliability.
In Japan there are almost only private buses. many are run by and around the private train companies as a way to get their trains to be more useful to more people like when a 25 minute walk from the closest station is a 10 minute bus ride and the busses come often enough to be convenient
The train companies in Japan, while private in name, can only be described as hybrid. They have massive gvmt concessions for land to build their malls and make profit. The gvmt also has a lot of direct and indirect influence on them (and the other way around). In fact I'm literally now in one cafe in one of those malls, I haven't used the train today but still a part of my money goes to the train company thanks to these concessions.
I'm not complaining BTW, love the train system here, it's only when someone tries to describe them as either a purely "private" or "public" company it's never so straightforward IMHO, so wanted to clarify.
How is buying land a consession and building on it a consession? Any normal private company can by land and build on it. Are you sure you're not considering it a consession because you're used to "public" transporation (in which case it would be a consession) and not just the normal things any private company can do (in which case it's not a consession)
Even if they are consessions I think they are a positive. They provide a positive feedback loop for the train companies. Better trains = more customers for their other interests and visa versa. If the trains start to suck people don't want to be on that line and choose a different line for their businesses, houses
Compared to public transporation where it's just politians who decide budgets and with few exceptions (Netherlands for example) they almost never decide well.
Yeah, the big JR (Japanese Railways) companies that were created when the JNR (Japanese National Railways) state owned company was privatized really do seem to operate in some form of hybrid way - not really either private or public/state owned.
But its also important to note there are other still big but much more private players like Kintetsu, Hankyu, Keio or Tobu that also follow the same playbook - having not just rail lines but also malls, hotels and other businesses, like: * cableways (like the Kintetsu Beppu Ropeway) * zoos (Tobu Zoo) * theaters (Takarazuka Revue - all-female musical theatre troupe based in Takarazuka - a division of the Hankyu Railway company - all members of the troupe are employed by Hankyu)
And you can see this replicated on the smallest level - when we went to Izumo, we found out the Ichibata company does not just run the line to the Izumu shrine, but also owns a hotel next to the Izumo station, runs local buses and even runs the gift shop in the Izumo museum. :)
I think this can to a degree explain why public transport is so well connected with other services in Japan & why the stations are clean and convenient - it has a direct benefit for all the many side businesses the public transit companies have.
That's interesting - the main Dutch train company provides dirt cheap bike rentals for the same reason. (For arrivals only; people can use their own bikes to get to the station.)
A lot of the UK did this in the 1980s and it’s turned into such a disaster, most mayors and local authorities are trying to move to the London model: companies can bid a flat rate to deliver a bus service (effectively, they commit to providing drivers to deliver the timetable). TfL collects all fares. They also - I think - supply most of the buses to ensure they are of a certain standard, but the companies need to lease them, and maintain them.
This means you get private companies trying to lower costs and so costs are privatised, but the profits (if any) are socialised into a public authority.
This then allows TfL to offer system-wide passes making bus travel over all 43 boroughs cost effective.
I don't know about London, but many places systems like this results in terrible working conditions for drivers. Pay is lousy, shift arrangements are in some cases insane, like work from 5:30-10:00 and then 14:00-17:00. Minimal time in between routes to go to the toilet and so on.
Workers, especially drivers, have rights in the UK.
Yep, it does! However the net benefit to society at large - and being public transit, to the less privileged in particular - is still gigantic compared to any of the alternatives, and this is blatantly obvious if you've been in multiple countries/locations that use this system, as well as ones that don't use it. The job is generally still better than driving for e.g. Amazon, as well as honestly a whole load of 3D jobs[1] that we rather forget exist and people carry out every day, including in "wealthy" countries.
Perfect is the enemy of good. This is the #1 thing other progressives need to learn. Everything is a tradeoff.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty,_dangerous_and_demeaning
How else are you going to lower costs?
That sounds divine. Does it also work in practice?
It has been a huge improvement in places like Manchester which the OP mentioned has switched to the London model. Before it was unbelievably expensive and fragmented in terms of the service with different providers requiring different fares or weekly/monthly passes. Also never knowing when a bus was going to show up.
Now their an app which shows you when your next bus will arrive tracked by gps so you can leave the house on time to get there, and fares are standardised at £2 per trip or £5 all day. Before the standardised pricing you had people on minimum wage who would be paying an hour or two of their wage just to get to work.
All this came due to the local Government mandating it, these things could have been implemented before by private companies as they have existed in London for years but they simply chose not too.
As a former Mancunian, this was the city I was thinking of.
I remember having a meeting about a completely unrelated matter with TfGM many years ago, and they bemoaned not having the same sort of sway as TfL to fix public transport - buses in particular.
The bus situation was madness for decades: there was weird operator specific passes on the Fallowfield/University corridor (the busiest bus route in Europe when I was a student there), so you had to choose at the start of the week if you wanted a Stagecoach or a Finglands pass and then you were stuck with it. The North/South operator divide meant that everyone trying to get from say Cheetham Hill to Rusholme, had to pass through Piccadilly Gardens because that's where different companies "owned" different stands. That just led to all the problems of... well, Piccadilly Gardens...
I've not tried the Bee Network myself yet on any of my recent visits, but it looks like the fix that was needed, and it sounds like they have at least one happy customer in you. I genuinely believe it will contribute to better working conditions, cleaner air, and even economic development for Manchester.
And all it took was fixing the buses, something everyone knew needed doing more than 20 years ago...
What are the brands/types of busses you're talking about? In my city, Greyhound, Chinatown busses, etc., handle city-to-city connections, but they don't connect the residential areas to the city center. It's not lucrative enough (one reason being car use is so heavily subsidized). This is one of the reasons the concept of public transit exists. Like delivering mail to Americans who live in remote areas, we spread out the costs because the benefits are necessary to a thriving society.
These minibusses or dollar vans don't have strong brands that you would recognize. They often operate in a legal grey area, so they're deliberately anonymous looking if you aren't in the know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_vans_in_the_New_York_me...
I volunteered to do some work in a rural village in the Dominican Republic years ago and got instructions to take several forms of public transportation from the airport to downtown Santo Domingo and then the town of Ocoa and finally either walk up the hill to El Limon or ride on a motorcycle with somebody.
I saw motorcycle taxis and minibuses that run between cities and have the cobrador hanging out the side to rustle up passengers and where you might sit next to somebody holding a chicken. I rode in a "public car" which was painted red and drove in a circle and got out at a place that I thought was a bus station until I realized the tickets on the wall had the names of US college football teams and it was really a sportsbook.
In the developing world it is common to see many forms of less formal transit. Maybe standards aren't that high and maybe I'd feel different if I'd missed the last bus to Ocoa, but it struck me as an economical, fast and efficient system.
This is my experience travelling as well--Latin America has public transit that is an order of magnitude better than anything I've used in Canada or USA.
The success in s.a. highlights how much of a problem cars are causing in n.a. cities. Even if a well financed public or private bus service wanted to run frequent lines at rush hour, those buses would be stuck in slow car traffic. In nordic countries, the bus and trams have dedicated lanes, and mass transit is generally faster than cars.
I don't think London has private mini buses like that, just a huge amount of buses.
They are operated by companies for TFL (though they are all red, you can read the company name).
I'm not sure at what point that arrangement happened, somewhere between the outright privatisations of the 80s, or the stealth ones of the black years, which used PFI.
The existence of private minibuses is a clear indication that the transit authority has failed.
The experience of bus deregulation in Britain outside of London tended to go one of two ways. In most of the country it simply created a private monopoly while in a few cities like Manchester there were routes so popular (busiest bus route in Europe!) that multiple companies competed for custom and the city council had to employ stewards to ensure fair play.
This level of success was really an admission of failure. Anywhere else would have built a subway or at least a tram. (Metrolink is great it just doesn't even attempt to serve the busiest transit corridor in the city.)
London was of course treated differently. While the operators were privatised they remained regulated by government. Public transport in London is simply too important to the UK to be allowed to fail as it was in other parts of the country.
Anyway it's good to see central government allow Greater Manchester to regulate its buses again. After smashing it up local transport in 1986 the Tories finally relented in 2023 and allowed Greater Manchester control. Quite what Labour were doing for local transport outside of London between 1997 and 2010 is open to question. But it certainly resulted in renaissance of London public transport.
I think citymapper ran an experimental private bus line because they had identified a gap. But their article doesn't have a date, and I seem to remember this was years ago, so not sure where it's at.
https://citymapper.com/news/1800/introducing-the-citymapper-...
2017 according to their facebook post about it.
I vaguely remember hearing about it but never tried it out. Not sure when it was canned. The software part sounds very interesting but could also be sold to existing transit companies and government agencies to improve their network.
>>> I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)?
Hong Kong has public and private mini busses. They are distinguished by the color of their roofs, green or red.
After communism fell in Poland there was a period of privatization of public transport. It was reverted in last 2 decades in most big cities because it usually had worse quality standards (only competed on price), only served the few most profitable routes, and was uncooperative regarding the schedule (for example city buses were speeding to get to the bus stops before the time to get more passengers ahead of competition).
So in theory there was a schedule with buses from lines 1,2,3 interleaving every 5 minutes - but in practice line 1 was going slower and line 3 was going faster and all buses were there at the same time and then you had to wait for 15 minutes for the next round :/
The worst part was that people outside the most profitable routes had no access to public transport - because public transport had to be subsidized more because the profitable routes were taken over by private buses.
Basically it was a mistake, don't do it.
Last I checked, which was admittedly, a few years ago there were jitneys in San Francisco.
Growing up in Jersey we called them jitneys. And no, they don’t have them in other cities.
Jitneys could be found all over the country but they've largely fallen out of favor.
Yes, the jitneys. There is the Hampton Jitneys which transport folks from NYC to the Hamptons during summer months. Those jersey buses are better than NJ Transit.
There is in Atlanta. An informal system of cash only mini buses without fixed routes and a focus on Spanish language.
>>> 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.
The result of the private bus system nationalization by socialists is macabre, at least this the Santiago case. First, the newly minted public bus service went from $60M USD profits, to massive $600M in losses [1] overnight. That is a negative 10x return. And service declined as well. [1] But that in itself is not a new story.
Now, fast forward ~12 years. The system bleeds so much money that the govt is forced to increase bus fares. The increase in fares activates the biggest riots the country has seen in decades [2]
Out of the riots, one young protester rises to the top. He comes with ideas of a new constitution. He is a young socialist leader. A certain Gabriel Boric [3], who had ran and won for president of University of Chile Student Federation against the leader of the Communist Party of Chile [4]
So now we come full-circle: A working private bus service was replaced by socialist politicians into a public bus system that hemorrhaged 10x more money than it earned previously in actual profits. The public bus funding crisis and subsequent fare hikes led to massive riots, which were a direct on-ramp for a socialist to ascend to power as president of Chile. In short, successful private local bus enterprise was replaced with a socialist bus system, which then proceeded to implode. This implosion of a socialist idea led to the spread of even more socialism, but now at a national level.
This chain of events from beginning to end, only took 20 years.
[1] https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-the-political-economy-of-...
[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/world/americas/article/3033688/cha...
[3] https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-03-12/gabriel-...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_boric#Role_in_the_Esta...
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?
Yes, if you can name 1 example of a failed private transport project that led to
1) the biggest riots in 4 decades. 2) the requested resignation of all cabinet ministers 3) a new (socialist) constitution.
My point was not "you will die every time you play russian roulette" .
Because that's not the point. My point is, Santiago was playing it safe for many decades. Then they switched to russian roulette. Bad idea, and it showed in less than 1 decade (9 years, to be exact)
Lots of places in the world run public bus systems - it seems by far the most common to me. It's hardly a thing of 'socialism' (always a bad word on HN).
I don't know about Chile, but I think the issue isn't so much the system being public, as in run by some form of government. Rather, the issue is in how "socialists" tend to run systems: everything is great until they run out of other people's money.
Now, I'm not in the "free market will solve all our woes" camp, either, especially when it comes to what we call "public service" in France. Over here, transit systems are facing a push from the EU bureaucrats for "opening up to competition". I'm bracing for the shit to hit the proverbial fan.
Sure, our national rail company is world-famous for being on strike all day every day and twice on Sunday. But, when they do run, they work fairly well and serve most of the country, including random, middle-of-nowhere towns. New companies coming in for the competition only serve the most profitable routes. Of course, I don't know all the laws, but I haven't heard of any obligation for new companies to serve the less profitable routes. So, the SNCF will have less money from the profitable routes to subsidize these lines. This means that either service will degrade, or the State will have to increase funding [0]. Now, I'm generally fine with paying (reasonable) taxes and whatnot, but I'm less fine with having to pay more taxes just so that some random foreign company can make money.
So, what will become of these people? When, at the same time, there's a push to restrict private vehicle ownership, and, especially, to limit access to town centers for older cars? Think these people can afford brand spanking new electric cars? Think again.
---
[0] I think the EU doesn't allow States to directly subsidize the rail company, it would be some form of unfair competition or similar. But the State is allowed to spend on social programs, so there could be some kind of program to help with transit, which, in the end, is the same thing: the people will have to subsidize service for less profitable routes because a chunk of the income from profitable ones has moved to a private company which doesn't care.
EU does allow states to subsidize transit (including trains) but the subsidies are subject to all sorts of regulations. They have to be of "public interest" and to not generate (excess) profits for the companies. At least in theory.
Look, if you're that uninformed, why bother commenting at all? Especially if you're in France, your takes on what constitutes socialism are weird to say the least.
SNCF operate those unprofitable routes in the middle of nowhere only because they get told and paid to do so by the state (Intercités) or the regions (TER). Private operators can bid to operate those routes too, and some do (soon Keolis, an SNCF subisdiary operated as a private company, will operate the first non-SNCF TER network).
Besides that, any operator with a license can apply to operate any route they deem profitable. And so far this has been a roaring success, with Trenitalia on Paris-Lyon (and now Marseille) and Paris-Milan being better and cheaper than SNCF. SNCF added low cost (Ouigo) trains on multiple popular routes mainly because they knew competition is coming (postponed by Covid), they probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise. This is a win-win-win for the average user.
The services that need to be maintained will be, regardless of who is the operator. Some of the profits of the private operators will pay for them (because they pay for network access, which covers the costs of the infrastructure + profit margin).
> the issue is in how "socialists" tend to run systems: everything is great until they run out of other people's money.
That would seem true of any organization other than a self-funded one. All corporations, banks, governments, etc. use investment by others (including taxpayers) and cease operations if that investment stops.
The bland generalization about 'socialists' isn't meaningful without some evidence and a specific falsifiable claim. We can make statements like that about anything.
The parent is almost perfectly timed with Uber's announcement. Suddenly it's a hot topic, though without mentioning Uber.
I was living in London when congestion pricing was introduced and went into the West End the day before and the first day of and the difference was night and day. The difference along Oxford Street, Regent's Street, Green Street, etc was astounding.
And in the 20+ years the evidence seems to back up how much of a net positive it has been.
NYC congestion pricing took way too long because the New York Democratic Party sucks and, as usual, legal efforts were made to block it, much as how well-intentioned laws like CEQA (designed to protect the environment) are actually just weaponized to block development of any kind.
What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC. Americans love the slippery slope argument. It's like "well, if they make driving cars slightly more expensive in Lower Manhattan then next the government is going to take away my gas-guzzling truck in Idaho".
What's also surprising is how many people who live in outer Queens and Brooklyn chose to drive into Manhattan and were complaining how this changed their behavior. Um, that was the point. I honestly didn't know how many people like that there were.
What really needs to happen but probably never will is to get rid of free street parking below about 96th street or 110th.
Also, either ban or simply charge more for combustion vehicles. Go and look at how quiet Chinese cities are where the vehicles are predominantly electric now.
Wow - there's free street parking in Lower Manhattan?! Yep, there's your problem!
Here in Sydney Australia, we don't have any congestion charge (there's been some talk about introducing one, but it's not really on the cards at this time). But it's pretty much impossible to find parking in the CBD (Mon-Fri 9-5) for less than around AUD$60 (USD$40) per day. There is literally no un-metered street parking anywhere in the CBD (also the parking inspectors are everywhere). Plus many of the routes in are tolled (although by no means all routes). Plus, things like the numerous one-way streets, bus-only lanes (with cameras), and ultra-low speed limits, makes it an extremely unpleasant driving experience (with a high risk of getting fines), for folks who are used to just driving in the suburbs. All of that effectively acts as a congestion charge - most people choose public transport over driving, when heading into the city centre, because in practice the cost of regularly doing the latter is prohibitive.
> most people choose public transport over driving
Is that true? I was surprised when looking at the actual stats (most people in Sydney drive to work), but maybe there are many more people working in places other than the CBD skewing this.
When I was cycling in from Balmain, there were a huge number of cars stuck in traffic getting into the CBD every morning. Despite it only being an easy 15 minute cycle (or a 15 minute bus ride) from the peninsula.
Yes, there are a lot of people working in places in Sydney other than the CBD, and yes, a much higher proportion of those people drive to work.
And yes, there are still enough people who drive into the Sydney CBD in peak hour, to cause massive traffic (and to keep the carparks, aka parking lots, being very lucrative businesses!). Nevertheless, they're a minority - more than 75% of people commute to the Sydney CBD on public transport [1].
Also, re: traffic from Balmain in peak hour. Plenty of places you can be going to, eastbound on the Anzac Bridge, apart from the CBD! I'd say a significant number of those drivers would be heading north of the harbour to work (eg North Sydney, St Leonards / Crows Nest, maybe Chatswood, maybe Macquarie Park), and they'd be bypassing the CBD thanks to the Western Distributor (could also be connecting to Cross City Tunnel to eg Bondi Junction, also Eastern Distributor to Randwick / Waterloo).
[1] https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/d...
> What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC.
Because NYC is gonna be used as a case for selling congestion charges elsewhere. This may cause decline in more effective and equitable policies like car bans and restrictions that are working really well in many places.
> What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC.
All kinds of seemingly local issues are getting sucked into the vortex of the national political scene in order to stoke outrage against "the enemy." See also all the people who have never been to SF and will never go to SF who have very strong opinions about SF homelessness/street crime (or, on the other side, the various "library in a small town you never heard of banned some books" stories that were popular a couple of years ago).
I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it.
I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well positioned to take advantage.
While the NY government can probably extract this rent from this area without damaging anything serious but it is not something that should be allowed to proliferate.
INB4 environment/pollution, the richer we all are the better custodians we will be of the environment. Nobody cares if their energy is clean when they can barely make ends meet.
I’m impressed. This is one of the strangest opinions I’ve ever seen. What is special about “at use”? Presumably because it lets you avoid the question of whether everyone should get a free car. Does a monthly car payment count as “at use”? Why not if a monthly transit pass does?
The other replies point out that different forms of transit compete with each other, so the more cars we have, the fewer bikes and trains.
Because once an investment has been made in a car and roads or in a train line or whatever there should be no artificial distinctive for people to use it as they deem appropriate.
As others have said, you are describing a totally imaginary world where money is the only cost. “Artificial” is doing all the work. But the very investments you’re describing are “artificial”, and more than that, they require constant spending to maintain. Why should cost at point of use be the only artificial incentive? What about the environment created by those investments? The quality of roads, the cleanliness of the train? Your distinction is contrived in service of your predetermined conclusion.
But when there are multiple competing forms of transit, or high externalities caused by use (or overuse) artificial disincentives are optimal. As an example, if you have access to both a car and a train, and the car pollutes less than the train, some artificial incentive to only use the car when necessary and to use the train otherwise is actually optimal.
You're also, it seems assuming that investment is a one-time thing. Once an investment has been made in a train line or a car, you still need to afford maintenance over the thing over the lifetime of the thing. Including the opportunity costs of doing other things instead.
Taking up space, degrading public infrastructure, polluting the air, and killing pedestrians are real ongoing costs of transportation. The cost does not magically end at vehicle purchase.
I’m in the side of transit should be free, but as I understand it, the fare is often a pretense to more easily enforce problematic behavior on the train. Fare evasion and other antisocial behavior often come together.
California has quite the gas tax, but it seems to do little to change behavior. Likely because the alternatives to driving are generally not great, but rolling the taxes back shouldn’t be the solution.
This is a curious form of fundamentalism. "All motion is good, and damn any effort to coordinate it."
Time is a cost though. You're looking only at monetary cost.
This is precisely the reasoning I bring up. In essence traffic congestion is an externality not unlike pollution. What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time. We've made explicit a cost that was already there, and by doing so the system can respond to it and behave more intelligently.
> What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time.
Where it gets to be a problem is when instead of spending 40 minutes to get somewhere because of time stuck in traffic many people become priced out of driving and now have to spend 1.5 hours on public transportation to make the same trip. The cost of wasted time in this specific case might not be as extreme, but as more public roads are paywalled off around the country I expect we'll see more people forced to use inadequate public transportation suffer.
your reasoning falls apart because mass transit options are inherently faster due to the geometric-space efficiencies gained by their form factors. You just need to induce enough people to participate in it to cross a tipping point where it becomes financially viable to run regular service, e.g., in NYC taking a train is often the fastest.
Exactly. The janitor has every right to sit in gridlock beside the CEO. If either doesn't like it they can adjust things but realistically the CEO's got the most ability and incentive to do so.
These artificial price distortions wind up most benefiting the people who were in the best position to alter their behavior.
Driving your car incurs real externalities. Putting a price on it fixes the artificial extra incentive to drive, by making freeloaders pay up.
Gas taxes (partially) pay for the roads. Get rid of those and you've just decreased your tax base, which means you're going to have to pay for it from another tax. It's just shifting the tax burden. We can argue about what's a better tax policy, if a certain tax is progressive or regressive and so on but wherever the money comes, somebody needs to pay for the roads.
NYC is one of about 2 places in the US that actually has usable public transit, barring certain outer boroughs where car ownership dominates. It's largely a hub and spoke model though so it's good for going into and out of Manhattan but not so good for, say, getting from Red Hook to Flushing so driving will dominate that kind of travel.
But that's why congestion pricing is targeted at Lower Manhattan and can't really spread beyond it. Like see how far you get trying congestion pricing in Houston or Dallas, let alone Bakersfield, Boise or Lexington (KY).
Economic incentives work. They're probably most responsible for the drop in smoking. Congestion pricing consistently changes people's behavior and every metric shows it. Some bus lines in NYC now move nearly 30% faster.
I don't know what island you're talking about and what happened but will generally agree that people are struggling all over. It's well-known that real wages have largely been stagnant for 40-50 years.
But that's not a problem caused by gas taxes. It's caused by capitalism.
Excessive car use lowers mobility for EVERYONE. Restrictions to car use, lower speeds via traffic calming, removing car lanes and adding bike and bus lanes, all of this IMPROVES transportation times including for cars!
Yep, except for public holidays where I'm going by car I never spend time in traffic. In my small city I can e-bike everywhere on almost entirely separated bike paths and if the weather isn't good I can take the bus or subway. If all else fails there's still Uber and Bolt
> I grew up on a goddamn island
Growing up on a remote island is basically the opposite of New York in all regards except that Manhattan is technically also an island.
IMO fuel taxes should be higher if it means more people and companies buy hybrids and EVs.
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 something similar). And ICE vehicles are definitely in many politicians' crosshairs, if you don't already see that coming in the next decade, you aren't really looking.
These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere").
(Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would prevent the local economy from collapsing. NYC is one of a very small handful of cities in the US where this is true, although that's largely a function of 80 years of car-centric design. Maybe it will change.)
"normalization, not a slippery slope"
Sounds like an arbitrary distinction, but in any event, it was the OP who used "slippery slope" to refer to going from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car."
The distinction is important: a change in a law isn’t always a slippery slope towards other things. Implementing congestion pricing isn’t a slippery slope towards seizing peoples’ cars, which was GP’s point (which I agree with).
To make it obvious: universal suffrage is a change that happened, but it wasn’t a slippery slope towards giving dogs the right to vote. Some changes result in new stases.
But nobody was claiming congestion pricing would absolutely lead to seizing cars. The OP was talking about the fear that more things may happen, which is perfectly logical. Today, nobody (including you) can say whether 10 or 20 years from now, ICE cars will be banned. But observing steps that appear to lead in that direction, and being concerned or fearful, is rational and logical.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Could you please expand on how that is murder?
Abortion, it is literally killing a human. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bGulABsExMs
Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles.
This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places is one thing. But we live in a capitalist country that celebrates individual freedom. Or do we? Beverly Hills CA and Manhattan Beach CA have both banned the sale of cigarettes entirely. Massachusetts banned all flavored cigarettes and is trying to permanently ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone a born after a certain date.
These go beyond "normalization", it is exactly slippery slope... get a small foothold then keep expanding the position.
Note that from 2026, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the London congestion charge.
People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.
New York's congestion pricing was just implemented. It's far too early to know whether it will, or to claim it won't, lead to further restrictions, such as banning some vehicles altogether.
Over 300 recreationally used molecules have been banned outright by UN conventions alone. Not saying this is good, but cigarettes are very much an exception to the norm.
I think the slippery slope has long happened and also gone away.
There are a ton of roads with "turnpike" or "pike" in their name. Some cost money [1] others are free. What's the big difference between NYC's congestion pricing and the Florida Pike?
I guess you can fight congestion pricing in order to slow the spread of toll roads but it's not the beginning of a slipper slope. Usage fees are a very old concept (price discrimination by time is pretty old as well).
[1]: https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/
New York State already has a major toll road (NY Thruway) and tolls to enter New York City. So do New Jersey and Connecticut, the other states you must drive through to enter New York City. The congestion pricing is a new charge on top of longstanding toll roads and bridge/tunnel tolls, so it feels like a new category and the start of something new, rather than being equated to "usage fees" as you state, at least in the minds of many drivers.
It's new yes, but the comment you are replying to asked how it is different. It's simply another toll.
The people's intense response - from supporters to opponents - plus the media coverage and political posturing, demonstrates that it's not "simply another toll"
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.
This is the same thing, except the different road is "the subway", or even the same road and "walking".
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.
Well, yes. Once you demonstrate that a good idea works and the doom doesn't come to pass, it gets copied. It's easy to claim that something doesn't work when nobody's doing it. Making the same claims when someone nearby is doing it and it works requires a higher level of reality-denial. Now, there's a lot of reality-denial to go round in politics these days, but occasionally a good policy slips through.
The EU ICE phaseout is set for 2035.
The argument that because a few things have spread, things in general are likely to spread is itself a slippery slope argument.
> 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?
I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.
[flagged]
> Right, because you’re an elitist
Please stop this style of commenting. You've been here long enough to know it's against the guidelines.
[flagged]
This is all plainly false. Community members who are sincere about wanting to make HN better or just holding the moderators to account can easily do so. They can email us with URLs, or include URLs in their accusatory comments. Plenty of community members do that and we always take action or explain our thoughts on the matter.
Accusations like this one, without any evidence that would enable other community members to check for themselves, serve only to deflect from the accuser's own conduct, and achieve nothing but make the site worse.
If you're sincere in being concerned about the patterns you claim are so pervasive here, please cite the evidence so we can all understand what you're talking about and enable the moderators to take the appropriate action.
I maintain that the claim inflammatory content is equally treated is plainly false. I would even say that your post above serves only to deflect from your own conduct.
Case in point, just today, of what I have seen hundreds of times in just the last year:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44018355
This does not pass guidelines, this does not satisfy curiosity, I have rarely seen a warning for content like this. Sometimes it gets flagged, more often it doesn’t.
> don’t mind imposing a $180 pay cut every month to the poor
LIRR monthly passes are anywhere from $180 to $400+. Are you advocating for making those free as well, or is that different somehow?
The trains and subway are right there...
[flagged]
It's funny how the urban design forcing poor people to pay car insurance and auto loan, just to survive, is fine; yet charging a hundred or so to use the highly valuable space in the city is outrageous.
Concern about public order is fair. But instead of fighting for the privilege to avoid it cheaply, why not fight to actually fix it. Triple the prison population, or whatever your solution is.
Japan has a 99% conviction rate, and still has 56% of women reporting having been groped on transit.
This cannot be solved. To force women on transit is to flip a coin whether they will be assaulted. You’re not going to beat a car culture with that strategy.
I heavily doubt that New York City has the appetite for incarceration that would be necessary, for even a remote chance, to turn public transit into a merely neutral option versus a car.
What about bikes? I thought they were great too, until someone was careless with their dog and left me bleeding and weighing the probabilities of serious disease. Just like that, the dream was dead and I realized we will never escape car culture.
Cars are bad. The alternatives are too flawed and dangerous in their own ways, to have any serious chance at unseating the incumbent.
Japan is not NY and arguments based on sociatal/cultural behavior don't apply universally. Do you personally use these scary subway systems in the US that you have so many stats about?
Interesting; instead of trying to answer my statistical objection, you are now forcing me to provide anecdotal evidence; to then most likely reject it for being anecdotal evidence. Pass.
As for “it doesn’t apply universally,” that’s not an argument because almost nothing applies universally - not even a sunrise and sunset, if you’re at the North Pole. My point can still be valid in almost all metro areas.
Finally, let’s say I did use these systems (and, sometimes, I do use public transit). I’m a man, you are 90% likely here to be a man, we’re not the ones getting groped, therefore our personal opinions on the likelihood are obviously irrelevant. You should be asking your wife and your 15 year old daughter to ride for a year and rate their comfort level.
Now think real carefully why you had to jump all the way over to Japan in order to be able to make your point at all. Cherry picking at its finest. Japan is very culturally different from the West and such issues are tightly tied to that culture.
> What about bikes? I thought they were great too, until someone was careless with their dog and left me bleeding and weighing the probabilities of serious disease.
You know you can trip, fall, hit your head and die on the spot anytime you walk anywhere right? A piano can randomly fall on your head too. Nothing is 100% safe; it's unfortunate you had an accident, but that's just anecdotal evidence, which is worthless.
I can't find any source online that says felony assaults on the subway are up 9% this year. Even the Post, which is typically inclined towards hyping crime rates, reports that felony assault rates are flat this year[1]. The same source claims that major offenses have dropped 18% YoY so far.
As with so many other things about NYC, salacious stories are given a funhouse mirror effect: you wouldn't want to fill your car's gas tank next to someone who has a victim in their trunk, but that person isn't being given national news coverage like the corpse abuser was.
[1]: https://nypost.com/2025/04/03/us-news/nyc-subway-crime-drops...
3 hours ago:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/14/us-news/nyc-subway-musicians-f...
New York Times in March:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/nyregion/subway-crime-nyc...
This Post article doesn't provide a source. Mine claims the NYPD as a source but doesn't link it either, though. It seems like only one of these can be correct: there would have to be a very large spike in felony assaults in a single month for the number to go up by 9% YoY.
The Times article doesn't mention this year's stats. Last year's were definitely worse, so it's not surprising they mention that.
The fun question of course is, are you actually safer on the road, or does it just feel safer? Which is more likely, a subway assault or a dangerous road-rage incident? There's tons of examples of road rage incidents in NYC where people have guns pulled on them or worse. But that isn't a particular visceral fear folks have (and you shouldn't!), but the likelihood of you getting shot on the subway is about the same, if not lower, than being shot elsewhere.
[flagged]
Dunno, but NH hasn’t had sales tax for much more than 5 years, despite all the states around it having it
You and I are in agreement
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 that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions.
* Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.
* You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.
(The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)
Bringing up these points when talking about improving urban transit is harmful.
These points always appear in reaction to urbanist policy and all of a sudden care about the minority transit user.
The problem is that the assigned proportion of road space is unfairly weighted to cars and is impossible to shift because people often say things like “cars make it easier to shift things around” and “some people have mobility issues”. Yes, this is true. What is also true is that people with mobility issues can more likely ride (cheaply) modified bikes than drive motor vehicles and people regularly haul heavy loads on cargo bikes (couches, refrigerators) in places where bike infrastructure makes it safe to do so.
If you care about speed in a densely populated city, you’d bike or walk. Flip it around; comfort isn’t the only reason why people prefer to use a car over walking or cycling. You said it yourself already, it’s because you can literally get hit by a car all because drivers won’t give up 1 lane out 4 for a segregated bike path that would stop you getting hit by a car.
The point of bringing this up is that you won't convince anyone to stop driving by pointing out that biking isn't slower if speed isn't the reason they drive in the first place.
If you want to convince people, you need to understand their actual motivations.
> If you want to convince people, you need to understand their actual motivations.
Yes, but if we did that we would have to deconstruct the history behind the American fixation on private automobiles and, of course, the racism and "think of the children" rhetoric that comes with it.
It's a losing battle. I can't convince people driving is more dangerous than the subway even if all the stats in the world make it plainly true. This is a culture problem, and much like every single one of America's cultural problems, it stems from hundreds of years of systemic racism. It has to be brought down slowly and deliberately.
> 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).
I don't have data, but I'm pretty sure you're even safer in a low speed car-to-car accident than in a low speed bike-to-bike accident.
You're even safer in a low speed tank-to-tank accident.
Which is the direction the car size and weight war is going anyway, after all "My family is safer in a massive SUV". Well then. Who cares about everyone else anyway. People outside of vehicles should just stop being poor and get one.
The maths says unlikely.
Kinetic energy=0.5mv^2
The two variables are orders of magnitude smaller in one scenario, and the function grows quadratically.
Yes the energy is much larger in a car collision, but the fraction of that energy absorbed by the cars is also much larger.
My face doesn't have a few feet of crumple zones on it, just a couple of millimeters of skin over bone.
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
> (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)
While true that injuries exist, halving your chance of early death is a pretty remarkable statistic, and would make me say that you are (if you are a statistically average person) much safer bike commuting than commuting by car: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-...
> 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.
I currently have a mobility issue because I biked to work.
But, yes, obviously everyone generally being healthier because they walk more is good.
> 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”
Yes, or rich people in poor areas, or gay and trans people in conservative areas, or Black people in racist areas, etc.
Anyone at a greater risk of being harrassed/mugged/assaulted/etc.
In every transit-heavy city that I have been to, you have both an extensive highway system AND an extensive public transit network.
But on the Internet, people are either BAN CARS or BLOCK TRANSIT.
In reality, I want both.
Thing is, the world as is is optimized 99% for cars, so BAN CARS, while not reasonable nor correct, is a proportional reaction.
Right, we're not talking about going from 99% of zero percent. We're talking about going from 99% to 95%, which is still, decidedly, pro-car in every sense of the word. This outrage is fake.
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
Are you serious? That's a lot to type without realizing what you're saying at some point. You could not get a more backwards argument - so many cyclists have had crashes with cars, so lets have more cars. Wow.
> I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.
Your idea of "more people" is clearly still massively lopsided towards cars. You're thinking on the order of increasing the current 1% of people walking&biking to maybe 5%, whereas you should be thinking 80%+. Completely wrong mindset.
This kind of hyper-aggressive response is exactly what turns regular people off cycling.
I am a bike commuter. I biked to work for years. I fill up my gas tank about three times a year.
I'm on your side but you are so gung-ho about bikes that if I'm not as zealous as you, you think I don't even understand how "backwards" my argument is.
I never ever said there should be more cars. I said that if you want to get people out of their cars you need to understand why they are in them in the first place and speed is only a fraction of that answer.
> * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.
A simple bullet, but with many nuances buried. There is no single answer. Below are several observations. No one of these is intended to be an answer. But there are a panoply of choices a city can make that improve access and mobility for all.
Yes, and good bike/ped infra is good for them, too. Everything that makes a good bike lane (smooth pavement, wide enough for passing, minimal bumps and potholes, at grade without having to go up and down to cross streets) also makes a great place for a mobility scooters.
Not everyone uses a mobility scooter. Cities with extensive pedestrianized areas typically do not close these to deliveries, and many leave them open for pick-up/drop-off for those with mobility issues.
The items mentioned above are about stopping general car traffic either in portions of a street or on a whole street.
Not all traffic reduction necessarily means a reduction of car-navigable streets. Traffic reduction can take the form of reducing through-traffic. There are many implementation mechanisms for this. One mechanism is a modal filter, which allows through-traffic for non-motor vehicles, but prevents through-traffic for motor vehicles (side note, such filters can be constructed such that emergency vehicles can still pass through). Thus through-traffic is prevented, but door-to-door vehicle traffic is still possible.
But modal filters can make routes more circuitous. Yes. Optimizing a city does not mean optimizing just the transport infrastructure, and optimizing transport infrastructure does not mean just prioritizing a single mode above all others. That said, generally reducing traffic improves driving experience and reduces times, because there is less traffic. A more circuitous route can be made faster with sufficient traffic reduction.
But circuitous routes increase emissions. They increase emissions for those cars which make the trip, but save emissions based on all trips that are shifted to other forms of transportation. Even those marginally longer trips for the remaining cars may be emission-neutral (or at least not as bad as naively expected) based on reduced idling time and smoother travel.
Nothing above is to say cars should be banned. Just observations about design choices that are routinely made around the globe that are generally considered good urbanism and have not led to major negative outcomes. Nothing to stop you or any individual to choose a car, just design decisions that do not prioritize cars above all else.
> * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain.
Yes, so do all forms of public transit. Shelters are routine in good transit systems, and any form of metro or rail will typically have buildings or underground stations.
There is, of course, wait time for transit, which is all the more reason to optimize a system for frequent service with dedicated rights of way or grade-separation. Frequency is also one of the greatest drivers of ridership.
In urban areas it is common that a vehicle is not directly outside your front door or in a covered garage. Similarly, that parking at the destination may be some distance from the door of the destination. This is analogous to the walk to a transit station. Obviously this varies by person and situation.
Cars avoid the dwell time at a station, emphasizing the value of shelters and facilities at transit stations.
Certainly a car is more convenient than transit in inclement weather. This is not a reason to design transportation infrastructure optimizing solely for personal vehicles.
> * Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.
The vast majority of day-to-day trips do not require hauling, unless that is part of your job. Certainly, if it is part of your job, you either have such a vehicle or it is provided by your employer.
Such hauling-based jobs are vastly improved by traffic reduction measures. Less traffic means better delivery times, and more importantly, more reliable time estimates for delivery. I know of no one in logistics who would decline to trade a small fee for improved times and reliability.
For personal use cases, as I mentioned hauling is rare. For the vast majority of people, the justification of hauling is better met financially by a van or truck rental as needed than by owning and maintaining a vehicle full time.
To be 100% clear, I am not saying, "you should not have a car, because vans are good at hauling." I am saying that "I occasionally need to haul things, so I need a car" is a specious argument. I am not saying you or anyone else should not have a car. I am simply pointing out that "occasional hauling" is not a good reason to own a car. If you want a car, have a car! If someone else wants a car, let them have a car! If you value the convenience of using your own vehicle for hauling at a per-use rate that is a large multiple of the rate of renting a van/truck, that is your own value judgment and you are welcome to it.
This is simply an observation that for the vast majority of people, the financial analysis suggests not a car, but a van/truck rental for hauling purposes. If you are not part of this majority, then please recognized that I am not trying to say that you are.
Hauling is a totally valid use case for vehicles and I've never seen anyone make an argument that the transportation of goods and stuff should be forbidden. Certainly I hope no one interprets my statements above as such an argument. The need to transport things, again, is not a good reason to build an entire transportation system in a city to optimize always for personal vehicles.
Again, a very common feature of reduced traffic, and even traffic-forbidden areas in cities is that they are close to most traffic, but still allow deliveries and mobility assistance vehicles.
And also, again, a reduction in traffic is a boon for those use cases.
...continued...
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.
And you are much safer not having an accident in the first place. If we want to observe the world, there are cities that have done a great job at reducing all vehicle related fatalities and injuries: those injuries to drivers and passengers in any vehicle involved, and also those injuries to anyone outside of the vehicle.
There are two commonalities in these cities: 1) they have many viable options for transportation, including high quality bike infra, pedestrian areas, trains, buses, metros, trams, and personal vehicles; and 2) they reduce traffic and speed in all areas where personal vehicles are potentially in conflict with other forms of transportation.
You'll recognize in the first point the same refrain I have been repeating: optimizing a transportation system does not mean optimizing primarily on just one mode of transit. It's not about forcing one mode or banning another. It is about options. There is a near universal observation about transit times within and into/out of urban areas that the time for car travel tends toward the time for public transit. This is generally understood to be because humans optimize their transport, and if one option is faster or more convenient, enough people choose that until it is not.
The second thing those cities do, though, is the leading cause for the reduction in accident frequency, lethality, and severity of injury: the reduction in traffic quantity and speed.
The road-street distinction is very important here. If you are not familiar with it, the distinction is this: roads are high speed connections between places, optimizing for vehicle throughput; streets are complex environments where a wide assortment of destinations are, where living is done, businesses exist, and the general activities of life and city happen. If you want more detail, this video is a good primer (linked to a relevant portion: https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM?t=536); the video is coming from a very strong place of opinion. I am not asking you to accept all the opinions, but am simply sharing the video, because it provides lots of good real-world examples in laying out the distinction.
It is essential that, within a city, there are affordances for people out of cars and people in cars. This is simple reality. If we recognize this reality, and we understand that humans are imperfect and prone to failure, then the conclusion is that if we want to reduce the injuries and deaths associated with traffic, we must build systems that tend toward this outcome. The practical implementations of such systems that are proven to be effective in achieving this outcome are:
1. separate through-traffic 2. ensure mixed-mode areas force low volumes and speeds of cars
The first is by designing transportation networks that force through-traffic to roads designed for it.
The second takes many forms, generally known as traffic calming. I have mentioned a few already. You can search for more. The other side of this is recognizing that cities are for people (the people in the cars and the people out of the cars, though at some points the people in the cars become people out of cars). There must be areas where people want to go. And those areas where people are must minimize the risk of negative interactions with vehicles. Again, traffic calming and pedestrianizing.
Regarding injury: the most likely cause of death and severe injury for a shockingly wide swath of adults in the US is a car accident, whether in the car or out of it. I do not make this as an argument against cars. I make this as an argument for design of car infrastructure in ways that makes me safer regardless of which side of the steel I am on.
> 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"
It’s amazing how slow cars are in cities. I was recently beaten by a pedestrian over a 20 minute drive.
I wonder in NYC if elevated bike trails could be built economically that separate bikes from cars, or at least provide a "superhighway" for them. Maybe even a suspension scheme of sorts.
With e-bikes and e-scooter, I would actually argue that New York City should build underground tunnels, well, the overall goal of being able to enable these types of very efficient compact transportation to get from various parts of the major boroughs at an average speed of about 15 mph
I believe this will provide enormous livability benefits. Or you elevate the entire tunnel.
Super expensive and not very convenient if you have to go up/downhill all the time just to get anywhere.
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 evenings or nights.
TLDR; speed isn't the only factor
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.
Cars also let you carry stuff over distances that would be awkward/uncomfortable/impossible walking or cycling. They’re also more comfortable, particularly in inclement weather.
I’d absolutely love if I could get away with having no car. I can’t. My life would be markedly, instantly, and demonstrably worse. I feel like a lot of people in the “no cars” camp neglect these issues.
Hi from London:
The centre is much more pleasant to walk in, as are most places in the zone.
Pollution is much, much better: if you came to London and travelled on the underground you would have black snot when you blew your nose, this hasn't been the case for a few years now.
I hope NY gets the sake improvements.
London has changed for the better for sure but black snot on the tube hasn't changed at all. I get it from 20 minutes on any deep line like the Victoria. It's from train brake dust, nothing to do with vehicle emissions.
Victoria might be one of the worst for this. You can hear the wheels screaming the abrasion off for long sections of it. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Piccadilly gets better for you when the new trains arrive over the next couple of years.
I think the screeching is because the section from Highbury to Blackhorse is one massive right hook that the trains take at an uncompromising speed.
The Tube has a real ventilation issue - not just the brake dust, but also temps and staleness. Some of those lines, it’s like a 24/7 sauna!
I think I read that the warmth from people and braking has baked some of the clay earth around the tunnels, making them even more insulative!
Because of how old they are there is some really interesting long term data as the earth itself around the tunnels reaches a new thermal equilibrium. In looking for a source, i found a good wikipedia article on tube temp in general.
These comments and the article made me see how much of it is/was due to braking. TIL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_cooling
Ha, I happened upon an interesting video earlier today on this topic! https://youtu.be/4MzHt_YLnjw
Travel of low-income people also declined significantly while high-income travel did not. So quite literally the London congestion pricing got the poor off the zones.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03611981221138801
From the report: "the highest income earners contributed to more of the revenue than the lowest income earners, making the scheme progressive in the scale of its equity impact"
It is quite likely that the lower income users are mostly retired people, and students, and they shouldn't be crowding the system at peak times unless willing to pay.
If you price out low-income people, you do get relatively more revenue from high-income earners. But the low-income people also get less service.
The non-charge eligible trips of the low earners declined as well. The paper did not differentiate between sources of income, and I'm not sure how relevant that is.
So the "poor off the zones" stands. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether this is desirable or not.
The paper is available without paywall here: https://www.mit.edu/~hamsa/pubs/Craik-Balakrishnan-TRR2022.p...
A retired millionaire living off savings will be counted as a “low income” person unlike than a working person on 50k paying 20k a year in rent.
I treat “income” with a healthy dose of salt
How would limiting access by adding a cost not obviously impact people differently based on their income? I'm struggling to see why this would even need to be verified by research.
What's not obvious is how strong the impact is, does it cause substitution of travel modes or just decrease in travel, how does it change when travel takes place, what share of people are those who still have to drive etc.
In general cost, travel time, difficulty of parking, etc. all affect optional travel. (And, also, just age and inclination.) I know I'm way less inclined to go into Boston/Cambridge for something in the evening for some combination of those reasons than I used to be. I can take commuter rail in for a day event but it's pretty much a non-starter for something in the evening.
The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
And the investments in public transit and bike paths are excellent for those who can't. Such unalloyed win-wins are hard to find.
I lived in Manhattan, and was very well paid. I did not own a car, and loved it. This would have been great for me as well.
Did you have children or did you live alone?
As someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car.
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.
I live in Chicago and use a cargo ebike with a child seat for probably 90% of my trips. I can take my kid to school, go shopping, and go to my office on my bike, often quicker than if I were to take a car.
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.
>protected bike lanes
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.
I’ve experienced Chicago winters.
Do you put the kid in that seat?!?
Yes, with a warm coat and this full enclosure[0] she was happy in the winter.
[0]: https://betterabound.familybikeride.org/img/winter-kit.jpg
The bigger problem in the winter is the drivers get even crazier and the roads can occasionally get icy.
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.
You can live in an urban neighborhood and only use your car a few times a week (mostly on weekends and for yearly kid doctor visits). Its not just Manhattan, Seattle supports this as well (well, you still "need" a car, but you can get away with not driving it very often). You need to be strategic about where you live (e.g. buying the house 7 minutes away from your kid's K-8 and 10 minutes away from his future 9-12, with grocery stores and dentists nearby).
s/strategic/wealthy/
I agree there are places in Seattle one can do this, but boy one certainly needs the paper to do this.
Seattle is weird in that drive til you qualify is not a thing unless you start getting really far out. Some inner ring neighborhoods and suburbs are comparable or more expensive than the core.
If you want to head straight south or straight north you won’t have to go further out than 1 hour before rents and property values fall significantly from city center Seattle. Tacoma is 30 minutes away without traffic and has a median home price 40% less than Seattle. Drive till you qualify is real.
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.
With traffic, Tacoma isn’t very viable. Also I have a relative who commuted to his job in Tacoma from…west Seattle (granted they bought in the late 80s). It was an easy reverse commute (so close to actually 30 minutes?), going the other way is hard and you can only win with the train (sounder) or maybe bus. Link is making its way down to federal way soon (or already?) but that assumes you work near a station or it quickly becomes not competitive with driving.
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 ferry is also so expensive that you’d probably eat up a lot of savings using that as your commute method.
It depends how often you need to show up at the office. Honestly, if you live near the dock and work downtown, and only need to show up 2 days a week, it can work. Otherwise it sounds like too much if a hassle to me..
Yeah, it varies in a lot of cities. I live about an hour (given not a lot of traffic--hah!) west of Boston and the real estate prices aren't cheap but not crazy. A lot of the tech industry was out that way anyway historically until pharma and outposts of west coast companies took over Kendall Square. But certainly a lot of the coastal towns north and south of the city are pretty pricey.
Yeah, the Eastside is a real estate hellscape. Everything east of Lake Washington till highway 203/18 is genuinely quite bad. I had cheaper rent on top of Queen Anne, 1 block from the Trader Joe's, than any place of comparable walk/transit on the east side ($2065/month for a 2 bedroom 1.75 bathroom apartment+1 parking place, ~950sq/ft).
Why stop at WA-18, though? I-90 is wide and not particularly busy past that point even at peak times, so you can easily get to North Bend in only a few more minutes.
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.
Really curious what would amount to 1.75 bathroom, I'm unfamiliar with the concept. One full bathroom and a second with just a a toilet/sink combination?
That is 1.5. A 1.75 is usually a small bathroom with a shower. The space would have no room for a tub. These often get counted as full baths anyways.
Yeah. A lot of us prefer a shower to a bathtub with shower anyway. But it's probably an important distinction for people with kids especially.
You make a tradeoff. You are still going to plop down $1 million for a home unless you live way out there, but instead of a 2000 foot SFH in Bothell or Lynwood, you make do with a 1250 foot townhome in Ballard (same price, less property taxes, more urban). Ballard isn't exactly Capitol Hill or Queen Anne either (we thought about Magnolia just across the locks, but it made me think that I would at least need an electric cargo bike to make most days work without a car).
Totally agree. I'm renting on the eastside at the moment, but places like Ballard and Magnolia are on my list of places to look to buy for the very reasons you mentioned. Having more space in these exurbs is "nice", but you pay the time tax every time you want to do something.
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).
You probably wouldn't be upside down in south Seattle, just maybe not that happy. But if you don't have kids, Georgetown is (or at least was) the hip area to be in ATM.
> You need to be strategic about where you live (e.g. buying the house ...
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.)
Walk Score can provide an estimate of walkability for any given address.
https://www.walkscore.com/
You aren’t exactly going to find an SFH in the suburbs that is much cheaper. So you have a point, but you have to choose between an SFH, a similar priced townhome (basically an SFH without a yard), or a condo with an HOA, all basically unaffordable unless you want to commute from Kent or Marysville. Seattle still has density (the townhome I live in in Ballard is one of three that used to be one SFH).
Indeed. My intended purpose of such a tool would be to crudely illustrate the impracticality of everyone aspiring to such housing ;)
Self-driving cars are going to turn America's car-centric "hellscape" into a superpower with untold second order benefits.
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.
Self-driving cars are the magic pixie dust of transportation planning, brought out to justify noninvestment in public transit.
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.
China is going to reap more benefits from self driving cars, but they also have (in many cities at least) mass transit in place to truly do multi-modal trips (self driving cars at the end tips of subway rides).
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).
The multi-modal hassle is why cars are so popular in the first place.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I just got back from Beijing and long journeys across the city in a taxi...they aren't really feasible. Yes, comfortable, but no, the traffic is still really really bad. Subway is much quicker, but the routes are often indirect and require one or two changes, but at least you know you'll get where you need to go.
If you ride the subway enough in Beijing or Shanghai, eventually you will come to the conclusion that both cities are just way too big. No matter how many subways that you build, getting from one place to another takes a minimum of 45 mins (including some walking on both ends). New York, London, Seoul, and Tokyo all suffer from similar problems -- giant metro systems, but these cities are huge.
At least you can often sit down in Tokyo if you aren't traveling on peak. In Beijing, you never get to sit unless you are clever about your route (e.g. taking the line 10 the long way around when going to West Beijing, rather than transferring to line 1 in guomao). A 1 hour+ trip standing feels a lot longer than 1 hour.
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.
That’s why you often end up with ‘cities within a city’ (ala wards, boroughs, districts, etc) and in those cases it’s easier to mentally model the overall city more like a small state.
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.
just one more lane bro I swear that's it it's just one more lane then the traffic will go away
Road lanes are like CPU cores. And like CPUs, adding more cores does not linearly scale up traffic capacity.
In the case of CPUs, there's sync and communication overhead; for highways, there's more turbulence and slowdown generated by lane-switching.
Adding more lanes encourages more driving. That's why it never reduces traffic
Same with computers. More power and bandwidth and storage space has largely meant our apps and websites have grown to fill it.
That's why we are focusing on adding GPU cores instead, but they can only do the same operation on a lot of data in parallel (much like mass transit).
lol
> As someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car.
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...
We bought a very fancy and expensive 2 toddler stroller when we had two toddlers and it saw almost no use because it was a hassle pretty much everywhere. I advise all new parents to avoid purchasing one until there's a proven need, and I don't know any other parents that thought it was a good idea to purchase one. I'm sure it's great for some kids, but certainly not mine or even most kids. I honestly don't understand the use case for it except for nap-time strolls around the neighborhood (and how often do they both sleep at the same time?) or maybe amusement parks when there's 3+ hours on your feet.
My twins spent several hours in their stroller (bugaboo donkey) on many days, back when they were toddlers (a lot of that time being spent having their afternoon nap in the stroller). Living in Sydney Australia. Similar car-centric problems to most US cities. But I guess we're lucky to live walking distance from parks, supermarkets, childcare centres (and now school), and a train station. And the stroller fitted folded-up in the boot (aka trunk) of our (small hatchback!) car. And our train station (and our most common destination stations) has a lift (aka elevator - Sydney has successfully been rolling out a project [1] to install lifts in more and more of its ageing train stations over the past decade). I couldn't imagine having managed, back then, without a 2-toddler stroller.
[1] https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/transport-access-p...
The donkey is an amazing stroller. We also used a double decker trike with larger wheels, worked very well. Can’t remember the exact model, unfortunately.
> I honestly don't understand the use case for it
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.
I did that it wasn't so bad. Definitely preferable to not finishing work because you need to drive one kid to gymnastics and the other one to jiu jitsu
How great then that a large injection of revenue from the congestion pricing is coming to help add disability accommodation to the subway stations in NYC.
When I can, I always take the stairs. It's usually vacant, while the escalator is packed.
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.
>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.
this was charming to read!
The only life advise I've ever taken seriously is to always take the stairs.
A friend of mine when I worked at Boeing advised me to always take the elevator, because one is only allocated so many heartbeats, and he wanted to conserve his.
He passed away from a heart attack.
That line of logic to me was always just absolute wild.
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.
The nyc subway is incompetent at building and has been for decades. But since nobody cares they get buy with ignoring disability and calling it hard even though cities around the world with things just as hard have managed. Those other cities have also done subway expantion is much harder situations at far less cost.
Oof. I know people with kids in the city, and it seems like if you're taking public transit, it's a nightmare when they're little.
(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.
My little kids looove transit. We take the bus all the time in my small town. We visit San Francisco almost weekly it's how we get around after parking. And we usually start our day in SOMA, an area that is not the nicest. We also frequently take the new central subway. I have not experienced a nightmare yet. Maybe Manhattan is more of a nightmare.
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.
SFO Muni is a better system than New York.
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.
Being able to raise kids without a car is why we moved to NL. The US is a hellscape
It depends on the age of the kids - if the kids can effectively self ambulate (8+ is usually old enough to have the stamina for a lengthy trip on public transit), then your options aren’t super limited by dealing with them.
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.
Having a dinky appartment that is still expensive is not worth it unless you’re young and don’t have kids and want to be around everything you care about. Or you’re rich and don’t mind paying a fortune to live in a nicer appartment in Manhattan. If I had the money I would still prefer something outside Manhattan just to be able to avoid the noise pollution, the crowds and all that Manhattan commotion.
I hear that noise pollution in Manhattan has gotten better since congestion pricing started.
Cities aren't loud; cars are loud.
Cars aren't nearly as loud as sirens and garbage trucks. Whenever I stay in a dense city those tend to keep me up at night.
> Cars aren't nearly as loud as sirens and garbage trucks
Guess what forces emergency vehicles to fire their sirens, or garbage trucks to linger.
bwahaha this is so ridiculous.
You’re really claiming that a congested street isn’t meaningfully more noisy than an uncongested one, including in terms of frequency and duration of horns and sirens?
More noisy? Of course. But even in nice places like Chelsea - at 2am when there are no cars or congestion at all - the cops/ambulances and garbage trucks have no problem being incredibly noisy.
[dead]
Without cars, emergency vehicles could have their sirens at 10% of the volume. Garbage trucks and busses are slowly being replaced by electric versions which are much quieter.
Electric garbage trucks aren't much quieter. I've heard them. Most of the noise comes from the machinery and the reverse beeping, not the engines.
> Cities aren't loud; cars are loud.
EVs have entered the chat
Still, I'd always prefer less cars and more transit.
I first heard the phrase used by parent in a video [1] by youtube channel Not Just Bikes, which found EVs to be similar to ICE cars at typical speeds.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
I find EVs noticeably quieter, but the "typical speeds" here in Copenhagen are properly lower than where you live.
At 30km/h or so, the main noise is the engine, so EVs are quieter (as the video says).
In my experience, EVs are nearly as loud as IC, as the majority of the noise at typical stroad speeds comes from the tires, not the engine.
Isn't that mostly applicable to highway speeds? Does tire noise have much of an effect at city speeds?
Yes. I live in a small city. Along a moderately busy avenue with speeds around 25 mph, it’s hard to carry a conversation. 30 feet down a side street, totally different story.
Yes, it is very noticeable at city speeds. Source: my hears every day I go out.
> the majority of the noise at typical stroad speeds comes from the tires, not the engine
It comes from honking.
The engine noises in cities are generally not a huge problem outside of trucks (or POS cars modified to make noise).
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.
Almost 60% of US households have no kids in them [1]. We can infer demand for Manhattan housing stock by vacancy rates and rent levels [2] [3] [4] [5].
[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...
One word: baby carriages up and down stairs
In London we just help each other. Someone approaches stairs with a pram and they'll get a "would you like a hand with that?"
The only people I see carrying a pram up/down stairs without help are dads who were happy to do it themselves.
That’s six words
Elevator
Only 26% of NYC due way stations have elevators.
This statistic looks really bad but a large number of subway stations are very close to each other, so it's rather easy to find an alternative accessible station somewhat nearby in many cases (especially in Manhattan)
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.
The NYC buses require you to take the kid(s) out of the pram and fold it up. A total PITA
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...
NYC parents already know this and have strollers that fold up to backpack size. The stroller market has progressed incredibly in recent years, there are strollers designed to fold with only one hand.
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.
I also think it’s funny that people bring up NYC transit accessibility statistics when it’s not like the cars that people are forced to drive in just about every other city are accessible.
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.
And, presumably, you have to take your children to places, because they can't drive.
What is the danger compared to riding in cars, which is dangerous too? What about other alternatives like bus or subway?
With fewer cars on the road, thanks to the congestion pricing, we'll probably see safer roads for all users, as well.
I live in Manhattan with a kid and I love not needing a car. I walk my daughter to school and I walk to work from there. It's great.
I'm already imagining what kind of arguments you are preparing. Kids are infinitely better off somewhere they can just bike places with their friends, compared to a car-centric hellhole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
> Did you have children or did you live alone?
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.
Car-centric design is hell for parents and kids alike.
FWIW I like driving my kid to school in my car. YMMV
I hated feeling completely stranded as a kid since nothing was accessible by foot or PT. Even today visiting my parents outer suburban house feels like being dumped on an island.
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.
Yeah, most of us have no idea how bad we have it until we live somewhere where it's different.
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.
A meaningless statement unless you've tried a reasonable number of alternatives. As it is, you're just stating that you've grown accustomed to what your environment forces you to do, e.g. "I like breathing air". Good for you, but not relevant.
I live in Brooklyn with kids and do not have a car. Equally possible in Manhattan - have car-less friends with kids there too.
Just saying it is possible, and certainly not everyone’s choice.
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.
Any rough guess the min income to raise a kid in manhattan nowadays?
More
The children part I understand, but why is it important is the OP lived alone?
Also for those who can't afford car ownership.
Whether there will be net increase in these investments remains to be seen. Even if the revenue does get into these investments, there's no reason it can't be offset by reduction in e.g. tax revenue investment, or even a tax cut. There's also no reason why investment couldn't be done without the congestion charge revenue.
> public transit and bike paths are excellent for those who can't
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.
Yes, this is absolutely more than vindication. If you pay a toll and then become stuck in traffic on that toll road, you are a victim of highway robbery. The fact that NYC traffic is flowing fulfills our simple toll contract and makes everyone whole.
> increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll
And anyone who takes a taxi. Or needs an ambulance. Or orders anything delivered during the day.
Or takes a bus
Also excellent for those public transport riders who can't afford car ownership.
For completeness, might as well add not excellent for those who have a car, find driving more convenient, but can’t afford the toll.
If you can afford a car in NYC then you can afford the toll. Cars are very expensive to own.
If you could afford the car only just, it's quite obvious you can't afford it if you now have to pay congestion charges on top.
Technically true, but it's a megaluxury that comes at a high cost, especially to everyone else.
At that point you're already living beyond your means. Automobiles take up, on average, 15% of the gross income of the average American.
Just take the 15% gross salary raise and move on with your life.
Oh well then. Either spend less on the train (also saving money on gas and maintenance) or stay in suburbia. We pay a premium to live in the city, much more than the $9 so I’m not gonna shed any tears that it’s not much less convenient for someone to not drive
Driving is almost always more convenient on many levels, so it’s not really the best argument start from “it’s just easier”
(Or who would prefer to spend the money elsewhere.)
The best decision would be to completely forbid individual transport. Now the common space dedicated to streets is for who can pay extra. Forbid individual transport and create some parks and pedestrian streets.
These threads tend to devolve into, "Americans are so unsophisticated everyone else in the world is banning cars and turning downtown into walkable utopia" but what they really mean by rest of the world is a few crowded European cities. If you look at all the new rich mega cities built in the Middle East and East Asia cars continue to exist alongside good public transit as aspirational status icons and the preferred means of transit for people who can afford them. Cars are never going away.
There are plenty of cars in Paris and London. It just feels as though people walking are a priority more than they are in NYC. Cars feel compelled more often outside of NYC, where they also block intersections and park next to crosswalks and block visibility.
The only well-designed cities in the US are college towns (and even then, only some of them).
More compelled not to stop (post-edit update)
Other societies decide where they spend money. It can be public transportation, paid maternity leave or universal healthcare.
America addiction to cars is a human construction, so it can be changed.
Tokyo?
These USian supremacist talking points are the prime reason minorities feel unwelcome on this site
As an American who's fluent in Spanish, I got over this "debate" about what America means by acknowledging that the word America is a homonym.
Extremes rarely work out well. The people paying for the luxury are funding improvements for everyone.
It works really well in quite a few other cities, actually.
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.
> Converting all of NYC into a huge pedestrian-only zone obviously isn't going to work
The dreamer in me immediately asks “why not?” and while I agree it will never happen, it felt good to imagine it.
How do you get all the food in? Manhattan is an island. Without constant food deliveries by truck it will die. This food is delivered to countless restaurants and grocery stores, not to some central warehouse, so delivery by train doesn't work.
While I wasn’t claiming it would work, that example is easily solved around the world already by allowing vehicles into pedestrian zones overnight.
The obvious reason is goods and equipment movement. There are places that strike a much better balance than NYC though...
A few pedestrian streets or blocks might be worth doing, banning all private vehicles from the entire downtown probably not going to happen or be well received if tried.
this is worth thinking about. The idea that the small toll charge actually pays for the streets it covers is flat out untrue. The citizens of the US vastly subsidize the streets and roads of the country. Just purchasing the land used for roads in Manhattan would cost a massive fortune and the people paying taxes in the US have and are paying for it. Not to mention the cost of maintaining the roads (physical infra) and policing the roads. So if NY put the land to more productive use and didn't have to maintain the roads I think they could save a lot of money.
we still need roads for ambulances and deliveries and bikes and shared cars / busses, and there obviously would be enormous costs to peoples time for what already is one of the biggest cities in the world.
If I live in a NYC like this how do I visit my friends in Philadelphia? What if they live in Towson MD? Now what if they live in the suburbs? How would I visit anybody in the country side anywhere? What if I want to buy in bulk at Costco? What if I just want to buy anything I can't carry on the subway?
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.
Funnily enough there is a Costco in NYC, in Astoria (Queens) decently close to Manhattan. You can take the ferry there from Manhattan, or the subway, or busses, or bike there even, or heck just take an uber if you bought a lot of stuff.
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 only need an occasional car then rental cars aren’t a bad deal. For somewhat more frequent needs there’s stuff like zipcar and turo
You get a train or bus to the nearest stop to your friends and they come and pick you up. This is what city dwellers in countries with developed infrastructure are used to.
Alternatively, you rent a car from a car sharing service for the few times a year you want to do this.
This is crazy. Costco just exists because America is an auto addicted society. In sane places you can make multiple small errands. Maybe you could even get to know some neighbors
Costco has many locations internationally. They're kind of nice in that the pizza is the same if you ever feel home sick in a country with terrible pizza.
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.
Interesting but feels Un-American as a concept.
Except horses, mules, donkeys and huskies. These can stay.
Go one step further and ban mechanized transport all together. Streets will have very little congestion. We can just go back to footpaths.
It’s also excellent for people that take buses.
Source: me
They also benefit any and all road-based public transit that crosses the zone.
>The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
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.
Those people simply don't drive into Manhattan, parking is already $30-$40 a day, driving from Jersey means you are already paying at least a $15 toll (you can drive from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx without paying a toll). An extra $9 simply doesn't matter.
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...
Again, anecdotally. This point came from a bartender in the east village, who has indeed driven into the city every day for years. Longtime locals who know where to park are not paying $30-40 (in fact that is at the high end of anywhere I've seen in Manhattan).
> Again, anecdotally. This point came from a bartender in the east village, who has indeed driven into the city every day for years.
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.
While I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning that with the huge efforts that went into quantifying this they couldn't come up with something more precise.
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).
> I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning
Why? Do you want to know something other than the second statistic?
Why the heck wouldn't I want to know what fraction of people actually subject to the new policy fall with in the group of interest?. There's nothing that says the 2% of the overall group aren't the same 15% who will be taxes. Now, obviously we know from common sense and observable reality that that's not the case but it still begs the question what the number is. Saying "85% of people in the affected area are not subject" and then "2% of the interest group city wide is subject to the policy" implies some upper and lower bound but it doesn't actually say much about what percent of those subject to the tax are subject to it.
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.
> 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.
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.
[dead]
Yet, the article states > Public Opinion: Not great (but improving)
So most people aren't happy (yet). Why is that?
Free stuff from the government is almost always very popular regardless of how bad of an idea it is. Free roads are no different.
It's change. And it's a tax. Neither of which are easy sells.
"universal for x" is a weird thing to say
I think it's meant to be interpreted as, "among all Y, X is true". And Y is meant to be "toll roads".
wealthy people do not need to travel as much as pleb....
Let travel for royalty be unimpeded and force the peasants to bike in the rain...
they can choose to be wealthy ( joke sorry )
This article reminds me of the 1990s because it was a time when you believed that America was getting better all the time and that we had reason to feel hopeful.
I know it's possible for us to have that again, but it's really hard to figure out how.
There was a time when there were no automobiles in New York City, but there was lots of public transportation. (Ok, there were horses and the consequent manure, and the population was way smaller then. But still...)
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.
Yeah? This is what I meant: https://image.geo.de/30155632/t/17/v5/w1440/r0/-/new-york-19...
> there was lots of public transportation
There could have been a lot more. The 1929 IND Second System expansion plan is depressing, especially the parts where provisions are already built:
- https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/01/ind-second-...
- https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IND_Second_System_-_1929_Plan
- https://www.awakennyc.com/second-system-gems
The city's price control on the cost of a subway ride was a spectacular policy failure that crushed the system into decline and operators into bankruptcy.
The population of Manhattan peaked in the 1910s. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_Yor...
It's nice that all those numbers are up, but it would be great also to see some metrics that attempted to measure the overall utility of the change. Something like avg time spent commuting, or really commute_time * dollars_spent_commuting^B where B is some parameter for the relative utility of time and money. Of course B is different for everyone but something like this could be attempted.
Stated another way, if they made congestion pricing $1000 instead of $15 or whatever it is, all those numbers mentioned in the article would go way way up and it would look like a smashing success. The article doesn't make any attempt to measure anything that could potentially be a downside.
I would add another metric: how are businesses doing since the change? I was walking around the city on a Wednesday evening and it was utterly eerie how empty it felt. This past weekend seemed to be the exact opposite thanks to the nice weather, but I haven't seen that level of emptiness.
I notice empty storefronts and anecdotally, I feel like there is an increasing number. I have a friend who opened a store downtown just before this happened. I don't dare ask yet, but I can't see it being a benefit for small businesses.
Empty storefronts in lower Manhattan have become more prevalent especially as Walgreens has been downsizing their Duane Reade locations and banks have reduced branch numbers. Historically I've heard that landlords try to hold out for high rent paying large corporations but in the past few years there are less and less of those tenants. Also I'm sure it's tied to the 10 year lease renewal/rent increase cycle.
Anecdotally, I notice a lot more foot traffic in Fidi than last year and far less traffic when I do need to take a taxi or uber. It seems like greater foot traffic would be a benefit for your friend's store unless it's a destination store that sells large products (furniture/appliances/etc).
Believe it or not, cars stuck in traffic is not a good indicator of how well businesses are doing.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/traffic-down-business-gover...
The cool thing about congestion pricing is that you can still keep a car in Manhattan for free as long as you don’t leave the congestion zone.
Keeping a car in Manhattan is the closest thing to having superpowers most will ever experience - and I’m sure with congestion pricing the equation is even better.
The superpower of dealing with parking in Manhattan (whether paying or circling for a long time) is not the superpower I want to have
What exactly is the superpower here? Having a large chunk of steel you need to micro manage the location of, or pay up the nose to have a dedicated space for?
Have you ever ridden a bike? Taken the subway? Heck, you can just use a taxi to get around. Why would you want to deal with having a car in somewhere like Manhattan? Do you hate your fellow citizens so much you need to be constantly insulated from society?
The only issue with this tax is that I doubt MTA is capable of putting new revenue to good use.
Effectively we added a barrier to travel (this IS a tax), with some positive externalities for some people (including me), but whether that tax revenue will be deployed well is doubtful given MTA track record.
(Yes, it was/is underfunded; but also somehow everything is 10x of what it “supposed” to cost)
Everything tends to optimize to benefit the rich. Just like tax incentives on expensive electric vehicles.
Of course every other metric section is beaming but the one about affecting lower income is "it's too early to tell".
It's not fair economics or policy making if it always skews one way. It's like "carbon tax to force people not to fly or move, while elite private planes are essential".
> It's not fair economics
I think you have a distorted sense of what fairness is. Charging the same price to the rich that you charge to the poor for the same service is fair. Charging different prices would be unfair.
Charity/philanthropy is a good thing, because human life is inherently valuable, but it's not a matter of fairness. People don't have an inherent right to benefit from the labor or ingenuity of others.
> think you have a distorted sense of what fairness is. Charging the same price to the rich that you charge to the poor for the same service is fair. Charging different prices would be unfair.
Nice strawman. No. Charging for something that changes behavior in the poor but not in the rich because it's an exclusinary device is definitely not fair. I also didn't suggest different prices but simply not doing exclusion via money or taxation, which doesn't affect the rich.
> Charity/philanthropy is a good thing, because human life is inherently valuable, but it's not a matter of fairness. People don't have an inherent right to benefit from the labor or ingenuity of others.
What are you on about? I'm sorry to tell you but the likes of corporate magnates and rich politicians don't create more value just bend the rules to stay on top. It's easy to throw money at things to create more money when you have it. When you can put your capital in a tax haven and the rubble pays it in full.
Next time you come with inspired strawmen takes, prep a bit.
i think this is an issue with how flat fees are inherently a regressive tax. if you scale fees & tolls to be more income based the problem goes away
but also the current setup has income based exemptions / lowered rates
Climate Town has an entertaining and informative video on this topic from last month: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ
Great comment from that video: "When cars were banned from Central Park drivers whined and now we can't imagine it any other way." Everything is impossible until it is done.
I see this with new apartment buildings in my small, NIMBY-dominated town.
Building proposed: "It will be too expensive! We need housing for those making 10% of median income, not for those making the median income!"
Building mid-construction: "This building is unbelievably ugly! How could we let this happen to our town?!"
Building completed: "This building is completely vacant! Why did we allow this to be constructed? It's just proof we should never build anything again, it's not needed."
18 months later, building fully occupied, lots of happy residents with mixed incomes: Silence, because they are too busy complaining about all the other buildings.
I heard a similar statement recently, which is that due to the nature of politics, there are decades where nothing is possible, followed by a couple of years where everything is possible, and you spend the former preparing and pushing for the work that will happen in the latter.
The opposite is also true. We can descend slowly into dystopia and we forget how good it can actually be.
That was the invention of the car. Public spaces used to be massively better and people went out and socialized more.
And now people have forgotten that almost all the problems cars solve today are problems caused by cars in the first place.
It is fun to observe everything come to an equilibrium with positive outcomes until someone lights the atmosphere on fire.
Getting a bit lost in the metaphor, could you clarify?
What about crime on the subway, did congestion pricing affect that since more people will take the subway?
Crime is down, but it's been trending down since the pandemic ended. In fact, the crime rate on the subway was never very high. The few high profile cases made national news, but given the millions of daily ride, the actual odds of being victimized have always been low. Very few people who live here were ever very concerned. It's routine for kids to ride the subway alone to attend middle or high school in NYC.
What about crime from people running lights and hitting bikes and pedestrians with their cars?
I wonder if adding congestion pricing in small cities to certain intersections or stretches of road would work the same way. if people really want to go through the busiest intersections or areas, then they’re going to have to pay a little bit.
Then people question whether they are going to go through, or pay a little bit to keep up the infrastructure if they do.
I think that would have the opposite effect. Instead of most cars going through the busy intersection (which is probably busy because it's the main way to get from A to B) more cars would go through side roads to avoid the toll. And then you have more cars going through mainly residential streets.
Google Maps and Waze are already causing this without the toll. In my town, you'll always be routed down two residential, 25 mph roads to avoid the congested part of Main St.
My town combatted this by allowing free parking on the bypass on both sides. Now it is practically a single lane road and you will hate every second you spend on it if you don't live there.
It's one thing to have it for a whole downtown area, applying it to individual intersections or roads is going to be a nightmare for drivers and just generate more and more surveillance infrastructure.
Isn’t the surveillance battle already lost? For at least a couple years now? At least in Europe it feels like you’re passing a camera every couple minutes.
I thought Hochul ratfucked this initiative for no apparent reason. What was the reason she gave for not ratfucking it a second time?
She delayed it by 6 months because she thought it would hurt some candidates in House elections, and then she reduced the fee by a significant amount when it did go into effect in January, but it's still working incredibly well.
> She delayed it by 6 months because she thought it would hurt some candidates in House elections
Did she think that New Jersey residents vote for New York candidates? Do you have a link to the narrative?
I don't think it made sense either, especially because cutting the congestion pricing revenue last-second meant she had to start talking about raising taxes on the entire state instead, but that is the consensus on what she was thinking.
Here's an article about it, she hasn't admitted the election considerations so we can't know for sure: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/nyregion/hochul-congestio...
Westchester County and Long Island residents vote for New York candidates.
Fair, I guess I have no clue who on earth would willingly opt into driving into New York in the first place.
And even further north Putnam and Dutchess Counties pay the MTCD tax. Those are solid red/purple.
She delayed it by many months and lowered the fee, but eventually it went through. There was a theory that she wanted to delay it to win some contested seats in the November election, but that did not bear fruit. Now those voters still hate her, as do all the people that wanted congestion pricing. She was not well liked at the Democratic National Convention.
The reason she's not well liked is because she did absolutely nothing about probably one of the most corrupt mayors in the history of NYC.
The congestion charge is nowhere on the DNC's radar nationally. The mayor of the largest city in the country engaging in blatant quid pro quo with a president from another party, certainly is.
I'm not quite following here. What is Hochul supposed to do about Adams? The DoJ suit against Adams didn't happen until a month after the DNC. Blatant quid pro quo with a president from another party couldn't have happened until long after the DNC.
> I'm not quite following here. What is Hochul supposed to do about Adams?
Remove him from office? That's a power the governor has, and which the previous governor (Cuomo) threatened to use for petty personal disagreements with the previous mayor (DeBlasio), so actually invoking it to remove someone who has been indicted on federal charges is clearly fair game.
> The DoJ suit against Adams didn't happen until a month after the DNC.
The indictment didn't happen until the fall, but Adams had his home raided and phone seized long before that. The perjury also happened before that, I believe.
This guy is so cool, he uses the word "ratfucked"! Twice! Not just "fucked", but "ratfucked". Of course, congestion pricing was in fact implemented and remains in effect, so maybe not entirely "ratfucked"? Guess I'm not cool enough to understand. And because of his choice of words, people who are unfamiliar with this project don't even know what action(s) Kathy Hochul actually took that was/were detrimental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking
I honestly have no clue what beef you have with me, or if you even disagree, but thanks for calling me cool.
> What was the reason she gave for not ratfucking it a second time?
Still waiting on an answer that it seems you might be capable of providing rather than acting like a dick
My guess is that she lacks the essential political skill of reading the room. It's not like NYC is the first city to attempt congestion pricing. Anyone who has spent any time in London can see its benefits. So I think Hochul had her political focus on the wrong things.
It took a lot of time and effort to bring the stakeholders together for congestion pricing. And to withhold her approval at the last moment was shocking. It's hard to imagine what she was really thinking and even harder to understand how she felt she would be rewarded for it. That's not a real answer to your question, but her reasoning on both congestion pricing and Eric Adams just seems opaque.
Perhaps it's a social sign for being one of the NYC local. They also referred to a person by a single name, further emphasizing they were speaking to the select few who would know what they were talking about.
If only they could also write with a heavy NYC accent, their comment would be even cooler. Forget about it.
I live in DC
That's interesting. It must be that I associate rats with NYC. You used some terms that not everyone is familair with, I jump to the wrong conclusion, taking some guesses as to what you're talking about, and here we are.
ratfucking as a term in political context was dramatically popularized by the movie All the President’s Men, where a (historical) character describes his covert political actions thusly.
Accordingly, it’s a dc
Term, not one I would ordinarily associate with an actual rat infestation or with NYc.
Seems to be working fine, I know the large city about 60 miles from me looked at this, and I am all for it. But its mass transit is a awful mess, at times walking is faster that taking a subway.
I wish they would start this, but its politics is such a mess nothing really gets done there. New Ideas there gets implemented far slower than then ideas in Roman Catholic Church.
Transit always seems to be kind of a chicken and egg problem. You can’t have good transit unless you have good ridership, and you can’t have good ridership if you don’t have good transit.
Everywhere I know of in the US with decent transit already had it before the culture of car dominance really took hold, so it was already good enough to maintain sufficient ridership to stay good. Does anyone know of anywhere that managed to bootstrap good public transit after the fact?
Anyway I wonder if congestion pricing could potentially be such a bootstrapping force, pushing enough people to use transit to start the virtuous cycle of increasing ridership and increasing quality.
Vancouver. The first section of SkyTrain was built in 1985 (40 years ago) well after cars had dominated the city. I couldn't find historical figures for transit mode share, but today more than 50% of all trips are made by public or active transportation, and 90% of residents live within 10 minutes of a frequent transit line.
For context, in most US cities that figure is 2-3%.
This is really interesting, thanks! I haven’t found a good summary of the history in a couple of minutes of searching. Do you know if it was just huge government investment that drove the increase? And what drove the public sentiment to want transit vs more highways or whatever?
Another fact you may find interesting because it's unique, I think, for a North American city of its size: Vancouver has no freeways.
Within city limits, there are no roads with speed limits over 50 km/h (30 mi/h), lots of traffic lights, lots of bus/bike lanes, and lots of congestion. The Trans Canada highway skirts along the side of the city but does not enter it. Things get slow, very quickly.
There are complex historic reasons behind this. Politics, activism, lack of federal funding, etc.
This is a decent article:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/09/story-cities-...
Thank you for the link! This potentially helps to explain the relative popularity of public transit. I’m glad at least some places saw the writing on the wall early with freeway-dominated cities.
I think Detroit is an amazing example in the US of how much a sole focus on building our highways can cripple a city for decades.
> Does anyone know of anywhere that managed to bootstrap good public transit after the fact?
Shanghai. Amsterdam up to a point - they never completely lost their transit, but it was in pretty bad shape.
> Anyway I wonder if congestion pricing could potentially be such a bootstrapping force, pushing enough people to use transit to start the virtuous cycle of increasing ridership and increasing quality.
It can help. You need improving transit and densification to happen together so they can reinforce each other, so you need coordination between transport policy and housing policy, I think that's the key.
The other good reason to choose congestion pricing as the start to breaking the chicken/egg problem is that, outside of NYC and maybe Chicago, public transit in the US is primarily buses on streets shared with car traffic. It's hard to attract ridership and improve buses when they're always stuck in car traffic, so starting by reducing traffic via congestion pricing is particularly pragmatic.
Tokyo was burned to the ground though just before that started. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo]
It also wasn’t really a major city historically over the types of timeframes as London, Paris, or even New York.
Modern Tokyo is more of a ‘new’ city, and the subways were constructed along with a lot of the new construction - that central Tokyo was almost completely destroyed in the war certainly removed the friction that would otherwise have made that hard, eh?
The free market model is to built transit first. You buy cheap land somewhere and build a rail line or metro to it, so the land value increases. At the same time you develop your real estate there. That's how it began with American rail towns and it is also why Japanese rail and metro companies are also real estate investors.
LA. The rail system is about 25 years old and is pretty heavily used. Helps that some of it parallels some of the busiest bus corridors in the continent (vermont ave).
That's not true. You just have to have competent leadership. You can build the infrastructure first knowing people will use it when it's done.
I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes. Will the cities of tomorrow regulate traffic between individual buildings?
Make no mistake, bikes are much, much, better for urban centers than cars. But the overall problem isn't cars, it's individual traffic in densely populated areas.
Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.
Public transportation, however, is naturally biased. It can be much quicker to get 10km north-south than 5km east-west, or the other way around, depending on the city. And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.)
Bikes just don't take up nearly as much space as cars and don't really block each other as much: gridlock is a problem for cars but not really for bikes. In the Netherlands there are a number of famous intersections where there are no signs nor right of way rules and people on bikes and pedestrians just pass through each other by slowing down and taking turns. These intersection rules were chosen because of the high density: individuals in them can simply deal with the conditions better than formulated timeslots for right of way that waste time while changing priority. Some of these intersections also permit cars but the number of cars in such areas is generally small or limited to buses.
There is a natural limit to how far people want to bike (in a statistical sense, as the distance increases the number of people willing to bike that far drops). The highest density ends up occurring around train stations which is a focal point for foot and bicycle traffic and necessitates large bike parking lots. Those people then switch to trains although they might pick up a bike on the other side. Some people prefer bike rental for these reasons, since when you drop off your bike someone coming the other direction can take it and you can pick up another one at the end of the train ride.
How are e-bikes doing in NL?
They're really popular as well, and indeed increasing the distance people are willing to cycle.
"15 minute city" is the most misinterpreted policy of our times. The idea is to try to make sure that there are enough services near enough to residential areas that short trips are possible, not to enforce this. It's just the oppposite of "simcity mode" where a huge area is zoned as only housing.
That combined with some anti-rat-run measures in Oxford (and any anti car measure ever) into outraged paranoia.
Less cars + overflowing bike lanes = hey what if we mark more of the street as being for bikes. (Possibly with an interim step of "the cyclists have already claimed pretty much the entire street for bikes".)
They've already started doing this in NYC - the new 10th ave bike lane is double the width of normal bike lanes.
Oh FUCK YEAH! I am envious. Not enough to leave New Orleans for NYC but still envious.
> But the overall problem isn't cars, it's individual traffic in densely populated areas.
I disagree; it’s cars.
> Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.
I think you have causality backwards there — 15 minute cities are to make it possible to live a life where going further is rare by ensuring it is not necessary.
To quote the wikipedia page: "The 15-minute city (FMC[2] or 15mC[3]) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city."
I was born and raised in a place that matches this description: Havant, on the south coast of the UK. 15 minutes from there is the entirety of not just Havant itself, but also most of the surrounding towns and villages including the majority of Portsmouth island. A lot of the people I grew up with, never moved out of the area — but they can all travel whenever they want to.
My dad's commute 20-30 years ago would have been something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Havant,+UK/BAE+Systems+Broad...
I now live in Berlin, which is likewise. The "work" part is mostly dependent on the specific employer, and perhaps even if they're happy with WFH, because the travel time between any two randomly selected points of the city is about 45 minutes; but all the other stuff is replicated so much all around the city that I have five stand-alone supermarkets a building supplies store and two shopping malls, a couple of schools, five doctors (GP/Hausarzt), an entire hospital, some historical sites, a huge lake, a beach, several hotels, lots of woodland that's great for pleasant walks and cycling, and a few public parks within that travel time — and that despite being in one of the quiet backwater parts near the city limits.
As far as I can tell, any two places in Davis CA are within 15 minutes of each other, so for people who both live and work there, that too would be a "15 minute city".
There are a couple of places in the Netherlands with congested bike lanes, which is a great problem to have. It's crazy to imagine all those people in individual cars; we'd have reached congestion so much sooner. (Note that this is after decades of continuously improving bicycle infrastructure; basically everywhere else won't run into this problem any time soon.)
The problem isn't so much density (I think NYC is much denser), as much as it is the existence of really popular destinations; you'll see this close to some big train stations in rush hour, for example. Solutions are smarter road layout, and providing more and more attractive alternative routes, and alternative destinations (e.g. more train stations nearby).
https://danielbowen.com/2012/09/19/road-space-photo/
Bike and bus take the same amount of space. Cars take up far more.
Bike lane congestion is wholly unlike car congestion. It happens, and for busy routes, you do need affordances in the bike lanes and infrastructure.
That said, I've never missed a light cycle while bicycling, even in rush hour in major metro areas with many people on bikes. The busiest bike intersection in the world, in Copenhagen, devotes less space to bikes than most US streets devote to one lane of vehicle traffic.
Every single US city I have seen has ample space for bicycle infrastructure. Many have lots of roads with sufficient space for dedicated transit lanes, and bicycle lanes, and widened sidewalks while still maintaining space for personal vehicles.
Even if we take your hypothetical to the extreme, with only bicycles and no personal vehicles, every US city has enough space for the bike traffic on its existing streets.
> And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.)
Well, it doesn't have to be like that. Riding a bike in July is atrocious where I live, even with an electrical one. I'll end up drenched after my 20-minute commute, even though it's mostly flat.
Cars didn't use to have AC, either, now they do. Newer metro lines where I live also started having AC a few years ago. This can be improved. They also automated some lines, and we now have trains every other minute during rush hour. They're still full to the brim.
What's missing, however, is some kind of reasonable policy. But not only of the government kind.
Why do we all have to commute at the same exact time? Yeah, some people have kids and need to get them to school on time. Others need to absolutely be physically at their work place at a given time.
But huge swathes of the population are not in this situation. Why do they insist on taking the metro at the same exact time as the others? When Covid was still a thing, the government tried asking the people who could, to move their work schedules a little before or a little after rush hour, so as to lower density. Nobody cared. I had already doing this before covid: the commute was much shorter; I had ample seating available. Yet I didn't see any change after this recommendation.
It would be nice to have some kind of government policy that would force companies to prefer WFH except where it's really necessary to be in the office. Maybe some kind of tax on non-remote employees.
But US cities today actually push back against this because more people coming to work at the office from suburbs = more sales tax for the city.
People have been doing this, but the majority doesn't have this sort of flexibility[0]. Particularly any customer-facing job is going to require being there at a certain hour.
[0] Those who do typically could well be working remotely instead.
I think it doesn't need to be a majority for the situation to be a net improvement.
Among my colleagues (~20 people) nobody has a customer-facing job, and only one needs to manage children. The others either don't have kids at all, or the kids are old enough to manage on their own. They all come in the office around 9:30 AM. We rarely schedule meetings before 10 AM and after 5 PM. I'm pretty sure that if even 10% of the people would change their schedules a bit, comfort would improve for everybody. It's the same thing with lunch. Everybody goes down at 1 PM on the dot and complains about there being too many people. I go around 12:30 and never have to wait in line for ages.
Of course, WFH would be even better, but I understand not all people like it. The company I work for is actually quite flexible, but the people do tend to prefer working from the office. I, personally, prefer WFH (which is what I do generally). But my point isn't to push a particular working arrangement, rather to point out that even when there is some inherent flexibility in the system, people seem to choose not to use it.
It doesn’t have to hurt when I hit my hand with a hammer. In fact, there are hammers out there that if I hit my hand with them wouldn’t hurt!
But damn, every time I hit my hand with the hammer I have, it hurts like hell.
I get your point, but mine is that transit isn't all that bad. For my needs, it works better than private transportation. I don't have space to store a bike at work nor at home, and theft is rampant where I live. Bike sharing is nice, but it can be hit and miss, especially if you need to get somewhere at a specific time. I also sometimes like to grab a drink with colleagues after work and would rather not ride a bike afterwards.
I'm not saying there should only be transit and no bikes. I think each means has its own merits, but my point is that these should be improved such that we can take full advantage of them. Just like bikes require infrastructure, or else they're much too dangerous, so do trains require maintenance and being kept up to date, or else they're a PITA to use.
Paris and London have already done things to lower car usage in urban core and they do not have your hypothesized "problem". Someone else already posted about London https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/12/...
The other problem with public transport is anyone wanting to go from, say, the northeast to the southeast outskirts of a city. Public transport will tend to take everyone via the centre whereas a direct route would be much shorter.
That’s a problem if the public transit system is solely geared towards sending people to the center. As a counter example there are lines in Tokyo that take different paths, like JR Musashino and Nambu lines, which do a big arc in the outskirts, or the Tokyu Oimachi Line, that does a line through southern suburbs, to name a few. Buses also fill in connections between lines that lack a direct rail connection (or you can go with scooter/bike shares)
The skew you mention for mass transit exists for individual vehicles too. In New York it's baked in that the avenues, running north-south, are wider than the east-west streets and have longer greens at intersections.
The 15-minute city idea is now a real trigger issue. It's originally urban planning concept so I understand it's more about design the city in such a way that you /can/ live most of your life within a 15mins journey rather than assuming that's already the case (or worse as some conspiracy theories assume).
> I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes.
I mean, there's only so much more dense you can make Manhattan.
> Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surroundings ("15 minute city") and rarely, if ever, visit parts that are farther away individually.
... Eh? Which country is that? Like, in any city with any sort of mass transit system, that is presumably not any sort of policy, because the mass transit system is explicitly for going to places that you can't easily get to. The idea with the "15 minute city" thing is that you don't _need_ to travel far from home for essentials, not that you don't travel far from home. Like, I live within 15 minute walk of all essentials, but I often go places which are further away.
Less GWB traffic going down the Turnpike as well, even on weekends. It was horrendous before the congestion pricing and now it's just ridiculous.
I was in traffic the past two days. Has something changed?
Er...
When can we have real-time price auctions for public roads?
We already do. It’s called the value of your time. If there’s too much traffic, chose another route. We don’t need more tech shit trying to improve mobility when the solution is clear- fewer cars, more mass transit (and not hyperloop crap)
Awesome. But congestion pricing still doesn't charge rideshare vehicles for loitering on the streets; it only charges per ride.
Now ban AirBnb, Lyft and Uber. Basically anything funded by YC.
> Ban anything funded by YC.
Is well outside the Overton window of YC's private discussion forum.
How are people on lower incomes who need their cars for a living dealing with this?
The great majority of lower-income people commuting into Manhattan are not doing so in cars, and those that do are eligible for a discount.
I didn't just mean for commuting. But that's good news at least.
Here’s hoping Trump doesn’t do away with this. It’s enactment has moved NYC up the list on my list of possible places to move to.
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.
NYC is an extreme outlier. The city itself is older than America, older than the British colonies even. It was built by the Dutch. It's infrastructure is closer to Tokyo's[0] than any other American city. Congestion charge works in NYC because anyone driving solo into Manhattan is either an idiot or a cop[1].
In any other city, congestion charge would be an effective tax on mobility, because every other city is so comically car-dependent. You might as well just raise the gas tax. Most cities don't even have a downtown to protect from cars, they're just suburban sprawl forever.
The actually radical solution for places outside the Tri-State Area is as follows:
- Ban mixed streets and highways ("stroads"). That is, any road in the network must either be built to exclusively service local properties, or carry high-speed thru traffic, not both. Existing stroads must be segmented into feeder streets and high-speed roads with ramp lanes on and off.
- Level the zoning code. Allow mixed commercial everywhere, get rid of lawn setbacks, and allow up to four story buildings basically anywhere the soil won't collapse from it. The only limitations to this policy should be to prevent existing tenants from being renovicted immediately.
- Require all new streets above the speed limit for (formerly) residential zoned streets have dedicated lanes for bikes and transit vehicles. The lanes must be segmented for safety. The transit lanes can start off as BRT and then get upgraded to LRT cheaply. If you don't want to run a BRT system then rent the lanes to private transit companies.
I'm not sure how any of this would play in the motosexual parts of America, though. Even nominally blue states like California would shit themselves if you tried to even slightly inconvenience car owners.
[0] To be clear, Tokyo as we know it today was basically rebuilt by America after we leveled it with firebombs. It was specifically built in the image of Manhattan.
[1] I can imagine several reasons why NYPD cops might not want to take public transit which I won't elaborate further on here.
> Most cities don't even have a downtown to protect from cars, they're just suburban sprawl forever.
This is completely untrue.
> In any other city, congestion charge would be an effective tax on mobility, because every other city is so comically car-dependent. You might as well just raise the gas tax. Most cities don't even have a downtown to protect from cars, they're just suburban sprawl forever.
Nah. Almost any city built pre-motor-car has a decent downtown that can make for a starting point. And these things grow when policy supports them.
> Existing stroads must be segmented into feeder streets and high-speed roads with ramp lanes on and off.
Nah, this would just result in a wave of urban highway building that also drained transit budgets.
The way forward is to make street parking permit-only, give permits to existing but not new residents, and allow development. Do that and the rest will sort itself out.
> - Require all new streets above the speed limit for (formerly) residential zoned streets have dedicated lanes for bikes and transit vehicles. The lanes must be segmented for safety. The transit lanes can start off as BRT and then get upgraded to LRT cheaply. If you don't want to run a BRT system then rent the lanes to private transit companies.
BRT is a spook that has never worked (or rather it's worked very well in diverting transit efforts and stopping effective transit).
This aligns perfectly with what I’d like to see every city and town in America do. Very well stated.
Cars are only harmful in dense cities. They work just fine everywhere else. For example in small cities kids can play in the road without fear of cars. It's only in dense cities where they can not.
Dense cities are also the only places where public transit works, so it kind of balances out.
> This is just a small example.
New York city is a small example? New York city is the largest city in the US, and pretty much the ONLY city where you can do this. And the mediocre results (10% is very little) from even NYC show that this will not even come close to working anywhere else.
I live in a low density city and my neighbors are constantly complaining about how fast cars speed by and how it makes it unsafe for their kids.
Dense cities are too congested for speeds to get that high. As an example, I felt safer biking in downtown San Francisco than I do on the country roads near me because people are constantly speeding and on their phones.
Part of this is the politicization of some of these issues. I previously lived on the outskirts of the suburbs and when I would bike out into the country I would receive a lot of hostility from dudes in big trucks that called me names as they drove by. Anecdotally, this seemed to happen way more frequently in the last two or three years.
Suburbanites baselessly complaining about traffic is like old men complaining about kids these days. I don't take it too seriously
The converse is how helpful cars are. It allows people to have the ability commute from areas they live at to where they work. It brings down the cost of living by expanding the commute availability circle, instead of driving up land values for the desirable areas.
Expanding the commute availability circle does not increase the supply of housing, because people build sparser neighborhoods with larger lawns. If you want to increase the supply of housing, you need higher density, not longer distance.
What longer distance does is make the closer areas more valuable, because people will pay $$$ for a shorter commute. And for those who can't afford the closer housing, they get to pay $$ on a car and gas instead.
Cars are only helpful in exactly two scenarios:
1. You live in a remote rural area where any sort of transit infrastructure is comically infeasible. 99% of the people posting here do not quality for this.
2. You live in a city so maliciously planned out that living without a car is unthinkable and that any other option to get to where you're going is not available.
I use the word "malicious" because the gutting of American cities' transit infrastructure was a deliberate act by American car companies giving their competition the mafia bust-out treatment.
> Expanding the commute availability circle does not increase the supply of housing, because people build sparser neighborhoods with larger lawns.
This is not true. It is true in some circumstances, but definitely not in all. The fact that it’s presented as absolute fact hurts the point you’re trying to make imo.
In my region of the world they enable having any sort of housing at all. Plenty of people don't have the credit score to buy anything livable within city limits, so they resort to buying apartments in the suburbs and small, adjacent cities.
Public transport hasn't caught up because these places developed too fast and even though their inhabitants live and pay taxes there, the businesses they work for don't, so the tax base is all the lower due to that.
Your point is valid, but the lack of affordable housing in your city is most likely due to the lifestyles that cars allow us to live. Single family homes and parking lots as far as the eye can see.
Nope. More like commie blocks as far as the eye can see, as it's in eastern EU.
I moved out BTW, because I figured that being able to afford at most a 1-bedroom, 55m2 apartment as a software engineer is a deal I'm not willing to take.
Real estate has been going up in price all over the world in the past decade and it doesn't matter if it's apartment blocks or detached homes.
My new place is a city 40% the size and far from there, but my friends by and large drove until they qualified. Typically less than 30km, but that's already a 1h commute by car.
The dispute isn't between walking and cars, or between stone age and modernity. Just that individual cars have a terrible externalities.
Impressive how public transport does not enter the mind of Americans.
I feel like its often people talking past each other.
I currently live in NYC and am very congestion pricing. Cars are a major negative to most people in the city.
But I have also lived in rural parts of America. Yes, it is annoying you can't walk to a corner store, but cars are not that big of a deal. You can bike or run in the streets without concern that cars will come by. And housing is so cheap it makes it so worth it.
If public transit even remotely resembled anything in China or Japan, Americans would ditch their cars in a heartbeat. But every train ride I've been on to Manhattan is like commuting through an open sewer while being harassed by strangers doing an obnoxious dance with a bluetooth speaker in my face, dodging puddles of urine, and wondering if today's the day I'll be thrown off the platform.
Of course people would rather commute in a gas guzzling SUV. I don't even know how it's controversial. It must be a form of Stockholm syndrome to think that this would be attractive to any normally adjusted human being.
I’ve taken the train a lot in and around NYC, including a ton of subway trips. While the experience you’re describing is certainly not so rare as to be nonexistent, it’s also far from the norm. The large, large majority of subway rides I’ve taken (99% at least) were complete non-events. Perhaps you’re unlucky?
A few points.
1. A <1% risk of loss, if catastrophic (e.g. thrown off the platform into an oncoming train), is unacceptable to bear, when there exist alternatives.
1b. Of course, people get in car accidents all the time. However, rightly or wrongly, people feel more in control when they're driving compared to when they're using public transit (or similarly, taking a commercial flight), which makes them feel better about it. And there is some element of sense here: accidents do not occur evenly among the population, because some drivers are better and more alert than others.
2. If you're traveling with small children, the various (however rare it may be) unpleasantries of NYC public transit become an order of magnitude more unpleasant.
3. There certainly is an element of Stockholm syndrome among NYC transit users, in that other very large cities around the world with ridership comparable to NYC have very little antisocial dysfunction, but in NYC it often gets waved away as "part and parcel of living in a big city".
> A <1% risk of loss, if catastrophic (e.g. thrown off the platform into an oncoming train),
how common is it for people to be thrown off the platform into an oncoming train in NY?
Not common. From what I've read, each year, 50-80 people are killed on the tracks (either by hitting trains or touching the third rail), with only a handful being caused by somebody else pushing them onto the tracks.
ok so very uncommon. why are you even bringing it up?
I didn't bring it up, a commenter above did. I was adding color in response to another commenter saying that unpleasantries experienced (of various levels) in the NYC transit system is an outlier.
You and everyone else of course has their own barometer of what is an acceptable tradeoff. I'm not trying to convince you in particular that NYC transit is a good or bad experience overall; I'm explaining why it is reasonable for someone to come to the latter conclusion.
Anyone claiming more concern about being thrown into an oncoming train than being in a serious car accident is either being disingenuous or deluded. The solution isn't to just excuse it because they feel in control. The solution is to solve their delusions.
That imagery isn't the norm, but there are dozens of annoying behaviors, smells and experiences on the subway that make the daily grind an RPG dice roll in terms of if it's not a new story you'll be telling.
I would run into showtimers multiple times per week on the L, but seldom on other lines
> It brings down the cost of living by expanding the commute availability circle
It does this by sweeping a lot of negative externalities under the carpet of society. There's no magic here.
[flagged]
Please, this is the absolute least intelligent response to anything I've read today. You do nothing to further the conversation in anything resembling an informative way.
This comment goes against any individual freedom common law and common sense.
ok commies
> Fewer cars. Faster travel. Less honking.
More expensive cars, also, probably.
Wouldn't it be nice if policy changes were accompanied by an A/B testing plan to evaluate their impact? I have always thought so. I have also seen a major pitfall of A/B testing that real humans can hand-pick and slice data to make it sound as positive or negative as wanted. Nonetheless, the more data the better.
We already had A/B testing of congestion pricing. The A test was without congestion pricing in NYC, and has been tested for decades.
An important part of testing is establishing assessment criteria and collecting data.
I wish more laws would pre-state what their intended outcome and success would look like.
you haven't described the observations or the sample
TFA describes this extensively. The observations are traffic speed, bus timeliness, and over a dozen other metrics. The samples are sub-areas of NYC.
Anything negative ?
That's not an A/B test because it has no way of controlling for broader economic trends over time. How do you figure out if what you're seeing is because of that one thing that changed, or the enormous list of other things that also changed around the same time?
A more valid design would be randomly assigning some cities to institute congestion pricing, and other cities to not have it. Obviously not feasible in practice, but that's at least the kind of thing to strive toward when designing these kinds of studies.
That would be a bad design for an A/B study (and NYC congestion pricing is not a “study” anyway), because cities are few and not alike and have an enormous list of other things that are different. What NYC equivalent would you pick?
In any case, not every policy change needs to be an academic exercise.
Yup, that is indeed a part of the problem. You'll notice I did say, "Obviously not feasible in practice."
I've got a textbook on field experiments that refers to these kinds of questions as FUQ - acronym for "Fundamentally Unanswerable Questions". You can collect suggestive evidence, but firmly establishing cause and effect is something you've just got to let go of.
Everyone knows how you can conduct good experiments in a land of frictionless spherical cows.
> randomly assigning some cities to institute congestion pricing, and other cities to not have it
Cities are stupidly heterogenous. These data wouldn't be more meaningful than comparing cities with congestion pricing to those without. (And comparing them from their congestion eras.)
What you're telling me here is that you aren't aware of what the randomization is for in randomized controlled trials.
"Our treatment units are stupidly heterogeneous" is exactly the problem it solves. A century's worth of developing increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques for making do without random assignment has thus far failed to accomplish anything than provisional mitigations that are notoriously easy to use incorrectly in practice.
The real world isn't A/B tests. No government is going to spend millions on equipment and infrastructure on a congestion zone because some engineers are like "Let's just test this out. I have done zero research on what could possibly happen, but it would be fun to see what the results are."
When you write it out like that, it seems to make total sense! But then you read grant proposals that get funded - in things like the social sciences and humanities, and even conventional science and health - millions of dollars essentially just throwing darts to see what sticks.
Surely you see the difference between working in a development environment and working in production?
The comment to which I replied was referring to the cost, not to the implementation
> Wouldn't it be nice if policy changes were accompanied by an A/B testing plan to evaluate their impact? I have always thought so. I have also seen a major pitfall of A/B testing that real humans can hand-pick and slice data to make it sound as positive or negative as wanted. Nonetheless, the more data the better.
Policies have different effects depending on how likely people judge them to be long-term changes. Construction along a route will cause people to temporarily use alternative forms of transportation, but not e.g. sell their car or buy a long-term bus pass.
Yes, the inability to know counterfactuals will make judging policies more subjective than we might like. The closest we get to A/B testing is when different jurisdictions adopt substantially similar policies at different times. For example, this was done to judge improvements from phasing out leaded-gasoline, since it was done at different times and rates in different areas.
please don't quote the entire comment you're replying to
sometimes people edit their post after the fact. It is important sometimes to quote it, to ensure that context is preserved
Yeah, let's do that for everything: safety belts, safety on gun triggers, melamine in milk, etc...
Do you A/B test your comments too?
Unfortunately, the possibility exists that the moment of introducing the A/B test requirement will be strategically chosen to freeze the status quo in the way the chooser prefers.
unfortunately, building a second NYC for the purposes of A/B testing isn't feasible.
but we have before and after data to compare - that's what this article is about. and the congestion pricing plan included requirements to publish data specifically for the purposes of comparison between last year and this year.
What a good idea. Simply build another Manhattan for the purpose.
test A - before
test B - after
what are you talking about ?
“A/B in time” suffers from inability to control for other factors that might vary over time. In this case, that could be the economy or other transit policies.
But sometimes it’s the only possible approach.
Generally, that's considered to introduce counfounding factors on the time axis ("did we see improvement because we changed something or because flu season hit and people stayed home") that you'd prefer to mitigate by running your A and B simultaneously.
But in the absence of the ability to run them simultaneously, "A is before and B is after" can be a fine proxy. Of course, if B is worse, it'd be nice if you could only subject, say, 5% of your population to it before you just slam the slider to 100% and hit everyone with it.
yes, but how the hell he proposes to make A/B testing of "whole Manhattan policy"? build another Manhattan just for test? makes no sense. whole manhattan is important. not 5%. so no 5%. a/b test can be done only for things which affect one person, like for example GUI etc, big group under test but effect on individuals,
in such big scale a/b test is tool to deceive, not to get to right conclusion
It is, indeed, much easier to do A/B testing online in environments you control than IRL.
(Purely hypothetically: one could identify 10% of the island as operating under the new rules and compare outcomes. This is politically fraught on multiple levels and also gives messy spatial results.)
"before" and "after" introduces a large axis of noise
The problem is that for A/B testing to really work you need independent groups outcomes. As soon as there is any bias in group selection or cross group effect it's very hard to unpick.
Congestion isn't limited to cars.
My pregnant wife was hit yesterday in SoHo in broad daylight by a delivery driver on an e-bike. He ran a redlight. He hit her in a crosswalk. She was wearing a bright orange dress. She was not on a phone or listening to music. She went flying ass over teakettle. We spent 6 hours in the ER yesterday evening to make sure our unborn baby was okay. Fortunately, everyone is OK despite her being banged up.
The goddamn lawlessness of electric bikes is a consequence of NYC implicitly encouraging their illegal use. Meanwhile, I get to pay $9 MORE to drive my licensed, registered, insured vehicle on increasingly narrow roads filled with increasingly negligent 2-wheeled asshats because it's the preferred business model.
Were that delivery driver using a car instead of a bike, then your wife would likely be dead instead of in the ER.
(At least in the US, having a driver's license is in no way, shape, or form an indication that the driver is capable of driving correctly, much less their willingness to do so.)
Car drivers are very routinely punished for running red lights. That is far less common than cyclists doing it.
"Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists...)
Perhaps if there is a no bikelanes and cyclists are bothering you on the sidewalk you should walk in the middle of the road, as the real danger is bikes, right?
> Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
They're just quoting a danish government report
Googling it, I found a second one in London with the same methods (surveying CCTV footage of multiple intersections) and they get the same findings
In both:
- Motorists break way more traffic laws
- Motorists mainly break the law for speed or convenience
- The infractions by motorists are generally more serious and pose a threat to others (the main one is speeding)
- The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk - which is because of cars, and it doesn't happen when there is a bike lane
- The second one is turning right on red without causing inconvenience to other road users
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights...
For the danish government report unfortunately they moved it and I can't find it anymore
http://api.vejdirektoratet.dk/sites/default/files/2019-05/Cy...
> the main one is speeding
Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits. Unless the speeding is bucketed, this alone is enough to skew the results to say motorists are worse than bicyclists. Remember, speeding tickets are a revenue source and the incentive is to set limits that produce revenue.
> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk - which is because of cars, and it doesn't happen when there is a bike lane
This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame-- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal and we would hold the driver accountable. Bikes, not so much.
>> the main one is speeding
> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.
>> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk -
> This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient
???
The dissonance is insane
Also, between cyclists and motorists, which one is always grown adults, who passed an exam to use their vehicle, and which one includes children, the mentally disabled and all of those who can't drive and their right to the road cannot be stripped away?
Whoops, I gave it away.
You can in fact blame it on cars
Actually, do you remember that the report mentioned bike lanes solve this problem? You can blame street design, too. Except if cars weren't there, you wouldn't even need the bike lanes.
> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.
And you think the average driver is qualified to make that assessment on a moment-by-moment basis?
Hell, I don't know you, but given the chances I'm gonna go ahead and say you don't know the intricacies of road design either. Most drivers do not even fully grasp the concept of line-of-sight, much less anything more complex than that. Hence, the easy to understand speed limits decided by experts.
But hey, go ahead, tell me specifically where the speed limits are commonly too low in your opinion and why.
> these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
No, "inconvenient" is e.g. what drivers find yielding to pedestrians. Riding a bike amongst cars is dangerous and unsafe.
> A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal
Speeding is illegal too, so clearly "illegal" is not the reason. It'd be unreasonably dangerous to pedestrians to operate a motor powered vehicle on a sidewalk in a way that a bicycle isn't.
> Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits.
This is still illegal. Blaming it on what you feel the speed limits "should" be is lame - these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
...okay, okay, that's a bit too forum-argument, but hopefully it demonstrates the contradiction here.
Further, I'd argue that, while speeding is universally a response to perceived inconvenience, sidewalk cycling can sometimes be a response to perceived safety problems, not just inconvenience.
Obviously it's still illegal and unsafe for pedestrians, but I think handwaving car-based lawbreakers and assuming their violations are justified, while also assuming the least generous intentions for cyclists... just hammers home the initial claim: people perceive car lawbreakering as forgivable when it's common and rare when it's worse, and cyclist lawbreaking as both egregious and universal, because they emphasize more with drivers than cyclists.
I have seen as many car drivers punished for running a red light as I have seen cyclists running one--zero in both cases. Enforcement of traffic laws is painfully lax.
Automatic cameras send tickets for cars running redlights in NYC: https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...
Yes, a $100 ticket or whatever, horrible punishment.
Not in NYC, I’ve seen 2 blatant and intentional red light runners this year so far
Oof, that sucks. Glad that delivery driver wasn't in a car though! Could've ended much worse.
Anything could be worse. Doesn't mean it's an excuse for bad behavior.
Was absolutely not intended as an excuse for bad behaviour. I just care about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater: just because someone on an e-bike displays bad behaviour, it's still preferable to have people switch from cars to e-bikes.
Yeah, just imagine. I did. For hours yesterday evening I imagined.
Had a car killed my wife or unborn child, there would have been a legal trail and insurance.
Had the e-bike killed my wife or unborn child, there was neither. I doubt I could ever find the killer of the unborn child if the baby died later due to injuries-- there's neither license nor registration on an e-bike.
Pushing powered transportation into the unregulated, uninsured space is madness.
You would likely be unhappy if you saw the outcomes of almost all vehicle manslaughter cases. It’s the easiest way to kill someone and get away with it consequence free
This can change.
Having been a juror on a civil trial against the MTA, I assure you that the New York public is perfectly willing to hold people accountable for injury.
Drunk driving was reduced over my lifetime [1] by calling attention to it (e.g. MADD), shaming the practice, lowering BAC thresholds, and increasing enforcement.
Similar approaches could be done for pedestrian injury by vehicles. Sure, it takes more time (and does not scam $9 from my pocket in the meantime) but public behavior can be changed.
[1] https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-driv...
In March 2024 in Berlin, an elderly man sped down a bike lane, murdering a woman from Belgium and her 4-year-old child: https://apnews.com/article/germany-road-accident-belgium-1d3...
The punishment: His driving license was revoked: https://www.berlin.de/generalstaatsanwaltschaft/presse/press...
Germany has a reputation as strict and bureaucratic, and yet, it's apparently still legal to murder people with your car.
The perpetrators of most vehicular homicides face little to no consequences.
You'd have to be an utter asshole (like a kid totaling three cars in a year, all going 70-100+ mph on urban streets), or the world's dumbest criminal (motorcyclist out on parole running a red, killing a pedestrian, fleeing the scene, and ditching the motorcycle in a field) for killing someone with a car to be more than a 'whoopsie daisies, at least nobody important got hurt'.
In my town, just last year, a cop running down a young woman when she had right of way in a crosswalk, while doing 74 mph in a 25 mph zone at night, with no sirens, got a $5,000 fine for it.
That's how much the life of a grad student is worth.
---
Look, I'm all for traffic enforcement, but anyone who thinks that bikes are the big problem on the road is nuts.
Yeah two things are true:
Reckless behaviour in traffic should be prevented, and
The same reckless behaviour is more dangerous when performed in a car. (People rarely actually get killed by an e-bike. It happens all the time with cars.)
>Had the e-bike killed my wife
That’s ridiculous. How many e-bikes do you think caused fatal accidents last year in the US?? Are you legitimately scared of this happening?
In other forums there are lots of complaints about the NYC crackdown on e-bikes. NYC has taken steps to discourage their use. Maybe not enough, but definitely more than in most other parts of the country.
Stand on a corner in NYC and count the moving violations the e-bikes commit. Running lights and stops. Going the wrong way. Etc.
These aren't subtle infractions of the law. Tell me why automated traffic enforcement cameras don't target them.
As a motorcyclist, e-bikes piss me off to no end.
> Tell me why automated traffic enforcement cameras don't target them.
Beyond the obvious lack of registration plates, it's basic physics.
A fat guy on an e-bike is what, 100+30kg of mass? How fast do they go, maybe 35km/h (22mph) tops? That gives us the kinetic energy of roughly 6242J.
Let's compare with a silly lightweight 1,400kg car + 100kg driver moving at the same speed: 72,030J - 11 times greater.
At 50km/h (31mph) that becomes 144,907J - 23 times greater.
70km/h (43mph)? 46 times.
100km/h (62mph)? 94.
So the worst case possible for an ebike compared to the best case for a car has the car be 11 times more dangerous. More realistically, a car will be over 20 times more dangerous, with essentially infinite potential for more (do cars in cities travel at 31mph tops?).
Now, in another comment [1] you went ahead and said speed limits are set too low and mild speeding is all good and fine. Does it still seem so?
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43996494
Look, I don't care if there's a spherical cow in a vacuum or a witch with a broomstick going at 0.98c, your fat guy on an e-bike can endanger people and property if he's in the street.
Whatever $OPERATOR on $CONVEYANCE at $SPEED works out to, I would hope that each jurisdiction has a vested interest in safety on their roads. Indeed, the lack of registration plates, and the lack of licensing is a huge impediment.
I find that motorists with licenses tend to obey all relevant traffic laws. They are not prone to running red lights or swerving around or otherwise operating their cars dangerously. And I attribute this behavior mostly to the fact that driving is a privilege that can be restricted or revoked.
If you fine a pedestrian for jaywalking then they can pay that fine or not. You cannot prevent a pedestrian from walking around in the street. You apparently cannot prevent people from riding bikes or scooters, either. Since there is no licensing and no "privilege" to do so, it's more or less anything-goes on the streets with such conveyances.
Nevertheless, I've been that fat guy on an electric scooter, and I'm telling you, it would not be surprising to maim or kill a vulnerable pedestrian (and my own self) if I'm going along at 17mph in the road.
Perhaps the cameras can't catch or target them, but hopefully some enforcement can be brought to bear on such dangerous activity.
When walking on the sidewalks near my home, I don't fear being hit by fast-moving cars.
>These aren't subtle infractions of the law. Tell me why automated traffic enforcement cameras don't target them.
Lawyers have a saying about blood and stones. Government doesn't like to talk in those terms because they know it's bad optics but...
For commercial use, send the fines back to the restaurant/business.
For private use, rescind the license for non-payment.
For extra fun, surcharge the dope ordering DoorDash when his e-bike driver breaks the law. Tips will dry up. Problem solved.
This is easy.
It would be interesting to force eBikes to be registered which the owner then receives a number plate that must be placed on the bike. The owner would be subject to fines any rider of the bike incurs unless the bike is reported stolen so that the video is proven to be after the bike was stolen.
Gotta give those automated systems something to use
> Meanwhile, I get to pay $9 MORE to drive my licensed, registered, insured vehicle on increasingly narrow roads filled with increasingly negligent 2-wheeled asshats because it's the preferred business model.
It sounds like measures to limit the danger of electric bikes might be warranted, but that’s a separate issue. Even if electric bikes are a problem I’d be shocked if they came anywhere close to causing the pedestrian fatality rate of cars (even when controlled by frequency of use) in an urban environment, not to mentioni the additional impacts of things like emissions (including non-tailpipe), noise, space, etc. of cars. I don’t know much about motorcycle statistics. I can imagine the group that rides motorcycles might be less likely to hit pedestrians than those of e-bike riders, but I don’t know.
If we have to choose only one of these problems to tackle at a time—which we don’t!—I’d rather they tackle the one which is killing hundreds of people a year.
[flagged]
Completely biased article that omits so many negative pieces of information. What a joke for this to even be on HN.
Good luck New York.
In London it is now just a toll. It started off at just the busiest times but now you need to pay it 24/5, and even on Saturday and Sunday afternoons when there is no rush hour. Not only have the hours expanded, but so has the size of the zone. So now even right out in the suburbs you need to pay if you drive a diesel but I fully expect them to include petrol cars, then eventually all EVs too.
The prices are quite cheap too - the price is like 2 adults return tickets on the tube so you may as well just drive it since the price is the same but public transport is so utterly utterly awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible in London.
If they were serious about changing people's behaviour and serious about trying to prevent congestion and/or pollution they'd price it so that it is a real deterrent to usage (so instead of £15, it would be like £250/day or something). But if they did that then no one would pay so they'd not get the revenue. So they price it just right so that people pay.
They say all the proceeds are ring-fenced for reinvestment etc etc. This is disingenuous - it's not like transport suddenly gets 125% extra funding, they just set the budgets so the "extra" they get from congestion charging and cameras etc tops-off the budgets so things balance out at ~100% of what they'd get anyway and the difference just used for other vanity projects by TfL.
I've never understood what people mean when they say public transportation is "dirty". I've never had to sit or stand in or near muck or sick or anything like that. If there's a bit of grime in the corner or animals or something... Okay? I don't have to touch any of that. I care about as much as getting onto a slightly groady amusement park ride, or seeing bugs or squirrels in the park; it's not going to so traumatize me that I won't ride. Is it the people? I've had to sit next to one or two people who smelled in my hundreds of train and bus trips. Or is it an ethnic/class dogwhistle sort of thing?
> I've never understood what people mean when they say public transportation is "dirty".
They are forced to share air with obviously poor and non-white people and that is simply intolerable...
One of the biggest adjustments I went through in moving from SF to London was accepting that busses were a viable mode of transit for any time of day. In SF I would crawl over broken glass to avoid having to take a Muni bus while in London my wife and I have taken a bus in dinner jacket and couture dress to an event at a club. There will doubtless be people to chime in with examples of bus systems that are better, but TfL busses are not 'awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible' by any possible metric.
Having lived in several European cities so far (Brussels, Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Berlin, Bucharest), London's (where I have lived since 10 years) public transportation is one of the best I've seen so far. It's not without its zonal imbalances, but calling it terrible, unreliable, etc. is something I do not subscribe to, and, I suspect, neither do many of its residents.
You might be right though: what is your commute/experience that made you describe it so? Am genuinely curious to understand in how much of a privileged bubble I might be in.
> public transport is so utterly utterly awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible in London.
I've lived here all my life, never owned a car, and I have no idea what you're talking about
> public transport is so utterly utterly awful and unreliable and slow and dirty and just terrible in London.
Completely disagree with this statement. Living in London for 4 years now and despite the occasional late train or "ghost" bus it is quite reliable and at reasonable speeds. Unsure what you mean about "dirty", the buses and tube rarely seem messy.
However I agree that the toll should be higher and applicable to all private vehicles.
Responding to myself since multiple asked:
Slow: many many journeys via bus are usually at least 4 to 5x slower than driving. Typical example for me to go to the nearest large supermarket from where I live (approx 2 miles) is a 7 minute drive (so average 18mph) and pennies in fuel/energy costs or a 44 minute bus journey with a 9 minute walk at the end (each way) that requires changing buses half-way and costs £1.75 x 2 = £3.50 return unless you get a hopper fair. it's actually quicker to walk-tube-walk (38 minutes) but that is I think £4.20 return just for a quick shop at the big Tescos! It would only take 41 minutes to walk the whole way, so a bus is actually slower than walking.
Unreliable: just this week the tubes all stopped due to a "power blip" meaning I missed an appointment. This morning the train I was on changed it's destination after I got on it, meaning I had to get off and go back to a junction and get another train, which incidentally I had to wait 7 minutes for and it was packed. There is a joke about "TfL minutes" because the minutes they show on the countdown clocks at bus stations and tube stations are typically significantly longer than real minutes. There barely goes by a month without at least the threat of industrial action either, meaning you have to reschedule things just incase (and usually these are called off at the last minute meaning the union got what they wanted, TfL can say they avoided the strike, but you and I have already had to alter our plans or rebook meetings or pay for extra childcare etc already but because it is called off within 12-24 hours you are too late to cancel your own plans without penalties etc etc)
Dirty: look at your hands after getting the tube and holding onto a handrail. Or blow your nose. It's dirty. No one can deny this. The air in the tube is worse than the air on the street in terms of PM2.5 etc - there have been many studies on this
General awfulness: try getting on a rushhour train. If you can physically squeeze on to a train that is. And if you do, it's a pretty unpleasant, sweaty, gross, frottagy horror story.
People who think that it is this amazing nirvana are deluding themselves. Are there worse places? Sure. But let's not delude ourselves that it is by any regard "good". I guess if you are visiting from somewhere else on vacation then there is a novelty-factor, but if you have to do the 9-5 grind for decades at a time, if you have appointments to keep, a boss that yells at you if you are late, kids to collect on time from school (or they grass you up to social services because you can't answer the phone because you are trapped underground), or anything that requires a cheap and reliable service that you can count on then it sucks.
Not sure I'm happy with turning NYC into a playground for us rich folk.
You'll be glad to see in the article then how much better the city got for people can't afford car ownership.
As if the poor were driving their cars into Manhattan before...
This is one of those things that I struggle to have a strong opinion on from a personal experience standpoint as I can't imagine wanting to drive in Manhattan...
I find transit and traffic to be a complex topic and sometime I see changes to a road locally and "yeah that makes sense to do taht there" but the next street over "no way". The New York City dynamic, I've zero clue how that plays out...
Anytime I don’t know enough about a subject, I make it a point NOT to have a strong opinion.
Agreed. The dynamics at play in a place like that are beyond me.
In my opinion, a democratic way to make such changes would be:
1) make a dedicated lane for public transport on every street so that traffic jams do not affect it
2) let car owners vote if they want to pay for entering the city or would rather spend some more time in traffic jams but save the money
The traffic has a negative effect on more than just car owners--smog, noise, accidents, slower taxis, to name a few. Why should only car owners, who are a minority in Manhattan, vote on a problem that affects everyone?
The democratic way is we let our elected officials pass laws and that's what happened. You're ignoring the massive externalities that car owners impose on non-drivers. You're also (very Americanly) assuming car owners have special rights of any kind. We could vote to ban driving and parking and just turn all the paved roads into greenspaces. There's no Constitutional right to drive wherever you want.
surely you see the problem with only letting the car owners vote, right? right??
The downsides are all dismissed one way or the other ...
I think highly of the NYT, but this is a fan's article. At the top they say,The reporters sought information from everyone they could think of, including the M.T.A., the Fire Department, restaurant-booking platforms, researchers and one yellow school bus company.
How about from low-income commuters?
Agreed, this article is a love letter to congestion charges. My guess is that nearly nothing has changed and will change. The fact is that the public transit systems are simply unable to modernise and Union Labor makes it next to impossible to make changes.
When I bought a NJTransit when I started working a monthly ride card for a 1hr commute cost $500/month approximately. The same commute with a car was 45 minutes and fuel/maintenance was $250/month + I needed the car anyway.
A 1hr commute in Switzerland costs me like $1.5k per year.
The congestion charge changes the math, but I’m not sure it changes the service.
> public transit systems are simply unable to modernise and Union Labor makes it next to impossible to make changes.
Public transit improves regularly and continuously in my experience, usually incrementally.
[dead]
> 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 affordability; it should be a lottery, for fairness.
For instance, if your license plate ends with certain numbers or letters (changing daily, and known months in advance for any given day), you don't get to drive into town.
Knowing well in advance the days when your car is admissible into the city allows you to plan. E.g. reschedule certain appointments so they occur on an allowed day, or else make alternative transportation plans.
Imperfections in lottery systems:
- Not fair toward people who often have to drive to town for whatever reason: they drive everyday or many days out of the week or month. Still translates to an extra cost, like driving to some parking lot outside of the city core, paying for parking there, and then paying for transit into the city. This could be people who are not well off: they work some job in the city that is not well paid, and have to live far away. In America "have car" != "affluent".
- Unfair advantage enjoyed by people who own multiple vehicles; we have not entirely eliminated pay-to-drive-here.
Operating as designed.
If you have a car, you can already afford purchase/lease, insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, etc., so affording a reasonable and variable toll is not an issue. If your need to take that vehicle into that zone at that specific time is so great, a $9 toll will not be a deterrent, and if it is just convenience, then rearrange your schedule or transport mode to a time/mode that balances the cost and convenience.
Sure it sounds nice to have it done by lottery system (e.g., plates with the rightmost numeral = "3" are banned next Tuesday), but that is much harder to tune and could present a far more serious impediment.
Far easier to tune it with price: Tuesday mornings have an extra-high traffic spike, ok, "Fee increases to $11 Tuesdays 0:830-13:30". We want to get to 15% less traffic instead of 10%, now we need to say "plates with the rightmost numerals in the range '00'-'15' banned Tuesdays", etc. etc.. Every time they make a change, everyone must check... what a mess.
And for people who MUST be there at a specific time, e.g., your cancer treatment center has only a Tuesday 10:20 AM slot for you, being banned because of a license plate is a real hardship, whereas an extra $2 toll is a trivial inconvenience compared to the reason for the trip.
> If you have a car, ...
Sounds vaguely like, why are you begging, and why should I give you anything, if you can afford cigarettes?
A lot of low-income Americans drive cars, and would be way more fucked without them, because of the way things are.
> that is much harder to tune and could present a far more serious impediment.
What impediment, and how is it harder to tune?
In principle, you can tune the system to such a fine granularity that, for instance, one specific license plate is permitted to enter the city, every four years on February 29th. And that is no easier to declare than any other tuning, like alternating daily between two halves of the license plate space.
>>why are you begging, and why should I give you anything, if you can afford cigarettes?
The expense profile of a motor vehicle in the USA in 2025 is quite different than cigarettes. And yes, if you are buying two packs per day of cigarettes, at $11.96 NY State average [0] you can skip one to drive into the congestion zone in congestion time.
>> A lot of low-income Americans drive cars
Yup. It is near-absolutely critical to have a car in rural America. But that is a long drive from Manhattan. How many of them NEED to drive cars into Manhattan during congestion periods? When I lived in Manhattan long before congestion pricing, I sold my car because it was such a hassle to have while living there.
>>What impediment, and how is it harder to tune? In principle, you can tune the system to such a fine granularity that...
I already provided such an example. There are many types of appointments that are very difficult to get, and adding the hassle of being ILLEGAL to drive your car on that particular day will be a real hardship, not a mere inconvenience.
Sure, the city planners could tune any license plate scheme down to an individual vehicle, but only at the cost of a massive hassle to everyone involved. The general algo of "ya, it'll cost me to go during congestion times; oh woah, they just added $2 to the 11h-14h time slot" is waaay different from "I have a doctor appointment Tuesday, is the third character of my plate 4, 5, M, or N?...[runs out to look at plate]...damnit, I've got to change to... oh, no appointments for another seventeen weeks?... (real example from my own doctor)" The person who could have taken care of it for a $9 fee is now either seriously delayed or needs to pay $80 for an Uber.
Meanwhile, you want to add all that burden to everyone to accommodate a population of low income people, near Manhattan, who want to drive their cars into the city on a regular basis. But they will NOT be able to do this to get to their job daily, so will still need to make other arrangements initially every other day anyway.
This convinces me there is even less of a case for lottery allocation than even the first post.
edit: add LF for formatting
[0] https://boxprintify.com/how-much-do-cigarettes-cost/
You're not trying to argue that random selection for a benefit is unfair, compared to selecting for people who are willing to pay?
About appointments, there could be a very simple website where you punch in your license plate, hit Enter, and see a calendar with all your days highlighted, for the next 6 to 12 months.
There could be some flexibility in the system. Everyone gets a small number of tokens (which expire: must be used in a year or something) that provide a free pass on any day whatsoever. You use those for those situations like getting a sudden appointment that couldn't be planned around the regular system (e.g. someone canceled and you were next on the waitlist, and the time is the time).
The token system could be automatic in fact. You just drive to the city on an off day when you aren't supposed to, and your "ding count" increments by one. On the same website where you punch in your plate number to get a schedule, you can see the number of dings against your license plate. (The system wouldn't have to track all license; just ones that triggered a ding.) (Not sure about the privacy implications. Someone who enters your plate number and sees a ding count knows that your car has been to the city sometime in the past few months on an unassigned day. If that's something you need to hide from someone, then maybe just don't go by car on those days.)
I agree adding exemption tokens or 'ding count' is a good idea. But YES, I am arguing:
1) random selection creates both substantial unfairness and cost on people who through no fault of their own have schedule issues, when compared to a modest congestion toll,
2) random selection creates widespread inconvenience for everyone especially when changes are made to 'tune' the amount of traffic; everyone needs to check if the new lottery numbers match their plates, vs just increasing prices at specific which will at most cost someone a few dollars extra if they don't check in advance, instead of a costly ticket
3) The lottery system would not help anyone who wants to commute in everyday, since they would be banned on whatever days they are banned. In contrast, the cost system is trivial for one-off trips, but a significant cumulative cost to people who want to use cars in the congested zone every day. The one-off trips are not the problem, the GOAL is to reduce habitual trips. The toll system addresses that most specifically and gives no advantage to two-car households, whereas a lottery is basically a free pass to two-car households to continue congesting.
Having a lottery system with ~4 free passes per month may solve some of these, but at the cost of a lot of additional tracking and overhead. Still thinking basic economics is a good solution here. More ideal in some ways would be a sliding per-visit scale (e.g., scaling by some exponent per visit per month...), but again likely not worth the overhead.
This overhead is relative to doing nothing, or relative to imposing tolls?
Does not the congestion pricing setup in N.Y. rely on license plate cameras?
Under the lottery model, the same cameras are used. When a license is scanned which is permitted on that day, no further tracking is required. The event contributes to statistics, but otherwise can be dropped.
When a license is scanned which is not permitted that day, it added to a local database with a count of 1, or else has its count incremented if already recorded. Further processing deeper in the system is only applied to licenses which are over a threshold. The counts are periodically aged down, and records which hit zero are deleted.
Of course everything can be computed.
I'm talking more of the overhead for every single person who might want to come into the city on a given day — they will need to check and work their schedules around 1) being sure to check the current permitted/denied license plate character pattern and 2) work their schedules around that.
As we've already seen, we already need substantial work-arounds for critical can't move medical appointments. Events can be even worse; working in a business displaying at the biggest trade show for their industry all year, they've got to come in all four days, using their personal cars. Oops, nope, banned two of those days... etc. It is bullshit. Whereas with congestion tolls, it's just a trivial expense part of doing the show. We can think of thousands of such examples where a toll is simply a trivial inconvenience whereas a traffic violation is not. Of course, for each one, we can find a work-around ("just add another layer of indirection...."). And each one of those work-arounds adds to the workload of everyone who might come into the zone.
In contrast, the congestion toll workload is always simple: "Is it worth the extra $X to go in during the busy time, or can I go in a different time?"
And, traffic violations — especially accumulating traffic violations — are a LOT worse for low-income people, as the consequences tend to compound.
You are definitely convincing me even more strongly that congestion tolls are the better idea and lotteries are both far more inconvenient and more unfair.
I think that if the license plate appears as a URL parameter, you could just save a browser bookmark. Click on it, and there is your schedule for the next umpteen months.
Ideally, they wouldn't change it more than, say, nine months out. I.e it is set in stone for three quarters of a year. A month is added each month. No "tuning" anything closer than 9 months.
> we already need substantial work-arounds for critical can't move medical appointments.
Trivial workaround of free passes associated with counters tied to license plates, together with the stability of the schedule being set in stone for months into the future.
> And, traffic violations — especially accumulating traffic violations — are a LOT worse for low-income people, as the consequences tend to compound.
What's the difference? Low-income people will just drive past the cameras and get a shocking bill in the mail. Isn't that how it works?
It's not a "violation" because you called it a "toll": word semantics.
I think, go easy on the violations under the lottery system. E.g. send a warning to first time abusers and whatnot.
>>Ideally, they wouldn't change it more than, say, nine months out
So, the system is highly unresponsive compared to adjusting a toll +/- a small amount for changing conditions
The system is also completely unresponsive to time-of-day issues, so e.g., if they want to dampen traffic in 11:30-15:30...
>> free passes associated with counters tied to license plates Right, another entire kludge system to attempt to accommodate a weakness, and then it only works for one-offs. Nevermind the week-long events that often bring people into the city, which now need yet another work-around...
>>traffic violations ...What's the difference?
The difference is a bill for a $9 toll vs a $150 violation for driving in the congestion zone on a forbidden day.
Yes, a toll is different from a violation. OFC, if you fail to pay the toll, it can turn into a violation, but that is NOT the same thing
>>go easy Right, which reduces the effectiveness of the entire system because the abusers will game it even more to take advantage while the poor people will get hammered even more.
I love technology, but I also know that adding ever more complex tech to "solve" a problem is often a bad solution. In this case, it will literally not even help the poor people, and will help significantly the people with two cars.
If you want to work better for low-income people, just scale the congestion tolls to the value of the cars; those are already only one lookup away from the license plates. E.g., the basic toll is $9, but for cars over $100K value, it scales proportionally.
Now you aren't handing out traffic ticket violations to people who must come in on the 'wrong' day.
> I love technology, but I also know that adding ever more complex tech
Says the person who wants to adjust prices by the hour in response to real-time data, LOL.
Why would we care about fine tuning by the hour, when we can just make 75% of the cars disappear, all day long.
I would apply the ban 24 hours a day. If your car is not allowed tomorrow and you don't want to use a free pass, and you must absolutely drive, then get there before midnight tonight and sleep in your car.
Umm, the simplest tech to actually do the job. I wasn't talking about adjusting prices by the hour, more like by the week or month, but as you point out, with a toll system, it would be straightforward to do real-time updates. So, zoom out a bit.
The point is to use the simplest practical system that does the job, in this case managing traffic congestion.
With no system, the costs of making extra traffic are externalized from each driver onto every other driver and city resident.
A congestion toll puts back on every driver coming into the zone a small fraction of those externalized costs. The toll costs are small, typically a fraction of what it would cost to even park for any time in the zone, or buy fuel. This system allows EACH INDIVIDUAL to freely, for themselves, decide if it is worthwhile to bear that fractional cost. And the system is paid for largely by the drivers making the congestion.
In contrast, a lottery system is a government agency controlling everything with an extremely blunt instrument (or, if it is tunable, a blunt instrument with a kludged-on rat's nest of spaghetti-code to handle every fairness exception).
The entire burden is on the city and the NON-driving residents to foot the cost of implementing it. It costs the drivers massive inconvenience (as discussed earlier), gives a free pass to multi-car households, and people who need to come in on "off" days are penalized with moving traffic violations, which have a much higher cost, especially for low-income people.
Lotteries are even worse for your dude wanting to drive in and sleep in his car to avoid the 24hr ban; with a lottery, he still cannot drive anywhere the entire next 24hr day, but to avoid the toll, he needs only come in before the congestion time and park until the congestion time ends.
Seriously, this discussion has clarified that a lottery is worse in every way, for the drivers, including the low-income drivers, overhead for the city and it's residents, and for the system itself which will work much less well.
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.
You're not explaining why my idea doesn't have long-term effects compared to the currently implemented idea, only arbitrarily calling it short-sighted.
Or do you mean that declining any opportunity for a rent-seeking cash-grab is categorically short-sighted? I can accept that.
My problem with congestion pricing is that it still doesn't provide great incentives for cities to improve walkability and public transit.
"What do you mean our transit is bad, look, our ridership numbers are 3x higher than all our neighbors combined!" *Does not mention the fact that congestion pricing in neighboring cities is 3x lower.*
In the worst cases, it could even become a regressive tax of sorts. If your city has safe districts with good transit where rich people live, and unsafe districts with terrible transit where poor people live, congestion pricing will allow rich people to choose between the convenience of taking a car with no traffic jams versus the cheapness of transit, while forcing poor people to choose between a car they can't afford versus walking down a street where they may be assaulted.
It's even worse if you have rich people living in the city center where they work, and poor people who also work there living in towns much further away. Then, only the rich are able to vote on congestion pricing.
This probably doesn't apply to New York specifically (not an American, have never been), but it's definitely something to have in mind in general.
Did any of these things happen in the other cities which have had congestion pricing for years?
Speculation based on incentives is all fine and good, but empirical results beat it every time.
>In the worst cases, it could even become a regressive tax of sorts.
When I lived in Atlanta, there were people, mostly YIMBYs and other urbanists, who wanted to charge a significant congestion fee to anyone living in surrounding towns like Alpharetta, Roswell, Duluth, etc., who commuted into the city to work.
It would effectively be a car vice tax paid by the working class, as most of the people I knew out there lived there because Atlanta rents and home prices are insane.
Congestion pricing is ok when there are alternate methods of transportation that are usable enough that you could expect a person to just switch to them rather than pay the fee. But when there's not such an alternative, the people will simply pay the fee because they have no other option, and now you've just further immiserated peoples' lives.
The closest thing to a response I've heard is that they think such a situation would encourage people to vote and push for better transit options. I just don't see it though. Ignoring that in my case, Atlanta, the city was a de facto one party city in which primaries were mostly determined by media endorsements and more emotional issues than transit and urbanism development, I just don't see that this kind of policy making that shapes the incentives (both carrot and stick) for the masses works in practice. Peoples' decisions are so much more complicated and subject to tons of other factors that this approach can't control.
People said the same thing about New York City, but it is absolutely not true at all about NYC. Rich people drive into NYC, others take transit.
It may be true in Atlanta, but it wasn't passed in Atlanta. I'd want to see a ton of data before I believed your claims though. Typically suburbs are where the wealthier people live.
It's not hard. Just go on Zillow and look at the relative costs of a 3 bedroom place in Atlanta's central neighborhoods (Midtown, O4W, Virginia Highlands, Edgewood, etc.) and compare it to the cost of a 3 bedroom in Alpharetta or Tucker. Last time I was there, I saw shitty little 1200 sqft condos in areas that were barely walkable going for upper $500k prices.
Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious.
The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like highlighting how many fewer chicken deaths would occur if we created an omnivore or meat tax.
IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas. How much fewer social interaction is happening across the distances that those car based trips used to occur. And how much harder is it to get goods into the areas. Is less economic activity happening.
In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.
> IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas.
There’s a section dedicated to this which indicates visitors to business zones are up and OpenTable reservations are up.
If anything, the reduced congestion should be a boon for business deliveries and the congestion pricing should be a rounding error for those users.
IMO, people think driving is their preferred transportation method because it gives the illusion of independence. The subway goes everywhere in lower Manhattan and you don’t need to deal with the time, cost, or inconvenience of parking, traffic, driving stress, etc.
It would be really interesting if it turns out that something like this improves the city's overall economy by encouraging people to go to neighborhood businesses instead of driving all the way across town to go to whatever place is currently trending.
I'm thinking here of when I lived in Milwaukee, WI. Milwaukee has a strong culture of driving across town to a small number of trendy neighborhoods. Which leads to hyper-concentration of commercial investment in those areas, since they're the only ones that get any traffic. Which might be fueling a vicious cycle that helps explain Milwaukee's rather extreme neighborhood-to-neighborhood prosperity disparities. It's harder for people in a neighborhood to have income if there aren't any nearby jobs. It's hard to hold down a job across town from where you live if you aren't wealthy enough to own a car.
I can understand why poor families might save enough money to make the trip across town to a nice restaurant or a high end shop in a wealthy neighborhood they could never afford to live in. I can't understand how making it prohibitively expensive for poor people to drive into those nice neighborhoods will result in them becoming rich enough to open fancy restaurants and shops in their own poor neighborhoods where no rich people will ever travel to. The people in the poor neighborhood can't afford to eat/shop in such places often enough to support them and rich people won't go into poor neighborhoods for them either.
Shutting poor people out of wealthy neighborhoods by making it too expensive to drive into them will just cause poor neighborhoods to become ghettos. People living there will have to effectively take a pay cut to commute to work in nice parts of the city and they'll be less likely to ever be able to move out.
I don’t understand. This family saved to afford a fancy meal, parking, and possibly tolls, but can’t afford the congestion pricing?
It’s not about bringing fine dining to every neighborhood, but if it costs (money or time) more for the poor and rich alike to leave their neighborhood business owners could be incentivized to step up their game.
Poor families take public transit, they don’t drive. Reducing congestion makes public transit better. If you’re in a place where everyone drives, even the poor, then this thread is irrelevant.
> extreme neighborhood-to-neighborhood prosperity disparities.
It may also make running a business more expansive. It limits locations and pushes rent up.
I would assume any increase in desirability would be due to an increase in traffic and cash inflow to those businesses/area.
Driving into NYC is one of those things that is most convenient at the beginning (driving in, stay in my car) but has a high cost at the end (looking/paying for parking, traffic, on a parking time limit, etc.) I do think if people grow ACCUSTOMED to taking the subway in, they will prefer that in most cases.
I don't think you can infer that people were using their preferred method just from the fact that they were using it - after all, the status quo was also the result of policy.
> IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas.
I think the article mentions this?
> In March, just over 50 million people visited business districts inside the congestion zone, or 3.2 percent more than in the same period last year, according to the New York City Economic Development Corporation (its estimate tries to exclude people who work or live in the area).
See also the "Other business measures are doing OK so far" heading.
There were critics who predicted that it would not reduce traffic and congestion. They argued people had no choice but to drive and would just be forced to pay.
> In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.
The article highlights that was $45 million in the month of March alone:
"In March, the tolls raised $45 million in net revenue, putting the program on track to generate roughly $500 million in its first year."
It's sort of weird, because taken to its logical conclusion (nobody drives into lower Manhattan) they would be collecting nothing. They are disincentivizing the thing that they are counting on to provide revenue.
Of course, practically that will not happen, but it could be that they are overestimating the long term revenue stream. As more and more people get used to not driving into downtown, that will become the habit, and then their kids won't be used to it and they won't do it either.
The cool thing about pricing is you can make the pricing variable to achieve whatever ends you want… if you’re desperate for more cars for some reason you can just lower the cost and the ‘market’ will respond. You can have lower costs in the afternoon or at night, or no cost on weekends.
No, people always value convenience, all you need is those money to value the convenience of driving in more than the price of the toll.
They are tracking that sort of thing. One of the line items is "vistors to the zone - up". Another two are restaurants and Broadway receipts which have no data yet.
Every study I've ever seen showed that people on foot and on bikes are _much_ more likely to stop and shop or eat during their journey.
I'm a little unsure how to read you. These results look, frankly, amazing. The benefits to schools and busses alone would have been good. That traffic is faster everywhere is a cherry on top of it all.
And you did see that they had a section on restaurants, right? Those are up. They polled stores and found only 25% that report a negative impact. That looks concerning, I agree. Would love more polling on it with quantification.
Could this still be a bad policy? Of course. Could it be a good policy today that trends to bad some day in the future? I'd think so. But we have tools to monitor this stuff that flat didn't exist before. We should be in a good place to try stuff like this. And, again, these results look amazing.
Getting business stats is fraught. If a business is struggling, the owners opinion on the cause is important, but is it accurate?
In Wellington, New Zealand, failing business love to blame cycle lanes for their woes. The government sacking a significant number of people and an economic downturn is apparently not the cause.
> people's preferred method
You have some evidence of this?
To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference?
Now, if it was claimed as a superior method, that would be different. I could easily see it being people's preference as much from habit and availability as from any active preference. Certainly few people want to sit in traffic. But without an obvious immediate cost, many will jump in the car to drive somewhere.
> To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference?
Good point, but I don't think people prefer the car. Rather, I think they prefer the convenience a car provides. Sure, there are some people that love driving, but for the rest of us, I'm pretty sure driving is a means to an end. (As an aside, I'm also pretty sure that by-and-large people that love to drive aren't wanting to drive into NYC ).
Rather, if people prefer the most convenient method of travel, and if something becomes more convenient, they will take that.
All this is to say, driving isn't their preferred method of travel. Rather, it just happened to meet their preferred levels of convenience. And not all of that is money related. Being able to take public transit and sit and relax and enjoy the ride and not deal with traffic and listen to an audio book, I love that. And if it's good enough, I don't drive. But I do still have a car and drive more than I take public transit. Not because my preferred method of travel is car. Rather, my preferred method of travel is whatever gets m to my destination in a reasonable amount of time, price, comfort, and safety.
I'm sure this is more likely a thought experiment and not as useful, but you had an interesting question, and it got me thinking.
If you would normally do one behavior because it is being heavily subsidized by other people and you are not bearing the cost of that behavior. Of course people have a preference to not bear the cost of their own externalities
Example of the "force of habit" factor:
Every time my mom comes to visit us in the city, at some point she says she could never live here because she couldn't imagine having to drive in city traffic every day. And every time she does that, I remind her that her car hasn't moved even once since she first arrived a week ago. Mostly we walk everywhere. And every time she responds, "Oh, you're right. You know, that's been really nice."
She's lived in suburban and rural areas her entire life. The idea that she simply has to get in a car to go anywhere is so ingrained into her psyche that even a solid week of not driving is insufficient to dislodge it.
>She's lived in suburban and rural areas her entire life. The idea that she simply has to get in a car to go anywhere is so ingrained into her psyche that even a solid week of not driving is insufficient to dislodge it.
I'm in a suburban area. When I was a child, I got driven everywhere - until I was old enough to take public transit by myself.
I'm about to walk ~3km (2mi) each way to a grocery store, something I do regularly. I save thousands of dollars annually like this. I could feed myself several times over with that money.
It will never stop being strange to me that people actually get that car-dependent mindset ingrained into them.
1. Possibly reasons like this: https://archive.is/tjdZ2 ... to save you the click, the title/subtitle reads:
> When Getting Out of Jail Means a Deadly Walk Home > Nearly every day in Santa Fe, N.M., people released from jail trudge along a dangerous highway to get back to town. Jails often fail to offer safe transport options for prisoners.
2. You must have a preference for walking, since a bicycle would be at least 3x and as much as 10x faster than walking.
3. The thousands of dollar number seems misleading. If you bought a car solely for this purpose, yes, I believe you're right. But that seems unlikely. The actual marginal cost of using a car you already owned for this purpose is on the order of $3-500.
I commend and support what you do (though I prefer to use my bike when I can). But I don't think the financial benefits should be overstated. There are, of course, other benefits.
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 no sunk cost that incentivises you to choose one option over another.
"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".
Status quo bias. The previous behaviour was also affected by government policies including taxation and infrastructure spending.
There is no objectively neutral baseline of preferences here as long as civilisation exists.
I don't think revealed preferences are the only reasonable way to define "preference."
To use an extreme example: Does the homeless alcoholic divorcé really prefer to be homeless and divorced?
For a more abstract example, consider games like the Prisoner's dilemma, where "both defect" is worse for both players than "both cooperate" but choosing to defect always improves the result for a player. Surely both players would prefer the "both cooperate" solution to the "both defect" but without some external force, they end up in a globally suboptimal result.
This is always a time/cost/convenience/habit formula to everything. If you change anything in there of course people adjust to their optimum. If you introduce large roadworks in the heart of manhattan you'd get less cars too because people go by train/bike.
> $45M per year
Well, in a hundred years they should be able to afford a couple of new subway stations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
Maybe 10 years, because $45M is per month.
yes my bad, I misread/mistook the period.
> The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some.
Do you think people in medieval times also preferred commuting by car but had to suffer through using horses? There's no such thing as "preference" that's somehow not influenced by the environment you exist in.
There are plenty of places where consumption taxes DON’T have a strong effect, like vice taxes on tobacco and alcohol. It’s absolutely worth actually testing it.
Vice taxes on tobacco have an incredibly strong direct effect.. especially on preventing youths from starting to smoke and on poor people continuing to smoke…. It’s something like a 7% reduction in the number of youth smokers for every 10% increase in price.
there should be a meat tax, btw. I eat a ton of steak but it's costing the ecosystem dearly
A consumption tax isn't going to make meat suppliers any more conscious of environmental effects from poor processes though, if any thing it will push them further away from it to try and lower prices more.
Also steak is a terrible example, cows eat alfalfa which is a nitrogen fixating crop and reduces artificial fertilizer usage that doesn't require pesticides and is basically free to grow anywhere it rains. And we don't grow alfalfa in arid places to feed US people meat, we grow it in arid places because it is near the ports and container ships need some sort of cheap bulk weight to send back to China as ballast.
How high would the tax have to be to get you to stop eating so much meat?
Think about it more; if the vegan and steak options were ~equivalently priced - more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive. The idea isn't to make it prohibitive; insofaras don't make the most environmentally-expensive choice also the cheapest.
To compare it to traffic; everyone is miserable sitting in traffic; so giving people an excuse for a bit more WFH is a WinWin.
> more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive.
If?
Getting protein from vegan sources can already be done much more cheaply than getting it from steak, though the quality of the amino acid profile may be lower.
Getting protein from "the vegan option to a steak" - i.e. something marketed to be a direct substitute for a steak, with its vegan nature as an explicit selling point - is a different story.
I presume that, generally, people eat steak because they subjectively enjoy the experience of eating steak, and perhaps because they don't enjoy a carefully planned out plate of legumes and whole grains in the same way. But some seem to be much more extreme about this than others.
I personally eat meat (and dairy) regularly - but probably overall less than the local average, and usually not beef.
As a committed meat-eater: I have no idea what vegan food costs, as the label almost immediate makes me skip over them. To make me look at them, you'd have to make the non-vegan options prohibitively expensive.
Well most raw vegan food is already way cheaper that raw meat:
Quality organic dry chickpeas, lentils, beans, soy etc… already are around 2€/kg where I live and when you add water they double/triple in weight so you end up at 1€/kg. You’ll probably eat a bit more weight than meat but still the price is nowhere comparable. Add some whole cereals instead of white bread for nutrition and better satiety: they’re more expensive but you got the price back on the quantity you eat (you won’t stuff yourself that much T165 bread or brown rice: the fibers will make you feel full super fast). And for the vegetable you usually can find stuff super nutritious for cheap : apples, leak, cabbages and alls sorts of oignons.
Even fancy organic quinoa is like 10€/kg but also double in weight and you only eat ~1.3 times the meat weight you’ll eat in meat-meal.
Industrial chicken is 5€/kg un the shop and "good" one 15€/kg. Quality beef is nowhere in that range.
Missing the point, which was that you're not going to convince people like me who ignore the vegan options just by having them be cheaper than meat, because I won't look.
The only thing that would make me look at the vegan options would be if I felt I couldn't afford the meat options.
1. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone. In fact people always convince themselves, you only can share facts and opinion with them and they do their own arbitrage. Eat what you want to eat.
2. Speak for yourself. "People like me" doesn’t mean much, you may share some thought but everyone have a whole life of different experiences. Your argument on price and affordability makes sense may be shared by others but is probably more complex and nuanced than only that sentence, and others sharing that thought with you today may have a slightly different one yesterday and tomorrow.
3. Not many admit it, but people do changes opinion sometime, framing it as a logical conclusion to thinks they discover, read etc… nobody wakes up and become vegan out of nowhere. They had experiences, process it and make they own arbitrage just like you’re doing. In that sense I know my message has been read by more that only you and hope it helps understanding that many vegans eat more that impossible-burger only.
4. Genuine questions : why do you eat meat ? I guess it’s more than the affordability only. otherwise you’ll smoke, fentanyl yourself and drink only sodas if you can. When I have long talk with someone it usually comes down to habits or tradition. I’d be happy to read your opinion on that question.
> Genuine questions : why do you eat meat ?
I know not aimed at me, but honest answer: because I grew up eating it. Environmental/moral concerns have never been a prime concern as I don't consider them problems reasonably solved or helped by individual choices. Having sat don for a lengthy talk with an adherent, veganism itself comes off as smug self righteous delusion to me.
But that's my opinion, and opinions are much like assholes in general cleanliness and presentability in public.
> I’m not trying to convince you or anyone.
Good for you. For those who are trying to convince, the cost increase on meat needs to be substantial, is my point. When I was a child, we didn't have much money. That didn't mean we chose to eat vegan. It meant there were smaller amounts of meat, or cheaper types of meat (such as whale; back then whale meat was a cheap beef substitute in Norway - you'd buy meat if you could afford because whale meat is a lot of effort and tough).
To your argument I should speak for myself: We have clear evidence on the basis of seeing that people rarely end up on a vegan, or even vegetarian diet even when meat is expensive - such as it was during my childhood - to suggest that this is the case for far more people than myself.
> Not many admit it, but people do changes opinion sometime
Yes, but my point is that if you want people to change opinion, it isn't going to cut it if the other options are cheap, as long as people so strongly prefer the more expensive option that they will buy it anyway.
> why do you eat meat ?
Because I enjoy it. I don't need any other reason. I love the taste. I love the texture.
Okay, but why is that?
Because my experience is that I don't find the food tempting, and so it feels pointless to spend time considering it.
> I don't find the food tempting
One thing I realized a number of years ago is that my childhood instilled biases in me.
A Few Examples:
Sushi/Raw Fish/ethnic/spicy food == Bad Apple Products == For Suckers Ford == Found On Road Dead (bowtie life) AMD >>> Evil Netburst Intel empire.
When I realized just how irrational I was on soo many subjects (I had never seen sushi or really any ethnic food until I was at my first SDE job as a 20somthing) - it made me re-evaluate.
> pointless to spend time considering it
Since then; Anytime I've ever considered something pointless to consider - it's been a trigger to consider it. Has honestly been kind of life changing revelation; has led to a much more varied and interesting life than I would have led otherwise based off my upbringing/predispositions. I'd even venture as far as to say it's made me inherently happier as a person as I no longer sneer at the apple user/sky diver/snow boarder/ebike rider/mountain climber/etc - now I look into it and possibly plan a trip.
I'm not saying "vegan > Meat" - I myself BBQ fairly often; but I'd also advise one to consider the vegan entree you sneered at prior; it may well just surprise you. And if it doesn't; the punishment is a deeper understanding! (.. and maybe paying for second lunch. but that's the risk)
> Anytime I've ever considered something pointless to consider - it's been a trigger to consider it.
This is a great motto, probably a root of self-actualisation path. It has been one of my value too but its too easy to forget, thanks for the reminder.
As you talk about barbecue and you like experiences, have you tried Tempeh [0] ? It's off the radar in some parts of the world but a daily staple in others. God for at marinade of your choice for the first time (not raw) or crumble it in a sauce you already know. That stuff is really surprising at first (like... cheese maybe?) but it's really an interesting ingredient. If you can't find it in your "health food store" you may google it for a almost-local seller that ship, for exemple [1] in UK.
[0] http://tempeh.info [1] https://www.temptmetempeh.co.uk/
My view of vegan food has been shaped by occasionally suffering it (ok, so I' exaggerating with the "suffering")
Heck, my breakfeast at the moment is vegan, because I'm on a diet and cutting real milk out of it let me drop a few more calories, not because I find it more enjoyable, because I very much detest the milk substitute. But cutting a few more calories makes it easier to add plenty of meat to my other meals.
It's not even that it's always bad. It's again that cost isn't going to get me to consider the vegan options unless the cost difference is absolutely brutal. Other factors might on occasion, such as diet.
> cutting real milk out of it let me drop a few more calories, not because I find it more enjoyable, because I very much detest the milk substitute.
Way off topic now, but: emphasis on few. Surely you don't use more than a couple ounces on a bowl of cereal? You might lose about 20 calories this way - but if you find it that unpleasant, you'll surely find them somewhere else.
> But cutting a few more calories makes it easier to add plenty of meat to my other meals.
Sure - perhaps an extra third of an ounce of steak.
A few here and there adds up. Once I've reached my target weight, I'll ease up gently, and that's certainly one of the things I'll ease up on. For now, it's finding savings everywhere that doesn't affect my sateity.
(Also, I realised I was wrong - I forgot my breakfast has plenty of whey produced from milk in it, so vegetarian but certainly not vegan)
I'll reword it. The idea isn't to make everyone skip meat; but to make the non-meat options more competitive. I say this as one with multiple briskets in my chest freezer waiting for some good weather.
For me 20 dollars a pound to push it into a treat territory.
I don't know know what would replace it though.