HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2241  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 6:46 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,801
I am almost numb at the idea congestion pricing will be implemented by the end of 2020. Never did I think they'd actually and finally do this long needed step.

Next after that start taking away travel lanes and parking spots to enlarge sidewalks/bike lanes/commercial loading zones inside the cordon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2242  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 7:29 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
well here we are. this seems to have the appearance of doing something, more so than reality, and has a lot of outs, like for example not all the money goes for transit and the buck stops here responsibilities are unclear. however, at least there is an agreement of consolidation and funding mta via congestion pricing in manhattan below 61st, along with a weed tax and an internet purchases tax:
Its ridiculous to make car owners pay for transit. If transit is too expensive and inefficient to stand on its own then it shouldn't exist. Congestion pricing is fine, but only if the money goes to roads, not transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2243  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 7:39 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,360
^That is insane.

Is tobacco taxed to ensure easier access and ease of use for smoking?
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2244  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 7:57 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Its ridiculous to make car owners pay for transit. If transit is too expensive and inefficient to stand on its own then it shouldn't exist. Congestion pricing is fine, but only if the money goes to roads, not transit.
lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2245  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 7:57 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
^That is insane.

Is tobacco taxed to ensure easier access and ease of use for smoking?
No, it's taxed to pay for healthcare costs associated with its use. Just like roads should be taxed to pay for their maintenance and transit taxes/fares should go to transit maintenance. Taxing roads to pay for transit (or vice versa) sends the wrong price signals into the market and leads to economic inefficiency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2246  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 8:20 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,360
How about something to aleviate traffic....like, say, I don't know, transit? Also, what market? Auto infrastructure and transit are PUBLICLY subsidized and funded. It's not the Manhattan Road Co. LLC vs. the Big City Train and Bus Ltd. (though from your other rantings I think you'd ideologically like them to be)
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2247  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 9:15 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
How about something to aleviate traffic....like, say, I don't know, transit?
Great, let's have that! If transit is a superior form a transportation then nobody will need to be coaxed into taking it by massive subsidies, they will do so of their own free will and be glad to pay a fair fare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Also, what market? Auto infrastructure and transit are PUBLICLY subsidized and funded. It's not the Manhattan Road Co. LLC vs. the Big City Train and Bus Ltd. (though from your other rantings I think you'd ideologically like them to be)
People make decisions on what form of transportation to take based on quality and cost the same way they would make decisions about anything else. If the cost they are paying is drastically different than the actual cost due to subsidies or punitive taxes then people will respond in a way that is not what an efficient market would dictate. This results in all sorts of inefficiency. Nobody seems to have a problem understanding this fact when low gas taxes result in inefficient low density areas because drivers are not paying the full costs of the roads they use. The only reason people here have an issue seeing the flip side of the coin is due to their dogmatic views that transit is inherently good and driving is inherently bad. Look past your own bias and you will see how obviously true what I am saying is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2248  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 11:44 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,976
R143 - Original Brown M Shuttle Train Announcements (Myrtle Av to Metropolitan round trip)

Another throwback video to the times when the R143s ran on the M line shuttle between Myrtle Av Broadway and Metropolitan Avenue. The R143s had a slightly different announcement program compared to the R160s that ran on the M shuttle.

Original Brown M Shuttle train announcements from Myrtle Avenue / Broadway in Brooklyn to Middle village - Metropolitan Avenue in Queens via the Myrtle Avenue Line.


These audio clips were sent to me to be restored and were originally recorded sometime pre 2007.

Video Link


Original 2006 R160 A Local Train Announcements - From 30 Day Acceptance Test - to Far Rockaway

A special upload taking you back to 2005/2006 when the R160s are brand new, here are the original automated announcements from the 30 day acceptance testing on the A line , Bound for Far Rockaway Mott Avenue.
As a bonus i also added the weekday / weekend / night / rush hour transfers at the appropriate stops.

Original transfers recorded between August and October of 2006 during the revenue acceptance testing and merged with higher quality audio that was recorded at various times from 2014 to 2019.

Video Link


Original 2001 - R143 L Train Announcements to Canarsie / Rockaway Parkway

A special upload this time, here are the original automated announcements recorded from a R143 L train circa 2001 - 2002. I put some effort into levling out and reducing the distortion on some of the audio clips and making one uniform audio file, let me know how i did.

From 8 Avenue in Mahattan to Canarsie - Rockaway Parkway in Brooklyn via 14 Street Local.

Some notable differences from today's (2019) version:

All transfers done by Charlie Pellet , a different "Next stop" and "this is" announcement, the "Next and last stop is" announcement hasnt been added, some defunct routes are announced and the lack of any Select Bus service routes.

Video Link


R142 4 Train via 2 Line Announcements - To Nereid Avenue / 238 Street

Here are the automated announcements for a rerouted number 4 train being sent up to Nereid Avenue - 238 Street via the White Plains Road Line (2 / 5 lines)

From Crown Heights - Utica Avenue in Brooklyn to Nereid Avenue in the Bronx via Eastern Parkway Express / Lexington Avenue Express / White Plains - Bronx Express .

Announcements recorded in 2014 and 2019.

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2249  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 8:43 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,620
NYC Tunnel Closing Would Cut Home Values by $20 Billion, Study Says

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ion-study-says

Quote:
.....

- New York City-area home values would drop by $20 billion if the sole commuter-rail link between New Jersey and Manhattan were forced to close for repairs, according to a transportation group study. The Regional Plan Association, a Manhattan-based research and advisory group, also calculated losses of $16 billion to the U.S. economy and $7 billion in federal, state and local taxes if the tunnel weren’t fully operating for four years.

.....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2250  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 9:46 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
[B]NYC Tunnel Closing Would Cut Home Values by $20 Billion, Study Says
Oh God, I sure hope so. Might finally be able to afford a house then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2251  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 10:01 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Great, let's have that! If transit is a superior form a transportation then nobody will need to be coaxed into taking it by massive subsidies, they will do so of their own free will and be glad to pay a fair fare.


People make decisions on what form of transportation to take based on quality and cost the same way they would make decisions about anything else. If the cost they are paying is drastically different than the actual cost due to subsidies or punitive taxes then people will respond in a way that is not what an efficient market would dictate. This results in all sorts of inefficiency. Nobody seems to have a problem understanding this fact when low gas taxes result in inefficient low density areas because drivers are not paying the full costs of the roads they use. The only reason people here have an issue seeing the flip side of the coin is due to their dogmatic views that transit is inherently good and driving is inherently bad. Look past your own bias and you will see how obviously true what I am saying is.

Do you not acknowledge that your chosen method of transit, driving, is highly subsided? So if the idea of subsidies is ok then isn't it a matter of trying to determine which transit method gives society the best return? In NYC that might be a different answer then Columbus, Oh. One size does not fit all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2252  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2019, 1:50 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
Do you not acknowledge that your chosen method of transit, driving, is highly subsided? So if the idea of subsidies is ok then isn't it a matter of trying to determine which transit method gives society the best return? In NYC that might be a different answer then Columbus, Oh. One size does not fit all.
Subsidies are not OK except in specific instances where we are trying to foster the growth of a new technology. That exception applies to neither subways or highways and so neither should receive subsidies. Not exactly rocket science here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2253  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2019, 7:06 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,011
Hope this isn't off-topic, but related to getting from the 3 main airports into Manhattan via rail:
--LGA - nope (well, you need to take a bus or something else first, to get to a subway station) - looks like 2022 (maybe...) will bring a LGA AirTrain link, unfortunately takes you the wrong direction (Met stadium vs. one of the stations closer into the city), but nothing unworkable because you are already so close.
--JFK - AirTrain ride takes you to various stations, but you still have a fairly long ride due to it all being 'local' subway vs. an express train (there might be express subways, I don't know).
--EWR - maybe the best today? Quick AirTrain ride, then you get on another train that takes you right to Penn.

While I don't think it would ever happen (politically, NIMBY, financially), having a direct train connection from the airports right to a larger Manhattan station would be great. Imagine a loop from JFK, thru Brooklyn, up the center of Manhattan, to LGA, thru Queens, back to JFK. Maybe 6-8 total stops, just at the airports and major stations. Part of the concept like express lanes on a freeway would be to mitigate some of the crushing commute traffic so you could arrive at the airports during AM/PM commute times and be able to get on the trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2254  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2019, 7:49 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
While I don't think it would ever happen (politically, NIMBY, financially), having a direct train connection from the airports right to a larger Manhattan station would be great. Imagine a loop from JFK, thru Brooklyn, up the center of Manhattan, to LGA, thru Queens, back to JFK. Maybe 6-8 total stops, just at the airports and major stations. Part of the concept like express lanes on a freeway would be to mitigate some of the crushing commute traffic so you could arrive at the airports during AM/PM commute times and be able to get on the trains.
Last I heard it's already happening with PATH being extended to EWR. Total waste of money, but what else is new when it comes to the Port Authority?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2255  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 6:25 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Its ridiculous to make car owners pay for transit. If transit is too expensive and inefficient to stand on its own then it shouldn't exist. Congestion pricing is fine, but only if the money goes to roads, not transit.
Congestion pricing isn’t aimed at expanding or improving roads. You could have immaculate roads but still need congestion pricing as it has proven to be one of the few policies that work in reducing congestion. Imagine a Chinese city that has properly taxed gas sufficiently to have a well-maintained road network. The downtown core supports 10 million workers and residents, but the roads are severely congested because that’s what happens with so many people. It makes sense to use congestion pricing to relieve congestion and improve traffic. It also makes sense to use revenue to efficiently expand methods to bring people to the congested area. You have already solved the road capacity and congestion issues with congestion pricing, so it doesn’t make sense to improve road capacity. If congestion pricing is implemented correctly, the traffic is reduced and speeds are increased on the roads, so why would it be necessary to add lanes to the roads that are no longer congested?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2256  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 10:58 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
How about something to aleviate traffic....like, say, I don't know, transit? Also, what market? Auto infrastructure and transit are PUBLICLY subsidized and funded. It's not the Manhattan Road Co. LLC vs. the Big City Train and Bus Ltd. (though from your other rantings I think you'd ideologically like them to be)
When did transit reduce congestion?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2257  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 11:02 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
Congestion pricing isn’t aimed at expanding or improving roads. You could have immaculate roads but still need congestion pricing as it has proven to be one of the few policies that work in reducing congestion. Imagine a Chinese city that has properly taxed gas sufficiently to have a well-maintained road network. The downtown core supports 10 million workers and residents, but the roads are severely congested because that’s what happens with so many people. It makes sense to use congestion pricing to relieve congestion and improve traffic. It also makes sense to use revenue to efficiently expand methods to bring people to the congested area. You have already solved the road capacity and congestion issues with congestion pricing, so it doesn’t make sense to improve road capacity. If congestion pricing is implemented correctly, the traffic is reduced and speeds are increased on the roads, so why would it be necessary to add lanes to the roads that are no longer congested?
So drivers, who are paying to use a road they have already de facto paid their share for, shouldn't see any improvements on that road?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2258  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 2:31 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
So drivers, who are paying to use a road they have already de facto paid their share for, shouldn't see any improvements on that road?
What improvements would you make in the example I gave? Add more lights? Take Beijing for instance. With a population of nearly 20 million. The gas tax is extremely high and the roads are very well-maintained. You are only allowed to drive your car 4/5 days per workweek, non-Beijing cars are banned or have to pay a high toll, and you need to enter a lottery just to get the right to buy a car, requiring a waiting period of around 5 years. They have already double-decked the major expressways. The roads are still extremely congested. Congestion pricing probably can solve the congestion problem, getting rid of traffic and increasing the average speeds on the road. How would you spend the congestion pricing revenue, and why? What improvements would you make to the roads if congestion pricing has solved the congestion and average speed problem, and the gas tax and other revenue has already kept the roads well-maintained?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2259  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 2:51 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
What improvements would you make in the example I gave? Add more lights? Take Beijing for instance. With a population of nearly 20 million. The gas tax is extremely high and the roads are very well-maintained. You are only allowed to drive your car 4/5 days per workweek, non-Beijing cars are banned or have to pay a high toll, and you need to enter a lottery just to get the right to buy a car, requiring a waiting period of around 5 years. They have already double-decked the major expressways. The roads are still extremely congested. Congestion pricing probably can solve the congestion problem, getting rid of traffic and increasing the average speeds on the road. How would you spend the congestion pricing revenue, and why? What improvements would you make to the roads if congestion pricing has solved the congestion and average speed problem, and the gas tax and other revenue has already kept the roads well-maintained?
Well the issue is excessive density so you can kill 2 birds with one stone by bulldozing down some undesirable districts to allow new highways to be built into the city center. That way you both increase capacity and decrease density so it's good on all accounts.

If we're talking NYC specifically though there are some obvious improvements like a bridge from Long Island to Connecticut to divert cars away from the city and a train tunnel from NJ to Long Island to get trucks off the road.

If you're talking lower Manhattan there's really no opportunity to build more transit anyways since that part of the city is already very transit rich.

Last edited by BrownTown; Mar 4, 2019 at 3:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2260  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 3:04 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Well the issue is excessive density so you can kill 2 birds with one stone by bulldozing down some undesirable districts to allow new highways to be built into the city center. That way you both increase capacity and decrease density so it's good on all accounts.
How is the issue excessive density? Beijing’s issue probably is the relatively low population density of 1300 people per square km versus New York City’s 7000 people per square mile. Even Los Angeles city is more dense. Increased density is in Beijing’s future. I don’t see where you would build these hypothetical highways, and why you would build them if congestion pricing made the roads uncongested and fast. When do planners decide to build new highways when the existing roads will be consistently free flowing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.