HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2221  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 11:40 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 1,582
Could Manhattan do pricing by using pay-by-plate and only charge non NY and NJ cars coming to the Island? I think that would make everyone happy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2222  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 12:10 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
The poor get around by driving and parking their cars in Manhattan?
Nice strawman there. Let me argue in the opposite direction: the rich are the only people who drive cars through Manhattan?

Even if that were true, then lets reaffirm that practice and make it even harder to drive so the poor have no option other than to be packed in like sardines should they wish to travel through NYC. Though depending on how your define "poor," I'd lump the middle class who by many reports are a paycheck away from poverty(that might be a bit over exaggerated but isn't far from the truth) who will also be adversely affected by this.

But with your logic, it's already expensive to drive and park in Manhattan, so why not make it harder? At that rate, let's give the money that car drivers are paying to drive through the city on top of the taxes and other associated costs to drive they already pay and give it infrastructure that won't benefit them and arguable make driving worse.

I fully support drivers paying for mass transit in a way where everyone pays for it like coming from sales taxes, property taxes, well, almost anything that isn't congestion pricing or tolling interstates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2223  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 12:13 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Could Manhattan do pricing by using pay-by-plate and only charge non NY and NJ cars coming to the Island? I think that would make everyone happy.
That is an interesting concept though I don't see this plan making a dent on traffic or providing much revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2224  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 12:21 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 25,135
This is going to increase logistics costs too. Almost like a "cost to do business" scenario which will add further expense to logistic services.

I do not like conjestion pricing at all. Its a tax on the people, thats all it is. Depending on the functionality, not everyone can use mass transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2225  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 1:01 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
This is going to increase logistics costs too. Almost like a "cost to do business" scenario which will add further expense to logistic services.

I do not like conjestion pricing at all. Its a tax on the people, thats all it is. Depending on the functionality, not everyone can use mass transit.
Time lost sitting in congestion isn't free of cost. Quite the opposite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2226  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 6:54 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Could Manhattan do pricing by using pay-by-plate and only charge non NY and NJ cars coming to the Island? I think that would make everyone happy.
totally agree that would be best.

meaning, they should bring back the commuter tax.

congestion pricing overly penalizes city residents.

but i heard that's a non starter with commuter-centric cuomo.

so i guess it would be ok if they did a below 96st type of congestion pricing during certain prime time hours, like london does. thats a B plan i think everyone would grumble about, but could live with. but no to tolling bridges or other bs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2227  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 9:37 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
This is going to increase logistics costs too. Almost like a "cost to do business" scenario which will add further expense to logistic services.

I do not like conjestion pricing at all. Its a tax on the people, thats all it is. Depending on the functionality, not everyone can use mass transit.
Who exactly can't use mass transit in Manhattan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2228  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2019, 9:39 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
totally agree that would be best.

meaning, they should bring back the commuter tax.

congestion pricing overly penalizes city residents.

but i heard that's a non starter with commuter-centric cuomo.

so i guess it would be ok if they did a below 96st type of congestion pricing during certain prime time hours, like london does. thats a B plan i think everyone would grumble about, but could live with. but no to tolling bridges or other bs.
Bloomberg desperately tried to get the London-style system in NYC. It was a non-starter in Albany, so this is the compromise that Deblasio and Cuomo cooked up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2229  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 4:43 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
As seen on SSC ;)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Nice strawman there. Let me argue in the opposite direction: the rich are the only people who drive cars through Manhattan?

Even if that were true, then lets reaffirm that practice and make it even harder to drive so the poor have no option other than to be packed in like sardines should they wish to travel through NYC. Though depending on how your define "poor," I'd lump the middle class who by many reports are a paycheck away from poverty(that might be a bit over exaggerated but isn't far from the truth) who will also be adversely affected by this.

But with your logic, it's already expensive to drive and park in Manhattan, so why not make it harder? At that rate, let's give the money that car drivers are paying to drive through the city on top of the taxes and other associated costs to drive they already pay and give it infrastructure that won't benefit them and arguable make driving worse.

I fully support drivers paying for mass transit in a way where everyone pays for it like coming from sales taxes, property taxes, well, almost anything that isn't congestion pricing or tolling interstates.
First of all, I was asking a question and offering the opportunity to respond rather than jumping to conclusions. Regardless of what you assumed my intentions were, you should have responded in a neutral manner by simply clarifying your position rather than jumping to an attack as knee-jerk reaction. That type of response simply isn't rhetorically effective because the tone makes the response borderline unreadable to the other person.

The reason for my question is that NYC has long had the reputation as the only city in the US where practically everyone - even many of the reasonably affluent - use transit (at least in the central areas) due to the costs and logical challenges posed by the sheer density. Many cities have a difficult time attracting transit ridership and coaxing people out of their cars due to the speed and convenience offered by driving in lower density cities. This is the goal of many places because movement using public transit is more efficient than by private cars in urban areas, both in terms of the cost of infrastructure per mile of travel and in terms of the energy and land usage (to answer the question of why someone would want to further discourage car travel in a dense, congested area).

The main options transit advocates proffer to increase ridership are increasing the density / transit / pedestrian friendliness of the built form, and increasing the level of transit service available (and the areas covered). Generally both measures are needed in order to achieve success. NYC already has both factors and already has been very successful in attracting transit ridership to the point where most people can get around without private cars. Making it more difficult to get around by car in cities where people have no alternative would simply make things harder for people. But making it more difficult to use a harmful option when better alternatives exist and therefore incentiving the less harmful alternatives is good.

Now let me address the elephant in the room:

"Let me argue in the opposite direction: the rich are the only people who drive cars through Manhattan?"

You're arguing that people who aren't rich currently use cars in Manhattan while in the post I responded to you stated, "It does NOT work and only prices out the poor."

Either you're right in that it isn't only the rich who use cars in Manhattan and therefore it does price out a significant number of non-rich drivers (aka it works) or it doesn't work and everyone who currently drives in Manhattan is wealthy enough to just shug and pay the charge. How can it both be true that significant numbers of price sensitive people currently drive in Manhattan yet the charge wouldn't be successful in attracting them to a lower cost alternative like transit? Sounds like a case of wanting it both ways.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2230  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 4:56 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
As seen on SSC ;)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,598
Also, just wanted to point out that a congestion charge doesn't necessarily need to apply equally to every vehicle. There's no reason that the city can't issue commercial vehicle passes at different rates, offer short term passes to allow for occasional car visits and penalize only frequent contributors to congestion, or allow people to apply for discounts or exemptions based on special circumstances. What it's important to remember is that congestion has a cost regardless. It costs time, money, and quality of life to everyone involved (and even some who aren't) when it's uncontrolled. A congestion charge just allows the city to control who pays the cost (those for whom road access is most lucrative) and harvest the proceeds of the cost for a productive use (rather than it just being lost productivity, healthcare costs from pollution / stress, etc.)
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2231  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 5:30 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
1.NYC already spends enough money on its subways. The issue isn't the amount of money, it's how inefficiently it is being used. If people want better subways they don't need to increase taxes, they need to break the union and fix a lot of the corruption.

2. Related to the absurd price to build infrastructure in NYC is the fact that a bridge between Connecticut and Long Island has yet to be built. It's only of the most obviously needed pieces of infrastructure in the country as it could save drivers hours and take a lot of cars off the bridges in NYC. The length of this bridge would be rather long, but there are many longer bridges in the US and China builds bridges of this length like it's nothing special.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2232  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 8:43 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 5,788
^ No bridge. A tunnel is the logical form to cross the Sound between LI and Conn. It would be hella long but not as long as the Channel Tunnel. It would be 3 lanes each direction and would also have rail. And I agree, it should be one of the most needed pieces of infrastructure in the entire nation. The easing of congestion in NYC as well as opportunities to route rail would be monumental.
__________________
There is no bigger a**hole than a MAGA a**hole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2233  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 3:13 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
First of all, I was asking a question and offering the opportunity to respond rather than jumping to conclusions. Regardless of what you assumed my intentions were, you should have responded in a neutral manner by simply clarifying your position rather than jumping to an attack as knee-jerk reaction. That type of response simply isn't rhetorically effective because the tone makes the response borderline unreadable to the other person.

The reason for my question is that NYC has long had the reputation as the only city in the US where practically everyone - even many of the reasonably affluent - use transit (at least in the central areas) due to the costs and logical challenges posed by the sheer density. Many cities have a difficult time attracting transit ridership and coaxing people out of their cars due to the speed and convenience offered by driving in lower density cities. This is the goal of many places because movement using public transit is more efficient than by private cars in urban areas, both in terms of the cost of infrastructure per mile of travel and in terms of the energy and land usage (to answer the question of why someone would want to further discourage car travel in a dense, congested area).

The main options transit advocates proffer to increase ridership are increasing the density / transit / pedestrian friendliness of the built form, and increasing the level of transit service available (and the areas covered). Generally both measures are needed in order to achieve success. NYC already has both factors and already has been very successful in attracting transit ridership to the point where most people can get around without private cars. Making it more difficult to get around by car in cities where people have no alternative would simply make things harder for people. But making it more difficult to use a harmful option when better alternatives exist and therefore incentiving the less harmful alternatives is good.

Now let me address the elephant in the room:

"Let me argue in the opposite direction: the rich are the only people who drive cars through Manhattan?"

You're arguing that people who aren't rich currently use cars in Manhattan while in the post I responded to you stated, "It does NOT work and only prices out the poor."

Either you're right in that it isn't only the rich who use cars in Manhattan and therefore it does price out a significant number of non-rich drivers (aka it works) or it doesn't work and everyone who currently drives in Manhattan is wealthy enough to just shug and pay the charge. How can it both be true that significant numbers of price sensitive people currently drive in Manhattan yet the charge wouldn't be successful in attracting them to a lower cost alternative like transit? Sounds like a case of wanting it both ways.
I didn't assume anything. You posted; I responded. Sorry you got so offended but your response came off as a strawman to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2234  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 10:17 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2235  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2019, 2:25 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
get ready for omny.

mta is rolling out its metrocard replacement system starting next week.

it will be on 4/5/6 stations between grand central and atlantic yards.

metrocards dont go away until 2023.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/22/mta-to...ent-next-week/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2236  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2019, 4:05 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
As seen on SSC ;)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
I didn't assume anything. You posted; I responded. Sorry you got so offended but your response came off as a strawman to me.
I never suggested that I was offended. I simply offered advice on how to present an argument more effectively since I didn't find the way you presented yours to be very effective.

Part of the problem is that you you don't seem to know what the term "strawman argument" actually refers to. The jargon of argumentation techniques including terms for various logical fallacies has started to flood the common lexicon and unfortunately this has watered down their meaning to the point that they're often used haphazardly. But originally a strawman argument was a term describing a counter argument that rebuts something similar to what an opponent said rather than the opponent's' actual argument, thereby burning their argument in effigy (like someone burning a straw man made in the image of a real person). In reality, the actual argument if left unscathed, but the technique can sometimes trick the audience into thinking otherwise.

As an example, if someone makes the argument that "Poor people don't get around Manhattan by driving" and someone responds by saying "It isn't only rich people who drive in Manhattan" this would be a strawman argument since it refutes something similar sounding but totally different than the original assertion (car usage by a minority of people vs the vast majority of people). On the other hand, if for instance someone suggests that a congestion tax in Manhattan would price out the poor and someone responds by challenging the idea that the poor get around Manhattan by driving, that wouldn't be a strawman argument since it addresses the original assertion (that the tax would negatively affect the poor) rather than an argument similar to it but different.

Anyway, I hope that helps and i'm sorry if I gave the impression I was offended.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2237  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2019, 6:53 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I never suggested that I was offended. I simply offered advice on how to present an argument more effectively since I didn't find the way you presented yours to be very effective.

Part of the problem is that you you don't seem to know what the term "strawman argument" actually refers to. The jargon of argumentation techniques including terms for various logical fallacies has started to flood the common lexicon and unfortunately this has watered down their meaning to the point that they're often used haphazardly. But originally a strawman argument was a term describing a counter argument that rebuts something similar to what an opponent said rather than the opponent's' actual argument, thereby burning their argument in effigy (like someone burning a straw man made in the image of a real person). In reality, the actual argument if left unscathed, but the technique can sometimes trick the audience into thinking otherwise.

As an example, if someone makes the argument that "Poor people don't get around Manhattan by driving" and someone responds by saying "It isn't only rich people who drive in Manhattan" this would be a strawman argument since it refutes something similar sounding but totally different than the original assertion (car usage by a minority of people vs the vast majority of people). On the other hand, if for instance someone suggests that a congestion tax in Manhattan would price out the poor and someone responds by challenging the idea that the poor get around Manhattan by driving, that wouldn't be a strawman argument since it addresses the original assertion (that the tax would negatively affect the poor) rather than an argument similar to it but different.

Anyway, I hope that helps and i'm sorry if I gave the impression I was offended.
Well, thank you for giving some advice. I always welcome criticism. Though I am not quite sure even know how I should conclude you were telling me my argument wasn't effective by saying what said in your original reply.

I assumed it was a strawman based on the fact that my argument was changed to say I argued the poor only use cars which is NOT the point I was making. You said "the poor use cars to get around Manhattan" which I viewed as a sarcastic post. Maybe I got it wrong or perhaps I am confused to what a strawman means and I will look more into it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2238  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2019, 2:08 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
get ready for omny.

mta is rolling out its metrocard replacement system starting next week.

it will be on 4/5/6 stations between grand central and atlantic yards.

metrocards dont go away until 2023.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/22/mta-to...ent-next-week/
Nearly criminal mismanagement that it's taken this long and won't be fully delivered for years to come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2239  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 6:37 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
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:

https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-fun...sio-1.27780775
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2240  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 6:39 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
aaaand fare increases are approved -- starting in april:

https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-fare-hikes-1.27791177
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 8:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.