5 ms·

> people would be happy to pay a price to make sure you can't drive near them And I would be happy to receive their money and use it to fix and expand the subw

> people would be happy to pay a price to make sure you can't drive near them And I would be happy to receive their money and use it to fix and expand the subway. This is obviously a larger discussion of ideology. I'm a left-of-center liberal and generally don't enjoy arguing from the right, but there are economic facts that I find to be just inescapable. Of course I _want_ everyone to be able to drive whenever the want, but history and simple logic show that when you have a state of scarcity, societies need to pick one of two choices: higher prices or rationing. Rationing, in this case, either means the government telling you when you can or can't drive (I recall that Bogota had a system where license plates ending in odd or even numbers get to drive on certain days of the week), or just letting everyone sit in traffic, the equivalent of the bread line. It just seems screamingly obvious to me that taking money from rich people to drive in the city and using that money to fund the MTA will lead to the best outcomes.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I don't see that it's 'ideological' to have accessible, regular public spaces. Also, the opportunity for great efficiency in transport ... either public or private I don't care that much as long as it works well.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Right, there should be accessible public spaces: sidewalks, buses and subways. The kind that can actually be provided in amounts sufficient to allow everyone to use it. Roads are inherently too limited in space to be usable by everyone in Manhattan. The people who get the privilege of using that space should be paying a fair price for it.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "Roads are inherently too limited in space to be usable by everyone in Manhattan." This is simply not true. With a little bit of intelligence things can be changed. Such as: allowing only smaller cars, getting rid of taxis or limos, having very fast 'above ground' public-ish transport etc..
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      No, that is pure fantasy. Manhattan is already insanely congested with only 25% of commuters traveling by car. There is no way you could possibly get four times that number into the same amount of space.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

I don't see that it's 'ideological' to have accessible, regular public spaces. Also, the opportunity for great efficiency in transport ... either public or private I don't care that much as long as it works well.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Right, there should be accessible public spaces: sidewalks, buses and subways. The kind that can actually be provided in amounts sufficient to allow everyone to use it. Roads are inherently too limited in space to be usable by everyone in Manhattan. The people who get the privilege of using that space should be paying a fair price for it.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Roads are inherently too limited in space to be usable by everyone in Manhattan." This is simply not true. With a little bit of intelligence things can be changed. Such as: allowing only smaller cars, getting rid of taxis or limos, having very fast 'above ground' public-ish transport etc..
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    No, that is pure fantasy. Manhattan is already insanely congested with only 25% of commuters traveling by car. There is no way you could possibly get four times that number into the same amount of space.