3 ms·

You must be joking. Since tyrant Robert Moses, NYC is undeniably built for cars. Maybe if anything had changed since then you would have a point, but the fact i

You must be joking. Since tyrant Robert Moses, NYC is undeniably built for cars. Maybe if anything had changed since then you would have a point, but the fact is American society is wholly incapable of even maintaining, much leas building, public infrastructure due to its demented obsession with privatization and profit, so NYC's transit system is a clusterfuck of rot and in no way something to be proud of.

logicchains 3y ago
>public infrastructure due to its demented obsession with privatization and profit It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements US cities would be a lot more walkable, like Asian cities.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  >It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. It is privatization that renders the government only capable of punitive solutions (regressive fees, etc.) rather than constructive ones (public infrastructure upgrades, etc.). Realize the revenue from these fees will be 99% laundered and swallowed up by private contractors. That ink is already dry. >You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements Nonsense. This is the demented obsession I described above. You aren't making any sense at all. Working people aren't lobbying for parking space requirements; petty business owners are.
philip1209 3y ago
Yes, but this is a move in the right direction.
- shipscode 3y ago
  Hijacking infrastructure (roads only for busses) seems like a weird way to reduce “congestion”
  - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
    It does work to an extent, but it's an appallingly cheap strategy that will fall very short of making NYC public transit remotely decent.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  No, it's a scam that will backfire and ultimately end in regression. You can't just get rid of cars. You have to replace them with something. Working people will feel the pain of this because the trains are already way too overcrowded. Punitive measures in the absence of constructive measures will absolutely fail. This isn't complicated.
  - sundaeofshock 3y ago
    This would be a more reasonable argument if we were talking about a city like Dallas. Manhattan is one the most transit oriented cities in the US. Bus, ferry, and train service already exist. All that require would be an increase in frequency as people leave their cars.
    - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - sundaeofshock 3y ago
        Yes, of course Manhattan is one of the five boroughs of greater NYC. Yes, you are also correct that mass transit in the US — with a few exceptions— is pathetic. Having said all that, NYC has one of the best transit systems in the world. Looking just at the subway system, it moves 1.8 billion people a year, using 424 stations spread across 248 miles of tracks. Throw in the various bus, ferry and rail systems and NYC is one of the best served cities in the world. The infrastructure is there to handle drivers who will to leave their cars after congestion pricing is in place.

logicchains 3y ago

>public infrastructure due to its demented obsession with privatization and profit It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements US cities would be a lot more walkable, like Asian cities.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
>It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. It is privatization that renders the government only capable of punitive solutions (regressive fees, etc.) rather than constructive ones (public infrastructure upgrades, etc.). Realize the revenue from these fees will be 99% laundered and swallowed up by private contractors. That ink is already dry. >You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements Nonsense. This is the demented obsession I described above. You aren't making any sense at all. Working people aren't lobbying for parking space requirements; petty business owners are.

philip1209 3y ago

Yes, but this is a move in the right direction.

shipscode 3y ago
Hijacking infrastructure (roads only for busses) seems like a weird way to reduce “congestion”
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  It does work to an extent, but it's an appallingly cheap strategy that will fall very short of making NYC public transit remotely decent.
xkekjrktllss 3y ago
No, it's a scam that will backfire and ultimately end in regression. You can't just get rid of cars. You have to replace them with something. Working people will feel the pain of this because the trains are already way too overcrowded. Punitive measures in the absence of constructive measures will absolutely fail. This isn't complicated.
- sundaeofshock 3y ago
  This would be a more reasonable argument if we were talking about a city like Dallas. Manhattan is one the most transit oriented cities in the US. Bus, ferry, and train service already exist. All that require would be an increase in frequency as people leave their cars.
  - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - sundaeofshock 3y ago
      Yes, of course Manhattan is one of the five boroughs of greater NYC. Yes, you are also correct that mass transit in the US — with a few exceptions— is pathetic. Having said all that, NYC has one of the best transit systems in the world. Looking just at the subway system, it moves 1.8 billion people a year, using 424 stations spread across 248 miles of tracks. Throw in the various bus, ferry and rail systems and NYC is one of the best served cities in the world. The infrastructure is there to handle drivers who will to leave their cars after congestion pricing is in place.