6 ms·

> A better fix would be to just make transit more attractive, not make driving less attractive It’s a worse fix. Studies prove that you have to make driving ha

> A better fix would be to just make transit more attractive, not make driving less attractive It’s a worse fix. Studies prove that you have to make driving harder. Sticks work better than carrots.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
The Dutch model is the best example of this, using "autolow" methods to force cars onto certain routes while leaving the most direct ones to people, bikes and public transport. It's surprising whenever these conversations come up that many seem to miss the extensive body of lessons that can be taken from the research and practice already done around the world. Is it a kind of "Not invented here" sort of thing?
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  What Dutch city looks anything remotely similar to NYC? There are very good reasons to drive into NYC for many people, due to density - much more people have much more diverse needs, and need much more workers moving around with their equipment and much more goods.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    The Randstad does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad Density is pretty similar as well.
    - throwaway11460 3y ago
      I don't think it looks like NYC. Density might be similar, but not the size. You can count the skyscrapers on your hands.
      - malermeister 3y ago
        Skyscrapers do not a city make. NYC has a population of 8.8M. The Randstad has a population of 8.4M.
        throwaway11460 3y ago
        Look at the area. 8261 km2 of land while NYC is 300. We call both "city" but we might as well use 2 totally unrelated words given the differences. As the other commenter said, NYC metropolitan area would be more comparable - 8936 km2, 19.5M people.
    - valarauko 3y ago
      In that case, you should really compare it to the New York Metropolitan Area, which has over 20 million people.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I only meant that their methods should be part of the conversation, not implemented uncritically or without being adapted to local needs. Many people in the Netherlands also need to drive and the system supports this while also offering alternatives. Many people means diverse needs indeed, so the reliance on and the defaulting of car travel runs counter to many of those needs.
    - throwaway11460 3y ago
      The point I was trying to make is that much more people need to drive in NYC and can't use the alternatives. Sure, I'm all for it - but the problems and solutions are of much different magnitude from anywhere in the Netherlands. People in the Netherlands made it hard to drive through their cities, which led to more people not driving. In NYC it's going to lead less people driving too, but still a massive clusterfuck on the roads that will be only worse if the solution of the Netherlands is implemented there.
      - dotcoma 3y ago
        I’m not sure why “it can’t work here”, even if it’s what every city says. It did not work in the Netherlands either; in fact, after WW2, they imported “traffic planners”, i.e. people who want — and create! — traffic from the US, and set out to destroying their old city centers to create highways etc, until people said: enough! To a greater or lesser degree, similar solutions work in Copenhagen, and in some German cities, and are starting to work in Paris, once one of the most car-crazed cities in Europe, and in other places. I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m just saying that it can be done. It sure takes a lot of work, but it can be done.
        throwaway11460 3y ago
        All these cities are very different from NYC. To be clear, I'm not saying preserve the status quo. I just don't think the changes the cities you listed made have any chance to work in NYC. Most notably, all of these cities existed way before NYC and we're built with limitations of medieval technology. All the changes you mention are just rollbacks to last working state. NYC is a new city built with comparatively godlike tech applied without restraint. The NYC-style solution "I guess I'll just commute by helicopter, no problem putting another skyscraper right here" was incomprehensible to the rich people who built the European cities - they had to go a little further away if they wanted their quiet comfortable life.
- aden1ne 3y ago
  Ah yeah that same Dutch policy that made public transport 12% more expensive this year while simultaneously reducing service and with outages up a literal 300% from pre-covid times.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    Isn't the 12% in line with the inflation and the rise in their costs since the last time they updated prices?
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    No, that would be a different policy.
Clubber 3y ago
It's a regressive tax for poor and middle class people. People making $400K don't care about $15, so they get a pass. Typical.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  400k in Manhattan with ~50% total tax, 2 kids in private school and a 2BR condo mortgage. I bet a lot of those families care about an extra 15/day. They can pay it yeah.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    Sure but it's just an annoyance to them, not a deterrence. The objective is deterrence. This tax is targeting poor and middle class because it's a regressive tax. Pretty shitty.
- asoneth 3y ago
  I'm curious what fraction of people who drive a personal vehicle into lower Manhattan on a regular basis are poor or middle class. What would your guess be? Mine would be a tenth or less. When I lived in NYC the only people I knew who commuted by personal car in Manhattan were people who made mid-six-figures and lived in some NJ/Westchester suburb. Everyone else took the train/subway.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >I'm curious what fraction of people who drive a personal vehicle into lower Manhattan on a regular basis are poor or middle class. What would your guess be? Beats me, I haven't been there since the late 90s. If 90% of the people who drive personal cars are rich people who can afford it, it's just a tax that doesn't accomplish anything (except revenue generation and keeping the poor/middle 10% off the road) because they will most likely be annoyed but not deterred. It will hurt the Uber drivers and delivery drivers and whatnot too. Probably tourists as well. I wonder if the city will keep metrics up to see how well it's working. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem well thought out. Why just Manhattan you think? I guess it's where are the businesses are.

> A better fix would be to just make transit more attractive, not make driving less attractive It’s a worse fix. Studies prove that you have to make driving harder. Sticks work better than carrots.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

The Dutch model is the best example of this, using "autolow" methods to force cars onto certain routes while leaving the most direct ones to people, bikes and public transport. It's surprising whenever these conversations come up that many seem to miss the extensive body of lessons that can be taken from the research and practice already done around the world. Is it a kind of "Not invented here" sort of thing?

throwaway11460 3y ago
What Dutch city looks anything remotely similar to NYC? There are very good reasons to drive into NYC for many people, due to density - much more people have much more diverse needs, and need much more workers moving around with their equipment and much more goods.
- malermeister 3y ago
  The Randstad does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad Density is pretty similar as well.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    I don't think it looks like NYC. Density might be similar, but not the size. You can count the skyscrapers on your hands.
    - malermeister 3y ago
      Skyscrapers do not a city make. NYC has a population of 8.8M. The Randstad has a population of 8.4M.
      - throwaway11460 3y ago
        Look at the area. 8261 km2 of land while NYC is 300. We call both "city" but we might as well use 2 totally unrelated words given the differences. As the other commenter said, NYC metropolitan area would be more comparable - 8936 km2, 19.5M people.
  - valarauko 3y ago
    In that case, you should really compare it to the New York Metropolitan Area, which has over 20 million people.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I only meant that their methods should be part of the conversation, not implemented uncritically or without being adapted to local needs. Many people in the Netherlands also need to drive and the system supports this while also offering alternatives. Many people means diverse needs indeed, so the reliance on and the defaulting of car travel runs counter to many of those needs.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    The point I was trying to make is that much more people need to drive in NYC and can't use the alternatives. Sure, I'm all for it - but the problems and solutions are of much different magnitude from anywhere in the Netherlands. People in the Netherlands made it hard to drive through their cities, which led to more people not driving. In NYC it's going to lead less people driving too, but still a massive clusterfuck on the roads that will be only worse if the solution of the Netherlands is implemented there.
    - dotcoma 3y ago
      I’m not sure why “it can’t work here”, even if it’s what every city says. It did not work in the Netherlands either; in fact, after WW2, they imported “traffic planners”, i.e. people who want — and create! — traffic from the US, and set out to destroying their old city centers to create highways etc, until people said: enough! To a greater or lesser degree, similar solutions work in Copenhagen, and in some German cities, and are starting to work in Paris, once one of the most car-crazed cities in Europe, and in other places. I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m just saying that it can be done. It sure takes a lot of work, but it can be done.
      - throwaway11460 3y ago
        All these cities are very different from NYC. To be clear, I'm not saying preserve the status quo. I just don't think the changes the cities you listed made have any chance to work in NYC. Most notably, all of these cities existed way before NYC and we're built with limitations of medieval technology. All the changes you mention are just rollbacks to last working state. NYC is a new city built with comparatively godlike tech applied without restraint. The NYC-style solution "I guess I'll just commute by helicopter, no problem putting another skyscraper right here" was incomprehensible to the rich people who built the European cities - they had to go a little further away if they wanted their quiet comfortable life.
aden1ne 3y ago
Ah yeah that same Dutch policy that made public transport 12% more expensive this year while simultaneously reducing service and with outages up a literal 300% from pre-covid times.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Isn't the 12% in line with the inflation and the rise in their costs since the last time they updated prices?
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  No, that would be a different policy.

Clubber 3y ago

It's a regressive tax for poor and middle class people. People making $400K don't care about $15, so they get a pass. Typical.

mlrtime 3y ago
400k in Manhattan with ~50% total tax, 2 kids in private school and a 2BR condo mortgage. I bet a lot of those families care about an extra 15/day. They can pay it yeah.
- Clubber 3y ago
  Sure but it's just an annoyance to them, not a deterrence. The objective is deterrence. This tax is targeting poor and middle class because it's a regressive tax. Pretty shitty.
asoneth 3y ago
I'm curious what fraction of people who drive a personal vehicle into lower Manhattan on a regular basis are poor or middle class. What would your guess be? Mine would be a tenth or less. When I lived in NYC the only people I knew who commuted by personal car in Manhattan were people who made mid-six-figures and lived in some NJ/Westchester suburb. Everyone else took the train/subway.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >I'm curious what fraction of people who drive a personal vehicle into lower Manhattan on a regular basis are poor or middle class. What would your guess be? Beats me, I haven't been there since the late 90s. If 90% of the people who drive personal cars are rich people who can afford it, it's just a tax that doesn't accomplish anything (except revenue generation and keeping the poor/middle 10% off the road) because they will most likely be annoyed but not deterred. It will hurt the Uber drivers and delivery drivers and whatnot too. Probably tourists as well. I wonder if the city will keep metrics up to see how well it's working. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem well thought out. Why just Manhattan you think? I guess it's where are the businesses are.