2 ms·

> This is a basic maxim for NYC: if you want to drive on some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it’s going to cost you. Is this also true: If you

by ars 2y ago

> This is a basic maxim for NYC: if you want to drive on some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it’s going to cost you. Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? > It would be nice for drivers (not for residents) if there were through-highways in Manhattan’s CBD What's with the distinction? Things that are nice for drivers are also nice for residents. But in any case, if you say a road above Canal St is impossible I'll believe you. It's unfortunate because I think it would be nice for everyone. > or easement logistics I would reduce Canal st from 6 lanes to 5, and put piers in the middle lane - like the elevated train in Borough Park. New Utrecht maybe? I forget the exact street it goes over. > we’re talking about half a million people who would riot It would dramatically reduce traffic on Canal St making it mainly for residents. Would that not be worth it? But I do get your point though, it would be unpleasant to have a road instead of sky above you. I have to ask - is Canal St frontage mainly residents or is it businesses? > the improvements may just not have been legible to you. You are correct. To me Manhattan is a kind of "flyover" area, except it's "drive through", it's in my way when I want to get elsewhere. I don't think I am alone in this, and the congestion pricing could have been remade to make additional people happy. It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice. I think that one single change would have made this way more palatable to the rest of the state voters. I'm curious what your thoughts are on making that change, as a resident.

woodruffw 2y ago
> Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? Of course. But also: it’s why big, expensive cities build mass transit, and why everybody takes it. Most residents in NYC, especially Manhattanites, are not regular drivers. The majority don’t even own cars. This is the demographic we’re talking about; they don’t want infrastructure that they don’t use taking up already-precious space, with more air pollution to boot. I also don’t think it would reduce traffic; induced demand is at play here. We’ve seen that with other highways in the city: if you build a certain amount of highway capacity, demand grows to fill it. That’s why congestion pricing is so appealing: it changes the incentive structure away from highway sprawl and grid congestion to efficient roads for those who need to drive and cleaner, quieter streets for everyone else. Canal Street’s frontage is a mixture of business and residential, varying by the neighborhoods it crosses through. I’d say it leans more commercial on the western part and more residential on the eastern part, subjectively. > It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice. The important bit here is not just charging drivers a bunch of money, but actually reducing congestion. Higher tolls go a long way, but it’s equally important to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways, where possible. Or in other words: if the goal was just to collect money, charging higher tolls would be fine. But there’s an additional virtue at play, which is making the city itself more livable.
- ars 2y ago
  Thanks for the reply! > induced demand is at play here Pretty sure it's actually pent-up demand, not induced demand. It's clear NY needs more ways for people to get through Manhattan without going into Manhattan and troubling the residents. Even mass transit isn't good - for example to get from Bay Ridge to New Jersey airport, you need to go through Manhattan. The current design of NY runs everything through Manhattan, with a pretty self explanatory result. > to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways So don't people already do that because highways are faster? I have an issue with the goal of getting traffic away from one place by just making life worse for people. Just not a nice thing to do. If you want to change incentive make things better and people will automatically change. Basically my point is: Instead of adding a Congestion Charge to try to keep people away from Manhattan, work on roads - and transit! - that lets people avoid it.

by ars 2y ago

woodruffw 2y ago

> Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? Of course. But also: it’s why big, expensive cities build mass transit, and why everybody takes it. Most residents in NYC, especially Manhattanites, are not regular drivers. The majority don’t even own cars. This is the demographic we’re talking about; they don’t want infrastructure that they don’t use taking up already-precious space, with more air pollution to boot. I also don’t think it would reduce traffic; induced demand is at play here. We’ve seen that with other highways in the city: if you build a certain amount of highway capacity, demand grows to fill it. That’s why congestion pricing is so appealing: it changes the incentive structure away from highway sprawl and grid congestion to efficient roads for those who need to drive and cleaner, quieter streets for everyone else. Canal Street’s frontage is a mixture of business and residential, varying by the neighborhoods it crosses through. I’d say it leans more commercial on the western part and more residential on the eastern part, subjectively. > It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice. The important bit here is not just charging drivers a bunch of money, but actually reducing congestion. Higher tolls go a long way, but it’s equally important to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways, where possible. Or in other words: if the goal was just to collect money, charging higher tolls would be fine. But there’s an additional virtue at play, which is making the city itself more livable.

ars 2y ago
Thanks for the reply! > induced demand is at play here Pretty sure it's actually pent-up demand, not induced demand. It's clear NY needs more ways for people to get through Manhattan without going into Manhattan and troubling the residents. Even mass transit isn't good - for example to get from Bay Ridge to New Jersey airport, you need to go through Manhattan. The current design of NY runs everything through Manhattan, with a pretty self explanatory result. > to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways So don't people already do that because highways are faster? I have an issue with the goal of getting traffic away from one place by just making life worse for people. Just not a nice thing to do. If you want to change incentive make things better and people will automatically change. Basically my point is: Instead of adding a Congestion Charge to try to keep people away from Manhattan, work on roads - and transit! - that lets people avoid it.