8 ms·
The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
by philipallstar 1y ago
The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoAnd the investments in public transit and bike paths are excellent for those who can't. Such unalloyed win-wins are hard to find.
- lokar 1y agoI lived in Manhattan, and was very well paid. I did not own a car, and loved it. This would have been great for me as well.
- timewizard 1y agoDid you have children or did you live alone?
- epistasis 1y agoAs someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car. Car-centric urban planning is hell with kids. You have to load them up into the car for any small trip. You can't walk or bike anywhere because cars make it so dangerous. My only regret about living in the US is this car hellscape that is so hard to avoid. It's mandated by law, not chosen by the market.
- grugagag 1y agoHaving a dinky appartment that is still expensive is not worth it unless you’re young and don’t have kids and want to be around everything you care about. Or you’re rich and don’t mind paying a fortune to live in a nicer appartment in Manhattan. If I had the money I would still prefer something outside Manhattan just to be able to avoid the noise pollution, the crowds and all that Manhattan commotion.
- david-gpu 1y agoI hear that noise pollution in Manhattan has gotten better since congestion pricing started. Cities aren't loud; cars are loud.
- SecretDreams 1y ago> Cities aren't loud; cars are loud. EVs have entered the chat Still, I'd always prefer less cars and more transit.
- david-gpu 1y agoIn my experience, EVs are nearly as loud as IC, as the majority of the noise at typical stroad speeds comes from the tires, not the engine.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> the majority of the noise at typical stroad speeds comes from the tires, not the engine It comes from honking.
- KingMob 1y agoIsn't that mostly applicable to highway speeds? Does tire noise have much of an effect at city speeds?
- 1y ago
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoYou can live in an urban neighborhood and only use your car a few times a week (mostly on weekends and for yearly kid doctor visits). Its not just Manhattan, Seattle supports this as well (well, you still "need" a car, but you can get away with not driving it very often). You need to be strategic about where you live (e.g. buying the house 7 minutes away from your kid's K-8 and 10 minutes away from his future 9-12, with grocery stores and dentists nearby).
- scuol 1y agos/strategic/wealthy/ I agree there are places in Seattle one can do this, but boy one certainly needs the paper to do this.
- bobthepanda 1y agoSeattle is weird in that drive til you qualify is not a thing unless you start getting really far out. Some inner ring neighborhoods and suburbs are comparable or more expensive than the core.
- bitmasher9 1y agoIf you want to head straight south or straight north you won’t have to go further out than 1 hour before rents and property values fall significantly from city center Seattle. Tacoma is 30 minutes away without traffic and has a median home price 40% less than Seattle. Drive till you qualify is real. If you want to head east, you’re running into the real estate aftermath of Microsoft making tens of thousands of millionaires in the 90s and 00s. You won’t save much money there.
- lelandbatey 1y agoYeah, the Eastside is a real estate hellscape. Everything east of Lake Washington till highway 203/18 is genuinely quite bad. I had cheaper rent on top of Queen Anne, 1 block from the Trader Joe's, than any place of comparable walk/transit on the east side ($2065/month for a 2 bedroom 1.75 bathroom apartment+1 parking place, ~950sq/ft).
- danbmil99 1y agoOne word: baby carriages up and down stairs
- parpfish 1y agoThat’s six words
- lokar 1y agoElevator
- TylerE 1y agoOnly 26% of NYC due way stations have elevators.
- dangus 1y agoThis statistic looks really bad but a large number of subway stations are very close to each other, so it's rather easy to find an alternative accessible station somewhat nearby in many cases (especially in Manhattan) When the MTA prioritizes accessibility projects they take this into consideration and prioritize stations that have few options for alternatives. I will also point out that buses exist in NYC.
- dangus 1y agoI also think it’s funny that people bring up NYC transit accessibility statistics when it’s not like the cars that people are forced to drive in just about every other city are accessible. And of course there are different types of disability. You’d much rather be blind in NYC than blind in Omaha Nebraska in regard to your ability to get around.
- danbmil99 1y agoThe NYC buses require you to take the kid(s) out of the pram and fold it up. A total PITA Another kvetch: using car seats in taxis. Maybe it's different now with Uber but 20 years ago the drivers hated it because you have to find the seat belt and secure the car seat...
- mancerayder 1y agoOof. I know people with kids in the city, and it seems like if you're taking public transit, it's a nightmare when they're little. (When they're teenagers who knows, you have new problems) People who live outside of Manhattan have more space and sometimes the optional car. The professionals are paying an absolute fortune for child care, a salary's worth, and more for bigger apartments in nice neighborhoods. It's no joke. You'd better be obsessed with the city, or a short commute, because otherwise you're moving to Westchester or NJ or LI.
- epistasis 1y agoMy little kids looove transit. We take the bus all the time in my small town. We visit San Francisco almost weekly it's how we get around after parking. And we usually start our day in SOMA, an area that is not the nicest. We also frequently take the new central subway. I have not experienced a nightmare yet. Maybe Manhattan is more of a nightmare. I have no doubt that Manhattan is expensive, but my greater point is that it would be great. A lot of very expensive things are great.
- Spooky23 1y agoSFO Muni is a better system than New York. For all of the doom and gloom that I expected on my trip there, I thought that system was amazing. The rest of the city was too, if anything there’s more vacancy in Manhattan, but more crazy people in SFO.
- tetromino_ 1y ago> As someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car. Lifting a 2 toddler stroller up and down narrow, crowded NYC subway stairs is the exact opposite of bliss. Perhaps you are unaware that many subway stations still don't have elevators (or escalators, for that matter) - only stairs. And where the elevators exist, it seems half the time they are out of order...
- bluGill 1y agoThe nyc subway is incompetent at building and has been for decades. But since nobody cares they get buy with ignoring disability and calling it hard even though cities around the world with things just as hard have managed. Those other cities have also done subway expantion is much harder situations at far less cost.
- epistasis 1y agoWe bought a very fancy and expensive 2 toddler stroller when we had two toddlers and it saw almost no use because it was a hassle pretty much everywhere. I advise all new parents to avoid purchasing one until there's a proven need, and I don't know any other parents that thought it was a good idea to purchase one. I'm sure it's great for some kids, but certainly not mine or even most kids. I honestly don't understand the use case for it except for nap-time strolls around the neighborhood (and how often do they both sleep at the same time?) or maybe amusement parks when there's 3+ hours on your feet.
- tetromino_ 1y ago> I honestly don't understand the use case for it You have 2 toddlers. You frequently wish to take them to visit friends / parks / supermarkets / libraries / doctors / coffee shops / whatever other places near your location. Such places happen to be 10-20 minutes adult-speed walk from you. Kids are young enough that they cannot reliably walk towards a fixed goal for 10+ minutes, and certainly not at adult speed; they often get either tired or distracted or decide they want to go somewhere else. Kids are old and heavy enough that neither of them can be carried in a carrier. Optimal solution: 2 toddler stroller.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- doctoboggan 1y agoI live in Chicago and use a cargo ebike with a child seat for probably 90% of my trips. I can take my kid to school, go shopping, and go to my office on my bike, often quicker than if I were to take a car. Chicago has (recently?) put a lot of focus on their bike infrastructure (protected bike lanes, bike signals, bike only paths, etc) and it seems pretty widely used.
- lazide 1y agoI’ve experienced Chicago winters. Do you put the kid in that seat?!?
- doctoboggan 1y agoYes, with a warm coat and this full enclosure[0] she was happy in the winter. [0]: https://betterabound.familybikeride.org/img/winter-kit.jpg https://betterabound.familybikeride.org/img/winter-kit.jpg
- ty6853 1y agoThe bigger problem in the winter is the drivers get even crazier and the roads can occasionally get icy. When I was bike only I had my arm damaged in a way that it took close to a decade to get back to normal. On another occasion I was knocked unconscious. Both occasions were drivers who left turned into a parking lot without looking, crossing a lane then going right into me in the bike lane. A car provides a nice cushion for those sorts of happening. I think if I had a child in either case there is a good chance they would be dead. While I support the right of people to make their own risk assessments for their family, I fear it is only a matter of time until they come to understand what I did about Chicago biking.
- ghaff 1y ago>protected bike lanes I'm certainly not opposed. But my observation in the relatively nearby city when I go in and sit on the sidewalk at a restaurant is that the fairly new protected bike lanes have a fairly terrifying combination of transportation modes (bikes, ebikes, things that I guess are ebikes but look almost like small motorbikes, escooters, and pedestrians crossing). And then, because they're in a bike lane, many seem to assume the signal at the next street doesn't apply to them. Not sure of the best answer.
- CalRobert 1y agoBeing able to raise kids without a car is why we moved to NL. The US is a hellscape
- lazide 1y agoIt depends on the age of the kids - if the kids can effectively self ambulate (8+ is usually old enough to have the stamina for a lengthy trip on public transit), then your options aren’t super limited by dealing with them. Younger kids, you need to live where you can reach everything you’ll need to acceptable quality within walking distance or a limited number of subway stops, unless you really like dealing with a Stroller in the subway. Not always an easy feat. Areas like that tend to be very expensive, and be very difficult to actually find spots. You then are susceptible to quality changes hurting your ‘investment’. People who can afford that can also afford one or more Nannies and other helpers. In my experience, a lot of the skill set required is to be very competitive and have a lot of money to throw around, which requires a mindset that most would not call ‘cushy’ or easy going. The ‘mandated by law’ bit is a bit of a misnomer. It’s structural due to a number of other market conditions, including available land (leading to lower population density, etc), which are impacted by laws, which also impact market conditions. It’s an ouroboros, not an arrow. South Asia has ~ 8x US pop density, Western Europe ~4x, and East Asia roughly 3x. It’s no surprise it is how it is. The US is low density. The math generally works out differently.
- dfxm12 1y agoWhat is the danger compared to riding in cars, which is dangerous too? What about other alternatives like bus or subway? With fewer cars on the road, thanks to the congestion pricing, we'll probably see safer roads for all users, as well.
- immibis 1y agoAnd, presumably, you have to take your children to places, because they can't drive.
- andrepd 1y agoI'm already imagining what kind of arguments you are preparing. Kids are infinitely better off somewhere they can just bike places with their friends, compared to a car-centric hellhole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
- donohoe 1y agoI live in Brooklyn with kids and do not have a car. Equally possible in Manhattan - have car-less friends with kids there too. Just saying it is possible, and certainly not everyone’s choice.
- vb234 1y agoSame. We live in Manhattan with two kids and owning a car is just an added expense without much benefit. To be fair, if you lived further out in Brooklyn (Bayridge, Sussex Beach and Coney Island) you probably need a car for the day to day.
- askafriend 1y agoOverall, would you recommend Manhattan (or nearby) with kids? What's your experience been like and do you see staying long term? Hope you don't mind me asking, I'm just super curious about this topic!
- donohoe 1y agoYou didn't ask me, but I can say that Manhattan and Brooklyn both are great for kids. It does vary be neighborhood though and I can speak to Brooklyn the most. Overall great parks, good schools, lots of culture and things to do. Beaches accessible by subway etc. If you are considering a move to NYC with young kids the real thing to look at are the public elementary schools and the zones for them. That should be the north star for choosing where to live unless your kids are older.
- vb234 1y agoWe are committed to staying here for the long term. I think it is a matter of perspective and what one wants to prioritize. From a cost perspective, I think the cost of raising 2-kids in the suburbs or cute towns outside the city within commuting distance nets out to about the same. The advantages I see are the following: * Children are just more active on average, kids end up walking 45 minutes or more every day going back and forth from school, activities etc. * Subway and general community interaction. I get the subways are a pain, but it is a great way for children to interact with different classes of people and communities, understand social risks etc. * Meritocratic public high school system. I have some reservations about the elementary and middle school systems, but there are 4 elementary schools within a 15 minute walk radius so there is optionality, admittedly it is a bit hard to exercise. * So many play grounds. We take our kids to various activities and classes on the weekends, and we are never far away from an interesting playground. I think it really depends on what will keep you and your family happiest. We have friends that determined they want more space and privacy and ended up moving to the suburbs and are happy. Know enough families that moved out and couldn’t handle the sedentary lifestyle and moved back. Feel free to message me if you have more questions.
- weeksie 1y agoI live in Manhattan with a kid and I love not needing a car. I walk my daughter to school and I walk to work from there. It's great.
- 9283409232 1y agoCar-centric design is hell for parents and kids alike.
- efavdb 1y agoFWIW I like driving my kid to school in my car. YMMV
- SchemaLoad 1y agoI hated feeling completely stranded as a kid since nothing was accessible by foot or PT. Even today visiting my parents outer suburban house feels like being dumped on an island. My social life as a teenager was incredibly limited by the fact that I couldn't just jump on a bus and meet up with everyone else who lived in areas with PT coverage.
- hombre_fatal 1y agoYeah, most of us have no idea how bad we have it until we live somewhere where it's different. The idea of walking/biking to school or walking with your friends to the cafe after school to hang out, or bumping into friends while walking home from a bar is so alien to Americans that it's not even on their radar. We get a glimpse of it when we go on vacation to Prague or Disneyland or something. But when we return home, we immediately relegate the experience to something exotic you do on vacation rather than something you can actually have.
- Mawr 1y agoA meaningless statement unless you've tried a reasonable number of alternatives. As it is, you're just stating that you've grown accustomed to what your environment forces you to do, e.g. "I like breathing air". Good for you, but not relevant.
- throwaway2037 1y agoThe children part I understand, but why is it important is the OP lived alone?
- throw0101c 1y ago> Did you have children or did you live alone? With regards to children, some couples do have them and concluded that a car in the city is not worth the hassle; famous example: * https://www.instagram.com/cargobikemomma/ https://www.instagram.com/cargobikemomma/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PoKcQRlDGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PoKcQRlDGs (interview) Car share would also be handy in some situations. Or even going from two cars to one.
- Vinnl 1y agoAlso for those who can't afford car ownership.
- mmooss 1y ago> public transit and bike paths are excellent for those who can't Are they? Based on what? Many people can't reasonably ride bikes for many reasons, especially in NYC bike lanes with delivery people flying around on e-bikes. Public transit isn't always sufficient - people end up switching buses four times, etc. The roads are a public good; again policy 'innovation' is merely dismissing responsibilities and difficult requirements - as long as the rich people's requirements aren't the ones dismissed.
- jampekka 1y agoWhether there will be net increase in these investments remains to be seen. Even if the revenue does get into these investments, there's no reason it can't be offset by reduction in e.g. tax revenue investment, or even a tax cut. There's also no reason why investment couldn't be done without the congestion charge revenue.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agoThey also benefit any and all road-based public transit that crosses the zone.
- Calwestjobs 1y agowealthy people do not need to travel as much as pleb....
- GeoRandel 1y agoLet travel for royalty be unimpeded and force the peasants to bike in the rain...
- Calwestjobs 1y agothey can choose to be wealthy ( joke sorry )
- ramesh31 1y ago>The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people. Anecdotally that seems to be the case. The largest burden of this tax is falling on low income commuters who live off the train lines and have to drive into Manhattan, yet all of the money is going to... the train lines (MTA). Understandably they're not too happy.
- bradain 1y ago[dead]
- paddy_m 1y agoThose people simply don't drive into Manhattan, parking is already $30-$40 a day, driving from Jersey means you are already paying at least a $15 toll (you can drive from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx without paying a toll). An extra $9 simply doesn't matter. Already 85% of commuters to lower Manhattan take public transit. Of the remaining 15%. An analysis found that only 2% of working poor New Yorkers would pay the charge. Otherwise low income New Yorkers would overwhelmingly benefit from the better transit funding https://www.nrdc.org/bio/eric-goldstein/busting-myths-new-yorks-congestion-pricing-program https://www.nrdc.org/bio/eric-goldstein/busting-myths-new-yo...
- potato3732842 1y agoWhile I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning that with the huge efforts that went into quantifying this they couldn't come up with something more precise. It's not like NYC doesn't have cameras everywhere and couldn't probably figure it pretty easily in an afternoon by crossing the ALPR DB with the tax DB (after spending 48mo of political wrangling to allow that to happen).
- thaumasiotes 1y ago> I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning Why? Do you want to know something other than the second statistic?
- h1srf 1y agoIt’s also excellent for people that take buses. Source: me
- neves 1y agoThe best decision would be to completely forbid individual transport. Now the common space dedicated to streets is for who can pay extra. Forbid individual transport and create some parks and pedestrian streets.
- SoftTalker 1y agoExtremes rarely work out well. The people paying for the luxury are funding improvements for everyone.
- crote 1y agoIt works really well in quite a few other cities, actually. Car infrastructure takes up a huge amount of space and is incredibly hostile to any kind of mixed use. Having near-zero cars means there is suddenly space available for an order of magnitude more pedestrians. It's why reducing car traffic almost always results in a significant increase in revenue for local shops and restaurants - which means more taxes are being paid. Converting all of NYC into a huge pedestrian-only zone obviously isn't going to work, but having a few pedestrianized superblocks could greatly improve the quality-of-life.
- mathgeek 1y ago> Converting all of NYC into a huge pedestrian-only zone obviously isn't going to work The dreamer in me immediately asks “why not?” and while I agree it will never happen, it felt good to imagine it.
- 0_____0 1y agoThe obvious reason is goods and equipment movement. There are places that strike a much better balance than NYC though...
- chongli 1y agoHow do you get all the food in? Manhattan is an island. Without constant food deliveries by truck it will die. This food is delivered to countless restaurants and grocery stores, not to some central warehouse, so delivery by train doesn't work.
- digbybk 1y agoAlso excellent for those public transport riders who can't afford car ownership.
- zahlman 1y ago(Or who would prefer to spend the money elsewhere.)
- efavdb 1y agoFor completeness, might as well add not excellent for those who have a car, find driving more convenient, but can’t afford the toll.
- atkailash 1y agoOh well then. Either spend less on the train (also saving money on gas and maintenance) or stay in suburbia. We pay a premium to live in the city, much more than the $9 so I’m not gonna shed any tears that it’s not much less convenient for someone to not drive Driving is almost always more convenient on many levels, so it’s not really the best argument start from “it’s just easier”
- an_account 1y agoIf you can afford a car in NYC then you can afford the toll. Cars are very expensive to own.
- jampekka 1y agoIf you could afford the car only just, it's quite obvious you can't afford it if you now have to pay congestion charges on top.
- hombre_fatal 1y agoTechnically true, but it's a megaluxury that comes at a high cost, especially to everyone else.
- 1y ago
- tantalor 1y ago"universal for x" is a weird thing to say
- CGamesPlay 1y agoI think it's meant to be interpreted as, "among all Y, X is true". And Y is meant to be "toll roads".
- 1970-01-01 1y agoYes, this is absolutely more than vindication. If you pay a toll and then become stuck in traffic on that toll road, you are a victim of highway robbery. The fact that NYC traffic is flowing fulfills our simple toll contract and makes everyone whole.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll And anyone who takes a taxi. Or needs an ambulance. Or orders anything delivered during the day.
- Ajedi32 1y agoOr takes a bus
- misja111 1y agoYet, the article states > Public Opinion: Not great (but improving) So most people aren't happy (yet). Why is that?