Living in big cities is becoming more and more the case of boiling frogs. If all these things came up at once, none of it would fly. But because year after year, it slowly gets worse, people just go along with it pretending it's fine.
It wouldn't be surprising in a few years that they'll charge by the streets you entered, or the calculated emissions produced by your vehicle.
(Note I have never visited NYC, on the bucket list)
wouldn't be surprising in a few years that they'll charge by the streets you entered
The point is we don't want nor need private cars in central Manhattan. A simpler solution would be eliminating street-side parking, but that's a political hot potato.
appreciate you being transparent with your disclaimer.
Living in the big city is not a frog boiling operation. These rules are pretty simple: cars are silly in dense environments. It's in the first paragraph.
If the public transport systems were that good, why would anyone need to drive in?
There is a question there about should the people already there have to accomodate people who want to live elsewhere and still enjoy the ammenity of the big city.
I personally err on the side of the people who live in the suburbs shouldn't dictate the built form to the people who live in the city.
If they want the visitors (and they do as you can hear from the pained howling about work-from-home, and before then about suburban malls) the answer is a big yes, you need to accommodate visitors. (Notably different than outright dictating the built form but ignore at your own peril.)
It is admittedly an awkward to do a proper 'transition' from cars in less dense areas to transit stations. in ways that parking lots and garages alone leave some problems.
I don't think anyone is saying the people from the suburbs can't visit. Just that they should visit the built form that makes cities great for people that live there. This also benefits the people that visit - because it makes cities great once you step out of the car!
Nobody from NYC visits rural Idaho expecting a 24/7 subway system to be provided for them.
If the public transport systems were that good, why would anyone need to drive in?
People take transit method A if it's better than transit method B no matter how shitty A is in absolute terms. And the US has invested 50 years into car infrastructure so it's pretty good actually. For example, Tokyo has a famously good public transit system and 70 minute one way commute time on average. NYC is half that.
If the public transport systems were that good, why would anyone need to drive in?
Edge cases and laziness. For two thirds of my trips, I can and do take public transportation. For the remaining third, I'm some combination of lazy, needing to maintain a phone call or going between points inadequately served by public transit.
I was in NYC yesterday. I had a somewhat heavy carryon and had to deal with a few too many staircases. I could not determine where the elevators and escalators were easily. I am sure that information exists, but countless subway stations are inaccessible. Buses are far more accessible.
It's a tragedy of the commons. If everyone took the bus, it would be a lot faster for everyone, but any individual gets there faster by using a car, so they do.
Every category of living has these sorts of changes over time. The suburbs might complain about rising infrastructure taxes, the time to commute anywhere, road work. Rural areas might complain about lack of services and maintenance from the municipality.
The transit access/walkability of NYC gives it a LOT of leeway to squeeze some money out, especially with how expensive everything has gotten.
Comments
Living in big cities is becoming more and more the case of boiling frogs. If all these things came up at once, none of it would fly. But because year after year, it slowly gets worse, people just go along with it pretending it's fine.
It wouldn't be surprising in a few years that they'll charge by the streets you entered, or the calculated emissions produced by your vehicle.
(Note I have never visited NYC, on the bucket list)
The point is we don't want nor need private cars in central Manhattan. A simpler solution would be eliminating street-side parking, but that's a political hot potato.
Who’s “we”?
We all have dreams. If only.
appreciate you being transparent with your disclaimer.
Living in the big city is not a frog boiling operation. These rules are pretty simple: cars are silly in dense environments. It's in the first paragraph.
"... charge private vehicles..."
If the public transport systems were that good, why would anyone need to drive in?
Note: I am not a car freak. I'm a solarpunk guy, I'd rather have Futurama style tubes, or VTOL vehicles anytime!
But paying for horrendous traffic jams clearly shows to me that public transport isn't up to snuff.
There is a question there about should the people already there have to accomodate people who want to live elsewhere and still enjoy the ammenity of the big city.
I personally err on the side of the people who live in the suburbs shouldn't dictate the built form to the people who live in the city.
If they want the visitors (and they do as you can hear from the pained howling about work-from-home, and before then about suburban malls) the answer is a big yes, you need to accommodate visitors. (Notably different than outright dictating the built form but ignore at your own peril.)
It is admittedly an awkward to do a proper 'transition' from cars in less dense areas to transit stations. in ways that parking lots and garages alone leave some problems.
That seems fair to me as long as people who live in the city don't get to visit suburbs or rural areas either.
I don't think anyone is saying the people from the suburbs can't visit. Just that they should visit the built form that makes cities great for people that live there. This also benefits the people that visit - because it makes cities great once you step out of the car!
Nobody from NYC visits rural Idaho expecting a 24/7 subway system to be provided for them.
People take transit method A if it's better than transit method B no matter how shitty A is in absolute terms. And the US has invested 50 years into car infrastructure so it's pretty good actually. For example, Tokyo has a famously good public transit system and 70 minute one way commute time on average. NYC is half that.
Congestion pricing helps people determine if they need to or just want to take private transportation.
Edge cases and laziness. For two thirds of my trips, I can and do take public transportation. For the remaining third, I'm some combination of lazy, needing to maintain a phone call or going between points inadequately served by public transit.
Accessibility.
I was in NYC yesterday. I had a somewhat heavy carryon and had to deal with a few too many staircases. I could not determine where the elevators and escalators were easily. I am sure that information exists, but countless subway stations are inaccessible. Buses are far more accessible.
If they need to drive in that badly to the only city in the US with a world class public transport system then they can pay for it.
It's a tragedy of the commons. If everyone took the bus, it would be a lot faster for everyone, but any individual gets there faster by using a car, so they do.
Every category of living has these sorts of changes over time. The suburbs might complain about rising infrastructure taxes, the time to commute anywhere, road work. Rural areas might complain about lack of services and maintenance from the municipality.
The transit access/walkability of NYC gives it a LOT of leeway to squeeze some money out, especially with how expensive everything has gotten.
This is not a big deal for most people that live in nyc. We don’t own cars.
What’s getting worse and worse is rent …