Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pay attention to all of the addresses on the side doors of all those trucks and vans that serve Manhattan. From plumbers to electricians to scaffolders. Even your food trucks. They will rarely say Manhattan or even NJ. They pretty much all come from the outerboros. Will commercial vehicles get to still come in for free?
Under all congestion pricing proposals they would pay the tolls. But don't feel bad for them, they'd merely pass on the costs to their customers. Since it would be impossible for commercial vehicles to avoid these tolls, they'd all have to incorporate the cost into their business model (and raise prices accordingly).
Essentially, the congestion pricing is just a tax. In this case, its a tax for being allowed to drive your vehicle into Manhattan.
Airplanes that fly into NYC airports all pay federal and local fees.
Pay attention to all of the addresses on the side doors of all those trucks and vans that serve Manhattan. From plumbers to electricians to scaffolders. Even your food trucks. They will rarely say Manhattan or even NJ. They pretty much all come from the outerboros. Will commercial vehicles get to still come in for free?
I'm sure some of those people come in from NJ or Staten Island. Those that do are already paying the tolls. So why not let everyone from the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens join NJ and Staten Island in paying the tolls?
Dude, you said the the majority of nyers don't own cars not me. Mta can't handle the transit load it has now so how can it handle more people take it. A congestion tax will fund the pockets of mta execs, politicians, etc. did the recent toll hikes improve the qol, reduce traffic jams , etc. lol
NYC = Manhattan = Columbia university to battery park
The majority of NYers don't own cars. Thats a fact, look it up. How does that mean I'm advocating for the banning of cars in the city? Thats a ridiculous and irrational jump in logic. And did you read anything of what I posted? Or did you only read the parts where I advocate for a congestion tax. Our tolls go up smally in part because of inflation, but mostly because the money we, as NYC residents pay in taxes to the State to fund the MTA is diverted to other parts of the state. Every year, we pay a little more in taxes to the state fund the MTA and every year the state cuts the MTA's budget. The MTA's only recourse is to increase fairs and tolls to keep operating at its current conditions.
It used to handle over 8 mill a day and now it's handling 5.2 mill a week? Where are you getting your #s from? What year was this?
Before all the Els were torn down in Manhattan, the trains carried over 8million passengers a day. Sadly, at the time the Els were beginning to be torn down, NYC politicians only cared about cars and no one cared to build subways to replace the torn down Els, in fact no politician cared enough about the subway to even advocate for proper maintenance. Everything went downhill from there, as the El's were torn down and not replaced, ridership diminished, more people started getting used to driving and stopped caring for mass transit. And then finally Robert Moses sealed NYC's mass transit coffin when he made sure all public work projects in the city left no room for the expansion of mass transit, like leaving no room for trains along the LIE, or making sure all bridges constructed under his watch were either too week or had too steep gradients to carry trains. It wasn't only until the 90's that mass transit in the city has begun turning around. So while people like to complain about how bad the subways are, or how horrible the MTA is, the data shows that for over a decade the MTA has gradually been improving. Does it have problems? Yes. Is there a horrible mismanagement problem? Yes. But that doesn't mean we stop funding it or investing in it. It means we look for ways to fix it and improve it, because the more the city grows, the more its going to need a mass transit system that can keep up with it.
God no. I would kill myself before I work for the MTA or anywhere in the public sector. The MTA is horribly mismanaged, but it handles its current load adequately, and in fact, there was a time in the distant past where it handled millions of more passengers. Right now, the MTA is hovering around 5.9 million passengers during a weekday, in the past, it used to handle over 8 million passengers a day. But that was back when NYers were smart enough to invest in mass transit.
So yeah, I guess if you're referencing 1950. Which happens to be right around when WWII ended, and the US became the worlds leading producer of cars. Here ya go:
The decade began with 25 million registered automobiles on the road, most of which predated World War II and were in poor condition; no automobiles or parts were produced during the war owing to rationing and restrictions. By 1950, most factories had made the transition to a consumer-based economy, and more than 8 million cars were produced that year alone. By 1958, there were more than 67 million cars registered in the United States, more than twice the number at the start of the decade.
That alone explains it- it's not that NYers were 'smart enough to invest in mass transit' as you suggest. And per the MTA, ridership is rising every year.
So yeah, I guess if you're referencing 1950. Which happens to be right around when WWII ended, and the US became the worlds leading producer of cars. Here ya go:
The decade began with 25 million registered automobiles on the road, most of which predated World War II and were in poor condition; no automobiles or parts were produced during the war owing to rationing and restrictions. By 1950, most factories had made the transition to a consumer-based economy, and more than 8 million cars were produced that year alone. By 1958, there were more than 67 million cars registered in the United States, more than twice the number at the start of the decade.
That alone explains it- it's not that NYers were 'smart enough to invest in mass transit' as you suggest. And per the MTA, ridership is rising every year.
The MTA as an entity is relatively new, compared to the NYC transit system, so you can't use only their records because they don't go back that far. In the 1950's, the MTA didn't exist, it didn't exist until 1965 and it didn't begin keeping count until the mid 80's. The records for the NYC subways kept by the companies that existed before the MTA show that ridership was higher. If a bunch of different systems run by different corporations at a time when corruption was even worse than now could handle millions more passengers, there's no reason why the MTA can't do the same.
Yes, back then, NYC was smart to invest in its subways, in fact it was the world leader of investment in mass transit because it recognized the importance mass transit had in the development of cities. But you are a right, a big reason of the decline in mass transit investment was the rising popularity of the car. In fact, part of the reason the Els were torn at such a rapid pace was because the car was advertised as a better alternative since they didn't need infrastructure that casted dingy shadows and blighted the aesthetics of neighborhoods. Robert Moses thought the car was the be all, end all method of transportation so he deliberately made sure that all public works projects left no room for mass transit. Most New Yorkers thought so as well, so no, they were not smart enough to realize that in a city as dense as NYC, cars are an ineffective method of mass transport. There's simply no room.
When the automotive industry boomed in Japan between the 70s and 90s, they WERE smart enough to realize that while cars are an excellent means of personal transport, there horribly ineffective as a means of mass transit in dense urban areas. Obviously a country as dense as Japan is always going to have traffic congestion, but they do there best to limit it with their extensive and well maintained mass transit network. NYC and the rest of the US doesn't even try. To be fair though, most US cities aren't dense enough for heavy rail trains to be cost effective, but NYC is yet we don't invest nearly enough in our mass transit. So no, NYC is still not smart enough to invest in mass transit.
Last edited by Astorian31; 12-22-2013 at 11:18 PM..
I'm apathetic in regards to the 7 line expansion for the Javits Center. I'm more supportive of the WTC expansion, but as a whole it's disappointing to me that they continue the Manhattan-centric development model while the outer boroughs are more-or-less ignored.
There's only one outer-borough train line, the G, and it's pretty neglected. Approve the Triboro RX please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
