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.
And the claim remains 100% true. Read it and weep.
The de Blasio administration says it’s committed to the Vision Zero goal of fewer and fewer car trips — but for every year of the mayor’s first term, car ownership in New York City increased. And that trend shows no signs of reversal. “Auto ownership is going up in New York City right now,” DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg told a crowd at the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ annual conference in Los Angeles, confirming DMV records. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/10/...yor-de-blasio/
Don't bother to respond unless it is to show an example where the number of cars or the level of congestion decreased after adding public transit.
Most NYers with cars don't drive it to work. It's for weekend or getting around after work. I think traffic congestion has gotten worse in recent years because of Ride Sharing and higher car ownership. On the weekends main highways and roads are heavily congested due to what I listed. Mass transit use in NYC is on the decline because it's poorly managed and difficult to get to place on time. Millennials rather use bikes/scooters or Ride sharing.
Most NYers with cars don't drive it to work. It's for weekend or getting around after work. I think traffic congestion has gotten worse in recent years because of Ride Sharing and higher car ownership. On the weekends main highways and roads are heavily congested due to what I listed. Mass transit use in NYC is on the decline because it's poorly managed and difficult to get to place on time. Millennials rather use bikes/scooters or Ride sharing.
If the population is increasing and transit use is declining, then either the number driving to work must be increasing or the number that go to work is steeply declining. Which do you pick?
If transit in NYC, with an extensive network of subways, is poorly managed and designed thus making it difficult to get anywhere, then what chance does any other city have? Transit ridership is declining almost everywhere. And I only say "almost" because there might be some small city that just opened a new rail line somewhere. Mass transit is not a viable solution moving forward. It's heyday is over.
And the claim remains 100% true. Read it and weep.
The de Blasio administration says it’s committed to the Vision Zero goal of fewer and fewer car trips — but for every year of the mayor’s first term, car ownership in New York City increased. And that trend shows no signs of reversal. “Auto ownership is going up in New York City right now,” DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg told a crowd at the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ annual conference in Los Angeles, confirming DMV records. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/10/...yor-de-blasio/
Don't bother to respond unless it is to show an example where the number of cars or the level of congestion decreased after adding public transit.
“Right now” does not equate to “never”. In 2016 over 5 million people on average rode the subway every workday.
Additionally your claim included traffic, not just ownership. Stop moving the goal posts. If you think 5MM+ taking the subway instead of driving does not reduce traffic, I don’t know what to tell you.
“Right now” does not equate to “never”. In 2016 over 5 million people on average rode the subway every workday.
Additionally your claim included traffic, not just ownership. Stop moving the goal posts. If you think 5MM+ taking the subway instead of driving does not reduce traffic, I don’t know what to tell you.
To be fair, the article was quoting percentages. As the population increased, car ownership increased and transit use went down. Less transit use means more people are either walking, driving, or Ubering to work. Two of those options add traffic with Uber being the worst option of the three.
To be fair, the article was quoting percentages. As the population increased, car ownership increased and transit use went down. Less transit use means more people are either walking, driving, or Ubering to work. Two of those options add traffic with Uber being the worst option of the three.
Even if it's going down now, that still doesn't mean that mass transit never resulted in a reduction in traffic.
In addition to the reasons you listed, there's also another trend that could result in ridership decreasing: telecommuting.
However, that's irrelevant to the claim that "Mass transit has never resulted in fewer cars or less traffic."
At the very least, 5.7 million people riding the subway daily resulted in less traffic in 2016 than there would be without a subway, and that's equally true today. Even if fewer people are taking mass transit at this time.
“Right now” does not equate to “never”. In 2016 over 5 million people on average rode the subway every workday.
Additionally your claim included traffic, not just ownership. Stop moving the goal posts. If you think 5MM+ taking the subway instead of driving does not reduce traffic, I don’t know what to tell you.
Talk about moving goalposts, now you've backpedaled from "reducing traffic" to minimizing the increase to traffic based on "what otherwise would have been". You can't do that because without the subway there would have been better road infrastructure.
Show me stats where absolute number of cars or traffic congestion decreased over a 5 year period. Probably there's not even a one year period but recessions can sometimes have an effect.
Even if it's going down now, that still doesn't mean that mass transit never resulted in a reduction in traffic.
In addition to the reasons you listed, there's also another trend that could result in ridership decreasing: telecommuting.
However, that's irrelevant to the claim that "Mass transit has never resulted in fewer cars or less traffic."
At the very least, 5.7 million people riding the subway daily resulted in less traffic in 2016 than there would be without a subway, and that's equally true today. Even if fewer people are taking mass transit at this time.
Now you're just speculating about alternate realities. Show me stats where any city built a rail line and saw absolute number of cars and congestion decrease over the next few years.
I have about 60 years of experience as an electrical engineer. That includes a couple of decades working on boats (my own) and the international standards for boat electrical systems. If you actually dealt with it you would discover it is at least as bad as a northern US one.
In general it is simple to protect control wiring. you simply shield it from the elements. We do it on boats all the time which exist in a salt water environment.
At this point in time if you are really worried go wireless. It is actually practical nowadays. I do not recommend it because the skills to diagnose problems are not those of the standard vehicle electrician. Though it is likely the path of the future.
But the general rule if a critical sensor is not working is you do not move. That would be absolutely required for the AV truck. If all cameras, radars, lidars, are not working the vehicle will not move. Pretty much the same as we do on passenger air planes.
Forward engine design in a truck, with big grilles, wheel wells and ground clearances that allow air and elements under the hood, is completely different than designing a boat with an enclosed mid or rear-engine design.
Those who actually work in the industry and on this exact issue do not think it's so easy. (I'm not one of them who is tasked with solving that problem, I just work with those people who do on a daily basis and they don't seem as optimistic as you when it comes to making those systems run trouble-free.)
NoX sensors are the biggest sensor issue trucks have and those are fully enclosed parts. Maybe the supply base is just not up-to-speed in the truck business, who knows, but nobody in this business thinks self driving trucks are coming anytime soon.
Even if it's going down now, that still doesn't mean that mass transit never resulted in a reduction in traffic.
In addition to the reasons you listed, there's also another trend that could result in ridership decreasing: telecommuting.
However, that's irrelevant to the claim that "Mass transit has never resulted in fewer cars or less traffic."
At the very least, 5.7 million people riding the subway daily resulted in less traffic in 2016 than there would be without a subway, and that's equally true today. Even if fewer people are taking mass transit at this time.
Unfortunately you're not comparing apples to apples. New York's subway system predates automotive traffic. It was added because owning a horse and buggy in New York City sucked far worse than owning a car. Average city folk at the turn of the century walked everywhere. It was added to remove foot traffic.
Telecommuting does remove some traffic and some municipalities offer tax breaks for companies offering telecommuting. However it does discriminate against mostly blue collar workers (it's hard to telecommute as a waitress or factory worker).
I really don't know of a city where mass transit was added and resulted in the reduction of automotive traffic. Once you taste the power of commuting with your own vehicle, it's hard to appreciate commuting with the unwashed masses.
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.
