Two words: congestion tax.
It's practically criminal that their mayor and other local figures are opposed to it.
It's practically criminal that their mayor and other local figures are opposed to it.
I'd support a congestion tax if there was a way to avoid cars (in fact, i dislike both the concept and the task of driving)...but a congestion tax is just a regressive exclusion tax if mass transit does not work. In NYC mass transit does-not-work on weekends/evenings/nights.
Those not familiar with the decline of NYC transit can read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
Here is a real example with evidence from two weekends ago when I was in NYC:
PICTURE EVIDENCE: https://imgur.com/a/p4JCaPP
EVIDENCE NOTE 1: Monitor claiming F trains would arrive
EVIDENCE NOTE 2: Sign contradicting what monitor says
EVIDENCE NOTE 3: Monitor and Sign side-by-side
I used the MTA Subway Time app and it also claimed F trains were on their way, these were obviously fake schedule data rather than real prospective arrivals data. So if you used the MTA Subway Time, you'd wait forever. This also suggests to me that perhaps some of the historical on-time uptime/arrival stats are fake as well.
Now, given this level of dysfunction...would you risk a subway ride or just take a car/uber/lyft?
People will manage, it wouldn't be the first implementation of the tax, you'll end up with less cars on the road and more revenue and that is something you can work with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
Here is an excerpt from the article: "Subway workers, including managers and administrative personnel, now make an average of about $155,000 annually in salary, overtime and benefits, according to a Times analysis of data compiled by the federal Department of Transportation. That is far more than in any other American transit system; the average in cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington is less than $100,000 in total compensation annually."
---
*Note that it's "average", which means that there could indeed be some who are overpaid skewing the numbers for the rest.
These taxes are basically a way to exclude vast numbers of people from the city and embolden systems that cause economic asymmetry.
A 'pure market' solution would involve the streets being largely empty save a fleet of limos paid for by a tiny fraction of the population.
A lot of New Yorkers would be happy to pay a price to make sure that you can't drive your car anywhere near them.
How about: every few avenues and streets make them 100% public transit and have tons of 'no driver' trams running all the time so that anyone can get anywhere really fast? Get rid of all large cars? And cabs are not a particularly efficient use of space.
Besides, living in NYC already comes with so many de-facto taxes ...
Only I think the tax should be indexed, and increase semi-exponentially based on the price of your vehicle.
That would satisfy both sides of the argument. The wealthy would pay WAY more for their ego-mobiles. The poor and middle class would be paying next to nothing for their Honda Civics. And all the money collected would be made available to improve public transit.
Guess what, you live in a large, crappy place in the worst parts of the Bronx, you pay less than the guy who lives in the tiny apartment in the luxury building in Manhattan. The small apartment likely even uses, less water, less power, less heat, and fewer city services like police and fire.
But so what?
You know why we do it that way? Because it only makes sense to do it that way.
Sorry, but of course it should be based on price. All things of this sort are.
Just pass the tax in it's simplest form and then see if further adjustment is needed, the perfect being the enemy of the good and what not.
I mean really, what's to argue? You could argue whether there should be a tax at all I suppose. But not much else.
Getting 'right of way', building permits, hiring firms, planning massive construction projects involving 'new technology' etc. etc - this is 'complicated' beyond the threshold that I would trust the NYC government.
But some kind of tax on cars is within feasibility.
Also the streets would get plenty of use. By people. Like we used streets for thousands of years before people in autos showed up and almost literally said "stop walking in MY street or I will kill you" and we decided it was OK, for some reason.
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2018/05/footage-of-city-life-i...
The state is not hugely efficient, but when it comes to these things, it's largely construction unions and the not-overtly-but-kinda-corrupt construction firms etc.. Doing any city work costs gazillions unfortunately.
But some forms of public transit (subways, maybe not buses) are as priceless as the highway system.
Funny how that's the knee-jerk these days.
From my experience Roads and subways are not being adequately maintained. At least in the big cities. But I do know every few years we pass a multi-billion dollar referendum for the BART that goes to... mostly pensions.
For the record, I did not say take away all money from the state, but I understand why you'd think that.
I live near an airport and have neighbors who are always bitching about airplane noise. I'm not sure what they expected when they bought a house next to an airport.
Filing these sorts of issues under "user error."
This is a large community filled with engineers, researchers, and folk from all sorts of other interesting backgrounds who like to solve problems.
It's only natural that the comments on such an article would include such comments, so I guess my question is, why did you feel the need to post that valueless comment?
Did you think GP didn't know he has the freedom to move?
Anyways, as for the article, the huge influx of ride sharing vehicles has slowed traffic something like 15% in some parts of Manhattan. The trains are a disaster which they need to fix and expand.
I support taxing more heavily ride sharing services as they've already squeaked out of the medalion system and are clogging the roads. I'm not sure how you accomplish. Or limits to the numbers of cars riding around at any given time.
Expanding and fixing the MTA is a huge project that should be started immediately. Crippling the nations largest city with a terrible public transit option is death by a thousand cuts for a place like New York. Everytime someone can't get where they want or outright chooses not to the businesses they'd have visite suffer.
We should tackle this issue head on and from several angles to encourage the efficient transportation of citizens through the metropolis and allow them some solace at times.
Constructions a big one in terms of noise, it just goes on forever too. I'm not sure there's a way to solve that and the city needs a bit more construction to dampen housing prices. If there was a decent way to encourage actually affordable housing developments that'd be fantastic.
Unfortunately driving still isn't nearly expensive because way too many people are doing it. Raise the tolls more and get rid of all the free on-street parking while we're at it. All the side streets are full of cars that are only moved twice a week for street-sweeping and it makes no damn sense. Make people pay the actual cost of keeping a car in the city and there'll be a lot fewer of them, and the majority of people will be better off.
And prices (i.e. the supply curve and the demand curve) are function of relative economic power.
If you want to sell the roads to the highest bidder, the 'expensive cost' of driving you had will go up 10x and you will never be able to drive in NYC because it will be a privilege of a class of very few individuals that you will never be a part of.
Like I say enough people would be happy to pay a price to make sure you can't drive near them.
And I would be happy to receive their money and use it to fix and expand the subway.
This is obviously a larger discussion of ideology. I'm a left-of-center liberal and generally don't enjoy arguing from the right, but there are economic facts that I find to be just inescapable.
Of course I _want_ everyone to be able to drive whenever the want, but history and simple logic show that when you have a state of scarcity, societies need to pick one of two choices: higher prices or rationing. Rationing, in this case, either means the government telling you when you can or can't drive (I recall that Bogota had a system where license plates ending in odd or even numbers get to drive on certain days of the week), or just letting everyone sit in traffic, the equivalent of the bread line. It just seems screamingly obvious to me that taking money from rich people to drive in the city and using that money to fund the MTA will lead to the best outcomes.
Also, the opportunity for great efficiency in transport ... either public or private I don't care that much as long as it works well.
This is simply not true.
With a little bit of intelligence things can be changed. Such as: allowing only smaller cars, getting rid of taxis or limos, having very fast 'above ground' public-ish transport etc..