Jump to content

Keep cars out of cities


Recommended Posts

skyscrapers-450793.jpg11-Custom.jpg
THEFEDERALIST.COM

The way to lower high rent rates is not through price controls that lead to deteriorating apartments, fewer apartments, and rentals becoming condos.
ch-card.jpg
CLICKHOLE.COM

A heartbreaking story is currently unfolding that’s sure to have devastating ramifications for years to come. Just moments ago, without any warning, the worst person…

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since the details of the infrastructure bill details were rolled out with the $80M for Amtrak, I've seen a bunch of, "Why do leftists keep wanting trains to happen, when we have planes already?! They can just put carbon offsets in the price of the plane tickets," and not just from conservatives. Meanwhile, France is like, "STFU and get in the goddamn train"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWW.URBANDICTIONARY.COM

a popular word among motorcyclists and bicyclists for four wheeled motor vehicle drivers. The term is often used in a derogative sense, because the car body effectively forms a cage, isolating the said driver from having to interact with other road users. The term was coined by motorcyclists.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ricofoley said:

Ever since the details of the infrastructure bill details were rolled out with the $80M for Amtrak, I've seen a bunch of, "Why do leftists keep wanting trains to happen, when we have planes already?! They can just put carbon offsets in the price of the plane tickets," and not just from conservatives. Meanwhile, France is like, "STFU and get in the goddamn train"

I wonder how you would handle things like connecting flights if they ever did this in America (which they wouldn't, given our cities tend to be much further apart). For example, I have to connect through Seattle all the time from Portland. A lot of times even if I can get somewhere directly, it's still insanely cheaper to go through Seattle if I'm going somewhere other than the west coast. When you factor in getting to the airport, checking in, going through security, etc etc there probably isn't much of a time difference between plane and train from Portland to Seattle. The problem is trains get delayed all the time for cargo traffic and the train only runs twice a day. Plus the closest train station to SeaTac is a few miles away.

 

Obviously France is in a completely different situation regarding their train network, but that would still seem to be a problem for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fizzzzle said:

I wonder how you would handle things like connecting flights if they ever did this in America (which they wouldn't, given our cities tend to be much further apart).

 

Apparently they're not banning connecting flights, they're just making it so you can't buy those short routes as a standalone ticket. But it seems like in France they could do what KLM did and include a bus or train ticket for those short connections instead: https://www.klm.com/travel/gb_en/plan_and_book/ticket_information/travel_by_train_or_bus_on_a_KLM_ticket/index.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Apparently they're not banning connecting flights, they're just making it so you can't buy those short routes as a standalone ticket. But it seems like in France they could do what KLM did and include a bus or train ticket for those short connections instead: https://www.klm.com/travel/gb_en/plan_and_book/ticket_information/travel_by_train_or_bus_on_a_KLM_ticket/index.htm

That's a cool solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe said:

@b_m_b_m_b_m @Jason

 

Tell me how to feel about this.

 

 

Congestion pricing is good. Fewer cars driving in urban areas is good. I'm sympathetic to the commuters who would pay this tax, but the cost is significant enough to either encourage a mode change or to move somewhere where a mode change is much easier. Ideally the charges would increase over the next 5-7 years or so in conjunction with new housing and transit opportunities to compensate for the fact that even in the NYC metro are there's still a considerable amount of auto dependence.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Congestion pricing is good. Fewer cars driving in urban areas is good. I'm sympathetic to the commuters who would pay this tax, but the cost is significant enough to either encourage a mode change or to move somewhere where a mode change is much easier. Ideally the charges would increase over the next 5-7 years or so in conjunction with new housing and transit opportunities to compensate for the fact that even in the NYC metro are there's still a considerable amount of auto dependence.

 

Not sure about the GWB but I'm pretty sure a significant portion, maybe even a majority, of the traffic exiting the Lincoln and Holland tunnels is not traffic with an origin or destination in Manhattan, but is instead people transiting between New Jersey and Long Island. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Apparently they're not banning connecting flights, they're just making it so you can't buy those short routes as a standalone ticket. But it seems like in France they could do what KLM did and include a bus or train ticket for those short connections instead: https://www.klm.com/travel/gb_en/plan_and_book/ticket_information/travel_by_train_or_bus_on_a_KLM_ticket/index.htm

That would make sense. If you're gonna lay down a marker that short airline travel shouldn't be a thing anymore, you might as well go all the way with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Not sure about the GWB but I'm pretty sure a significant portion, maybe even a majority, of the traffic exiting the Lincoln and Holland tunnels is not traffic with an origin or destination in Manhattan, but is instead people transiting between New Jersey and Long Island. 

From a regional planning perspective it is strange that there doesn't seem to be a direct line between NJ -> manhattan -> long island. Or even more than one of these lines! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

From a regional planning perspective it is strange that there doesn't seem to be a direct line between NJ -> manhattan -> long island. Or even more than one of these lines! 

 

Penn Station wasn't designed to be a terminal station, it was designed as a through station. But there's no political will to figure out the revenue sharing arrangement on doing cross-ticketing. So instead they both run trains to NYP during the morning rush hour and then park them on the tracks until the evening rush hour. If they could through-run like Penn was designed for then they could both provide one-seat service and turn the trains around at less-busy stations, relieving a lot of the jam-ups at Penn.

 

I think NJT and LIRR do have some technological compatibility issues they'd have to sort out to do through-running but the number one problem is the revenue sharing.

 

And even Metro-North and LIRR, which are technically under the same agency, won't play nice, and the electeds just let it happen instead of telling them to be big boys and figure it out. East Side Access is spending billions building an entire second set of platforms at Grand Central absurdly deep underground because the Metro-North chief didn't want to share "his" tracks with LIRR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there was through running when the railroads were privately owned but then we got the current clusterfuck when things got divvied up between the states and Amtrak. 

 

And oh yeah, IIRC Amtrak owns Penn and apparently they're miserable for the state railroads to work with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Congestion pricing is good. Fewer cars driving in urban areas is good. I'm sympathetic to the commuters who would pay this tax, but the cost is significant enough to either encourage a mode change or to move somewhere where a mode change is much easier. Ideally the charges would increase over the next 5-7 years or so in conjunction with new housing and transit opportunities to compensate for the fact that even in the NYC metro are there's still a considerable amount of auto dependence.


I too like the concept of congestion pricing, but this implementation seems stupid. With Murphy against it too, I wonder if they can sink it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I used to drive to work in Chelsea while living at home, I used to check Google Maps to see if traffic was better in the tunnel or the bridge and choose accordingly. However if the bridge was going to cost me $28 dollars and the tunnel $15, I would have chosen the tunnel every single fucking time. I’m sure many others would see it at that way too making the tunnel traffic even more insane than it was a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Joe said:

When I used to drive to work in Chelsea while living at home, I used to check Google Maps to see if traffic was better in the tunnel or the bridge and choose accordingly. However if the bridge was going to cost me $28 dollars and the tunnel $15, I would have chosen the tunnel every single fucking time. I’m sure many others would see it at that way too making the tunnel traffic even more insane than it was a few years ago.

 

Tolls are a way to regulate demand for specific routes and not just a way to collect money to maintain the infrastructure.

 

But I'd agree that they should probably just add the congestion fee to the tunnel tolls instead of exempting you from it because you already paid the tunnel toll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2021 at 11:03 PM, Jason said:

 

CA D-voting NIMBYs, meanwhile, will still not have even a single second of self-reflection about the fact that they sound exactly like Tucker Carlson.

As long as the majority of Americans wealth is tied to housing, its really not smart for them to sound any other way.  

To be clear, im saying the way wealth is  accumulated has to change, not that things need to stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: is there even any evidence that letting in higher density housing lowers land value at all? You would think it would only raise land value as more land is able to me utilized per square foot. I feel like I keep hearing property values touted as a nimby thing.

 

The house I live in is sort of a single family home surrounded by higher density buildings. It was last sold for just under $800k in 2009 or so and was last valued at something like $2 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Question: is there even any evidence that letting in higher density housing lowers land value at all? You would think it would only raise land value as more land is able to me utilized per square foot. I feel like I keep hearing property values touted as a nimby thing.

 

The house I live in is sort of a single family home surrounded by higher density buildings. It was last sold for just under $800k in 2009 or so and was last valued at something like $2 million.

 

What it boils down to is that SFH zoning has been so predominant for so long that people conflate a house and the land it's sitting on top of. Because of this I'm pretty sure people take "we want cheaper housing" as meaning "we want to lower the value of your house".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

What it boils down to is that SFH zoning has been so predominant for so long that people conflate a house and the land it's sitting on top of. Because of this I'm pretty sure people "we want cheaper housing" as meaning "we want to lower the value of your house".

Yeah that seems dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Question: is there even any evidence that letting in higher density housing lowers land value at all? You would think it would only raise land value as more land is able to me utilized per square foot. I feel like I keep hearing property values touted as a nimby thing.

 

The house I live in is sort of a single family home surrounded by higher density buildings. It was last sold for just under $800k in 2009 or so and was last valued at something like $2 million.

Land value is generally determined by proximity to the central business district. Per the city, the value of the land that my home is built is worth about $96k, 3.2miles from CBD. There's another property I found in a much higher density neighborhood approximately 3.2 miles from the CBD and the city has that value of land at $95k. Property value of the other place is much higher than mine because it is limited by zoning as to how dense the neighborhood can get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...