[New York Sun] Does New York Suffer From A Soviet Traffic System?
David of Broadway
Since NYSun URL's sometimes seem to go poof, the article follows:
Does New York Suffer From A Soviet Traffic System?
BY EDWARD L. GLAESER
May 25, 2006
The debate over what is called congestion pricing - charging a fee for
the use of the city streets in high traffic areas during rush hour - is
set to heat up, as the business group known as the Partnership for New
York City gets set to release what its president, Kathryn Wylde, calls a
study on the problem, which she says is having a "multi-billion dollar
negative impact on the economy."
Mrs. Wylde said the partnership hasn't endorsed congestion pricing, but,
"It's something we need to figure out how to solve." She said the
partnership is looking at different models in cities around the world,
including user fees, increasing the costs of on-street parking, and
having more regulations on trucks. "Ultimately, what we are trying to do
is frame the decision - not have a tolling of the bridges discussion. We
are trying to get away from this as a tax."
Following is an article, commissioned by The New York Sun, from the
Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard and Director of the Taubman
Center for State and Local Government.
A Congestion Charge for Manhattan
The Soviet approach to markets set prices at some controlled price, and
then let shortages ensue. Under this system, millions wasted hours
queuing and goods went to consumers with the time to stand on line
rather than to consumers who valued the goods most. Today, you don't
need to go through the messy process of getting a visa to Cuba or North
Korea to see the social costs of under-pricing. Right here in New York,
we don't charge anything for using a particularly valuable resource: car
access to Manhattan streets. We ration the limited access to streets
through time wasted in traffic. New York's mean travel time to work was
40 minutes in the 2000 Census, almost 15 minutes more than the national
average. We've set the price of driving at zero and inevitably too many
people drive.
There are only two ways to make real headway against congestion in
Manhattan: build more streets or get fewer people to drive. Knocking
down high-rises to expand Third Avenue seems pretty stupid, so to fix
congestion we have to reduce the amount of driving. There is plenty of
scope for improving public transportation, but the most reliable means
of reducing traffic is to charge people for the social costs of their
driving. When anyone drives in a crowded street, they create an
externality: One person's driving slows down everybody else.The best way
to handle this externality is to charge drivers a congestion charge that
reflects the social costs of the congestion they create.
New York should follow London and charge drivers for driving in the city
during peak hours. London's congestion charge system, introduced on
February 17, 2003, requires drivers to pay eight pounds before they
enter a congestion charging zone during peak hours. The zone is eight
square miles in the heart of London.
Drivers pay either online or at one of many payment facilities. The
system is enforced with a network of fixed and mobile cameras that take
snapshots of license plates. Individuals who are caught driving without
paying are fined 100 pounds. The fine system is computerized, and it is
both reliable and inexpensive to operate.
According to London's "Third Annual Monitoring Report," the number of
cars entering the charging zone during peak hours fell by 33% after the
congestion charge. As traffic fell, speeds rose. Before the congestion
charge, the average traffic delay was 3.7 minutes per mile during
morning rush hour and four minutes per miles during the afternoon rush
hour. After the congestion charge, delays per mile fell to 2.4 minutes
per mile in the morning and 2.6 minutes per mile in the evening.
Overall, there was a 30% decrease in time wasted in traffic delays.
Some critics of congestion charges argue that they are unfair to low
income people, but in London, lower-income bus travelers were the
charge's biggest beneficiaries. Bus riders didn't have to pay the charge
and their travel times plummeted. As the time cost of bus travel fell,
the number of bus passengers during morning hours increased by 38% (some
of this is due to improved bus service provision). Like London, New York
has many more people who commute by public transportation than by car,
and New York's many bus travelers would particularly benefit from a
congestion charge reducing their commute times.
One worry about congestion charging is that traffic might increase on
the edge of the charging zone; this was a problem when Singapore
introduced congestion charging in the 1970s. But good implementation
reduces this danger. In London, traffic congestion was stable or
declined in the area surrounding the congestion charging zone.
New York's economic edge lies in enabling smart, productive people to
interact with each other quickly. The financial district thrives as a
center of information flows and this information is carried by people
traveling to meet each other. Traffic congestion strikes at the heart of
the city's comparative advantage. In a world where time is ever more
valuable, New York can't afford to fall behind London in traffic
management any more than it can afford to fall behind in pricing
derivatives.
How would a New York City congestion charge work? First, the city needs
to define a congestion charging zone. I suggest Manhattan south of 59th
street. This compact area includes the city's economic core and would be
easy to monitor. Since this area includes all of the downtown entryways
into the city, the congestion fee could even substitute for bridge and
tunnel fees for all of the river crossings south of 59th street. Getting
rid of lines at these tolls would save more time.
The amount of the congestion charge should equal the congestion costs
created by each driver and determining this number requires more study.
I suspect that the right charge is around $20. Buses, taxis, and
ambulances would be exempt. A discount for people who live south of 59th
street might also be politically prudent. It would be easy to exempt
vehicles belonging to the handicapped or other groups for humanitarian
reasons.
The best enforcement plan today is probably to copy the London system
and use fines based on photos of license plates. Fines need to be set so
that the probability of getting caught cheating times the penalty is
significantly higher than the cost of paying the congestion charge. If
there are enough cameras to catch a cheating driver 20% of the time, the
fine would have to be above $100. In the future, enforcement will become
far easier with improvements in global positioning technology.
The fees could be used to improve public transportation, as was done in
London, or to better New York City public schools, but there is also
case for just giving the money back to New York taxpayers as a tax
rebate. The point of a congestion charge is not to raise government
revenue. It isn't a tax and giving the money back will help stop the
government from increasing the charge to raise revenues. A congestion
charge is a price for using a scarce resource and if New Yorkers get
that price back, then they will reap the benefits of a congestion charge
without (on average) paying more.
If done right, a congestion charge can reduce travel times for Manhattan
drivers so that many car travelers will benefit, despite the charge,
because the time they save is worth more than the cash cost of the
congestion charge. The current ration-by-congestion system seems
designed for those drivers who like spending time sitting in traffic
watching pedestrians speed by. A congestion charge - like any price -
will ensure that the streets are used less and more efficiently.
Congestion charging will make the city more competitive by reducing the
time wasted in traffic. New Yorkers' time is too valuable to be wasted
by an unwillingness to charge drivers for the congestion they cause.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY
Bolwerk
nice. There's something to be said for getting the shit particles we
have to breathe in here out of the air, to say nothing of making the
traffic situation better.
Also, New York is a pedestrian city. Drivers act like assholes, take up
30x the space, and are outnumbered at least 5 to 1. I'd be curious to
know if we could induce more tourists who want to shop and walk around
if we actually set aside some purely pedestrian thoroughfares. Maybe
making go 42nd St. entirely one way and 34th St. entirely go the other
way, and setting aside all the streets inbetween as a walkers-only zone
(with exceptions for loading trucks, maybe only at night). It would be a
nice first step towards the Vision42.org proposal too (not that I think
it will ever get off the ground).
John Mara
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=33331
> Since NYSun URL's sometimes seem to go poof, the article follows:
>
>
> The amount of the congestion charge should equal the congestion costs
> created by each driver and determining this number requires more study.
> I suspect that the right charge is around $20. Buses, taxis, and
> ambulances would be exempt.
Why exempt taxis? Are taxis any better than other cars as far as
congestion goes?. I guess not using parking spaces is an advantage.
OTOH if you only have to pay once a day it wouldn't be a significant
cost to taxi drivers.
John Mara
Bolwerk
Yeah, really. Taxis are a bloody drag too.
John F. Carr
If a charge is imposed no passenger vehicles should be exempt.
Taxis and buses can divide the charge among many passengers.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Bolwerk
Most buses are city-operated anyway. They'd automatically be exempt.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Most buses are city-operated anyway. They'd automatically be exempt.
I can't think of any buses that are city-operated. I can think
of plenty that are operated by an agency of the state, however.
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
and plenty that are neither
danny burstein
>Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Most buses are city-operated anyway. They'd automatically be exempt.
>I can't think of any buses that are city-operated. I can think
>of plenty that are operated by an agency of the state, however.
Seems to me it was the City Corporation Counsel that was
involved in that bit of ugliness.
In other words, it (the MTA, NYC Bus an Subways...) quacks
like a duck...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
GK
New York also has the added traffic burden that it connects two other
large land masses, Long Island and the rest of North America, and a lot
of the traffic is passing through, on its way to a more distant destination.
I also think it's very snobby and discriminatory to limit travel to a
certain portion of any city.
There are already numerous reasons that limit the practicality and
economics of driving in Manhattan. Very limited street parking, high
cost private parking, outrageous prices of tickets, incoming tolls, etc.
These factors already discourage unneccessary travel through Manhattan.
A more noble concept would be to build a toll-free way to move traffic
from the mainland to Long Island. That would clear most of the crosstown
traffic so Manhattan could just deal with it's own commercial and
residential movements. Removing this traffic would solve the problem
much better then restricting movement.
GK
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Most buses are city-operated anyway. They'd automatically be exempt.
>
> I can't think of any buses that are city-operated. I can think
> of plenty that are operated by an agency of the state, however.
Oops, that's what I meant. Sorry! :-D
Bolwerk
> This is a terrible idea that would force most business out of NYC.
Unlikely, as business still thrives despite the reasons you mentioned
yourself:
> There are already numerous reasons that limit the practicality and
> economics of driving in Manhattan. Very limited street parking, high
> cost private parking, outrageous prices of tickets, incoming tolls, etc.
> These factors already discourage unneccessary travel through Manhattan.
If anything, business might improve because cars will be used only when
necessary.
As a side note, one thing that might also help traffic and parking would
be to treat city workers like everyone else.
J.R.Guthrie
actual users, central state planning often putting highways in the wrong
place or without regard to the people who live there and the like is as
Sovietized as it gets.
Transit, of course, suffers because it has become an "add-on" in this
milieu -- justified nowadays not as a solution that builds the economy and
makes decisions based on markets, but rather to fill the gaps caused by
incompetence of the Soviet-style highway planners, such as to "ease highway
congestion" or as welfare program to serve poor folk for whom a private auto
is beyond their means.
Let the fuel taxes rise to cover 100% of the costs of driving (including
indemnification for hoeowners who have to live near noisy highways). We use
the money to fill the gaps -- build the "Second System" and all the other
deferred infrastructure, THEN start turning it back to taxpayers in reduced
sales taxes (and any other taxes that are not deductible for federal
purposes).
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
Joseph D. Korman
I don't think you want to price buses and taxis out of the picture.
What's the point of congestion pricing? Is it to make room for high
capacity vehicles or to make folks not want to ride them? What about
delivery trucks? How do you price them, per package, or per delivery
location?
Eliminating or restricting one and two person occupancy cars from
midtown would make more room for buses. It could also lower the need
for more taxis, since each one could get a higher turn around.
Deliverys should be timed for between 10am and 2pm and after 8pm.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| AOL-IM user name joekoreln |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Don't take any wooden Metrocards |
| Happily retired since May 2005! |
| Battlestar Galactica is better than... |
| the last two Star Treks - WAY better! !
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work! |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Bolwerk
> the bottom line in your wield thesis belies the transit geeks
> fallacious thinking that they can tax others to support their mass
> transit scam
Blah blah. Stop acting like you don't consume other people's resources
when you drive.
Bolwerk
> New York also has the added traffic burden that it connects two other
> large land masses, Long Island and the rest of North America, and a lot
> of the traffic is passing through, on its way to a more distant
> destination.
I rather doubt this traffic that is traveling over Manhattan to Long
Island and New England crosses midtown and downtown. It probably tends
to go over the bridges (Throgs Neck, GWB, etc.). People in downtown and
midtown are probably there for business or pleasure.
> I also think it's very snobby and discriminatory to limit travel to a
> certain portion of any city.
The point is that traffic is already being limited. The goal is to
change how it's limited.
Also, it doesn't really seem fair to have to accomodate drivers so much.
New York is a major walking city, with pedestrians outnumbering cars.
Yet cars get far more space.
> A more noble concept would be to build a toll-free way to move traffic
> from the mainland to Long Island. That would clear most of the crosstown
> traffic so Manhattan could just deal with it's own commercial and
> residential movements. Removing this traffic would solve the problem
> much better then restricting movement.
It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
J.R.Guthrie
> now this is a great example of a transit kooks thinking, the highways
> are supported by taxes already and there aren't too many examples you
> can give supporting your misconception that there are highways in the
> wrong place, if that were true those highways wouldn't be used and I
> cannot think of too many highways that are devoid of traffic because
> of their placement.
If your style of Soviet-style central planners put a new highway next to
your home, you **know** it's in the wrong place.
>
> transit gets treated as a weak sister because it is a money pit and
> government is loathe to throw money at something that is going to add
> to the amounts needed to sustain it. When transit could provide a
> reasonable return on it's investment, more money would flow to it.
Highways are trillion behind in deferred maintenance -- and users are going
to find there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. See Gov Daniels' (R-Ind)
in today's NY Times for a small piece of this puzzle.
>
> Fuel taxes cover the majority of road costs and for the majority of
> people who live near highways, they're there by choice, no
> indemnification is necessary.
Well, except when Moses had to reroute the Northern Stae Parkway <g>.
Indemnification is not necessary IF one buys into the Soviet-style Central
Planning mdel so favored by 20th Century Marxists such as yourself. Those of
us who believe in free markets know better.
>
> the bottom line in your wield thesis belies the transit geeks
> fallacious thinking that they can tax others to support their mass
> transit scam
Make air and highway users pay 100% of their costs, and you'll put Amtrak
and transit bonds into your portfolio and enjoy a secure and prosperous
retirement.
Cheers,
A. Rand
Steven M. O'Neill
>now this is a great example of a transit kooks thinking, the highways
>are supported by taxes already
Transit kooks, and the governor of Indiana, I think you mean:
As Americans hit the roads this Memorial Day
weekend, debate is building about how to pay for the
first-class transportation network that everyone
agrees the United States requires. The money from
gasoline taxes no longer comes close to meeting
needs. Nationally, the gap between road-building
needs and projected tax revenue is estimated in the
hundreds of billions of dollars, and growing. Almost
every governor I talk to faces a seemingly intractable
shortfall.
[...]
Mitch Daniels, the director of the Office of
Management and Budget from 2001 to 2003, is the
governor of Indiana.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/opinion/27daniels.html
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY
Steven M. O'Neill
>This is a terrible idea that would force most business out of NYC.
Did you read the article? Here's the first sentence:
The debate over what is called congestion pricing - charging
a fee for the use of the city streets in high traffic areas
during rush hour - is set to heat up, as the business group
known as the Partnership for New York City gets set to
release what its president, Kathryn Wylde, calls a study
on the problem, which she says is having a "multi-billion
dollar negative impact on the economy."
The president of a business group says that traffic congestion
is _costing_ the city billions of dollars.
[...]
>A more noble concept would be to build a toll-free way to move traffic
>from the mainland to Long Island. That would clear most of the crosstown
>traffic so Manhattan could just deal with it's own commercial and
>residential movements. Removing this traffic would solve the problem
>much better then restricting movement.
This I agree with. The wrong-way toll on the Verrazano Bridge
is a main culprit.
Sancho Panza
"J.R.Guthrie" <jgut...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kU2eg.1500$%h.1...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> Make air and highway users pay 100% of their costs, and you'll put Amtrak
> and transit bonds into your portfolio and enjoy a secure and prosperous
> retirement.
If Amtrak can't buy transformers, how in the world would they pay off their
bonds?
Bolwerk
> this case the part of the story that was omitted is the reason there
> aren't enough funds for roads is because the transportation trust fund
> has been looted to support bike trails and mass transit scams
Don't you ever get tired of having your brain turned off just so you can
parrot talking points?
Otto Yamamoto
> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com/130405/2774.htm start there, and you can head
west on the Cross Bronx Expressway. Have a look at that and tell me how it
can be expanded...
--
The Rt. Hon. Comrade Herr Doktor Otto Yamamoto BFMAP, RSP, SALF
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
>
> http://mryamamoto.50megs.com/130405/2774.htm start there, and you can head
> west on the Cross Bronx Expressway. Have a look at that and tell me how it
> can be expanded...
Not very easily. And well, that's besides the point. I don't see
expansion as a viable solution anyway. The thing that might help most
would be limiting passenger vehicles and making it easier for freight to
come in.
I'd prefer streets be used primarily for delivering goods combined with
pedestrian use, which is how Manhattan streets were designed in the
first place. It would clear up a lot of excess smog by reducing idling.
GK
First off, there IS a lot of traffic going through Manhattan heading
from NJ and the rest of USA to Long Island including Queens and Brooklyn
boroughs of NYC. That is a fact. It's just many miles shorter and if you
avoid the Queens Midtown Tunnel by taking any of the other bridges
you've also saved a few bucks.
Many times I've done the trip especially since it's shorter and yes that
$9 cash or $8 EZ Pass one way Westbound toll on the Verrazzano Gangplank
is a big incentive to avoid.
GK
Bolwerk
>> This is a terrible idea that would force most business out of NYC.
>
> Did you read the article? Here's the first sentence:
>
> The debate over what is called congestion pricing - charging
> a fee for the use of the city streets in high traffic areas
> during rush hour - is set to heat up, as the business group
> known as the Partnership for New York City gets set to
> release what its president, Kathryn Wylde, calls a study
> on the problem, which she says is having a "multi-billion
> dollar negative impact on the economy."
>
> The president of a business group says that traffic congestion
> is _costing_ the city billions of dollars.
That's kind of an interesting statement. I wish it discussed the
ramifications of congestion more.
Also, it's possible that backlogs into Manhattan and to/from Long Island
hurt those regions as well, driving up distribution costs and affecting
quality of life with things like smog and impatient honking. Fort Lee
during the day looks like a mad house.
Maybe another solution is to allow drivers without EZ-Passes to drive
through the tolls without paying and be charged $25 (or whatever the
"fine" is, but charges high enough to justify actually tracking people
down by license plate) by a bill mailed to them. Meanwhile, they can
just have a fixed amount of time (4 hours?) to drive through any other
tolls in the city the same way without paying additional tolls.
Since I doubt any EZ-Pass toll combinations could possibly amount to $25
without deliberate effort, EZ-Pass users could still have the benefit of
the usual, common rate (which I guess could conceivably go close to $20
if you from NJ to Queens to Staten Island). It would be like the
unlimited Metrocard of tolling.
GK
That new reporter who writes a daily traffic column in one of the big
NYC newspapers, Sam Schwartz, presented a study on the inequity of tolls
surrounding Manhattan a few years ago in a Midtown seminar that sold out
well.
I think his idea was to lower the toll costs going around Manhattan
while increasing the costs of driving through Midtown.
If you really want to give drivers incentive to avoid Midtown Manhattan
just make the outer bypass bridge crossings toll free while somehow
implementing a cost to cross into Manhattan. Although for the lfe of me
I could never imagine placing any tolls on the Lower East River bridges,
the Willy (Williamsburg), Manhattan or Brooklyn bridges or the 59'er.
If you don't think it makes a difference, just watch the Western end of
the LIE some night. You'll see about 95% of the traffic jumping off the
last 2 exits to go over the 59th St bridge and avoid the Midtown Tunnel
toll.
The thing around NYC is people propose things but not much ever changes.
GK
danny burstein
[ snip ]
>If you really want to give drivers incentive to avoid Midtown Manhattan
>just make the outer bypass bridge crossings toll free while somehow
>implementing a cost to cross into Manhattan. Although for the lfe of me
>I could never imagine placing any tolls on the Lower East River bridges,
>the Willy (Williamsburg), Manhattan or Brooklyn bridges or the 59'er.
>If you don't think it makes a difference, just watch the Western end of
>the LIE some night. You'll see about 95% of the traffic jumping off the
>last 2 exits to go over the 59th St bridge and avoid the Midtown Tunnel
>toll.
Better example: Take a look at the Gowanus/BQE heading northbound [a]
from the VZ. The traffic lanes to the left, which feed into
the tolled Brooklyn Battery Brid^h^h tunnel, are relatively
empty (that's relative...) compared to the ones on
the right - which go to the "free" Bklyn/Man/Willie Bridges.
[a] technically it's considered eastward, which is Just
One Of Those Things designed to drive motorists crazy.
Just like what happens if you're coming up I-95 from
DC/Delaware and are about to cross into NJ on the
way to NYC...
>The thing around NYC is people propose things but not much ever changes.
>GK
Jack May
"Otto Yamamoto" <he...@kitty.jp> wrote in message
news:Mljeg.3$T%1...@fe10.lga...
> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
You have any proof of that since experts can't seem to find the mythical
induced driving beast except possibly over several decades in the suburbs.
The record of building transit in the last few decades is that the
percentage of transit users stay about the same no matter how much money is
spent on transit. Transit funding tends to just move the same people around
more available options.
Bolwerk
> "Otto Yamamoto" <he...@kitty.jp> wrote in message
> news:Mljeg.3$T%1...@fe10.lga...
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>
>>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
>
> You have any proof of that since experts can't seem to find the mythical
> induced driving beast except possibly over several decades in the suburbs.
It certainly does appear that increasing supply of roadways induces
demand, which makes sense. Conversely, reducing supply reduces the
number of drivers on the right of way.
As you like to point out, people make what they regard to be rational
decisions. If a roadway is crowded, those who can will find another
route or make their trip at a time when it isn't crowded.
There's nothing terribly shocking about that. I do it myself both when
driving (which is very rare for me) and traveling by subway.
> The record of building transit in the last few decades is that the
> percentage of transit users stay about the same no matter how much money is
> spent on transit. Transit funding tends to just move the same people around
> more available options.
At least in recent history, it appears that it is expected that the
percentage of transit users decreases. That doesn't mean the total
numbers of transit users isn't increasing.
Either way, we're talking about New York City here. It's kind of silly
to compare it to some third-rate city that maybe has, at best, a
disjointed right-of-way or two. First of all, the current plan for the
Second Avenue Subway is necessary more to relieve the overburdened Lex
Line, not so much to induce additional ridership. (The Lex Line has
apparently been the victim of even dangerous overcrowding.)
The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
expected in New York by 2025, it's probably a safe bet that more
capacity is going to be needed. Granted, that capacity is apparently not
being provided in high-growth areas, like Queens and Staten Island.
But either way, NYC's subway system allows for extensive travel around
the city. Few cities in North America can say that, and even in the
cases of places like Washington, transit often supplements rather than
replaces private automobiles. Whether or not additional ridership is
induced --- which is highly likely if expansion happens --- there is
still value being added for people who use the system and would like to
go to places they currently need a slow-moving bus or taxi or private
automobile for.
And, yes, parts of New York are so far from trains that you essentially
need a car to get around.
AllstonPar...@hotmail.com
> If you don't think it makes a difference, just watch the Western end of
> the LIE some night. You'll see about 95% of the traffic jumping off the
> last 2 exits to go over the 59th St bridge and avoid the Midtown Tunnel
> toll.
I think you exaggerate a bit. The Midtown Tunnel isn't exactly empty
most of the time. In 2003, the tunnel had an AADT of 79800 while the
bridge had 182940, according to
www.dot.state.ny.us/tech_serv/high/countfiles/newyorktvbk.pdf . Also
keep in mind that the bridge is better if you're heading to the area
around or north of 59th Street, and the bridge has more than twice as
many lanes as the tunnel so it *should* be carrying more traffic.
-Apr
Sancho Panza
"Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bkeg.1267$%C6.361@trnddc08...
> Otto Yamamoto wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>
>>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
>>
>> http://mryamamoto.50megs.com/130405/2774.htm start there, and you can
>> head
>> west on the Cross Bronx Expressway. Have a look at that and tell me how
>> it
>> can be expanded...
>
> Not very easily. And well, that's besides the point. I don't see expansion
> as a viable solution anyway. The thing that might help most would be
> limiting passenger vehicles and making it easier for freight to come in.
So now you're expanding your no-go zone to the Bronx. What's next, Brooklyn
and Queens?
Sancho Panza
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Otto Yamamoto" <he...@kitty.jp> wrote in message
>> news:Mljeg.3$T%1...@fe10.lga...
>>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>>>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>>>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
>>
>> You have any proof of that since experts can't seem to find the mythical
>> induced driving beast except possibly over several decades in the
>> suburbs.
>
> It certainly does appear that increasing supply of roadways induces
> demand, which makes sense. Conversely, reducing supply reduces the number
> of drivers on the right of way.
What you're failing to address is that despite New York City's record for
transit use, traffic jams up on roads like the Cross Bronx and the Staten
Island Expressway because those are not basically local-service arteries,
but rather through routes. And thanks to gross ineptitude on the part of
entities like the Port Authority, it is far more than likely that no aspect
of that problem will be addressed. Witness the idiocy of the Newark and
Kennedy monorails.
> As you like to point out, people make what they regard to be rational
> decisions. If a roadway is crowded, those who can will find another route
> or make their trip at a time when it isn't crowded.
>
> There's nothing terribly shocking about that. I do it myself both when
> driving (which is very rare for me) and traveling by subway.
>
>> The record of building transit in the last few decades is that the
>> percentage of transit users stay about the same no matter how much money
>> is spent on transit. Transit funding tends to just move the same people
>> around more available options.
>
> At least in recent history, it appears that it is expected that the
> percentage of transit users decreases. That doesn't mean the total numbers
> of transit users isn't increasing.
>
> Either way, we're talking about New York City here. It's kind of silly to
> compare it to some third-rate city that maybe has, at best, a disjointed
> right-of-way or two. First of all, the current plan for the Second Avenue
> Subway is necessary more to relieve the overburdened Lex Line, not so much
> to induce additional ridership. (The Lex Line has apparently been the
> victim of even dangerous overcrowding.)
>
> The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
> expected in New York by 2025,
Whose forecast is that?
>it's probably a safe bet that more capacity is going to be needed. Granted,
>that capacity is apparently not being provided in high-growth areas, like
>Queens and Staten Island.
>
> But either way, NYC's subway system allows for extensive travel around the
> city. Few cities in North America can say that, and even in the cases of
> places like Washington, transit often supplements rather than replaces
> private automobiles.
As described above, that is largely irrelevant to the congestion problem in
the city.
Bolwerk
I don't really see the point either way. But the question is how much
passenger traffic is destined for those locations, and where.
Sancho Panza
The point either way is what are you defining? If you say limit passenger
vehicles in Brooklyn and Queens, you're going to be disenfranchising a lot
of people who live there (a majority of the city), along with sizable Long
Island contingents. See the recent reference to how New York State officials
slobber all over themselves to cater to Long Island voters.
> But the question is how much passenger traffic is destined for those
> locations, and where.
Yes, and anyone who proposes schemes like this should have the studies well
in hand.
Justa Lurker
>
> stop pulling facts out of your ass
> already!
>
>
Yes, that's Marc's ..... whoops, I meant jdoe's job.
Bolwerk
I was talking about the article at hand, which is about de-congesting
Manhattan. I agree that it would have an effect on a certain number or
people in other boroughs, but I wasn't talking about applying the
proposal city-wide.
>> But the question is how much passenger traffic is destined for those
>> locations, and where.
>
> Yes, and anyone who proposes schemes like this should have the studies well
> in hand.
Then pull them out. You brought that up, not me. I'm operating under the
assumption that the plan laid out in the start of this thread would
discourage a certain degree of traffic at the GWB (and tunnels). If you
can't go to Midtown by car, why use the bridge in the first place if
that's what you use it for? Clearly many do. Freight on the other hand
is pretty much stuck coming in no matter what. That's a need that can't
be filled by any other form of transportation, or any other port of
entry that I can see.
On the whole, the idea may even help LI in another way: the exit ramp to
the Harlem River Drive on the way to/from the Cross Bronx wouldn't be so
clogged, making through service faster, not slower.
Bolwerk
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:34:02 GMT, Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
>> expected in New York by 2025,
>
> population growth in more than 50 years, yet you think NYC is going to
> add 1 million people by 2025? stop pulling facts out of your ass
> already!
I have yet to see a single person pull a fact from his ass more often
than you. Maybe Conklin. But even he has intelligent things to say at
least a portion of the time.
Stop being a dick. It was all over the news a few weeks ago. Politely
ask me for a reference, or Google it yourself, troll.
Bolwerk
> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eHoeg.1094$VL2.85@trnddc06...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Otto Yamamoto" <he...@kitty.jp> wrote in message
>>> news:Mljeg.3$T%1...@fe10.lga...
>>>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>>>>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>>>>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
>>> You have any proof of that since experts can't seem to find the mythical
>>> induced driving beast except possibly over several decades in the
>>> suburbs.
>> It certainly does appear that increasing supply of roadways induces
>> demand, which makes sense. Conversely, reducing supply reduces the number
>> of drivers on the right of way.
>
> What you're failing to address is that despite New York City's record for
> transit use, traffic jams up on roads like the Cross Bronx and the Staten
> Island Expressway because those are not basically local-service arteries,
> but rather through routes. And thanks to gross ineptitude on the part of
> entities like the Port Authority, it is far more than likely that no aspect
> of that problem will be addressed. Witness the idiocy of the Newark and
> Kennedy monorails.
I don't entirely disagree. But the same problem that we have with
development is even more apparent with roads. Where do you plan to put
additional capacity? I guess you can cut off some exits to improve
through traffic, but space to just add thruways is limited as hell. And
that doesn't even address aesthetics and quality of life --- putting
highways through neighborhoods is even more shitty looking and causes
more pollution than putting an el through them. We clearly have a good
transit system and can build on that.
And while arteries *are* congested, whether they're local or not, so are
streets and avenues. That's an even more pressing problem, though a
related one.
What idiocy are you referring to?
>> As you like to point out, people make what they regard to be rational
>> decisions. If a roadway is crowded, those who can will find another route
>> or make their trip at a time when it isn't crowded.
>>
>> There's nothing terribly shocking about that. I do it myself both when
>> driving (which is very rare for me) and traveling by subway.
>>
>>> The record of building transit in the last few decades is that the
>>> percentage of transit users stay about the same no matter how much money
>>> is spent on transit. Transit funding tends to just move the same people
>>> around more available options.
>> At least in recent history, it appears that it is expected that the
>> percentage of transit users decreases. That doesn't mean the total numbers
>> of transit users isn't increasing.
>>
>> Either way, we're talking about New York City here. It's kind of silly to
>> compare it to some third-rate city that maybe has, at best, a disjointed
>> right-of-way or two. First of all, the current plan for the Second Avenue
>> Subway is necessary more to relieve the overburdened Lex Line, not so much
>> to induce additional ridership. (The Lex Line has apparently been the
>> victim of even dangerous overcrowding.)
>>
>> The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
>> expected in New York by 2025,
>
> Whose forecast is that?
City Department of Planning.
>> it's probably a safe bet that more capacity is going to be needed. Granted,
>> that capacity is apparently not being provided in high-growth areas, like
>> Queens and Staten Island.
>>
>> But either way, NYC's subway system allows for extensive travel around the
>> city. Few cities in North America can say that, and even in the cases of
>> places like Washington, transit often supplements rather than replaces
>> private automobiles.
>
> As described above, that is largely irrelevant to the congestion problem in
> the city.
Yes, that's largely true. There are places service can be extended to
that might take some vehicles off streets and arteries, such as high
growth parts of Queens and Staten Island, but these are indeed less
dense and less suited for transit.
But Jack May seems to think NYC Transit just runs empty trains all the
time or serves no useful purpose or something, which I think anybody
with a pair of eyeballs can see is not true.
danny burstein
[ misc snippage ]
>>>>>> It's tolled, but I-95 already crosses NYC. It apparently doesn't have
>>>>>> enough capacity as is, and adding more would probably just induce more
>>>>>> drivers (not to mention take funds away from much-needed transit).
>I don't entirely disagree. But the same problem that we have with
>development is even more apparent with roads. Where do you plan to put
>additional capacity? I guess you can cut off some exits to improve
>through traffic, but space to just add thruways is limited as hell. And
>that might take some vehicles off streets and arteries, such as high
>growth parts of Queens and Staten Island, but these are indeed less
>dense and less suited for transit.
If we ever got the rail tunnel in place, a modest percentage
of the trucks now going through Manhattan and Bronx/Bklyn
and the various bridges... could be replaced.
that all being said, this discussion reminds me of something
I came across vis-a-vis the PANYNJ a decade ago.
I was coming up interstate 81 in Pa., and at the turnoff
to I-80 (to come to NYC) there was a sign
for New England that pointed further northward.
I got ahold of a PA rep asking if they knew about
it, figuring that maybe they'd want the toll money
coming to the GWB.
He said they knew about the northward diversion, and
they did _not_ want any mroe traffic on the GWB, since
it was overloaded from, more or less, 4 am straight
through to 2 am...
(He added that they were eagerly waiting for the
improvements to 287/87/Tappan Zee to siphon off
more traffic - or at least keep things stable...
[ remember this was a decade ago] )
GK
Late at night when both roads are clear, much of the traffic heads for
the streets leading to the 59'er.
GK
Sancho Panza
The abject failure to use already existing infrastructure for one-seat, or
at least smoother, connections like the PATH lines on the Newark side and
the LIRR or A train on the Kennedy side.
>>> The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
>>> expected in New York by 2025,
>>
>> Whose forecast is that?
>
> City Department of Planning.
Would you have the name of the study that appeared in?
> But Jack May seems to think NYC Transit just runs empty trains all the
> time or serves no useful purpose or something, which I think anybody with
> a pair of eyeballs can see is not true.
I haven't really seen him saying that, but if I do, I'll be ready to give
him the correct advice.
J.R.Guthrie
to come by.
Some of the deatiled bus/subway figures in NY are combined for various
political reasons, for example.
In some places -- this manifests itself in strange ways, like five bus
routes each lose 100,000 passengers over a five year period, but the transit
agency has opened a light rail lineon another route that's gained 100,000
and there's the [false] conclusin that transit usage is "stable" and that
the construction of the light rail line did not increase transit usage.
One sees this in some of the Wendell Cox testimony but it's difficult to
refute because it's not often politically expedient for a transit agency to
break out such figures.
What would happen in NY if people **really** knew the farebox recovery of
the subway vs, say commuter rail, and thus discovered how straphangers are
short-changed? The answer is to throw in the dismal NY Bus figures and then
claim that everyone is getting their "fair share."
Even better -- the farebox recovery of SIR and the Staten Island Express
Buses and ferry (not to mention the Brooklyn X Buses which often run empty
or nearly so, especially on weekends). If the SI (and Bay Ridge and
Bensonhurst people) weren't always voting for politicians who simply oppose
public transit (and rail inparticular), I wouldn't begrudge it. But it is
beyond ridiculous.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
Sancho Panza
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
>>> expected in New York by 2025,
>>
>> Whose forecast is that?
>
> City Department of Planning.
Thanks to your help, I found some coverage on that [NY Times 2/19]:
"With higher birth rates among Hispanic and Asian New Yorkers, immigrants
continuing to gravitate to New York City and a housing boom transforming all
five boroughs, the city is struggling to cope with a phenomenon that few
other cities in the Northeast or Midwest now face: a growing population. It
is expected to pass nine million by 2020." . . .
"City officials rarely engage in long-range planning, particularly for
growth. A short-lived proposal for ''planned shrinkage'' was advanced in the
mid-1970's, sandwiched between a comprehensive statement of urban challenges
and potential solutions in 1969 and a candid but still largely optimistic
assessment in 1987. ''This will be different,'' Mr. Doctoroff said. ''Much
more practical.''
New York has been the most populous American city since the first census in
1790. Almost steadily since the 1940's, more people have been leaving the
city for other parts of the country than have arrived here from other areas
of the nation. Growth in the 1980's and especially the 1990's has been
largely driven by immigration. Foreigners are expected to account for much
of the growth in the next two decades, growth that, according to the
forecasts, would keep New York in first place among the nation's cities and
maintain the New York metropolitan region either as the largest or, at
least, tied with Los Angeles. . . .
The Urbanomics projections say that among non-Hispanic whites, births will
again outnumber deaths beginning after 2010 and that their net migration
from the city will peak by 2015 and that the number of black residents will
begin to decline in 2015. They also say that after 2010 more Hispanic people
will be leaving New York than arriving but that their birthrates will remain
high, and that the number from Asia will continue to increase. After 2025,
the population is projected to then expand more slowly, to nearly 9.5
million in 2030, for a 16 percent increase since 2005.
Compared to the last five years, according to the projections, between 2025
and 2030 among Asians the total of births over deaths will more than double,
and the net migration -- people arriving versus leaving -- will more than
triple.
Population projections are notoriously subject to and variables -- no one
can predict the impact of terrorism, a possible resurgence in crime, medical
advances or epidemics, the global economy or the effects of technological
changes on jobs.
Historically, those predictions tend to have overestimated growth, inspired,
in part, by the optimism of the moment or to justify the ambitious agendas
of developers and utility executives.
''The overall driving concept is that a favorable employment situation in
the New York region will attract an increase in population,'' said Prof.
Joel E. Cohen, who heads the Laboratory of Populations at the Rockefeller
University.
''I am not saying these projections are better or worse than lots of local
area projections. They just should be taken with large grains of salt.
Historical analyses of how projections made in the past have done when the
future came around have shown much larger errors than anticipated by the
people who made the projections.''
The latest official census figures actually showed a slight decline in New
York State's population. But, on the basis of housing construction, the city
has successfully challenged recent estimates, and the Census Bureau has
accepted the city's figure of 8,168,338 as of 2004. New census estimates are
due out next month.
While some demographers question how long growth will continue, state and
city officials say they generally agree with the overall projections.
''We're in the same ballpark,'' said Joseph J. Salvo, director of the
Department of City Planning's population division.
Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, said that with
nearby suburbs nearly saturated, the city was no longer at as much of a
competitive disadvantage. Still, he said, ''New York's got to find a place
to put another 1.2 to 1.5 million New Yorkers,'' adding, ''One way to keep
these forecasts from happening is to make it prohibitively expensive to live
and work here.''
----------------
A couple of points:
It will be most interesting to see the methodology employed. Witness the
caveat about notoriously wild demographic estimates--not to speak of 15- and
20-year trends.
Another curious note is Bob Yaro's statement that the suburbs are all
filled up. As some of us have long said, maybe the city will continue to
benefit from its prosperous suburbs.
Bolwerk
> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n8veg.9967$U_2.5195@trnddc05...
>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>>>> The bulk of New Yorkers use the subway. With another million people
>>>> expected in New York by 2025,
>>> Whose forecast is that?
>> City Department of Planning.
>
> Thanks to your help, I found some coverage on that [NY Times 2/19]:
I'm supposed to do everyone's Googling for them? It's really no fun to
help people out when people like jdoe just lob insults at me for making
what's apparently a pretty easy-to-demonstrate point, caveats about any
projections aside.
> "With higher birth rates among Hispanic and Asian New Yorkers, immigrants
> continuing to gravitate to New York City and a housing boom transforming all
> five boroughs, the city is struggling to cope with a phenomenon that few
> other cities in the Northeast or Midwest now face: a growing population. It
> is expected to pass nine million by 2020." . . .
>
> <rest of article snipped>
Yeah, I remember that. But I saw something more interesting somewhere.
It went into extended detail about blacks actually leaving the city
faster than they migrate in or reproduce.
> ----------------
>
> A couple of points:
>
> It will be most interesting to see the methodology employed. Witness the
> caveat about notoriously wild demographic estimates--not to speak of 15- and
> 20-year trends.
That's quite true. 1990s census projections were not very reliable at
all, but we still use them a lot.
Either way, they also often tend to underestimate (perhaps because of
poor base calculations?).
On the other hand, we don't have much else to go on a lot of the time.
> Another curious note is Bob Yaro's statement that the suburbs are all
> filled up. As some of us have long said, maybe the city will continue to
> benefit from its prosperous suburbs.
And vice-versa.
Bolwerk
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:10:36 -0400, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:34:02 GMT, Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> expected in New York by 2025,
>> population growth in more than 50 years, yet you think NYC is going to
>> add 1 million people by 2025? stop pulling facts out of your ass
>> already!
>
> census -- 7.38 million. 2000 census, 8.08, and subsequent revisions
> put the city's population at 8.1 million. Are you telling me that's
> not significant?
Not that jdoe isn't being doe-headed again, but he's probably partly
right on this one. I think a lot of that increase was more due to 1990
census undercounting.
But 300,000 doesn't exactly seem insignificant, assuming the increase is
only less than half correct.
Either way, he doesn't need to be himself (a dick) about it. If he wants
a URL about the projection (which was from the City Department of
Planning), he can just ask instead of throwing a fit about how I'm
pulling numbers out of my sphincter. The projection may be wrong, but I
doubt he has anything better to go on.
> Do they even teach math in NJ?
Bolwerk
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:04:37 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:10:36 -0400, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:34:02 GMT, Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> expected in New York by 2025,
>>> population growth in more than 50 years, yet you think NYC is going to
>>> add 1 million people by 2025? stop pulling facts out of your ass
>>> already!
>> Marc, I know you're not much for figures, so let me help you out. 1990
>> census -- 7.38 million. 2000 census, 8.08, and subsequent revisions
>> put the city's population at 8.1 million. Are you telling me that's
>> not significant?
>>
> growth rate of 50 or so against the surrounding counties and then
> you'll grasp the big picture, the point was that projecting any huge
> increases in NYC's population can't be supported by historical trends
I don't think historical trends are in question. It's pretty
well-established why the city population shrank from the 1950s to 1980s.
Those reasons were largely economic, and have been largely addressed. A
million and a half people in 25 years, which was the actual estimate, is
steady but not exactly spectacular growth when you consider that other
regions around the country are going to be growing much faster.
Given the past few years, I sort of suspect you're right about the
projection being overblown --- it's a projection, not written in stone.
On the other hand, what else do we have to go on?
Growth seems to have been averaging in at less than 40 thousand/year up
to 2005. The assumption being made right now is that the city will
average growth of about 60,000 (from 2005 on) people per year through
the year 2025, bringing the population to around 9.4 million. The
statistics, interestingly, take into account what might be called "black
flight," where the black population of NYC begins to decline for the
first time since the 1860s as they move to the now less-discriminatory
south for jobs and lower costs of living.
Growth is expected amongst Hispanics and Asians, who have relatively
high birth rates. If you're familiar with East Asian urban demographics,
you can see why Asians might be a bit more accepting of New York living
conditions than other groups. Asians often live in cramped living
quarters smaller and more costly than NY apartments, so they may not be
seduced by suburban personal lebensraum as much as other people.