(Close Window)
Topic: Congestion pricing
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 26, 2019 08:10PM)
NYC is introducing congestion pricing in 2021 for cars to enter parts of Manhattan at certain peak hours. Some "expert' on the radio was saying that congestion pricing has been shown to be the only thing that relieves traffic woes in big cities like NYC, London and Singapore. I'm not convinced at all that that is the only effective alternative. What do you think?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 26, 2019 08:47PM)
I think poor people should sell their cars.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 26, 2019 10:48PM)
I think that we should adopt Will Rogers' solution: that no car be allowed on the highway until it's paid fer.
Message: Posted by: arthur stead (May 26, 2019 11:44PM)
I lived in NYC for almost 30 years. Never needed a car, because subway, bus and taxi service was so efficient. Whenever I needed to leave town, I just rented a car.
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (May 27, 2019 08:03AM)
I'm with you Arthur. I lived in New York from the early 60's (birth) to 1987. Most of the time I walked where I needed to go. New York is not a city that needs all of its cars. Paying insurance and for parking in NYC is not fun either.
Message: Posted by: gallagher (May 27, 2019 10:05AM)
Uber's share prices just went up...

I think things COULD work,
if the city now says:
"With the money raised, with Congestion Tax;
we will be lowering Public Transpotation costs
and increasing services."

On a side note: Berlin (Germany) is considering making the Public Transportation,....Free.

There are studys that show,
1.) Automoble use, in the city decreases.
2.) Public safty rises.
3.) Polution goes down.
4.) Large space is freed up.
AND,..
4.) Commerce in the city INCREASES(!).

Gallagher

p.s.: How many here, would be willing to give up their car?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2019 11:12AM)
Two things at play here. Does one "need" a car and does one want a car. If the city does this what happens with the money?

Certainly they can do what they wish but aren't people already taxed pretty high there? Aren't people already leaving the city? Is more cost a way to stop that?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 27, 2019 01:13PM)
Most people with cars in NYC don't drive across town to go to a movie or to pick up groceries. Parking is not that easy.
The double parked cars are usually not residential either given the costs of tickets and towed cars.
The traffic is commercial deliveries ( people, goods ) in cars ( limousines, busses, taxis) and trucks rather than residential.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 27, 2019 03:13PM)
[quote]On May 26, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
I think that we should adopt Will Rogers' solution: that no car be allowed on the highway until it's paid fer. [/quote]

Until the car is paid for or the highway is paid for?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2019 05:48PM)
It is all part and parcel of the globalist agenda 21. One can see the same going on everywhere: “Congestion - the daily slog to get anywhere. And the constant restrictions that are faced, the changes in the road network. “Taxation is a real issue. Not only do you have to pay heavily to get your car on the road in the first place, but you also have to pay an awful lot to maintain it.” “On top of that speed camera fines, yellow box junction fines. They are all extra. All these things combined make driving frustrating, inconvenient and expensive.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1096689/UK-road-fines-speed-camera-charging-new-British-drivers-Congestion-Charge-Zone-London

The money, the tax, goes to government stationed monopolies, contractors.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 27, 2019 09:06PM)
? paid for - public and private debts. NYC is [i]not[/i] your average city. It has above ground and underground mass transit. It's the additional inefficiencies caused by traffic bottlenecks, poor road conditions and selective enforcement of existing laws that drive costs for most drivers. Adding tolls into midtown or peak pricing on Ubers is missing the discussion about mass transit (and its costs).
It amuses some to "play devil's advocate". Here's a more modern version: agent of entropy. That's not chaos but rather causing the loss in the name of the a greater good.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-review

If you recall the TV commercial asking "What do you tell your children about drugs?" ... when a fair amount of our advertising offers vague discussion about drugs followed by some sort of droning about side effects.

Disclaimer: Thinking about social context may cause possible side effects including reasoning and emotional responses to matters of policy. If emotional responses continue for more than four seconds after reading a post please seek distraction. ;)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (May 27, 2019 11:17PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 26, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
I think that we should adopt Will Rogers' solution: that no car be allowed on the highway until it's paid fer.[/quote]
Until the car is paid for or the highway is paid for?[/quote]
I believe that he actually said the road, and I'm sure that he meant the car.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 28, 2019 07:06AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
? paid for - public and private debts. NYC is [i]not[/i] your average city. It has above ground and underground mass transit. It's the additional inefficiencies caused by traffic bottlenecks, poor road conditions and selective enforcement of existing laws that drive costs for most drivers. Adding tolls into midtown or peak pricing on Ubers is missing the discussion about mass transit (and its costs).
[...]

Disclaimer: Thinking about social context may cause possible side effects including reasoning and emotional responses to matters of policy. If emotional responses continue for more than four seconds after reading a post please seek distraction. ;) [/quote]

Exactly, Jon, those who are travelling by car in midtown Manhattan at this point are already doing so pretty much as necessity. Those who can use alternate means of getting around have been doing so for a long time: subways, buses, bicycles, skateboards, walking. Raising the price isn't going to lower the number of people who pay for it, anymore than raising the price of a utility is going to stop people from paying for electricity. We are outside the framework of elastic supply and demand here. What it *will* engender is much resentment, b*tching, exceptions for the politically connected, and so on, but ultimately compliance and the increase (if at all possible) of the feeling "you can't fight City Hall."

And what possible enforcement and collection procedures could possibly take less time than the imagined traffic speed increase? All it will do is re-route traffic onto other streets which will have other unintended consequences in the whole gridlock ecosystem.

As to Danny's point about where the money is to go: supposedly some of it is supposed to be used to upgrade the subway system which has been massively underfunded by federal and state revenues over the last thirty years. But I strongly doubt that the money will be legally earmarked that way--more likely it will go into the general city/state coffers, then stolen by real estate interests in the latest round of tax breaks "to spur development." [/rant off]
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 28, 2019 07:18AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2019, gallagher wrote:

On a side note: Berlin (Germany) is considering making the Public Transportation,....Free.

There are studys that show,
1.) Automoble use, in the city decreases.
2.) Public safty rises.
3.) Polution goes down.
4.) Large space is freed up.
AND,..
4.) Commerce in the city INCREASES(!).

Gallagher

[/quote]

We already have a successful example of such a policy here in NYC: for many years the Staten Island Ferry, a twenty minute ride across the river, has been free. Obviously, it costs money to the city to run the service, but the amount spent is returned in many of the ways you've outlined above.

It might be a little churlish of me to point out that Staten Island, being one of the wealthier and far more conservative on average boroughs of NYC, is politically protected from charges of "socialism" when the benefits accrue to [i]its[/i] residents...
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 28, 2019 11:49AM)
Engineered Congestion


https://nypost.com/2016/12/02/new-york-citys-traffic-is-intentionally-horrible/
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 28, 2019 02:18PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2019, tommy wrote:
Engineered Congestion


https://nypost.com/2016/12/02/new-york-citys-traffic-is-intentionally-horrible/ [/quote]

Kind of a silly article without the proper context: The NYPD and the mayor despise each other, and such is the rhetoric during election or contract bargaining times. Or when they feel like it.

The car traffic in Midtown is far too important economically for this mayor or the one preceding him to want to do away with it.

As a former NYC cab driver for 3 years, my opinion is that the worst part of traffic is aggravated most by constant construction closures, double and triple-parked delivery trucks, and traffic agents who upset the carefully timed traffic lights with their interventions.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 28, 2019 07:49PM)
Are you familiar with the proletariat masses having no cars during your years of living under a communist regime, where one stayed close to home, within a 40-mile radius by bus or train, or as far as one could bike, or ones feet could carry one, but where the ruling elite had chauffeurs, elegant cars, and planes at their disposal?

https://americanpolicy.org/2017/05/26/agenda-212030-foreshadows-convention-of-states/
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 28, 2019 10:04PM)
If you're going to reference a policy and discuss its implementation it helps to introduce the policy: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
Kindly read the linked item with a cynical and privileged perspective seeking opportunity to transform a free market into a command economy wherever consent can permit.

Anyway, that's still not relevant to the midtown NYC problems involving (as other Newyorkers have mentioned) double and triple parked cars, traffic stops due to U. N. sessions or politician visits, light timing, right turn on red prohibitions, bus lanes, added bicycle paths and ... some marginal increases in traffic due to additional vehicles acting as taxis via Uber or Lyft.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 28, 2019 10:45PM)
[quote]a communist regime...where the ruling elite had chauffeurs, elegant cars, and planes at their disposal?
[/quote]

Unlike the ruling elite in capitalist countries I guess where all the billionaires can only make do with being transported on the shoulders of Nubian slaves.

Seriously--New Yorkers just famously turned down a new Amazon headquarters here; the final straw? Bezos wanted a [i]private helicopter pad for himself [/i] in the middle of Queens as part of the heavily taxpayer-subsidized deal.

But I know-- all that free enterprise is for our own good.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 28, 2019 11:54PM)
What capitalist countries and free enterprise do imagine exist in the 21st century of change post-consumer world?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 29, 2019 12:32AM)
[quote]On May 28, 2019, tommy wrote:
... post-consumer world? [/quote] Still be consumers - just not in a free market. Funny how some folks talk about liberty, rights and transparency while adopting language and practices of places which come up with phrases such as "homeland security", "deep state" and "political correctness". The obvious syllogism would also be called an "unwise association" ;)

EZ-Pass or privilege check? Take your pick of euphemisms.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 29, 2019 06:47PM)
Millennials are sustainers as opposed to consumers. The Green party will soon be coming to a town near you. Little green men - have you seen one?
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (May 31, 2019 04:22PM)
In the near-future fleets of autonomous-vehicles will cluster and create gridlock to save fuel and evade parking fees.
Sending your Tesla around the block while you dine is the frugal option.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 31, 2019 06:09PM)
As soon as we get past the moral and legal dilemmas involved with the self driving cars you are not too far from right.

Tesla has some INCREDIBLE tech right now that is the wave of the future. Those cars in every way are incredible and just cool. But the moral dilemma of telling the car who to kill or the legal dilemma of who gets sued when something goes wrong are sticky wickets that need to get dealt with.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 31, 2019 06:49PM)
Will SiriTaxis be programmed to yield to all cars at an intersection except for AlexaTaxis?
Message: Posted by: gallagher (Jun 1, 2019 01:43AM)
Will folks, 'in the near future', even travel so much(!), as today?
With internet shopping, film, music,...3D sports,..'safety',..
I think about the 'time', involved with travel(!..!).

I believe 'time',..minutes, hours, days;
will become the 'miles', of the future.

'Instant Gratification'.
"Going",..will be GONE!

,,...i admitt,
it's early in the morning. 🙃
gallagher
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Jun 1, 2019 01:17PM)
Just wait, it may be 100 years or more from now, but sooner or later the robots will decide they are better off without humans. Cue James Cameron.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 1, 2019 05:27PM)
There will always be miles..there isn't enough labor at-home to function a society.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 2, 2019 03:10AM)
We already have expressions like "worth the time to" in common use. A fair amount of personal economics runs on attention and brand identification. That's what advertisers buy on TV. Same for clickbait online. That's also why we react to finding Dunkin Donuts, Baskin Robins and Taco Bell all under one roof in the mall. Coke or Pepsi?

We could also include indoctrination and get an even higher percentage of personal spending driven by brand lifestyle demands. Family Guy made the joke about wearing black jeans to a Rush concert. White socks with sneakers (athletic shoes) and ... that takes time to learn and resources to trade for the costumes and props.

@Salk, "affordable" labor?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 2, 2019 07:17AM)
In the sixties, we were indoctrinated into thinking nothing is real but the good news was it stopped us complaining about having nothing.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 2, 2019 10:56PM)
? We learned that about sixty years earlier it was discovered (in plain English):
1) Atoms have parts. They can be broken, sometimes split into other elements and sometimes combined into other elements.
2) There is no way to know if a set of rules is both complete and correct.
3) There is no way to know everything about any thing at the same time.
So we're not going to generate any absolute knowledge, completely know everything there is to know, or have a language with which to perfectly communicate such knowledge.
Plato vs Gorgias again - looks like what we'd wish were true and would be useful if true remains something we impute or project by means of "faith" onto our models of the world.

The appeal of mysticism in the face of such knowledge is obvious. You can see why folks prefer fiction to practical engineering. Enjoy that epiphany while you're exploring the aporia. :)

This generation seems to be wallowing in "cycle of abuse" and "institutional violence".
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 2, 2019 11:10PM)
[quote]On May 31, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Tesla has some INCREDIBLE tech right now that is the wave of the future. Those cars in every way are incredible and just cool. But the moral dilemma of telling the car who to kill or the legal dilemma of who gets sued when something goes wrong are sticky wickets that need to get dealt with. [/quote]

There are truly horrible risks with letting machines drive cars. Two of the obvious problems are misinformed maps and decisions made "in your best interest". The latter is pretty much the premise of the show "Doctor Who" where the blue box takes the main character to where he needs to be rather than simply where or when he directs.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 3, 2019 03:01AM)
Cough up some dough: bread and honey, money bunny.
Message: Posted by: gallagher (Jun 3, 2019 04:50AM)
Probably,..DEFINATELY(!) un-related..
,but,
Jonathan, you've never been better! 👍
(Translating Jonathan, to your seven year old german grand-child,...🤔
,..,what a fight!)

I just listened to the Joshua/Ruiz fight,.on the radio(!),
couldn't believe what my ears saw(!..!),
...then I read this Thread.
What a pleasure(!).

Who needs the wine,
on days like today!

Smiles,
Gallagher
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 3, 2019 08:37AM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2019, tommy wrote:
Cough up some dough: bread and honey, money bunny. [/quote]

Is that a line from Baltimore Blues? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/ransomware-attacks-hackers-cities-baltimore
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 3, 2019 12:11PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
There are truly horrible risks with letting machines drive cars. Two of the obvious problems are misinformed maps and decisions made "in your best interest". The latter is pretty much the premise of the show "Doctor Who" where the blue box takes the main character to where he needs to be rather than simply where or when he directs. [/quote]

Every commuter knows a significant percentage of cars are driven by distracted-drivers glancing at their phones.
Add the march towards legalization of marijuana in multiple states, and I'll bet on the safety of fleets of robots any day.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 3, 2019 12:57PM)
Surprisingly:

"In the first year after a medical marijuana law comes into effect, traffic fatalities decrease between 8 percent and 11 percent, according to research published in 2013 in The Journal of Law & Economics: “The impact of legalization on traffic fatalities involving alcohol is larger and estimated with more precision than its impact on traffic fatalities that do not involve alcohol. Legalization is also associated with sharp decreases in the price of marijuana and alcohol consumption, which suggests that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.”

In their Journal of Policy Analysis and Management paper, Anderson and Rees describe the relative dangers of driving while intoxicated or stoned: “While driving under the influence of marijuana is associated with a twofold increase in the risk of being involved in a collision, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or greater is associated with a 4- to 27-fold increase in this same risk.” The active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), impairs driving ability, but users tend to overcompensate and drive slower, whereas alcohol consumers tend to drive faster and take more risks, they write.

Huber and his colleagues at Colby College also chart a fall in DUIs in states with MML laws."

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/drug-policy/marijuana-legalization-crime-driving-research/
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 3, 2019 01:20PM)
[youtube]-Ag61WDlPJU[/youtube]

I know in some countries you are not allowed to drive 1 day of the week depending upon the last number of your license plate.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 3, 2019 04:53PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2019, landmark wrote:
Surprisingly:

"In the first year after a medical marijuana law comes into effect, traffic fatalities decrease between 8 percent and 11 percent, according to research published in 2013 in The Journal of Law & Economics: “The impact of legalization on traffic fatalities involving alcohol is larger and estimated with more precision than its impact on traffic fatalities that do not involve alcohol. Legalization is also associated with sharp decreases in the price of marijuana and alcohol consumption, which suggests that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.”

In their Journal of Policy Analysis and Management paper, Anderson and Rees describe the relative dangers of driving while intoxicated or stoned: “While driving under the influence of marijuana is associated with a twofold increase in the risk of being involved in a collision, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or greater is associated with a 4- to 27-fold increase in this same risk.” The active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), impairs driving ability, but users tend to overcompensate and drive slower, whereas alcohol consumers tend to drive faster and take more risks, they write. [/quote]

So...stoners get in more accidents but fewer of them are fatal because they are driving so *** slow.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 3, 2019 05:26PM)
So they get pulled over for driving too slowly... okay. Obviously lower social costs on an accident basis but its still driving while ability impaired.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 3, 2019 05:57PM)
Actually I did a bit of Google.... Fatalities involving Mary Jane in Colorado have doubled since legalization. Seems obvious, despite some "first-year" nonsense.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 3, 2019 08:08PM)
The question is not whether car fatalities involving mj have increased, but whether total car fatalities have increased since mj has been legalized.

The statistics I posted suggested that total car fatalities decreased. I was surprised as anyone until I read the reason. The key is that mj-impaired drivers are *replacing* alcohol-impaired drivers. Although mj drivers are NOT safer than regular drivers, and mj-impaired car fatalities HAVE gone up, they are still *safer than alcohol-impaired drivers.* As long as it is true that mj users are replacing alcohol users, that decrease will hold.

And just for the record, I think drivers who drive while impaired from alcohol or mj should get the book thrown at them.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 4, 2019 02:54AM)
For the record: I am an alcohol abuser, but not a cannabis abuser. But I don't drive a car. When I do, I am totally sober, always.

What was the question?
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 4, 2019 11:16AM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2019, landmark wrote:
The question is not whether car fatalities involving mj have increased, but whether total car fatalities have increased since mj has been legalized.

The statistics I posted suggested that total car fatalities decreased. I was surprised as anyone until I read the reason. The key is that mj-impaired drivers are *replacing* alcohol-impaired drivers. Although mj drivers are NOT safer than regular drivers, and mj-impaired car fatalities HAVE gone up, they are still *safer than alcohol-impaired drivers.* As long as it is true that mj users are replacing alcohol users, that decrease will hold.

And just for the record, I think drivers who drive while impaired from alcohol or mj should get the book thrown at them. [/quote]

One beer or one joint is less intoxicating than six beers. I get it.

There is no replacement. Everyone who has ever partaken or knows a stoner understands that. Legalization just multiplies impairment.

In our culture, alcohol is regularly served and consumed off-site (not home) and requires inebriated transport.
MJ is a home-bound inebriant.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 4, 2019 09:08PM)
? *replacing* in the sense of ranked percentage drivers discovered impaired by some substance. The "designated driver" idea looks useful. Alcohol has a strange effect of reducing self awareness and so increasing risk of driving while impaired.

But does it really matter whether the other driver is impaired by fatigue, meth, meowmeow, marijuana or an argument they had before getting into their car?

We could also and more directly address reckless driving as a problem and discuss immediate causes (substances etc) as part of punishment considerations.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 4, 2019 09:20PM)
[quote]But does it really matter whether the other driver is impaired by fatigue, meth, meowmeow, marijuana or an argument they had before getting into their car? [/quote]

In terms of total fatalities, sure. They are all hazards, but some of those drivers are going to have a higher probability of causing or being involved in an accident than some of the others. Cellphone usage, too.

Again, not in ANY way condoning mj use when driving; just pointing out that the argument that legalizing mj will increase car fatalities is probably not true. If one is going to argue against the legalization of mj in general, then one will have to rely on different arguments.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 4, 2019 10:46PM)
[quote]On Jun 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]But does it really matter whether the other driver is impaired by fatigue, meth, meowmeow, marijuana or an argument they had before getting into their car? [/quote]

In terms of total fatalities, sure. ... [/quote]I disagree. From the perspective of anyone outside the car it's just bad driving.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 4, 2019 11:07PM)
From the outside perspective, there's bad driving, and then there's a car heading straight towards you the wrong way at 100mph...

Ethically, though, it's all the same if you know you're impaired and get behind that wheel.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 5, 2019 05:46AM)
Who is not impaired? Being impaired mentally is like living in a state of illusion. An illusion is a distortion of reality as opposed to a complete lie. Illusions can be created by distance: Stand one end of a long table and the far end looks smaller than it is. The principle can be applied in more ways than one. The more intoxicated one gets the further away from reality one gets and the more things are not what they appear to be. News from faraway places is less real than local news and so on. Driving kills in more ways than one. Fumes from car exhausts can affect the mind and even kill you. One can be on medication, smoke cigars, be 109 years old and pass a driving test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXyfCGDnuWs
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 5, 2019 07:17AM)
The Overton windshield?

Considering it's Texas, he's probably the safest driver on the road. :)
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 7, 2019 02:20PM)
[quote]On Jun 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
Again, not in ANY way condoning mj use when driving; just pointing out that the argument that legalizing mj will increase car fatalities is probably not true. If one is going to argue against the legalization of mj in general, then one will have to rely on different arguments. [/quote]

I'm not arguing against MJ use. But legalization increases usage and impairment sure as hell kills folks.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 7, 2019 03:18PM)
If this were a discussion of Alcohol2 (so we'd be comparing coke and pepsi) I'd agree with your argument and conclusion. As things stand the argument from the other side is that MJ users are less likely to drive while under the influence .and. if they drive are less likely take risks due to inhibition- say driving slower rather than faster and taking longer to decide to cross an intersection. To save us some fuss in this dialogue, we already have a consensus about not combining alcohol and other medications.

I hold that less positive reinforcement of reckless driving (in videogames games, movies...) and more display of alternative approaches to getting around while impaired (movies, tv shows) would do more for safety than fretting over whatever substances may or may not be legal or decriminalized or abused.

BTW did folks notice the TV commercial displaying "Onstar: slow down" ??
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 13, 2019 07:55AM)
On the economics: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/why-are-we-still-pretending-trickle-down-economics-work