Are there any measures that show any downside to this? I confess a bit of bewilderment at how many people will assert there must be something bad every time this comes up. I don't think a single measured outcome has gone poorly from this.
It reminds me of what happens nearly every time car parking on a busy retail street is removed for bike lanes/bus lanes/better walking.
Business owners universally oppose the change and predict catastrophe, the change goes through, and business/foot traffic goes way up instead.
It seems that business owners' ability to "know their customers" is rather limited; that, or they're just biased by their own need for car/delivery parking.
> It seems that business owners' ability to "know their customers" is rather limited; that, or they're just biased by their own need for car/delivery parking.
I think the latter is often the case. In many case, I don’t even think it’s conscious: many business owners, especially people who started / inherited successful small businesses in city neighborhoods, moved out to the suburbs for bigger houses/schools/etc. and are thus completely car dependent. It’s very human to assume other people live similarly to you in the absence of evidence otherwise and someone who bikes or walks looks just like someone who drove unless they’re carrying a helmet or something. If you’re in most suburbs, there isn’t a great transit/bike option to get to the shop and so they aren’t even in the habit of thinking about alternatives.
There’s an especially funny thing which comes up all of the time when local advocates actually monitor spots: small shops often only have one or two street spots so the person who works there has a completely different view of the convenience because they almost always get a space when they show up at 7:30am but nobody else thinks of it as easy because the spots is taken and so actual customers would spend longer finding another spot and walking to the store than it takes to walk/bike from within the neighborhood.
> In many case, I don’t even think it’s conscious: many business owners, especially people who started / inherited successful small businesses in city neighborhoods, moved out to the suburbs for bigger houses/schools/etc. and are thus completely car dependent.
I don't know if you live in Manhattan, but there's a far more parsimonious explanation than "business owners are suburban car people": in order to operate most kinds of businesses in the city, you need easy access to deliveries, which means easy parking.
Anyone who has ever tried to arrange logistics for any kind of delivery in NYC knows what a nightmare it is. You routinely see cars and trucks double-parked, because there's no alternative. Trucks park illegally, because the risk of the occasional ticket is cheaper than circling the block for hours.
I can easily see how this would be a subject of top-of-mind importance to any business owner in the city.
> I don't know if you live in Manhattan, but there's a far more parsimonious explanation than "business owners are suburban car people": in order to operate most kinds of businesses in the city, you need easy access to deliveries, which means easy parking.
Maybe, but wouldn’t they say deliveries if that’s what they meant? If I had a shop with no rear access, I’d be asking the city to create and enforce a dedicated short term delivery zone because unrestricted parking is going to full of private cars when the delivery driver arrives. It’d be totally reasonable to ask for that but it’s really rare compared to assertions that most customers drive which are obviously false because they need more than 1-2 customers per hour.
This keeps coming up in every area: discouraging private vehicle use in a dense area makes everything better for everyone. It’s safer, healthier with less pollution, more pleasant with less noise, easier for people who need accessibility accommodations, easier for delivery drivers and contractors who actually need trucks, and reduces congestion. Once you stop pretending there’s any way to make one car per person work in a city, there actually is enough space for everyone else.
I think the businesses do kind of know their customers.
This is an exaggeration of what (I think) happens: all of their current customers only ever drive there and park in front of their shop. They say oh with no parking I won't come any more. Then they stop coming. They lost all their customers! Everyone who can now safely walk to the shop (who couldn't / wouldn't before for multiple reasons) starts walking there. There are a lot more people who can now safely walk to and patronize the shop, and they do. The shops foot traffic went up by 10x. They still lost all their customers.
I think it's probably good that it's easy for people to walk / bike / bus to this shop, and the shop owner probably does to, but they still may have lost a lot of old customers.
I think this is basically hitting the nail on the head. My town has closed a lot of street parking in the downtown, and as a result I rarely do shopping or dining there now because I don't want to park in a garage 3-4 blocks away when I used to be able to park on the same block if not right in front of the business. In other words, I had no other reason to be downtown, so making it inconvenient is going to make me less likely to go there.
But I'm sure there are people who are downtown anyway (work there, etc.) and who now don't want to walk back to the garage to get their car and drive somewhere for lunch, so they just walk to someplace close by.
So businesses probably lose some old customers, and gain some new. It might be a net positive for them.
> But I'm sure there are people who are downtown anyway (work there, etc.) and who now don't want to walk back to the garage to get their car and drive somewhere for lunch, so they just walk to someplace close by.
This raises a question: why didn't those people walk to someplace close by before your town closed downtown street parking? Even when their cars were conveniently nearby a short walk to a nearby lunch place should be faster and more convenient than a drive to some distant place.
One explanation that seems plausible is that they did not know of the nearby places. When they are at home and decide to go out for lunch they go to some national or regional chain like Subway or Wendy's or Denny's. There's one of those a reasonable drive from work and so they go there. When the parking change made that a hassle they started paying more attention to non-chain options and noticed the local places.
It would be interesting to try to reintroduce street parking in some form that will again draw in people like you but that would still discourage people who work downtown from just hopping in their cars and driving to a chain restaurant for lunch.
Another possible answer: It sucks to be a pedestrian around cars, so people decide to drive.
As a pedestrian, cars take up space and block your vision when they're parked, they're dangerous, loud, and (can be) smelly when they're moving, and even when the cars themselves aren't around, the space between buildings is dominated by their required, exclusive infrastructure of asphalt.
Usually when parking is removed, it's replaced with planters, seating, and things for people instead of cars, which makes it more attractive to be a pedestrian.
In general, road diets that make things worse for cars typically make things better for other modes of transportation.
People walking and biking are much more sensitive to changes in the urban environment because they're not in a climate controlled metal safety box. Lots of things can change that impact how much people are willing to walk or bike around. Having fewer/slower cars around, for example.
More choices. The places within easy walking distance get boring after a while. Also because it’s cheaper (but they probably aren’t fully considering the cost of the drive)
> Everyone who can now safely walk to the shop (who couldn't / wouldn't before for multiple reasons) starts walking there.
I'm struggling to imagine reasons why a significant number of people will now start walking to these businesses. What are some of these multiple reasons that have now been overcome to an extent as to cause shop traffic to increase ten-fold?
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. My wife is disabled, so I’m probably one of those customers he would lose along with his parking, but there are probably 1.5x as many homes in my neighborhood (of condos) than there are vehicles actively parking here. It would likely be a huge boon for the places I frequent now. It might even have an effect of slightly countering market downturns as people in trouble sell/lose cars and move to public transit temporarily
One extremely promising change I’ve been seeing a lot of lately: the most undesirable parking spaces in large lots are being ripped up and replaced with small businesses. I’ve seen a new coffee shop and gas station with 4 pumps go up in my town so far. Love it!
> Everyone who can now safely walk to the shop (who couldn't / wouldn't before for multiple reasons) starts walking there. There are a lot more people who can now safely walk to and patronize the shop, and they do.
You’re hypothesizing that people are purposefully avoiding these streets because they have cars driving on them?
Yes? Cars are loud, they smell, take up a tremendous amount of space & are gigantic metal boxes that can cause serious injuries even at low speeds.
In Amsterdam there's been countless examples of this exact thing. Businesses booming after they rip out parking and make roads forbidden for cars, and I can anecdotally say I also love whenever they rip out parking near me in the Netherlands.
Vancouver did a study of how people arrived to their shopping destination and found that a small minority drove to their destination. This was in opposition to the assertions of the business owners that claimed drivers were remarkably more dominant and parking critical.
Yeah, I imagine they are often projecting their own frustration over parking onto their customers. Every time a customer comes in and grumbles about parking, it triggers their confirmation bias. Conversely, new customers who only popped in because they were on foot are probably less likely to express that fact.
Given how annoying parking is, I'll bet that there are also many business owners who would trade some profit for their own ease of parking. Especially given that they have the power to squeeze their employees rather than bear the full cost themselves.
> Valencia Street’s controversial center-running bike lane did not harm businesses, as merchants claimed, a new report finds.
> “While businesses along Valencia Street have clearly suffered more than in other parts of the city since the pandemic, the challenges facing the corridor pre-date the construction of the bike improvements, and there is no statistical basis for linking the two,” a City Controller’s Office report published Wednesday found. The report used the city’s taxable sales database to analyze the effect of the bike lane on businesses.
> Merchants along the corridor have waged a war against the city’s transit agency over the bike lane for almost a year. The owner of Amado’s bar, David Quinby, even blamed the lane for closing his business, despite suffering a devastating basement flood some months prior.
> “This finding does not mean that no business was adversely affected by the bike improvements,” the city report added. “It simply means that any negative impacts on individual businesses were offset by positive impacts on others, and there is no net effect on the corridor as a whole.”
Some changes, like having a highway bypass a small city, can be catastrophic to local businesses. A restaurant that might have hundreds of out-of-town cars go by, now has only local residents.
That's a completely different sort of scenario than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about changes to streets that accommodate greater population density.
There were some negative effects at a construction shutdown of a street recently where it temporarily did hurt some business, mostly retail shops but not the restaurants/bars which had a big boost in business. These boutique style shops were more patronized by people from suburbs or far flung parts of the city than actual locals, and their location was based on the owners wanting to live in the city vs their actual customers.
It's basically that America has a caste system, and public transit is a lower-caste thing that any respectable member of society should ideally avoid. It's a pity because public transit done well is amazing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTg9EX7MLw [NotJustBikes]
I'm torn on this. It is a very appealing way to blame people in discussing why it goes this way.
It doesn't contend with the fact that having a car is ridiculously useful. It is intensely amusing when I see people in other nations comment on how useful getting a car has been in their daily life. And I don't think people realize just how many cars Americans have.
That is, there may be a caste system, but as this congestion pricing shows, the catch is that we have a ton of cars. And people use them because they are convenient as hell.
It is not that cars are not useful. It's that people want to live in nice cities and too much car infrastructure ruin cities. You can't have both. You can't enjoy a nice terras next to a busy road. Or kids cannot safely cycle with their friends if there are many cars driving around.
People should not forget that Europe has tons of car friendly towns and suburbs and many people live there. You can choose your lifestyle.
I fear it often cuts a different way. Everyone wants it so that they can have the benefits of the car, along with the benefits of nobody using a car. A friend I was talking with called it the "main character syndome."
It is a lot like people wanting city life to look a lot like college life. Without wanting to live in dormitories where people are also raising kids.
That's just not true, cars are extremely useful in every single city and people only choose to forgo them when the city makes them too expensive or difficult to keep and use. If you have a pros vs cons list, it's not a lack of pros that causes people to stop using cars it's an overabundance of cons in every single case I know of.
> people only choose to forgo them when the city makes them too expensive or difficult to keep and use
I have friends who chose to move into cities and sold their cars in the process. The pros of the cities outweighed the pros of car ownership for them. They also don't have to spend money on car maintenance, insurance, or gas. They can move around the city fine with public transit and ride sharing. They rent cars to make long trips.
Absolute statements rarely are absolute, particularly when the motivations and preferences of individuals are in the mix.
I don't think this is true, cars truly only make sense in places where every single detail is built to accommodate cars. In an absolute sense, public transit is wildly more efficient.
The reason we don't really see this is that in the US 99% of cities are built exclusively for cars. Of those that have transit, those are very obviously an afterthought.
For NYC, it's not that having a car sucks. It's that the city isn't built for them. So you're going to be stuck in traffic.
Prior to congestion pricing, a lot of people were driving because they're, well, stupid. Often it's faster to literally walk alongside the cars than be in them, because that's how severe the traffic was/is in lower Manhattan. But they didn't want to take the train for whatever reason, so they drove instead. And wasted time and money.
At the end of the day, cars take up way more space, and they're wildly expensive. Many of the cost of cars are actually subsidized, not the other way around. Consider free parking - that parking spot actually costs thousands of dollars a year. But drivers aren't paying it.
In regards to congestion, that costs money. It's not free to have thousands of cars essentially idling for hours of the day. But that's a cost everyone pays - even though most people commute by subway. That's a problem. That's going to break a lot of incentives.
> cars are extremely useful in every single city and people only choose to forgo them when the city makes them too expensive or difficult to keep and use
I happily take the train and ferry in New York over a car. For some journeys, e.g. into Long Island with a group, renting a car would actually be cheaper.
If you haven’t spent any time not driving, it’s hard to imagine the luxury going car-free brings. Not the least of which is the ridiculous amount of privacy and law-enforcement interference we tolerate for drivers.
It is genuinely such a luxury to spend zero minutes of your day looking for parking, remembering where you parked, memorizing parking regulations, planning out the parking situation around a place you might want to go… All of that feels so silly when you have to go back to it after living without a car for a while.
The math doesn't math when the city grows around car-centric design. All the extra space taken up to separate people from unpleasant high-speed roadways, all the huge parking lots, the extremely-wide roads, it pushes travel times up so much that between the extra distance between everything, and the time spent earning money to pay hundreds a month to have a car (insurance, depreciation, maintenance, gas) ends up significantly exceeding the benefits of car ownership.
They're wildly nice if only a few people have them. The more do, and the more parts of a city cater to cars, the worse they get, even as they also become totally necessary (so, not having them also gets far, far worse, even untenable).
I was introduced to this notion reading an analysis from some French social-philosopher and was initially like "that... can't be right, surely?" so ran conservative numbers on my own situation, with an average-or-better commute distance for my city, a cheap paid-off car, and nearly double median individual income for my city, and... yep, dude was right, living in a city designed around cars was costing me time, not saving it. It'd be a ton worse for people with worse commutes and lower-earning jobs. They were getting totally screwed on the deal.
was it Jacques Ellul? He made a real impact on me, his analysis that people adapt to the machine rather than the other way around, even will internalize its value system. In modern society, "efficiency" remains the sole aspiration, which is a technological value, not a human one. fwiw - don't recall if he wrote a lot about cars though.
i suppose cars are “extremely useful” in suburbs and rural neighborhoods. And if public transportation is lacking (if driving is faster).
In a city, a carshare is much more practical in my opinion. No need to stress about street parking and getting tickets on days that they clean the street. Or wasting 10 minutes finding parking. Or worrying about car maintenance. Or spending a few grand annually on car insurance, maintenance, and gas.
All this worry for what? A weekend getaway twice a month? Buying in bulk once a month?
In Europe, most of those places were built before cars existed (and certainly before they were popularized). Still, people overwhelmingly prefer to drive cars there.
Yeah, and if you have a car in any of those city centers dating from before the car, it's inconvenient and you'll walk for little errands, it'd be insane to drive. In suburbia, car is convenient, and sure, europe has a lot of suburbia too
It's not just city centers. E.g. whole lot of London is pre-car. And yes, you'll walk for little errands, but you'll also drive a lot for many other things, often including commute, taking children to school etc.
yeah - i suppose so that the car coopted a lot of older parts too. i live in a pre-car neighborhood in the midwest, and end up driving a lot. public transport is very poor, and city center is a shell, there's nothing left to anchor the city, everything is essentially suburb, even the old parts.
They are, and should be, huge time saver outside cities. But city centers? Those should be on purpose as annoying, time consuming and costly to regular traffic as possible. It should be only necessary services, taxis, public buses and so on.
Here is the place for a good public transport, even in US it should be trivial to make it financially self-sufficient and attractive. People always choose whats best for them (cost or time wise). European city centers work like that and everybody normal accepts that.
We'd have to have an example of public transit done well to break the caste stigma you referenced. I don't think anywhere in the US is anywhere close to Amsterdam (discussed in video you linked)
NYC really doesn't have this stigma at all. The narrative is more or less pushed by groups with anti-liberal agendas who want to convince people whom have never even visited NYC that it's just as bad as where they're from, when in fact the violent crime rate per capita in NYC is much lower than most medium sized midwestern and southern cities.
Celebrities, politicians, billionaires all ride the subway all the time. New Yorkers know to keep to themselves out of politeness not safety and honestly are more likely to step up and defend someone famous being harassed than join in. We're all just trying to get to where we're going and the subway is almost always the fastest and most convenient way (not to mention cheapest) to do that.
Most of these photos are taken for their social medias. Which further proves that them taking the subway is exceptional enough to be worth posting. Not the norm; not a 9-5 commute like regular people
NYC is an outlier of US cities though. The long narrow island of Manhattan makes everything more efficient in terms of the subway, etc. Most other large US cities sprawl endlessly in all directions.
Not Just Bikes is such a terminal pessimist. I enjoy his videos but I think he really has trouble acknowledging the counterpoints to his doom-and-gloom rhetoric. What he says in that video just barely applies to NYC at all.
Not just that, his approach to the politics of it is incredibly obnoxious. He comes across as everyone who disagrees with him with the same brush, railing against some sort of ideological complex that includes everything his "team" hates and insinuates that it's all somehow interrelated. Of course he doesn't say those things, but it surfaced really prominently for example in his April Fools' video where he played the role of a suburbanite obsessed with his new truck. Satire is one thing, but if you see enough of it (also content from Twitter and other social media) you get the sense that he really does take his perception of other people way too seriously.
Which is to say: his case studies examining the details of specific cities, evaluating transit system design etc. are great. But his analysis of why the bad things are bad (especially when he starts blaming people and ascribing motivations) is utterly insufferable.
> his April Fools' video where he played the role of a suburbanite obsessed with his new truck
Happy to say I missed that one.
But yes, I completely agree with all of that. I'd love more of the analyses of why some systems work and less of the vitriol against everyone who isn't already totally on board.
Mid-40s amateur urban planner YouTube is the worst social media trend to have come out of this decade bar none. They all look, sound, and think the same. Their worldview is fundamentally conspiratorial in that they believe there is a utopian world that only they and their fellow flannel-enjoyers understand, that somehow actual urban planners, economists, and consumers have missed.
Not Just Bikes is like the Joe Rogan of these people in that whenever I see one of his videos recommended on YouTube, I know I’ll be hearing about it from people trying to pass the ideas off as common knowledge within two weeks.
>They all look, sound, and think the same. Their worldview is fundamentally conspiratorial in that they believe there is a utopian world that only they and their fellow flannel-enjoyers understand, that somehow actual urban planners, economists, and consumers have missed.
I think you are mad because they are right, and your only refuge is to recycle hipster memes of the 2010s. Just personally visiting cities and suburbs from (still car loving!) Germans v/s most US cities validates the fuckcars camp. The example my Chilean city should follow is certainly not Dallas, no matter how cringe NJB might be.
> I think you are mad because they are right, and your only refuge is to recycle hipster memes of the 2010s.
They are a particular variety of policy wonk that conflates positive claims with normative beliefs. Normative beliefs are a matter of preference.
Consider urban sprawl; the desire to live in a larger home farther from the city center doesn’t go away with trains, the throughput is just more efficient. The question then becomes whether the denizens of a city would prefer to travel by car or by train. Given that car-centric urban sprawl is still ongoing, Americans appear to prefer the car.
I created an account because of how terrible this comment is.
A caste system? are you kidding me. CASTE. Like the system where a group of people were called untouchables??? These kinds of extreme comparisons are so utterly unhelpful to literally everyone.
Frankly just on the face of it your claim is completely out of touch with the US cities with decent public transit options (New York, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago). Everyone that lives in NYC that can take the subway takes the subway. I know plenty of hedge funders and traders and big tech workers in NYC who take the subway every day, and plenty of big law partners who take the DC metro to the office.
Obviously there are really big problems with how transit is implemented and treated in most cities in the USA, but you are completely incorrect. In American cities where there is good transit everyone takes it
EVERYTHING you wrote was going GREAT until In American cities where there is good transit everyone takes it - this cannot be further from the truth. some take it, not enough to make a dent in traffic congestion madness in any City (especially those you specifically listed, I live in one of them…)
In my lived experience, public transit is not actively avoided by so-called upper castes (I am not convinced you know what a caste is). Rather, it is so straightforward to take ones own automobile that you don't even consider public transit options.
Obviously there's a significant negative feedback loop here.
First off, comparing classes in the US to a caste system is genuinely delusional. The US doesn't have a caste system (except where it has been imported by immigration) and if you think it does either you don't know what a caste system is or you are completely out of touch with American culture.
More importantly, no C-Suite executive, Banker, Socialite, or whatever "upper caste" stand in you want to select gives a shit about sitting next to a Janitor on the train. Hell, they don't give a shit about sitting next to a normal sane person who is homeless. The reason so many people who have a choice don't chose to use public transit is because of low quality service (as always), crime, and a very small number of very visible mentally ill people having daily breakdowns in public.
This is a good thing! NotJustBikes is a huge doomer loser, don't listen to him, there's a really straightforward route to making things better.
> Compared to other big cities, public bathrooms in New York City are rare, as the 1,100 public restrooms result in a rate of 16 per 100,000 residents. Most public restrooms are located in parks; comparatively few other public spaces, including New York City Subway stations, have public restrooms.
> As of 2022, the New York City Subway has 472 stations, 69 of which have public bathrooms. Several homeless people sued the New York City government and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in 1990, claiming that the city and MTA created a "public nuisance" by failing to provide public toilets. A report by the Legal Action Center for the Homeless, who represented the plaintiffs, noted that of 526 public comfort stations surveyed in parks, almost three-quarters were "either closed, filthy, foul-smelling or without toilet paper and soap." In 2010, there were 133 open restrooms in 81 of the system's 468 stations.
There's a great quote on this: "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation."
'Society' doesn't make people shoot up, turn tricks, or attempt to set up permanent shop in public toilets inside train stations. Also, they're great places to put bombs (in theory at least).
I admit I don't have an answer for this. San Francisco's experiments with nifty self-cleaning public toilets have been expensive failures for the most part. I'm not sure where we go from here, given that the problem seems to be cultural/user-based.
Housing, healthcare, mental health, public transit, unemployment, lead abatement, education - all of these policy levers impact the prevalence of the behaviors you describe.
The kind of people who destroy public spaces and public toilets will also destroy any free housing you give them. If by "mental health" you mean involuntary commitment, then yes, that will do the job
"Cities like Helsinki and Vienna in Europe have seen dramatic reductions in homelessness due to the adaptation of Housing First policies, as have the North American cities Columbus, Ohio, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Medicine Hat, Alberta."
"A decade ago, Utah set itself an ambitious goal: end chronic homelessness. As of 2015, the state can just about declare victory: The population of chronically homeless people has dropped by 91 percent."
"Finland has adopted a Housing First policy, whereby social services assign homeless individuals homes first, and issues like mental health and substance abuse are treated second. Since its launch in 2008, the number of homeless people in Finland has decreased by roughly 30%,[1] though other reports indicate it could be up to 50%. The number of long-term homeless people has fallen by more than 35%. "Sleeping rough", the practice of sleeping outside, has been largely eradicated in Helsinki, where only one 50-bed night shelter remains."
Having a stable housing situation turns out to make a whole bunch of other related social changes more feasible.
> If by 'mental health' you mean involuntary commitment, then yes, that will do the job
I mean, I'd start with therapy, addiction services, social supports, and the like. But I do think the complete removal of long-term inpatient mental health in the 50s/60s was an overshoot. Some people need that much help.
(I also believe there's a lot more we can do to prevent people from becoming that "kind of people" in the first place.)
I think it does, which is why this is a problem in some societies but not others.
I think the explanation of "some people are bad people" is a lazy explanation. The proportion of bad people to everyone else should be about the same everywhere. We have to take a closer look at incentives and systems in place.
IANAB, but I'd imagine the privacy inherent in a toilet makes it easier to assemble a dangerous bomb from transported-safe components than doing so in a full train car would, and to leave it long enough that the bomber can get away without getting caught.
The bathrooms become too expensive to maintain because they are being used by people who need to be institutionalized. When this is suggested the Civil Liberties people get into an uproar. You could build one wall and keep people who suffer from psychosis inside of it, or you can put them on the street and watch as everyone else finds ways to build walls of their own.
The institutions of the past were so bad that it is more human to let those people fend for themselves than put them in one. Yes some people freeze to death now but that is better than before.
if you can reform the system fine but I don't have conidence. Human nature doesn't deal well with the needed power imbalance.
thats changing the topic. The topic is public transit, and I'm giving a practical example of why a rational person would choose not to use it. It's disingenuous to make it sound like people avoid the bus because "only those people ride the bus" and then refute it with "well, yeah, we gotta fix homelessness first, of course!". No we dont have to fix homelessness, I can ride my car and lock the doors, preventing it from being defiled by homeless people.
For better or for worse a lot of US progressives view transit as a "solution of last resort" which is why so many progressives are okay with transit also acting as a homeless shelter and being tolerant of some drug use. One way to think of this is that progressives view government's role as a champion of the disenfranchised. Another is to think that the US is a class based society where transit is considered the domain of the disenfranchised, the lowest class. Which framing you choose is probably based on your experience and frustrations with your local US transit system.
(I'm not trying to weigh in one way or the other in my comment, but as someone who rides local US transit regularly and has for over 10 years, my patience for using transit as a "solution of last resort" is wearing thin but still remains.)
I agree with you. This is why in newer public transit systems they will use honor-systems that don't actually prevent people from entering without paying. This encourages them to ride because its a "non-violent offense" so they won't be arrested, but if you or I rode without paying, we would have a criminal charge and possibly be arrested since they can claim they solved a crime without harming "disparaged groups" or whatever. So we have 2 classes of people: those who can ride for free and those who can't.
The system I'm referring to is San Diego's light rail. The 2nd (and last) time I rode it I saw someone get assaulted on the train (and what appeared to be homeless people riding it). The first (and last) time I rode the MARTA train in Atlanta last year, I saw a homeless man passed out sitting in a puddle of his own urine. I will never use public transit again unless there are exigent circumstances. Liberals have completely ruined yet another thing that used to be great.
I fully subscribe to this view. The obsession with people hating all things California is borderline insane, at this point.
I probably too fully subscribe to this view. Seems a lot of "western" things that people love to complain about have been over indexed on. A lot are things that do need to get better, but when I hear people talk about how "actually, the US has been fascist for some time," I just... What?!
The project was studied for 10 years so the nay-sayers really don’t have a platform because they’re up against a decade of research. Most of the anti-cp has a romanticized view of driving into the city as some sort of right or NYer benefit.
Trivially, the measure of how much it costs in dollars to drive into Manhattan along the affected routes has gone up. So there are likely some people who are worse off. It's rare to have a completely free lunch, but this one looks pretty cheap.
>how many people will assert there must be something bad
Some of my friends seem to be convinced that Pigouvian taxes don't work, that hoi polloi just suck up the extra cost and complain more. Also they'll say that it's regressive (i.e. the thing being taxed already represented a higher proportion of income for the lower classes).
What I'm getting at is, I agree with you, but I don't think the objections are all that nebulous, nor based in "too good to be true" intuition.
A downside could be that 2 years from now the effect has rippled away (the shock and awe of paying for it is gone), and everyone sits in the same traffic but pays more money for it.
Archaeology tells us that for ~ 4000 years, people have tolerated an average of a 30 minute commute.
The usefulness of a city goes up (superlinearly!) with the number of people that can work / shop / live there.
So, the universal metric for any city, and therefore transit system is: “How many people can regularly make use of the city?”
A simple proxy for that is: “How many people live within a 30 minute commute of the city center?”
So, at peak times, how many people can simultaneously get to their destination in NYC in under 30 minutes?
Second: How many of those people can do so during non peak hours?
If congestion pricing is a success on all metrics, then both those numbers will have increased. Those metrics have worked well for 4000 years of cities so they are as close to a natural law as exists for cities.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the numbers went up (or down) but the lack of reporting on “is NYC’s effective population increasing or decreasing as a result of congestion pricing?” makes me skeptical.
Counterpoints (could be true or false, but do not contradict the data from any article I have found):
- average commute time is up because transit is still much slower than driving used to be (this first point is definitely true), and many drivers were forced on to the slower mode of transportation (also true, but that doesn’t imply average times went up or down).
- Occasional visitors (that only pay once in a while) are up, but the number of people that can commute are down, hollowing out commercial office districts.
- polls showing it is popular under-represent people that can no longer afford to travel to the city.
The fact that the numbers being reported are so vague as to be compatible with my doomsday scenario is why I say the metrics seem cherry picked.
I’d love to see a study that reports enough of their methodology to disprove my three bullet points. I’m generally supportive of things like congestion pricing and public transit, but sloppy studies and sloppy reporting on their actual impact doesn’t help their cause.
Other than Trump's seemingly knee-jerk opposition because it was implemented by, in his own oft-repeated words, radical left lunatics, I haven't really heard anything negative at all as a Manhattanite.
In London from 2020 till about 2023 congestion charging ran till 10pm and then that was moved back to 6pm. The reason was it was hurting nightlife especially west end theatre.
I find it surprising that theatre would be harmed by a congestion charge. It seems like the cost of paying or planning around a congestion charge would be small relative to the cost and planning required to go to a live show.
I wonder whether pedestrian collisions will be slightly more deadly, since one effect is that traffic flows faster than before. Great for drivers but probably more dangerous for the jaywalking new yorker.
> With fewer cars on the road in the congestion zone, there have been fewer car crashes — and fewer resulting injuries. Crashes in the zone that resulted in injuries are down 14 percent this year through April 22, compared with the same period last year, according to police reports detailing motor vehicle collisions. The total number of people injured in crashes (with multiple people sometimes injured in a single crash) declined 15 percent.
What matters in a pedestrian collision is the speed of impact. Traffic flow is about the average speed over time. Cars that spend less time stopped don't become significantly more dangerous when their maximum speed is still limited to, say, 30 km/h (20 mph). Certainly not for those who are aware of a constant traffic flow.
The biggest downside is that the reason this was done had little or nothing to do with congestion. That's a side effect. It was to fill budget holes in the MTA, which is a notorious money pit that delivers far less value than the billions if gobbles up.
There's a real chance that future cash flows from this congestion pricing are going to be securitized for today's cash payments, similar to Chicago parking.
Au contraire, there aren't countless alternatives. Raise fares, raise taxes or impose a penalty on drivers, most of whom you think will come from Long Island, NJ and CT They chose the most politically palatable option.
