Bill de Blasio considers raising funds for MTA through East River bridge tolls under congestion pric

[Roadcruiser1]

I will say that congestion pricing won't work, because too many people would be against it, but I did be in support of tolling the free bridges, and tunnels in New York City. Then the can use the extra revenue to actually work on the subway. Enough of all these s****y ideas of elevated lines, light rails, or monorails. What really works is to give the the money to actually build a world class subway system like those in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Seoul, Singapore, Beijing, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Tokyo, Rome, Shanghai, and etc., and the current leaders of the are not responsible enough to be in charge of such a project. Instead they should look into finding a mass transit Robert Moses which can handle Unions, finances, and protesters, and put them in charge of it.

[Wallyhorse]

 

I will say that congestion pricing won't work, because too many people would be against it, but I did be in support of tolling the free bridges, and tunnels in New York City. Then the   can use the extra revenue to actually work on the subway. Enough of all these s****y ideas of elevated lines, light rails, or monorails. What really works is to give the   the money to actually build a world class subway system like those in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Seoul, Singapore, Beijing, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Tokyo, Rome, Shanghai, and etc., and the current leaders of the   are not responsible enough to be in charge of such a project. Instead they should look into finding a mass transit Robert Moses which can handle Unions, finances, and protesters, and put them in charge of it.

 

A Transit Robert Moses IS what is needed, one who can force projects to be done without potential overruns and other things and hold contractors "feet to the fire" and so forth.

[N6 Limited]

Yes I have and it's disturbing, which is why I strongly support new subway cars and clean air buses and want to see the older things retired. Here in Riverdale, increases in Metro-North was praised but also scolded.  I spoke at the hearing about it being good because it would take cars off of the road, but I also understood the concerns of my other fellow Riverdalians who called for more clean air Metro-North shuttle buses.  Make no mistake about it... I believe in a cleaner environment all around.  I would personally like to see fewer yellow taxis as well, as they are reckless and clog up the streets. I think there's an excess of them, and there should be more incentives to carpool with taxis, even though I use them and they're very convenient.  Next week I will be using them quite a bit for business meetings, but will use the local bus in Manhattan here and there as well.  I do my part to conserve (believe me). Recycle everything I can, re-use things a lot.  We need to be more conscious about what we do... Too much waste all around.

I agree, the taxi's clog up the road, they go really slow, stop any and everywhere, even on the highway they're annoying

 

 

 

 

A Transit Robert Moses IS what is needed, one who can force projects to be done without potential overruns and other things and hold contractors "feet to the fire" and so forth.

 

Could you imagine? lol

[peacemak3r]

 

Please.  Stop making this about charging people to walk and bike across bridges.  This is about SELFISH car drivers that MUST drive into Manhattan in a big @ss car with one passenger in it.  It's so offensive to see that and to see how they clog up traffic and that's the problem here.  

 

 

You have no sarcastic meter do you?

 

By that logic, we should ban buses and taxis from entering Manhattan because they clog the streets and use up more energy than the cars.

 

This doesn't make sense because of the ratio of  passenger to vehicle, VG8 pointed that out in his response to this post.

 

That's a very cute response... Buses and taxis are forms of PUBLIC TRANSIT that carry large amounts of people.  Last I checked a gas guzzling SUV with one person in it isn't public transit. 

 

 

Peacemaker was being sarcastic about the whole thing. Drivers are tolled for using the tunnels. The only way the congestion pricing works is if tolls across the city gets adjusted accordingly. Collect tolls in both directions and lower the toll on the vz bridge etc.

 

You've got it, but obviously he is too into penalizing every driver because he sees one person drive a big SUV.  Yet ironically, the same way VG8 is complaining about 1 person in huge SUV's. Guess what? I've seen MTA officials do the SAME thing, as well as other city officials and law enforcement.

 

I will say that congestion pricing won't work, because too many people would be against it, but I did be in support of tolling the free bridges, and tunnels in New York City. Then the can use the extra revenue to actually work on the subway. Enough of all these s****y ideas of elevated lines, light rails, or monorails. What really works is to give the the money to actually build a world class subway system like those in London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Seoul, Singapore, Beijing, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Tokyo, Rome, Shanghai, and etc., and the current leaders of the are not responsible enough to be in charge of such a project. Instead they should look into finding a mass transit Robert Moses which can handle Unions, finances, and protesters, and put them in charge of it.

 

So what about road maintenance? The revenue from those tolls should AT THE VERY LEAST go to roads FIRST then to other needs.  That's like saying, let's use the revenue from LIRR to repair the road conditions of the LIE before going back to the LIRR.

 

 

---

 

Jesus, I'm seriously getting cancer from reading some of these posts.

[CenSin]

By that logic, we should ban buses and taxis from entering Manhattan because they clog the streets and use up more energy than the cars.

An incredibly ignorant post. You didn't even peel off the husk to pick at the kernels or the discussion. I'm pretty sure one bus or one train uses more energy than one car or one van. But you forget that buses carry over 6 times as many people or vehicle. Imagine every single person on a bus had their own personal vehicle. Those combined vehicles would use much more energy than the bus and they would also occupy several dozen times the amount of space, which is worse.

 

If you want to use the word "logic" in your post, please make sure you're already using it.

 

 

 

LOL that's a cute excuse. Have you seen the SOOT that comes out of the thousands of buses rolling around each day? Do you know the amount of COAL burned to run the NYC subway?

See above response. Replace the word "energy" with the word "soot."

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You have no sarcastic meter do you?

 

 

This doesn't make sense because of the ratio of  passenger to vehicle, VG8 pointed that out in his response to this post.

 

 

 

 

You've got it, but obviously he is too into penalizing every driver because he sees one person drive a big SUV.  Yet ironically, the same way VG8 is complaining about 1 person in huge SUV's. Guess what? I've seen MTA officials do the SAME thing, as well as other city officials and law enforcement.

 

 

So what about road maintenance? The revenue from those tolls should AT THE VERY LEAST go to roads FIRST then to other needs.  That's like saying, let's use the revenue from LIRR to repair the road conditions of the LIE before going back to the LIRR.

Well you're a driver so I wasn't sure about your sarcasm... Correction, it isn't "one person in an SUV"... I see multiple people on the expressways driving alone with no one else in the car on a daily basis.  And yes, I'm aware of the folks doing it and it's equally appalling, but at the same time I don't think that they have much faith in the system either which is why they take cars here and there, though I have seen Fernando Ferrer on Metro-North on a few occasions standing with the rest of us, as he uses the Riverdale stop, so some of them do use public transit and know what we commuters endure.

 

What's cute is that even he has to flash his pass for the ticket collector. I guess he does it so as not to stand out.  I don't see how the guy wouldn't know who he was, but it was cute nevertheless.

[NY1635]

An incredibly ignorant post. You didn't even peel off the husk to pick at the kernels or the discussion. I'm pretty sure one bus or one train uses more energy than one car or one van. But you forget that buses carry over 6 times as many people or vehicle. Imagine every single person on a bus had their own personal vehicle. Those combined vehicles would use much more energy than the bus and they would also occupy several dozen times the amount of space, which is worse.

 

If you want to use the word "logic" in your post, please make sure you're already using it.

 

 

 

See above response. Replace the word "energy" with the word "soot."

 

A bus and train can carry more people than a car, but the transit agency operates the buses and trains don't have enough people to drive the bus, operate the trains, perform maintenance, do tech support, and even keep the stations clean to keep up with the increase in riders and demands. Even though we a future where many riders are happy to take mass transportation to get to their destinations, I doubt that the transit worker will feel the same way unless the agency raises the workers wages in the future.

 

There's also the issue of capacity. Sure, people support mass transit and will support improvements to transportation, but the moment a new rail yard, bus depot, or an extension to a subway line is proposed in their neighborhood, some of those people would be oppose to it for various reasons; some of it valid and some of the reasons being NIMBY.

[Tokkemon]

There's more to life than transit. Not all trips where a person moves are feasible only with transit, especially regarding anything with cargo like a Target or Grocery run. 

[ttcsubwayfan]

A bus and train can carry more people than a car, but the transit agency operates the buses and trains don't have enough people to drive the bus, operate the trains, perform maintenance, do tech support, and even keep the stations clean to keep up with the increase in riders and demands. Even though we a future where many riders are happy to take mass transportation to get to their destinations, I doubt that the transit worker will feel the same way unless the agency raises the workers wages in the future.

 

There's also the issue of capacity. Sure, people support mass transit and will support improvements to transportation, but the moment a new rail yard, bus depot, or an extension to a subway line is proposed in their neighborhood, some of those people would be oppose to it for various reasons; some of it valid and some of the reasons being NIMBY.

 

Not only does your post have nothing to do with what Censin said, but it also has little to do with the discussion at hand. Are you trying to say that there won't be transit expansion because of employees? If there is an employee shortage, they can hire more.

[peacemak3r]

Well you're a driver so I wasn't sure about your sarcasm... Correction, it isn't "one person in an SUV"... I see multiple people on the expressways driving alone with no one else in the car on a daily basis.  And yes, I'm aware of the folks doing it and it's equally appalling, but at the same time I don't think that they have much faith in the system either which is why they take cars here and there, though I have seen Fernando Ferrer on Metro-North on a few occasions standing with the rest of us, as he uses the Riverdale stop, so some of them do use public transit and know what we commuters endure.

 

I accept that statement. I'm more towards driving because it serves my needs more than taking mass transportation.

 

On the "one person in a SUV" scenario, I'm not just saying one person in one SUV, I know what you mean by multiple vehicles, I was just sorting them into one category which was that.

 

There's more to life than transit. Not all trips where a person moves are feasible only with transit, especially regarding anything with cargo like a Target or Grocery run. 

 

I've been sort of trying to explain it to this extent but I've been using poor word choices it seems.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I accept that statement. I'm more towards driving because it serves my needs more than taking mass transportation.

 

On the "one person in a SUV" scenario, I'm not just saying one person in one SUV, I know what you mean by multiple vehicles, I was just sorting them into one category which was that.

 

 

I've been sort of trying to explain it to this extent but I've been using poor word choices it seems.

 

 

There's more to life than transit. Not all trips where a person moves are feasible only with transit, especially regarding anything with cargo like a Target or Grocery run. 

I don't disagree with that at all, but how many Targets or supermarkets in Manhattan have feasible parking to begin with? I can see driving in the outer boroughs, but driving in Manhattan (in the core areas) with all of the congestion that already exists just doesn't make any sense at all.  If I did my grocery shopping in Westchester, I would certainly drive, but for grocery shopping in Manhattan, I take the express bus to Whole Foods, get my stuff and then get back on the express bus and head home.  If I had to drive into the city for that I don't know how long it would take for me to find parking.  I have friends that can't help but drive into Manhattan, and every time I'm with them it takes FOREVER to find parking unless the car is parked in a garage, and even then that takes forever since the garages usually aren't located in the most central locations.  I think there is a Target in Harlem which is located in an area that makes sense to drive, but most shopping locations in Manhattan aren't like that. When I shop out in Whitestone, and other areas, it makes sense to drive there, but even then I take the express bus since it's close by and fairly convenient.

[NY1635]

Not only does your post have nothing to do with what Censin said, but it also has little to do with the discussion at hand. Are you trying to say that there won't be transit expansion because of employees? If there is an employee shortage, they can hire more.

 

No, I was trying to say that more people taking mass transit will not solve the problem of congestion in the city. The congestion will just shift to the automobiles to the buses and trains, causing them to be overcrowded and the riders to experience longer commutes. Even though buses and trains transport more people than cars, they also use up more energy than cars and take a while to get from point A to Point B.

 

At some point, automobiles will stop using gas altogether and start using cleaner alternatives. When that happens, people will prefer the electric car over mass transit because its way more convenient to drive than take transporation, even in the future.

[LTA1992]

Even if there is a switch to clean energy (which our government will stall for as long as possible), mass transit will always be the cheaper option. 

[RollOver]

There's more to life than transit. Not all trips where a person moves are feasible only with transit, especially regarding anything with cargo like a Target or Grocery run. 

 

This...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No, I was trying to say that more people taking mass transit will not solve the problem of congestion in the city. The congestion will just shift to the automobiles to the buses and trains, causing them to be overcrowded and the riders to experience longer commutes. Even though buses and trains transport more people than cars, they also use up more energy than cars and take a while to get from point A to Point B.

 

At some point, automobiles will stop using gas altogether and start using cleaner alternatives. When that happens, people will prefer the electric car over mass transit because its way more convenient to drive than take transporation, even in the future.

So then you're basically saying that there is no solution to the problem, is that the idea?

[ttcsubwayfan]

No, I was trying to say that more people taking mass transit will not solve the problem of congestion in the city. The congestion will just shift to the automobiles to the buses and trains, causing them to be overcrowded and the riders to experience longer commutes.

 

That's why you add more service wherever possible.

 

 

 

Even though buses and trains transport more people than cars, they also use up more energy than cars and take a while to get from point A to Point B.

 

So?

 

 

 

At some point, automobiles will stop using gas altogether and start using cleaner alternatives. When that happens, people will prefer the electric car over mass transit because its way more convenient to drive than take transporation, even in the future.

 

How is this any different than the way things are right now? People still prefer cars over mass transit.

[NY1635]

So then you're basically saying that there is no solution to the problem, is that the idea?

Yes.

 

That's why you add more service wherever possible.

 

So?

 

How is this any different than the way things are right now? People still prefer cars over mass transit.

 

Even taking into account that more services will be added, its still not enough to solve the congestion problem. The difference between now and then is that we will have cars that run on clean energy. The future of transportation would be something like a four door sedan, minivan, and pick up truck powered by clean renewable energy and people driving those cars.

[Union Tpke]

Yes.

 

 

Even taking into account that more services will be added, its still not enough to solve the congestion problem. The difference between now and then is that we will have cars that run on clean energy. The future of transportation would be something like a four door sedan, minivan, and pick up truck powered by clean renewable energy and people driving those cars.

That is why we need a whole slate of transportation projects. These projects would help put people back to the work similar to the WPA. It would keep people out of prison to have steady jobs meaning more savings meaning more money to finance the projects.

WE NEED TO INVEST IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE OTHER COMPANIES!

Also, we would have a lot more money if we stopped wasting most of our money on the military for wars that make us go nowhere.

[ttcsubwayfan]

Yes.

 

 

Even taking into account that more services will be added, its still not enough to solve the congestion problem. The difference between now and then is that we will have cars that run on clean energy. The future of transportation would be something like a four door sedan, minivan, and pick up truck powered by clean renewable energy and people driving those cars.

 

And that's nice and all, but all the clean energy cars in the world won't solve the huge issue of gridlock, which is one of the main reasons we want to attract people to transit in the first place - so that there is enough room on the roads for those who need it, and those who could make their journeys by transit take transit (and making the journey more pleasant for bus riders who don't have to sit in traffic until they turn grey). And when more people take transit, you add more service - upgrade the signalling system, build more subway lines, light rail lines, train lines, etc. It's not that complicated. I appreciate that subways are expensive, so that's why you start to rely on surface transit, and the fact that there will (ideally) be less cars clogging the roads of Manhattan would mean that buses wouldn't be as painfully slow as they currently are, either.

 

A defeatist, there-is-no-solution-to-our-problem attitude helps no one.

[NY1635]

And that's nice and all, but all the clean energy cars in the world won't solve the huge issue of gridlock, which is one of the main reasons we want to attract people to transit in the first place - so that there is enough room on the roads for those who need it, and those who could make their journeys by transit take transit (and making the journey more pleasant for bus riders who don't have to sit in traffic until they turn grey). And when more people take transit, you add more service - upgrade the signalling system, build more subway lines, light rail lines, train lines, etc. It's not that complicated. I appreciate that subways are expensive, so that's why you start to rely on surface transit, and the fact that there will (ideally) be less cars clogging the roads of Manhattan would mean that buses wouldn't be as painfully slow as they currently are, either.

 

A defeatist, there-is-no-solution-to-our-problem attitude helps no one.

 

Neither will adding more buses and trains will solve the issue of gridlock. Nothing transit advocates say or do will attract people to the buses and trains. If people want to take their cars to the city, then let them drive. If people want to take mass transportation to the city then let them. I'm more of the opinion that its better to let people choose how they want to get around instead of just relying on mass transit only.

[RollOver]

And that's nice and all, but all the clean energy cars in the world won't solve the huge issue of gridlock, which is one of the main reasons we want to attract people to transit in the first place - so that there is enough room on the roads for those who need it, and those who could make their journeys by transit take transit (and making the journey more pleasant for bus riders who don't have to sit in traffic until they turn grey). And when more people take transit, you add more service - upgrade the signalling system, build more subway lines, light rail lines, train lines, etc. It's not that complicated. I appreciate that subways are expensive, so that's why you start to rely on surface transit, and the fact that there will (ideally) be less cars clogging the roads of Manhattan would mean that buses wouldn't be as painfully slow as they currently are, either.

 

A defeatist, there-is-no-solution-to-our-problem attitude helps no one.

 

I remember your words at the former train thread: "Too much service is better than too little service", which I don't agree with. How much more service do you want for the subway? I mean you have multiple other lines that also serve the same areas and also serve the same station stops. The subway is complex as it is anyway. For example, the and serve Inwood and Washington Heights, not just one of them. So people don't have to always rely on one of them. Another example is the and sharing the same stops between 138th Street-Grand Concourse and Franklin Avenue. And yes, this also goes for the 2, 3, A, and C. I mean you could always get away with running so much service on the isolated lines (which I don't have a problem with) and yes even the 1 and 6 as well and also perhaps the too. But if a line is not isolated, meaning it shares tracks with multiple others along most (not all, but most) of its run, then how would running more service be any necessary?

 

Rush hours, as always, is different. But I'm talking about midday, evening and weekend (or "off-peak"). Sure there's lots of off-peak, and, even overnight traffic in the city here in New York, where, as you yourself stated, people are going to visit friends, bars, restaurants, beaches, pools, movie theaters, show theaters etc etc. And yes, sure, people expect their trains to be there in a reasonable amount of time and get to their destinations, but I'm mean really dude...you're acting as if 100% of the customers at certain stations are piling into one line, which is part of the reason why you say that the should add more service on certain non-isolated lines, most notably the and for example. It's not like everybody are all going to this one particular place or something, especially when those two lines interact with the other lines during most (not all, but most) of their routes. This is exactly what I was trying to point out to you, and don't try and deny that either...

 

You see, TTC, this is why I agree with NY1636, and, especially Tokkemon and peacemaker, because not everybody is going to rely on the subway like you always seem to make it out to be (at least to me...). People should just choose whatever they feel that is convenient to them. More service isn't everything, and I'm only talking about the subway. I can't speak for commuter rail and the buses, as I don't know much about them (which is why I almost never post in all the other mass transit sections of this site other than the subway section here), though I think there is a huge difference between these three mass transit. I know I can be wrong though.

[ttcsubwayfan]

Neither will adding more buses and trains will solve the issue of gridlock. Nothing transit advocates say or do will attract people to the buses and trains. If people want to take their cars to the city, then let them drive. If people want to take mass transportation to the city then let them. I'm more of the opinion that its better to let people choose how they want to get around instead of just relying on mass transit only.

 

Normally, sure, but how does the status quo benefit anyone? Car commuters and bus commuters are both stuck in gridlock far longer then they should be, how would encouraging people to take transit more be a bad thing?

 

No one's saying to abandon cars all together, but encouraging more people to take transit especially into Manhattan can't be a bad thing. A lot of people in this thread are talking as though we're advocating for the termination of all personal automobiles everywhere, forever.

 

I remember your words at the former train thread: "Too much service is better than too little service", which I don't agree with. How much more service do you want for the subway?

 

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but in response to your query, a sufficient amount. 12 minute frequencies is unacceptable during the day, when everyone is out and about. Sure, the many routes around are beneficial in Manhattan, but in the outer boroughs, they're barely enough.

 

 

 

But if a line is not isolated, meaning it shares tracks with multiple others along most of its run, then how would running more service be any necessary?

 

See my above comment about the outer boroughs.

 

 

 

you're acting as if 100% of the customers at certain stations are piling into one line, which is part of the reason why you say that the should add more service on certain non-isolated lines, most notably the and for example.

 

In the outer boroughs, that is exactly what is happening. What feasible alternatives would a commuter at Broad Channel or up in Wakefield have besides the or the ? Those trains are packed by the time they reach Manhattan, so obviously the demand is there.

 

 

 

It's not like everybody are all going to this one particular place or something, especially when those two lines interact with the other lines during most (not all, but most) of their routes. This is exactly what I was trying to point out to you, and don't try and deny that either...

 

Try to deny what? If the train gets packed in the Bronx, then logic dictates that its passengers are going to Manhattan. And if that's where the demand is, why would adding more service not be a logical move?

 

 

 

You see, TTC, this is why I agree with NY1636, and, especially Tokkemon and peacemaker, because not everybody is going to rely on the subway like you always seem to make it out to be (at least to me...). People should just choose whatever they feel that is convenient to them. More service isn't everything, and I'm only talking about the subway. I can't speak for commuter rail and the buses, as I don't know much about them, though I think there is a huge difference between these three mass transit. I know I can be wrong though.

 

Yeah... no. No one is waging an all out war against the automobile, we are talking explicitly about commuting into Manhattan, which at the moment screws over everyone using surface transport. I refuse to believe that sitting in traffic for hours is convenient for either motorists or bus drivers, and never mind trying to find a parking space in Manhattan, which is a nightmare in and of itself.

[RollOver]

Encouraging people to take the subway more is a bad thing, because that increases crowds and delays on the lines, am I wrong? And adding more service will result in the same thing. Like you said, they can build some new subway corridors as an alternative. I think they should have also kept that Rockaway ferry so residents in the peninsula don't have to always rely on the getting to Manhattan. But of course, lack of funding is why it ended last year October. Also, just because certain train lines are crowded by the time they reach their most crowded points at a certain stop (where another line is on the same track and shares the same stop) doesn't mean more service is needed. What about the other lines that help them? Most notably the part-time ones? It's also not like trains are crowded all the way from end to end. There are exceptions like a train being way off schedule or a delay in service, yes. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'm telling you, there are other alternatives like building a new subway line to serve the same area, relieving crowding on the other line and certain scheduling of trains depending on which line is busier and which one isn't.

 

Oh, and about Broad Channel, the crowds are from the shuttle, while the number of people entering the station is the lowest in the system. And I hope you know there are also people traveling from an outer borough to another outer borough (not Manhattan). In that case, which one do they choose? Mass transit, or by car or bus. There are also people traveling within one borough too. Not everybody in the whole city is going to take the subway or other mass transit. And not everybody is going to pile into one line either, especially when there are other lines that share the same stations, especially where are there are also people traveling from within between stations when they take mass transit.

 

Since you say that traffic in Manhattan is a pain, well, that's why you have SAS, a new subway line. SAS can also be extended into the Bronx and Brooklyn. The city can also save money for the old Rockaway branch, Rockaway ferry etc. To make commuting to Manhattan a bit better. At least building some new transit lines is better than running a flood of trains on a particular existing line just for taking some people off the road, in my opinion.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I remember your words at the former train thread: "Too much service is better than too little service", which I don't agree with. How much more service do you want for the subway? I mean you have multiple other lines that also serve the same areas and also serve the same station stops. The subway is complex as it is anyway. For example, the and serve Inwood and Washington Heights, not just one of them. So people don't have to always rely on one of them. Another example is the and sharing the same stops between 138th Street-Grand Concourse and Franklin Avenue. And yes, this also goes for the 2, 3, A, and C. I mean you could always get away with running so much service on the isolated lines (which I don't have a problem with) and yes even the 1 and 6 as well and also perhaps the too. But if a line is not isolated, meaning it shares tracks with multiple others along most (not all, but most) of its run, then how would running more service be any necessary?

 

Rush hours, as always, is different. But I'm talking about midday, evening and weekend (or "off-peak"). Sure there's lots of off-peak, and, even overnight traffic in the city here in New York, where, as you yourself stated, people are going to visit friends, bars, restaurants, beaches, pools, movie theaters, show theaters etc etc. And yes, sure, people expect their trains to be there in a reasonable amount of time and get to their destinations, but I'm mean really dude...you're acting as if 100% of the customers at certain stations are piling into one line, which is part of the reason why you say that the should add more service on certain non-isolated lines, most notably the and for example. It's not like everybody are all going to this one particular place or something, especially when those two lines interact with the other lines during most (not all, but most) of their routes. This is exactly what I was trying to point out to you, and don't try and deny that either...

 

You see, TTC, this is why I agree with NY1636, and, especially Tokkemon and peacemaker, because not everybody is going to rely on the subway like you always seem to make it out to be (at least to me...). People should just choose whatever they feel that is convenient to them. More service isn't everything, and I'm only talking about the subway. I can't speak for commuter rail and the buses, as I don't know much about them (which is why I almost never post in all the other mass transit sections of this site other than the subway section here), though I think there is a huge difference between these three mass transit. I know I can be wrong though.

The examples that you're using to try to justify less subway service are terrible.  Yes, the and both serve Inwood and Washington Heights?  And?  The topography in that area is extremely hilly in some parts which means that getting to one or the other is not that easy.  

[RollOver]

Yeah yeah, my examples are all terrible in the post that you quoted and the post after TTC. Yet, the only reason you want more subway service is to get people off the roads, hence your word "FORCED" in the first page. And then, you wanna complain how crowded and delayed all lines (yes all lines) in your words are and that they should run more frequently. That's an example I find terrible. You're not going to add even more fuel to the fire just so you can a better commute to Manhattan are you?

 

Anyway, don't act like the subway is crowded at all (yes all) times of the day/night. There's a difference between a train being on time and a train being late. There are also other exceptions, like people going to grocery stores or traveling with one borough, which in most cases, they would actually prefer using a car, not the subway if they're not even going too far away and would actually save them money rather than paying the nearly 3 dollar fare all the time.