Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Via Garibaldi 8

New York City’s Congestion Pricing Plan Can Move Forward, Feds Say

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

Very, very good quote, I've said that often too with regards to nefarious actions.

Those who don't know, my views are of the balanced transportation approach, having an extreme thought process like Robert Moses or the opposite end of the spectrum, Jane Jacobs doesn't create a healthy transportation system in the end. In other words, the former is roads only, while the latter is no more roads and transit/bikes only......

 

That is actually a false equivalence.

Jacobs was not anti-road. She wasn't even anti-car.

She was anti-ramming-a-highway-through-already-existing-neighborhoods. She was also against prioritizing cars over any other mode of transporation.

Contrast that to Moses, who had a boner for cars despite never driving himself, and had no problem destroying large swaths of the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn for them.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSG1 said:

Now comes the other bad part about congestion pricing which is why I decided to chime in. Obviously, like the obsession of switching to all electronic tolling everywhere (we've had such an electronic toll road here in the GTA since 1997 and you can find all sorts of billing horror stories online) is the unfairness regarding extra charges. If one doesn't have presumably the E-Z Pass then they will be hit with extra "administrative" charges. It's just how these things always go. You may say, whatever. But imagine yourself coming from another part of the country, or anywhere in the world really, renting a car, facing unfair congestion charges, and then because you don't have the transponder in the rental, getting hit by a nasty charge from the rental company. In Toronto, this was always the case involving rental companies and Hwy 407, they purposely tell you to avoid it or you will face huge additional charges, in NYC you have unavoidable electronic tolling situations which would be further compounded by congestion charge zones.

The moral issue is that with a congestion charge, 7.6 million people geographically on Long Island - like the 500,000 people on Staten Island, now become an ATM if they have the need or desire to leave those 4 counties and go elsewhere in the country.

**UNLESS** they drive in Downtown Brooklyn to go over the Bk Bridge and up the FDR - meaning that for those transit projects and street calmings so desired by one demographic of the population, we’re now increasing carbon-based and noise pollution in others because we’re forcing shunpiking instead of adequately funding our transportation systems’ operations and expansions.

To me, it’s no different than Jim Crow depressing property values and the resultant building of interstate highways in minority neighborhoods.

Now if this plan made West Street/Westside Hwy and the approach and exit roads to the tunnels outside the zone (ie Vestry St between West Street and Hudson Street; Spring & Houston Streets between West Street and Varick St), then half my issue is moot - especially if paying B&T toll from Q or Bk into the Congestion Zone doesn’t result in an additional full charge vs proration.

(Also, the routes to/from the free bridges to the FDR should be outside the zone too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Sorry, but congestion pricing is needed to break the tide of everyone using cars in NYC. Our transportation system SUCKS. It's unreliable for one. You don't know when or IF your bus will come.  That is what is leading to many people giving up and buying and using cars. However, in NYC that is NOT sustainable.  There are some people that like to use the excuse that they are transit starved, so they MUST drive, and the solution to that is to PROVIDE MORE transit options in those areas. We don't need trains in every corner of the City that are not as dense. 

Again, you are being naive into thinking that the city or whoever implements the congestion tax, (or shall we say revenue tool, gotta love that term to avoid saying "tax") will actually use that for transit purposes only. When has a distinct tax actually went directly to funding its intended purpose? Like all taxes it will be part of a general "slush fund".

First, you would have to provide true alternatives before one can reasonably speak of introducing a congestion tax, at least that would appear to be more fair. You say it's not sustainable for people to use cars in New York City, are you solely speaking of Manhattan or all five boroughs? How many cars that are on the streets of Manhattan on any given day are actually from the city itself?

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 The problem is NYC has been slow to roll out bus lanes and Transit Signal Priority, and the drivers in this City have no respect for public transportation or riders. They don't care. They want to drive and to hell with everyone else.  If they insist on having to drive, they can cough up more to do so. We don't have the infrastructure to have so many people driving. It is leading to an untenable situation.

How do you propose for that to work, do you want to do what we did in Toronto and effectively ban cars from certain streets? As in the King Street Pilot Project, cars weren't "banned" from using King Street but cars once on King Street have to turn right at the next traffic signal they face, while only streetcars and buses can proceed through intersections. In some cases in Toronto, they installed protected right turn phases to get cars off King Street onto other streets, there by delaying pedestrians from crossing the street. (and even worse, pedestrians crossing during a phase where they aren't allowed to)

I'll tell you what did happen to King Street though, particularly the section around the theaters in the Entertainment District (and this was before COVID), what did happen was a lot of "FOR LEASE" signs popping up at once were hopping restaurants.

Explain to me how does Transit Signal Priority work, I want a solid explanation because it sounds like it does nothing for the most part.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Most seniors here in NYC use buses, be it local buses or express buses, and they run very poorly in terms of being reliable. 

For seniors, not all are equal in terms of mobility, many make use of accessible parking permits which brings me back to my point I stated in my previous post that I won't repeat.

I wasn't solely also speaking about seniors within NYC itself but those coming from outside the city for specialist appointments for example.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Fix that and the crummy subway service, and you could get more people to use them.  They should be CLEAN and reliable, and not packed to the rafters. Some people think that getting on a packed bus or train is fine. That works for some people, but if you're going to get more people to use mass transit, you need to make the situation more comfortable for them. That doesn't mean that they get an entire bus to themselves, but it shouldn't be a sardine can either.

Ok then, this is an interesting situation you are mentioning, you wish to alleviate crush loads but yet want to add more riders to the system. How do you plan to do that exactly?

Having a system of automatic train control which would require most likely a complete retool of the signalling system which would take years.

Making platforms longer to accommodate longer trains.....good luck doing that to every station, and with many of the very old stations sitting right underneath the street, there would most likely be serious disruption to the streets at ground level.

The real solution isn't pretty, it requires serious expansion to rapid transit, which is enormously expensive and no one can give a straight reason why.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Deucey said:

The moral issue is that with a congestion charge, 7.6 million people geographically on Long Island - like the 500,000 people on Staten Island, now become an ATM if they have the need or desire to leave those 4 counties and go elsewhere in the country.

**UNLESS** they drive in Downtown Brooklyn to go over the Bk Bridge and up the FDR - meaning that for those transit projects and street calmings so desired by one demographic of the population, we’re now increasing carbon-based and noise pollution in others because we’re forcing shunpiking instead of adequately funding our transportation systems’ operations and expansions.

To me, it’s no different than Jim Crow depressing property values and the resultant building of interstate highways in minority neighborhoods.

Now if this plan made West Street/Westside Hwy and the approach and exit roads to the tunnels outside the zone (ie Vestry St between West Street and Hudson Street; Spring & Houston Streets between West Street and Varick St), then half my issue is moot - especially if paying B&T toll from Q or Bk into the Congestion Zone doesn’t result in an additional full charge vs proration.

(Also, the routes to/from the free bridges to the FDR should be outside the zone too.)

I'm just trying to understand, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that already how it works? The only non tolled way out of Long Island involves driving into Manhattan and over the GW through the Lincoln? I mean can one reach points north like the Taconic for instance without paying tolls from Long Island?

Edited by MisterSG1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Deucey said:

The moral issue is that with a congestion charge, 7.6 million people geographically on Long Island - like the 500,000 people on Staten Island, now become an ATM if they have the need or desire to leave those 4 counties and go elsewhere in the country.

**UNLESS** they drive in Downtown Brooklyn to go over the Bk Bridge and up the FDR - meaning that for those transit projects and street calmings so desired by one demographic of the population, we’re now increasing carbon-based and noise pollution in others because we’re forcing shunpiking instead of adequately funding our transportation systems’ operations and expansions.

To me, it’s no different than Jim Crow depressing property values and the resultant building of interstate highways in minority neighborhoods.

Now if this plan made West Street/Westside Hwy and the approach and exit roads to the tunnels outside the zone (ie Vestry St between West Street and Hudson Street; Spring & Houston Streets between West Street and Varick St), then half my issue is moot - especially if paying B&T toll from Q or Bk into the Congestion Zone doesn’t result in an additional full charge vs proration.

(Also, the routes to/from the free bridges to the FDR should be outside the zone too.)

For most of history, this has been the case. The East River bridges opened tolled, and before they existed it's not like there was a free gov't subsidized ferry off the Island.

Long Island doesn't want a bridge across the Sound, so this is entirely of their own making. Why should folks in Queens and Brooklyn get the shaft and choke on air pollution and traffic they didn't cause, while Long Islanders have their cake and eat it too?

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GojiMet86 said:

That is actually a false equivalence.

Jacobs was not anti-road. She wasn't even anti-car.

She was anti-ramming-a-highway-through-already-existing-neighborhoods. She was also against prioritizing cars over any other mode of transporation.

Contrast that to Moses, who had a boner for cars despite never driving himself, and had no problem destroying large swaths of the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn for them.

 

But the same endgame happened. When Jane Jacobs came up here, her lobbying stopped the Spadina Expressway from reaching downtown Toronto. This led to a domino effect that got every other freeway cancelled in (then) Metro Toronto. The worst being the cancellation of the Scarborough Expressway which wasn't supposed to run through many neighborhoods at all. They agreed that they would focus on public transit and 50 years later have basically built nothing practical since. Back then, they were against the sort of "Manhattanization" of downtown Toronto by focusing on higher density developments outside the city. Eventually this didn't work and downtown Toronto in the last 30 years or so has had intense construction of skyscrapers.

This same Jane Jacobs was also against the concept of the Toronto PATH, an underground network of concourses that connect the various skyscrapers together. She said it would kill street life or something to that matter. Nevertheless, what would become the Toronto PATH happened sort of spontaneously and it serves a great purpose for moving pedestrians around who come in by train into Union Station and the subway stations......also one could say the Toronto PATH is kind of like a freeway for pedestrians, there are no interruptions by traffic signals or anything, just pure continuous flow underneath the streets while the weather outside may be extremely cold or rainy.

 

Nevertheless, Toronto took an all or nothing approach with public transit (and has done nothing since 1971 really), and it appears most cities take that approach these days. The road diet is the go to plan for so many so called "urban planners" these days. In traffic engineering, your goal is to move more traffic, not purposely impede it further.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

1. Again, you are being naive into thinking that the city or whoever implements the congestion tax, (or shall we say revenue tool, gotta love that term to avoid saying "tax") will actually use that for transit purposes only. When has a distinct tax actually went directly to funding its intended purpose? Like all taxes it will be part of a general "slush fund".

First, you would have to provide true alternatives before one can reasonably speak of introducing a congestion tax, at least that would appear to be more fair. You say it's not sustainable for people to use cars in New York City, are you solely speaking of Manhattan or all five boroughs? How many cars that are on the streets of Manhattan on any given day are actually from the city itself?

2. How do you propose for that to work, do you want to do what we did in Toronto and effectively ban cars from certain streets? As in the King Street Pilot Project, cars weren't "banned" from using King Street but cars once on King Street have to turn right at the next traffic signal they face, while only streetcars and buses can proceed through intersections. In some cases in Toronto, they installed protected right turn phases to get cars off King Street onto other streets, there by delaying pedestrians from crossing the street. (and even worse, pedestrians crossing during a phase where they aren't allowed to)

I'll tell you what did happen to King Street though, particularly the section around the theaters in the Entertainment District (and this was before COVID), what did happen was a lot of "FOR LEASE" signs popping up at once were hopping restaurants.

Explain to me how does Transit Signal Priority work, I want a solid explanation because it sounds like it does nothing for the most part.

3. For seniors, not all are equal in terms of mobility, many make use of accessible parking permits which brings me back to my point I stated in my previous post that I won't repeat.

I wasn't solely also speaking about seniors within NYC itself but those coming from outside the city for specialist appointments for example.

4. Ok then, this is an interesting situation you are mentioning, you wish to alleviate crush loads but yet want to add more riders to the system. How do you plan to do that exactly?

Having a system of automatic train control which would require most likely a complete retool of the signalling system which would take years.

Making platforms longer to accommodate longer trains.....good luck doing that to every station, and with many of the very old stations sitting right underneath the street, there would most likely be serious disruption to the streets at ground level.

The real solution isn't pretty, it requires serious expansion to rapid transit, which is enormously expensive and no one can give a straight reason why.

 

1. Not at all. That's the purpose of the "lockbox", to stop Cuomo from raiding funding earmarked for transit to be used for other things. If there's no investment in transportation, nothing changes.

2. It's very simple. Create more busways, more bus lanes. Buses here in NYC are generally slow. The 14th St busway has led to HUGE improvements in bus speeds, with more people using them (at least pre-pandemic anyway).  Transit Signal Priority allows buses to move through lights that would otherwise remain red, so they keep the buses moving, which again speeds up commutes.  The less time buses sit at traffic lights and bus stops, the faster they become.

3. Yeah, I'm not talking about the ones that drive because it's obvious that some drive, and won't stop regardless, but some have the option of driving or using mass transit, and for those people, efforts need to be made to improve the system.

4. Right now, ridership is down considerably overall, a good 50%, so very few buses and trains are crushloaded because people are driving, and so the question is what to do to get people back to using the system? Many people have moved to driving, and if you don't do anything to change that, you lose them forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Why should folks in Queens and Brooklyn get the shaft and choke on air pollution and traffic they didn't cause, while Long Islanders have their cake and eat it too?

Because the free rider problem has no easy solution unless we get the more equitable Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax. So geographic Long Island suffers alongside and because of sociopolitical economic Long Island.

15 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

I'm just trying to understand, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that already how it works? The only non tolled way out of Long Island involves driving into Manhattan and over the GW through the Lincoln? I mean can one reach points north like the Taconic for instance without paying tolls from Long Island?

Right now, to get off the physical Long Island without a toll, one takes any of the bridges to Manhattan - Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, or Queensboro. With the congestion charge - IF THEY EXEMPT THE FDR, the only toll-free way would be the Brooklyn Bridge up to Harlem to get on I-95, or across the Willis At Bridge to get on I-87 - which puts more traffic on the FDR and more pollution in Harlem and the Bronx when right now, the Westside Highway/West Street is an/the alternative route.

(That’s why I’d want it and the Hudson River Tunnel entrance roads from the Westside Highway outside the zone - to spread the shunpiking equally instead of localizing it on Manhattan’s East Side and the South Bronx.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

For most of history, this has been the case. The East River bridges opened tolled, and before they existed it's not like there was a free gov't subsidized ferry off the Island.

Long Island doesn't want a bridge across the Sound, so this is entirely of their own making. Why should folks in Queens and Brooklyn get the shaft and choke on air pollution and traffic they didn't cause, while Long Islanders have their cake and eat it too?

I don't think tolls that were removed by the Great Depression are hardly relevant today. Cars weren't nearly as widespread back then.

And your second statement is ridiculous. Everyone on geographic Long Island is in the same boat with regards to tolls exiting it, meaning people living in Queens and Brooklyn are also free to benefit from the untolled bridges. I would say Long Islanders are even more likely to actually use the tolled TBTA crossings, to avoid the hassle of driving through Manhattan.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's very simple. Create more busways, more bus lanes. Buses here in NYC are generally slow. The 14th St busway has led to HUGE improvements in bus speeds, with more people using them (at least pre-pandemic anyway).  Transit Signal Priority allows buses to move through lights that would otherwise remain red, so they keep the buses moving, which again speeds up commutes.  The less time buses sit at traffic lights and bus stops, the faster they become.

It appears the 14th Street Busway was inspired by the nonsensical King Street Pilot Project I was mentioning. Do we know if signal priority works on 14th Street, it should be mentioned that 14th Street, like practically all of Manhattan are "contained streets" so to speak. King Street on the other hand is a lengthy thoroughfare.

So what happens now with cars that have to turn right on 14th street, do they get their own protected right turn (which would become moot because pedestrians won't follow their signals anyways) I find it interesting that all these bloggers don't use any professional traffic engineering terms, yet we should look to them for advice on all matters. It's the difference between the traffic engineer and the urban planner, the traffic engineer wants to make things work while the urban planner wants to make things look nice to hell with how it will actually function.

Do these use any traffic priority, because as I stated earlier, traffic turning right from 14th Street would ideally get a protected right turn would it not?

23 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Right now, ridership is down considerably overall, a good 50%, so very few buses and trains are crushloaded because people are driving, and so the question is what to do to get people back to using the system? Many people have moved to driving, and if you don't do anything to change that, you lose them forever.

Have you considered that people are driving and not many are using transit right now because of 1. COVID-19 fear, and 2. The shift to working at home. As I stated on here before, I haven't been downtown since the pandemic started, I don't know how many places are closed downtown, but you bet when I do get to go downtown again, it will be back on the subway or GO Train for me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

1. It appears the 14th Street Busway was inspired by the nonsensical King Street Pilot Project I was mentioning. Do we know if signal priority works on 14th Street, it should be mentioned that 14th Street, like practically all of Manhattan are "contained streets" so to speak. King Street on the other hand is a lengthy thoroughfare.

So what happens now with cars that have to turn right on 14th street, do they get their own protected right turn (which would become moot because pedestrians won't follow their signals anyways) I find it interesting that all these bloggers don't use any professional traffic engineering terms, yet we should look to them for advice on all matters. It's the difference between the traffic engineer and the urban planner, the traffic engineer wants to make things work while the urban planner wants to make things look nice to hell with how it will actually function.

Do these use any traffic priority, because as I stated earlier, traffic turning right from 14th Street would ideally get a protected right turn would it not?

2. Have you considered that people are driving and not many are using transit right now because of 1. COVID-19 fear, and 2. The shift to working at home. As I stated on here before, I haven't been downtown since the pandemic started, I don't know how many places are closed downtown, but you bet when I do get to go downtown again, it will be back on the subway or GO Train for me.

1. TSP was mentioned because it does work in speeding up buses. That's why I mentioned it, having had experience with it on a number of Crosstown buses.

2. Of course. The question is will people come back to the system long-term? Many companies have said that the five day a week office situation is not coming back, which means some workers will work from home entirely or at least partially. I have been working from home for over a year, and we have not discussed any change in plans anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

It appears the 14th Street Busway was inspired by the nonsensical King Street Pilot Project I was mentioning. Do we know if signal priority works on 14th Street, it should be mentioned that 14th Street, like practically all of Manhattan are "contained streets" so to speak. King Street on the other hand is a lengthy thoroughfare.

So what happens now with cars that have to turn right on 14th street, do they get their own protected right turn (which would become moot because pedestrians won't follow their signals anyways) I find it interesting that all these bloggers don't use any professional traffic engineering terms, yet we should look to them for advice on all matters. It's the difference between the traffic engineer and the urban planner, the traffic engineer wants to make things work while the urban planner wants to make things look nice to hell with how it will actually function.

Do these use any traffic priority, because as I stated earlier, traffic turning right from 14th Street would ideally get a protected right turn would it not?

Have you considered that people are driving and not many are using transit right now because of 1. COVID-19 fear, and 2. The shift to working at home. As I stated on here before, I haven't been downtown since the pandemic started, I don't know how many places are closed downtown, but you bet when I do get to go downtown again, it will be back on the subway or GO Train for me.

 

The 14th Street Busway has actually been pretty successful.

My questions to you are now this: What ax or vendetta are you grinding here? Why bring up bloggers up out of nowhere?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

The 14th Street Busway has actually been pretty successful.

My questions to you are now this: What ax or vendetta are you grinding here? Why bring up bloggers up out of nowhere?

Again while the projects on 14th Street and King Street are similar. The streets themselves and the purpose they serve are different.

Has the 14th Street Busway resulted in the closure of many restaurants, when was it implemented, I know it was closer to when COVID began so it's not entirely fair to compare.

I'm mentioning this because these bloggers have no background in the field of traffic engineering, not even in urban planning. Yet, they can speak like armchair experts on how projects will work or not.

What's happened on both King Street and 14th Street are merely hollow victories, we can't afford real new transportation so let's just close streets off to cars (which are in the city for a reason, they probably don't want to be there) and only let buses and bikes use the street.

 

Now give me an example of a busway that uses a right of way and outside of a downtown area, and tell me if it's significantly faster than the route that used to exist.

The Spadina Streetcar in downtown Toronto which I mentioned many of times has its own right of way, but spends most of its time stopped at lights then moving, allowing priority means that the streetcar would have to perfectly reach the intersection at the right time for it to work.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

Again while the projects on 14th Street and King Street are similar. The streets themselves and the purpose they serve are different.

Has the 14th Street Busway resulted in the closure of many restaurants, when was it implemented, I know it was closer to when COVID began so it's not entirely fair to compare.

I'm mentioning this because these bloggers have no background in the field of traffic engineering, not even in urban planning. Yet, they can speak like armchair experts on how projects will work or not.

What's happened on both King Street and 14th Street are merely hollow victories, we can't afford real new transportation so let's just close streets off to cars (which are in the city for a reason, they probably don't want to be there) and only let buses and bikes use the street.

 

Now give me an example of a busway that uses a right of way and outside of a downtown area, and tell me if it's significantly faster than the route that used to exist.

The Spadina Streetcar in downtown Toronto which I mentioned many of times has its own right of way, but spends most of its time stopped at lights then moving, allowing priority means that the streetcar would have to perfectly reach the intersection at the right time for it to work.

The majority of New Yorkers DON'T own cars #1. #2, we don't have the infrastructure to have everyone driving. I'm not anti-car either. I do get around by car often, but I understand that from a practical standpoint, with finite amount of road space, we need to encourage people to use transit where possible, to cutdown on congestion. NYC is one of the most congested cities in the world, so it's in everyone's interest to have fewer people driving, least no one will get around, including car drivers. Car drivers spend tons of time here stuck in traffic, so I'm not sure what you're ranting about. I don't know about you, but I don't like being stuck in traffic.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

Now give me an example of a busway that uses a right of way and outside of a downtown area, and tell me if it's significantly faster than the route that used to exist.

LA’s Orange/G Line, and Silver/J Line - the latter which replaced ~10 400-series express buses that ran on the Harbor Freeway before and after the HOV Transitway was built.

Viva in York

Transitway in Ottawa

Metrobús in Mexico City 

Tempo in Oakland 

That’s to name a few. Here’s a whole list of them with links to the aforementioned:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Deucey said:

LA’s Orange/G Line, and Silver/J Line - the latter which replaced ~10 400-series express buses that ran on the Harbor Freeway before and after the HOV Transitway was built.

Viva in York

Transitway in Ottawa

Metrobús in Mexico City 

Tempo in Oakland 

That’s to name a few. Here’s a whole list of them with links to the aforementioned:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems

So you want to speak about VIVA in York Region.

Is there signal priority on the segments which have right-of-ways? With my experience there hasn’t, and I occasionally used to take the route, Brampton’s Züm Queen use the Highway 7 Rapidway to reach Vaughan Subway Station.

I wrote about this extensively on another post I made in the Toronto section, but go on Google maps and look at the intersection of Highway 7/Keele Street, can you actually say that’s an improvement? The intersection is a wide monstrosity because they knew eliminating the dual left turn lanes at this intersection would be asking for trouble.

The only use of transit priority I’ve seen is the VIVA bus sometimes moving out of order in the traffic light sequence (for example it gets a special phase during an all red signal for example).

let’s not forget that Highway 7 forever has this monstrosity looming in the middle of the road which complicates all left turn movements in either direction. In some ways it creates a kind of Michigan left scenario where one has to make a U turn at an FPLT signal to reach a building on the other side of the road.

The real question is if these routes with the right of way are significantly faster (even at all) than the original version of the VIVA routed which were express bus routes. It definitely wasn’t the case with the Toronto streetcar routes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The majority of New Yorkers DON'T own cars #1. #2, we don't have the infrastructure to have everyone driving. I'm not anti-car either. I do get around by car often, but I understand that from a practical standpoint, with finite amount of road space, we need to encourage people to use transit where possible, to cutdown on congestion. NYC is one of the most congested cities in the world, so it's in everyone's interest to have fewer people driving, least no one will get around, including car drivers. Car drivers spend tons of time here stuck in traffic, so I'm not sure what you're ranting about. I don't know about you, but I don't like being stuck in traffic.

I’d say a majority of drivers in downtown Toronto or Manhattan don’t want to be there, they probably come from far outside the city. Closing lanes off for cars obviously means these same cars will have fewer space to work with on other streets. It’s not bloody rocket science.

when I went downtown regularly, I never drove. But not everyone has that easier luxury of being close to a train/subway station when downtown.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

I’d say a majority of drivers in downtown Toronto or Manhattan don’t want to be there, they probably come from far outside the city. Closing lanes off for cars obviously means these same cars will have fewer space to work with on other streets. It’s not bloody rocket science.

when I went downtown regularly, I never drove. But not everyone has that easier luxury of being close to a train/subway station when downtown.

If it's anyone who has lived in subway starved areas, it's me. Some people have to drive in yes, but plenty drive in because they prefer to drive in. In my old company, I had a number of people that had transit options, but they drove in every day. Why? Because they could. They parked in garages everyday. One person lived in Greenwich, CT. He was a principal in our company, and so was the other one, who lived on Staten Island. Salaries over $200,000 easily. They weren't taking public transit. We had many people that lived on Staten Island too. Most of us took the express bus in, but quite a few drove in, again because they wanted to, not because they didn't have transit options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

For most of history, this has been the case. The East River bridges opened tolled, and before they existed it's not like there was a free gov't subsidized ferry off the Island.

Long Island doesn't want a bridge across the Sound, so this is entirely of their own making. Why should folks in Queens and Brooklyn get the shaft and choke on air pollution and traffic they didn't cause, while Long Islanders have their cake and eat it too?

Just a slight nitpick with your last sentence. Those of us who happened to be born in Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties are Long Islanders, or isn't that taught in school any more ? BTW I understand your point about the bridge across the Sound but that's North Shore politics in my book. Carry on.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Just a slight nitpick with your last sentence. Those of us who happened to be born in Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties are Long Islanders, or isn't that taught in school any more ? BTW I understand your point about the bridge across the Sound but that's North Shore politics in my book. Carry on.

That idea probably hasn’t been taught in school in decades. Long Island almost exclusively refers to Nassau and Suffolk when used now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Just a slight nitpick with your last sentence. Those of us who happened to be born in Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties are Long Islanders, or isn't that taught in school any more ? BTW I understand your point about the bridge across the Sound but that's North Shore politics in my book. Carry on.

Sorry, I'm born and raised in Brooklyn, and don't consider myself part of Long Island. Not by a long shot. That's some old-school nonsense. I can assure you that Long Islanders don't view us City folks as Long Islanders either. lol

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Those of us who happened to be born in Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties are Long Islanders, or isn't that taught in school any more ? 

Yup, in a geographical and literal sense, that is entirely true. Long Island runs from the Verrazano to Montauk with all those counties in between. Of course, many associate Long Island with just Nassau and Suffolk, the non NYC part, that's more of a cultural barrier in today's time (and part of what Bob mentioned). My memory is awful usually, but I can safely say I've heard little of Long Island (or most NY politics) throughout school. Certainly has many walking around uneducated of their land. Look at what it has lead to, I knew New Yorkers who didn't even know the 5 boroughs of their own city, madness...

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Sorry, I'm born and raised in Brooklyn, and don't consider myself part of Long Island. Not by a long shot. That's some old-school nonsense. I can assure you that Long Islanders don't view us City folks as Long Islanders either. lol

It’s a generational thing, relax. I can assure you that my generation of Brooklynites know that the Battle of Long Island was fought in Brooklyn. That was taught to us before Junior High. Most people don’t know about the Long Island Rail Road company and it’s history either. My older buddies and I used to enjoy betting the younger people and the transplants and taking their money. Carry on.

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Just a slight nitpick with your last sentence. Those of us who happened to be born in Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties are Long Islanders, or isn't that taught in school any more ? BTW I understand your point about the bridge across the Sound but that's North Shore politics in my book. Carry on.

 

5 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

That idea probably hasn’t been taught in school in decades. Long Island almost exclusively refers to Nassau and Suffolk when used now.

This young folk old folk shit gets pretty old 🙄

They do still teach this, but culturally "Long Island" has come to mean something else. If you live in Queens you're not turning right on red or getting your power from LIPA or getting your water from the aquifers below the island. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As long as Brooklyn and Queens continue to be physically located on Long Island, they're always going to be part of Long Island.  The cultural distinctions do exist but they don't exactly put Nassau and Suffolk in a separate dimension of time and space.  Culture is an artificial human construct- geography is not.

Edited by R10 2952
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.