How Paris Kicked Out the Cars
04-01-24, 09:07 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 7,067
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3367 Post(s)
Liked 2,198 Times
in
1,246 Posts
Fort Lee (directly across the Hudson River in NJ via the George Washington Bridge) just sued to stop this. The timing was interesting that the news broke the Friday before Easter, but I don't believe that was deliberate. There will be lots of negative impacts in Fort Lee, in part because more people will want to use the bridge instead of the tunnels to beat the congestion pricing. Fort Lee is already a traffic nightmare and it is totally unfair to make them a designated loser in this plan.
04-01-24, 04:27 PM
#27
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,027
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,592 Times
in
1,074 Posts
The AP article also failed to even provide any anecdotes to substantiate or even address the "road rage" called out in its headline. Lots of bicyclists and a few grumbling fist shakers at clouds who can be found anywhere, anytime. Worthless verbiage accompanying pictures that told a different story than one of "road rage."
04-01-24, 04:47 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 633
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 315 Times
in
203 Posts
I think the state of NJ filed suit as well. They have only themselves to blame, congestion pricing has been in the works for 20 ears, NJ has done NOTHING to increase funding for better mass transit. Christie, that Republican ******* of a governor who pulled that stunt on Ft. Lee many years ago to make access to the GW bridge near impossible (to get back at the FL Democratic mayor), refused to support the rebuild of Hudson River tunnels. They can only blame themselves.
06-05-24, 09:39 PM
#29
Senior Member
OK I looked that up. I'm pro-bike-commuting and anti-car. But here's the problem with all that:
1) Root Cause: At one time, most of the people that worked in NYC, LIVED in NYC. Now the population of the city triples every work day. Never implement a short-term solution without addressing the long-term solution, otherwise, the short-term solution becomes the permanent solution. Make plans, NOW, for increasing housing in NYC. First, take a 100% poll of all workers in the city, and ask, if you COULD afford to live in the city, WOULD you live in the city? No? Tell me why. Determine there will be big demand for fairly priced housing in the city? Good. Start with a moratorium on building for business, as there is already an imbalance between business residency and worker residency. When a LOT more people live in the city, see how much car congestion in the downtown drops.
2) I agree with reducing congestion. This often involves taxes. But let's say, I could clap my hands together in a kumbaya moment and get everyone to reduce congestion, be it carpooling, biking, whatever, would that satisfy the NYC powers that be? NO. Because they also want the tax money to supposedly improve transit. And that is *contradictory* to the intended goals of reducing congestion. Which, it would do, if people actually have a choice, if there is elasticity in choice of transportation. Cigarette and alcohol taxes do reduce consumption. Gasoline taxes don't, not for people who have no choice but to drive, can't afford a high MPG car, and only drive when they need to. Same for congestion pricing for people that have no alternatives. Provide those alternatives, that poor and middle-income people can afford.
3) Flat taxes like this one, disproportionately affect those who have no alternative to transport, and who are usually poor. EDIT: It's worse than a flat tax, it's a REGRESSIVE tax. $15 additional on top of bridge/tunnel fees is a ton of money for the working poor. $15 doesn't buy lunch for the wealthy who commute into the city. So those wealthy should be charged proportionately. Earn 100x a low wage worker, pay 100x the congestion tax. (And by the way, this is how traffic fines work in northern Europe, some high flyers in supercars have been charged astonishingly high ticket fees.) Oh, but that would offend the powerful wealthy, who pay campaign contributions, and play golf with city leaders. Also, see how many wealthy suddenly hire helicopters and pilots, and soon you'll have congestion and accidents there, so you need to cover all bases there.
4) Establish infrastructure for alternate transport. All business to have facilities for bicyclists, from bringing bikes inside to changing rooms. Make the buses and subways cheap enough for low-income workers to ride into and out of the central business district.
5) Be careful for what you wish for; High tax at night, and people won't come to town for a nice dinner and a show. All other transport needs to be safe at night.
6) Now, understanding the above, implement your congestion pricing, on a fair basis. But increasing housing in the city will do far, FAR more in reducing congestion.
1) Root Cause: At one time, most of the people that worked in NYC, LIVED in NYC. Now the population of the city triples every work day. Never implement a short-term solution without addressing the long-term solution, otherwise, the short-term solution becomes the permanent solution. Make plans, NOW, for increasing housing in NYC. First, take a 100% poll of all workers in the city, and ask, if you COULD afford to live in the city, WOULD you live in the city? No? Tell me why. Determine there will be big demand for fairly priced housing in the city? Good. Start with a moratorium on building for business, as there is already an imbalance between business residency and worker residency. When a LOT more people live in the city, see how much car congestion in the downtown drops.
2) I agree with reducing congestion. This often involves taxes. But let's say, I could clap my hands together in a kumbaya moment and get everyone to reduce congestion, be it carpooling, biking, whatever, would that satisfy the NYC powers that be? NO. Because they also want the tax money to supposedly improve transit. And that is *contradictory* to the intended goals of reducing congestion. Which, it would do, if people actually have a choice, if there is elasticity in choice of transportation. Cigarette and alcohol taxes do reduce consumption. Gasoline taxes don't, not for people who have no choice but to drive, can't afford a high MPG car, and only drive when they need to. Same for congestion pricing for people that have no alternatives. Provide those alternatives, that poor and middle-income people can afford.
3) Flat taxes like this one, disproportionately affect those who have no alternative to transport, and who are usually poor. EDIT: It's worse than a flat tax, it's a REGRESSIVE tax. $15 additional on top of bridge/tunnel fees is a ton of money for the working poor. $15 doesn't buy lunch for the wealthy who commute into the city. So those wealthy should be charged proportionately. Earn 100x a low wage worker, pay 100x the congestion tax. (And by the way, this is how traffic fines work in northern Europe, some high flyers in supercars have been charged astonishingly high ticket fees.) Oh, but that would offend the powerful wealthy, who pay campaign contributions, and play golf with city leaders. Also, see how many wealthy suddenly hire helicopters and pilots, and soon you'll have congestion and accidents there, so you need to cover all bases there.
4) Establish infrastructure for alternate transport. All business to have facilities for bicyclists, from bringing bikes inside to changing rooms. Make the buses and subways cheap enough for low-income workers to ride into and out of the central business district.
5) Be careful for what you wish for; High tax at night, and people won't come to town for a nice dinner and a show. All other transport needs to be safe at night.
6) Now, understanding the above, implement your congestion pricing, on a fair basis. But increasing housing in the city will do far, FAR more in reducing congestion.
As Randy Newman said, "I could be wrong... but I don't think so." Janitorial staff for all the corporate buildings, fast-food workers, restaurant workers including wait, bus, and dishwashing staff, and possibly even some prep cooks fresh off the boat. Any non-union labor. Park cleaning staff. Gas station staff. Parking lot attendants. Hotel cleaning staff. Dry cleaning workers. Food store cashiers and stockers. Clothing store workers. I'll bet there is a ton of minimum wage workers that flood each weekday into Manhattan, because they sure can't afford to live there, and these days, uptown neither.
I agree that some solution is needed. But as I've said, commit to solving the long-term problem of nearby housing that does not require a car, then, give incentives to reduce congestion; One might be congestion pricing, but not on the backs of the poor, that is worse than a flat tax, it's regressive, a much larger portion of a paycheck than the white-collar wealthy that work in Manhattan. You could also do the reverse, charge no bridge or congestion fees for registered carpools, because that money saved is a big deal to the working poor, and that reduces congestion. But that doesn't generate income. If the city needs income to improve transportation, tax the wealthy, proportionately.
I agree that some solution is needed. But as I've said, commit to solving the long-term problem of nearby housing that does not require a car, then, give incentives to reduce congestion; One might be congestion pricing, but not on the backs of the poor, that is worse than a flat tax, it's regressive, a much larger portion of a paycheck than the white-collar wealthy that work in Manhattan. You could also do the reverse, charge no bridge or congestion fees for registered carpools, because that money saved is a big deal to the working poor, and that reduces congestion. But that doesn't generate income. If the city needs income to improve transportation, tax the wealthy, proportionately.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...e-of-manhattan
06-09-24, 06:37 PM
#30
Senior Member
Nice to know. How is the bike rental for tourists there? I looked up and the rental bikes all look like upright grocery shopping bikes 
06-09-24, 07:01 PM
#31
Senior Member
For Paris, or NYC? Here in the USA, the rental bikes are all stepover frames but strong and designed for minimal maintenance, many have hard foam in the tires and not air tubes. I've never rode them, but the early ones, internal gear hub, I don't know if they had enough gear range for my city with steep hills. But now, they are all electric, gosh I can't recall if hub motor with no gears and just electric assist, or mid-drive and IGH gears? For a while, constant vandalism of people throwing them into bodies of water, and cutting the brake cables, I actually witnessed that from my window, but they were gone too fast. While I'm not necessarily on the side of for-profit companies, the rental bikes are a valuable resource for tourists, and many others. Some companies also give 30 minutes free per day to low income folks for a monthly $10 charge, that's an excellent deal, however you need a smartphone to unlock them. Things seem to have stabilized for sinking and cable cutting. However there is a small-wheel electric bike which no one pedals, just throttle, they have a large battery under the seat, and everythere I see them, the seat lock pried open or box cut, expensive battery gone. Also, unlocked and GPS-disabled rental bikes painted over and in homeless camps, which they can't charge, so they've destroyed an expensive rental bike where a dirt-cheap regular bike would do. I hope that stops. Poor and petty theft, yeah I'd say, no jail. But sabotaging an important public resource, city should offer repaired bikes, and if still stealing or vandalizing the rental bikes, jail.
06-09-24, 07:14 PM
#32
Senior Member
06-09-24, 07:51 PM
#33
Senior Member
Yeah me too, my walking distance is limited. But I can bike 25 miles at the drop of a hat, zero prep, 50 back in the day, and more with prep. I'm deeply thankful that local stores let me wheel my bike through (due to high theft), they're too far for me to walk, especially with groceries.
06-09-24, 08:11 PM
#34
Junior Member
Chris Christie refused to build the tunnels because New York was not going to share the coast and he had to raise the New Jersey taxes. Tell Port Authority to build a parking lot for the transit buses in New York City.
After buses drop you of in the morning, they go back to New Jersey to park, and afternoon go back to New York City to pick you up. that's about 600 buses.
Also Port authority 42nd street bus terminal is obsolete, you can start there first.
After buses drop you of in the morning, they go back to New Jersey to park, and afternoon go back to New York City to pick you up. that's about 600 buses.
Also Port authority 42nd street bus terminal is obsolete, you can start there first.
06-09-24, 08:33 PM
#35
Senior Member
Chris Christie refused to build the tunnels because New York was not going to share the coast and he had to raise the New Jersey taxes. Tell Port Authority to build a parking lot for the transit buses in New York City.
After buses drop you of in the morning, they go back to New Jersey to park, and afternoon go back to New York City to pick you up. that's about 600 buses.
Also Port authority 42nd street bus terminal is obsolete, you can start there first.
After buses drop you of in the morning, they go back to New Jersey to park, and afternoon go back to New York City to pick you up. that's about 600 buses.
Also Port authority 42nd street bus terminal is obsolete, you can start there first.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-in-the-ground
Space to park 600 40'(?)x8.5' busses, parked as tight as sardines in the can, is about 250,000 square feet, or a square 500 feet per side, and a lot more than that for them to be moved in an efficient manner and not totally sequentially. That size lot in Manhattan is not insurmountable, but still on very premium land. One would think that some buses run all day, but yes, more of them at peak commute hours.
Hopefully the new train tunnel will help a lot, transporting many train cars, more quickly, more directly across the river and back, and with electric drive with clean power generation. Also less tire rubber dust constantly deposited in the city. And less wear and tear on the George Washington Bridge, and streets.
06-09-24, 09:44 PM
#36
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,492
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 960 Post(s)
Liked 1,233 Times
in
531 Posts
After WWI, France had more disabled veterans than anywhere, but Paris is pretty antagonistic to people in wheelchairs or who have limited mobility. Many of the older metro stations have neither elevators or escalators, the sidewalks can be narrow and there are many neighborhoods without curb cuts so there's a big step or drop when you come to a corner. That said, along with the expansion of bikeways, Paris is trying to implement more curb cuts, and installing better pedestrian (and bike) facilities. Years ago, only a fit and fast person could cross the Champs Elysees on a single light interval. Everyone else would have to use the mid-boulevard pedestrian islands and cross in two segments.
Likes For RChung:
06-09-24, 10:55 PM
#37
Senior Member
There are two types of Velib bikes, electric and "acoustic." Both are sturdy but the acoustic bikes cost less so there's high demand for them at commute hours -- for a tourist, this is less of a problem. The bikes can be of variable condition, and sometimes (especially at commute hours) you may have to go to the next docking station to find an operable bike; fortunately, the docking stations are typically within a couple of blocks (at least, in my neighborhood). They're sturdy, that is, heavy; but unless you're trying to get to the top of Monmartre or maybe Menilmontant, Paris actually has pretty even grades. My wife will take a Velib from one side of Paris to the other to visit her folks. (I ride my road bike, so I don't need to rent the Velib).
After WWI, France had more disabled veterans than anywhere, but Paris is pretty antagonistic to people in wheelchairs or who have limited mobility. Many of the older metro stations have neither elevators or escalators, the sidewalks can be narrow and there are many neighborhoods without curb cuts so there's a big step or drop when you come to a corner. That said, along with the expansion of bikeways, Paris is trying to implement more curb cuts, and installing better pedestrian (and bike) facilities. Years ago, only a fit and fast person could cross the Champs Elysees on a single light interval. Everyone else would have to use the mid-boulevard pedestrian islands and cross in two segments.
After WWI, France had more disabled veterans than anywhere, but Paris is pretty antagonistic to people in wheelchairs or who have limited mobility. Many of the older metro stations have neither elevators or escalators, the sidewalks can be narrow and there are many neighborhoods without curb cuts so there's a big step or drop when you come to a corner. That said, along with the expansion of bikeways, Paris is trying to implement more curb cuts, and installing better pedestrian (and bike) facilities. Years ago, only a fit and fast person could cross the Champs Elysees on a single light interval. Everyone else would have to use the mid-boulevard pedestrian islands and cross in two segments.
06-10-24, 12:28 AM
#38
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,492
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 960 Post(s)
Liked 1,233 Times
in
531 Posts
Ah! Much better than before. Paris is a beautiful city but it used to be prudent not to walk and admire at the same time: you'd walk carefully then when you wanted to see something you'd stop and gaze; then you'd put your head down and walk carefully again. Paris also used to have the apotheosis of poop scooping, the "moto-crotte" which was a lime green motor bike with a vacuum attachment, operated by sanitation workers with the skills of trials riders. But I haven't seen the moto-crottes for years. It was particularly bad when Tiberi was mayor but, like the bike lanes, things improved with Delanoe and Hidalgo.
Likes For RChung:
