• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does New York City Mayor and Transportation Dept. deliberately gel up traffic?

J

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
694
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
As part of "vision zero" the City administration had taken the following actions, which I wonder if they are designed to deliberately create traffic jams and make motorists' lives miserable?

  1. Shrinking five-lane avenues, such as 9th Avenue in NYC (with happens to lead to a major tunnel) to effectively two lanes when the bike lane and the bus lane aren't counted;
  2. Traffic lights which restrict left turns from and to one-way streets;
  3. Two bus lanes, 24/7, on Madison Avenue, creating middle-of-the-night traffic jams;
  4. Blanket 25 mph speed limits;
  5. Massive Citibike racks taking up a lane of traffic for almost the length of a block;
  6. Traffic flow constriction on Third Avenue leading north to Queensboro Bridge;
  7. Traffic flow constriction on Second Avenue leading to Queens Midtown Tunnel; and
  8. The worst, concrete blocks reducing 43rd Street between Third and Lexington Avenues to one lane on the south side of the street for half the block, and the north side of the street for the other half?

Is there some mad genius planning, or political correctness at work? Are they creating the "congestion" to allow for the "congestion pricing"?
 
Wouldn't be terribly surprising if they were doing it purposefully.

Chris Christie had done something similar with the GW bridge
 
For those that have no idea what in the hell we are talking about...

Vision Zero

But in the end it appears they are trying to address what all older and larger metro areas with high concentrations of people eventually have to contend with. There are simply too many people with too many needs trying to use a network of movement means that is way out of date.

For those in New York this means who you listen to on "solutions" will mean really understanding what they intend against practical impact.

With *any* network of movement through a city of any type (pedestrian, bike, car, buses, other public transpiration, what have you) it *always* comes down to two factors. Increasing the means to move around, decreasing the means to use what is there now to move around, or some combination of the two.

It appears New York wants to go with the decreasing means approach, and that makes New York align with London, Paris, and others who went in favor of restriction of use as a means to ensure less people congest what is there. That decision is usually made because of "safety" reasons, the alternative is favoring one means of transpiration over the other and potentially making someone else end up at higher risk. For instance, more lanes for more cars generally results in less safety for pedestrians (a note made by the Vision Zero plan.)

The next step is what the OP is hinting at. Congestion taxes for being in the city, more use of tolls, higher costs for public transpiration, etc.

The thing to keep in mind is "city planning" 100s of years ago had no concept of several million people all trying to move about the city every single day using a number of means to do so that they could not even envision as possible. That realization alone sealed the fate for how London and Paris handled congestion, looks like New York is next and given the geography limitations as well it makes sense this is the direction they are going.
 
Naw, that's impossible as the city is run by Democrats, who are perfectionists at everything. Therefore, the only explanation for the OP message being critical of those Democrats must be is the message is racist.
 
Ikari said:
Wouldn't be terribly surprising if they were doing it purposefully.

Chris Christie had done something similar with the GW bridge
Click to expand...
The GWB fiasco was aimed at a particular mayor for a few days. This is long-term.

OrphanSlug said:
For those that have no idea what in the hell we are talking about...

Vision Zero

But in the end it appears they are trying to address what all older and larger metro areas with high concentrations of people eventually have to contend with. There are simply too many people with too many needs trying to use a network of movement means that is way out of date.

For those in New York this means who you listen to on "solutions" will mean really understanding what they intend against practical impact.

With *any* network of movement through a city of any type (pedestrian, bike, car, buses, other public transpiration, what have you) it *always* comes down to two factors. Increasing the means to move around, decreasing the means to use what is there now to move around, or some combination of the two.

It appears New York wants to go with the decreasing means approach, and that makes New York align with London, Paris, and others who went in favor of restriction of use as a means to ensure less people congest what is there. That decision is usually made because of "safety" reasons, the alternative is favoring one means of transpiration over the other and potentially making someone else end up at higher risk. For instance, more lanes for more cars generally results in less safety for pedestrians (a note made by the Vision Zero plan.)

The next step is what the OP is hinting at. Congestion taxes for being in the city, more use of tolls, higher costs for public transpiration, etc.

The thing to keep in mind is "city planning" 100s of years ago had no concept of several million people all trying to move about the city every single day using a number of means to do so that they could not even envision as possible. That realization alone sealed the fate for how London and Paris handled congestion, looks like New York is next and given the geography limitations as well it makes sense this is the direction they are going.
Click to expand...
Your post is well-written but I disagree with it. Decreasing congestion by increasing it? Does not make sense.
 
JBG said:
The GWB fiasco was aimed at a particular mayor for a few days. This is long-term.

Your post is well-written but I disagree with it. Decreasing congestion by increasing it? Does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Close. What I was trying to say (and not to well I admit) is when trying to city plan for people moving around there are two factors. Increasing means, or restricting use, or both.

The both part is when you take from one and give to the other. As in my example of removing means for cars but increasing means for more pedestrians, or removing means for cars and increasing means via public transpiration.

Safety becomes one pivot point in what is really changed to improve something. Taking a lane or two from a major road to have a better barrier between cars and pedestrians is one thing New York is considering per that plan. Now that means the same amount of vehicles using less lanes to move, or increased traffic. The OP and I share the same concern, the intention then will result in some sort of congestion tax in an effort to have less cars use less lanes.

The real point I was trying to make is these aged cities designed 100s of years ago had no concept of 6+ lane car roads, nor did they have any idea what a subway was. Those came later cutting into a finite space to put them but the base design of those city layouts is the same.

New York is now struggling with the idea, and the safety of, millions of people moving around every day.

The usual result is increasing one means by taking from another, then using some sort of taxation or outright restriction to handle whatever is taken from.

London specifically did this. When they realized they could not put in more means to get cars moving around, they used a congestion tax to try to prevent so many people from using roads within the city.

I hear Atlanta is considering something similar, and for the same reason.
 
an entire adult life of commuting has taught me that you can only pave so many lanes. while i enjoy driving for pleasure and am glad that i have the skill, i don't see manually driven cars as the primary form of transportation in one hundred years. there are just too many people, and too many assholes trying to "win" every single move instead of just getting to and from work.

if i were to make a prediction, i would guess that autonomous vehicles controlled by a central computer might be the next step for the US. this has the potential to reduce human error significantly, and might make the current number of lanes work better for a while.
 
JBG said:
As part of "vision zero" the City administration had taken the following actions, which I wonder if they are designed to deliberately create traffic jams and make motorists' lives miserable?
Click to expand...
They aren't.


Shrinking five-lane avenues, such as 9th Avenue in NYC (with happens to lead to a major tunnel) to effectively two lanes when the bike lane and the bus lane aren't counted
Two bus lanes, 24/7, on Madison Avenue, creating middle-of-the-night traffic jams
Traffic flow constriction on Third Avenue leading north to Queensboro Bridge;
Traffic flow constriction on Second Avenue leading to Queens Midtown Tunnel;
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence that any of these avenues are more congested specifically because of these changes? Including ruling out the effects of ride shares like Lyft and Uber, which yes cause more congestion?

And no, "I got stuck in traffic last week" is not valid. Actual data is required.


Traffic lights which restrict left turns from and to one-way streets
Click to expand...
Definitely not. Making left turns in a crowded urban environment actually slows you down. Mythbusters did an ep on this....


Blanket 25 mph speed limits
Click to expand...
A pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 25mph has a 85% chance of surviving.
A pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 35mph has a 66% chance of surviving.
A pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 50mph has a 25% chance of surviving.

You were saying?


Massive Citibike racks taking up a lane of traffic for almost the length of a block
Click to expand...
Citibike racks occupy parking spaces, not lanes. And of course, they aren't that long.


Is there some mad genius planning, or political correctness at work? Are they creating the "congestion" to allow for the "congestion pricing"?
Click to expand...
No. What they're doing is making the city safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom