NYC IS TOO GOOD TO DRIVERS

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On a personal note, as a result of my
much-increased interest in bicycling due to recumbents, I'm seriously
considering Urban Policy for a Master Degree, hoping to fit in some
kind of bicycling angle to it. As a result of my 50-mile bike trips
throughout the City, I've also become very interested in real estate
and land-use issues.

I have a master's in Regional Planning from Cornell, and have some opinions
about graduate programs. Where do you think you would apply?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1140968311.046393.97940
@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Hooray for Ms. Skenazy!! On a personal note, as a result of my
much-increased interest in bicycling due to recumbents, I'm seriously
considering Urban Policy for a Master Degree, hoping to fit in some
kind of bicycling angle to it. As a result of my 50-mile bike trips
throughout the City, I've also become very interested in real estate
and land-use issues.

Good luck. I've been writing letters for years. Even r.b.m is split over
whether bikes should have devoted land-use or just use the streets and
roads. Anytime anyone tries to accomplish something with respect to people
using bicycles to actually go somewhere and do something, the proposal gets
met with a that'll-never-happen stare.

Last week I tumbled into "yahoo answers" and so I asked why, if it's so
much easier, cheaper, and healthier to bike in many cases, why more people
don't do it. You should have seen the answers I got. The winning answer
was "Americans are stupid and lazy and what everything convenient." The
other answers were "_I_ can't do it because..."

Another lance in the fray might do the trick, so go for it brave sir
knight.

--ag

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The rationale has always been that drivers keep our economy afloat. But
a new Transportation Alternatives study shows only 6% of shopping trips
in Manhattan are made by car. Moreover, 90% of the people who drive to
their Manhattan jobs could get there quickly and efficiently by public
transit.

if you've ever driven in Manhattan it's not hard to figure why only 6% are
made by car, something the article doesn't explain

Quoted message said:

LONDON: King of car control! In 2003, London started charging cars
about $14 a day to drive into the busiest part of the city. Oh, the
grumbling.

And for good reason, it hurt business and tourism in downtown london

Quoted message said:

PARIS: In the summer, Paris has taken to closing one of its main
arteries - the equivalent of our FDR Drive - and turning it into a
beach, complete with sand.

Well it IS France I guess

Quoted message said:

LOS ANGELES: Even L.A., car capital of the Western World, is ahead of
us when it comes to rethinking traffic, and in particular, parking.

To cut down on the number of cars circling for parking spaces, L.A. is
raising its meter fees. The higher the fee, the quicker that drivers
pull out. L.A. business districts are experimenting to find the perfect
price that keeps about 15% of parking spaces free at all times.

Typical response, instead of making more parking they hurt drivers trying to
do business in the area

Mark Leuck said:

Quoted message said:

LONDON: King of car control! In 2003, London started charging cars
about $14 a day to drive into the busiest part of the city. Oh, the
grumbling.

And for good reason, it hurt business and tourism in downtown london

I'd be interested to hear your sources for that. In the UK the
general consensus appears to be that the Congestion Charge is a
Very Big Win, pretty much across the board. Even drivers aren't
completely against it, because they can now actually drive around
the place a bit more easily.
Most of the grumbling happened before it came into effect, when it
did and was seen to work then a great deal of the grumbling seemed
to stop.
There was a piece in a national newspaper claiming that inner
London had become a deserted wasteland inhabited only by wolves and
jackals, but as it was a spoof column lampooning the Iraqui
Information Minister's incredibly accurate reporting in the 2nd
Gulf War you can decide for yourself how serious it was...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LONDON: King of car control! In 2003, London started charging cars
about $14 a day to drive into the busiest part of the city. Oh, the
grumbling.

Mark Leuck said:

And for good reason, it hurt business and tourism in downtown london

First off, this is not true. Second, who cares if it was. If it was
good for tourism to take the locals into the public square and
guillotine them without a trial, would you be in favor of it?

Because this is exactly the effect of failing to properly control the
use of motor vehicles in the city.

NYC XYZ wrote:
....snip...

Quoted message said:

The rationale has always been that drivers keep our economy afloat. But
a new Transportation Alternatives study shows only 6% of shopping trips
in Manhattan are made by car. Moreover, 90% of the people who drive to
their Manhattan jobs could get there quickly and efficiently by public
transit.

....snip...

Why do you think that it's only shopping trips that affect the economy?
Any use of, or wear and tear on, automobiles results in the need for
economic activity (fuel sales, maintenance, etc).

If the 90% of people who drive to their Manhattan jobs decided tomorrow
morning to take public transit, would public transit be able to cope
with the increase in traffic? If not, how much money would have to be
spent, and how much time would be required, to get public transit up to
snuff?

Jeff

[email hidden] wrote in news:1140990938.133188.196640
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

If the 90% of people who drive to their Manhattan jobs decided tomorrow
morning to take public transit, would public transit be able to cope
with the increase in traffic? If not, how much money would have to be
spent, and how much time would be required, to get public transit up to
snuff?

About 800,000 - 850,000 vehicles enter Manhattan (below 96th St) each work
day. 12,000 are medallion taxis, 20,000 - 30,000 are limos and livery
cabs, 100,000 are commercial vehicles, 50,000 are city employes, 100,000
are visitors who don't make the trip every day. 90% of the remaining
vehicles -- say 450,000 vehicles -- could easily be absorbed along with
the 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people entering Manhattan to work who don't
drive. We've started computerizing the trains to make the flow more
efficient, we're putting another stop for the Long Island Railroad in Grand
Central Terminal, and hopefully someone will fulfill their 9/11 promise and
put a real transportation hub in the big hole in the ground.

With those drivers not driving in, driving times for the remainder would be
cut in half, fuel economy would increase by 20%, asthma attacks would be
cut in half. The people giving up driving in would save somewhere around
$2,000 per year each.

--ag

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If the 90% of people who drive to their Manhattan jobs decided tomorrow
morning to take public transit, would public transit be able to cope
with the increase in traffic? If not, how much money would have to be
spent, and how much time would be required, to get public transit up to
snuff?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Argh, sorry for mis-sent message...

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If the 90% of people who drive to their Manhattan jobs decided tomorrow
morning to take public transit, would public transit be able to cope
with the increase in traffic?

Well, most of the people in cars are indeed coming to their Manhattan jobs,
as opposed to living in Manhattan in the first place, I'd think. Something
like 70% of Manhattan residents don't own cars. I'd be curious how many car
commuters live in the other boroughs, and how many live beyond.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Claire Petersky said:

I have a master's in Regional Planning from Cornell, and have some opinions
about graduate programs. Where do you think you would apply?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Oh, cool!!! What do you think about Hunter College, City University of
New York? I ask 'cause I can get free tuition...they have grad studies
there in two flavors: one is a full 60-credit MUP and the other is a
36-credit MS in Urban Affairs (MS -- a science degree???), as detailed
here, <http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/urban/>....

Me, real estate has always interested me -- who put this here? Why?
Etc. Biking around, I start noticing things...and now, with recumbents
really turning me on -- 'cause biking was always an "exercise thing,"
but now on a 'bent it'll be just cruisin' around -- I'm wondering about
municipal bicycle and public transportation policies in general issues,
and since I'll need to get a grad degree sooner or later, voila!

TIA!!!

Mark Leuck said:

if you've ever driven in Manhattan it's not hard to figure why only 6% are
made by car, something the article doesn't explain

I'm not a motorist, though I have a license and driving is great fun,
sure, so tell me why only 6% of shopping trips are made by car.
Parking?

Quoted message said:

And for good reason, it hurt business and tourism in downtown london

Did you read the article? Right in the next paragraph the report found
that "today, almost the same number of people travel into central
London, while the number of cars is down by almost a third."

Quoted message said:

Well it IS France I guess

I'm surprised she didn't note the policies of Scandanavia and the Low
Countries -- or would those be much too reasonable to put across an
American audience?

Quoted message said:

Typical response, instead of making more parking they hurt drivers trying to
do business in the area

But, speaking of business, wouldn't it be more economically efficient
to have a high turn-over rate? Get in, get out -- free up parking for
shoppers and diners.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

NYC XYZ wrote:
...snip...

Quoted message said:

The rationale has always been that drivers keep our economy afloat. But
a new Transportation Alternatives study shows only 6% of shopping trips
in Manhattan are made by car. Moreover, 90% of the people who drive to
their Manhattan jobs could get there quickly and efficiently by public
transit.

...snip...

Why do you think that it's only shopping trips that affect the economy?
Any use of, or wear and tear on, automobiles results in the need for
economic activity (fuel sales, maintenance, etc).

If the 90% of people who drive to their Manhattan jobs decided tomorrow
morning to take public transit, would public transit be able to cope
with the increase in traffic? If not, how much money would have to be
spent, and how much time would be required, to get public transit up to
snuff?

Jeff

Mass transit systems benefit by this fact: cost effectiveness is
commensurate to the degree of patronage; the more they are used the
less their relative cost. Private auto use in dense urban environments
flips this formula on its head. The financial, ecological and civic
detriments (less space for sidewalks, nullifying urban dead space in
the form of parkways and parking lots, etc.) increase with motorists;
so getting 'public transit up to snuff' is a bargain compared with the
true cost of heavily autocentric urban areas.

Luke

Claire Petersky said:

Well, most of the people in cars are indeed coming to their Manhattan jobs,
as opposed to living in Manhattan in the first place, I'd think. Something
like 70% of Manhattan residents don't own cars. I'd be curious how many car
commuters live in the other boroughs, and how many live beyond.

77% of Manhattan _households_ according to the 2000 Census:

http://rightofway.org/research/2000_5boro_cars_revised.html

--
Steven O'Neill [email hidden]
Brooklyn, NY

Claire Petersky said:

...
I have a master's in Regional Planning from Cornell...

Cornell College in Iowa? 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Mass transit systems benefit by this fact: cost effectiveness is
commensurate to the degree of patronage; the more they are used the
less their relative cost.

True, but in NYC some of the trains routes are running at capacity. Adding
capacity is neither easy nor cheap. For the under used routes, increasing
capacity is easy and would be cost effective.
-----------------
Alex

In article <[email hidden]>, Alex Rodriguez

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Mass transit systems benefit by this fact: cost effectiveness is
commensurate to the degree of patronage; the more they are used the
less their relative cost.

True, but in NYC some of the trains routes are running at capacity. Adding
capacity is neither easy nor cheap. For the under used routes, increasing
capacity is easy and would be cost effective.

I don't know enough of the details to comment specifically on this
case. Indeed, if capacity absolutely cannot be increased other than to
lay more track and dig more tunnels, yes, it is a tremendously
expensive proposition. But I wasn't confining my statement to subways
and rail transit; dedicated Bus and HOV lanes on roadways also qualify
as they can do much to alleviate peak use periods of subways.

Luke

Luke said:

I don't know enough of the details to comment specifically on this
case. Indeed, if capacity absolutely cannot be increased other than to
lay more track and dig more tunnels, yes, it is a tremendously
expensive proposition. But I wasn't confining my statement to subways
and rail transit; dedicated Bus and HOV lanes on roadways also qualify
as they can do much to alleviate peak use periods of subways.

Luke

Indeed, apparently there are actual mathematical models which show that
adding trains beyond a certain number would actually slow things down!

But the same can be said about private cars -- as more and more people
own them, there will come a time when everything is just bogged down in
gridlock. Point is, financially discouraging private traffic or even
outright banning them during normal work and rush hours is something
which should be tried out by NYC. I just don't see how it can fail,
except -- sigh -- poliitically, perhaps.

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Luke said:

I don't know enough of the details to comment specifically on this
case. Indeed, if capacity absolutely cannot be increased other than to
lay more track and dig more tunnels, yes, it is a tremendously
expensive proposition. But I wasn't confining my statement to subways
and rail transit; dedicated Bus and HOV lanes on roadways also qualify
as they can do much to alleviate peak use periods of subways.

Luke

Indeed, apparently there are actual mathematical models which show that
adding trains beyond a certain number would actually slow things down!

But the same can be said about private cars -- as more and more people
own them, there will come a time when everything is just bogged down in
gridlock. Point is, financially discouraging private traffic or even
outright banning them during normal work and rush hours is something
which should be tried out by NYC. I just don't see how it can fail,
except -- sigh -- poliitically, perhaps.

Gridlock is already happening everywhere in our major metros. I believe the
traffic in and about the Twins Cities is as bad as it is anywhere in the
country. The solution to it is most definitely NOT building any more roads.
That has been tried and it has failed miserably.

Light rail is the answer. I would go that direction exclusively and I would
ban all private motor vehicles from the city during working hours. You would
either take the light rail or you could stay home and rot.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Are you talking mag-lev trains? I wonder why they can't update the NYC
subway with them. I'd favor an outright ban on private cars during
business hours, too, except I can settle for discouraging fees or
requiring full occupancy (car-pooling).

Oh when oh when is this telecommuting revolution finally coming?

Edward Dolan said:

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Gridlock is already happening everywhere in our major metros. I believe the
traffic in and about the Twins Cities is as bad as it is anywhere in the
country. The solution to it is most definitely NOT building any more roads.
That has been tried and it has failed miserably.

Light rail is the answer. I would go that direction exclusively and I would
ban all private motor vehicles from the city during working hours. You would
either take the light rail or you could stay home and rot.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota