Amid these positive changes, however, other readers described distinct declines in their quality of life, often stemming from the cost of the toll. These deeply personal observations have no corresponding measures in public data.
“Sadly Manhattan is no longer an option for many things we once enjoyed.” - Linda Fisher, Queens
“I will not use doctors in Manhattan, limiting my health care choices.” - David Pecoraro, Queens
Those ‘things’ and doctors are still there, and if they had raised their prices by ten bucks a visit, these people wouldn’t blink an eye.
It’s remarkable to me the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify equally distributing costs of public infrastructure while opposing equally distributing costs of public healthcare. Opinion incongruity can be infuriating at times.
Anecdotally, I’ve got some friends on the other side of the river that said much the same and ended up switching to coming into the city via transit, as intended.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d heard often enough the transit was previously unreliable as far as timing goes. I imagine that presumption has gone quite the way to dissuading people from taking it. Now though, seems like everything is running rather smoothly with the decreased traffic load.
I’m looking forward to see what the transit service is able to do with the funds over the next few years. I hope some of it ends up in the pockets of the operators.
Buses are unreliable, because they get caught in traffic. Trains maybe don’t run as often as we’d like them to, especially at night and on weekends, but my friends and I can rely on them, and they hit most of our frequent destinations anyway.
It’s also worth noting that congestion pricing only affects one part of Manhattan. It doesn’t affect transit either. They’re just whinny privileged carbrains, the majority of NYers live on transit
Good on you, New York.
That it makes life more inconvenient for wealthy people in a way that they absolutely hate is just icing on the cake.
Sadly, it probably makes their lives easier too , for most of them - at least the ones traveling in the zone. They can afford it or the cab fare, and the journey is faster.
The ones holding oil stocks won’t even notice the immaterial difference unless it somehow fixes transit and housing density in the rest of the USA (Narrator: . . . ) .
The only real inconvenience would probably be for low income people who have to drive and can’t swap to subway or bus for some reason - I’d think probably not very many of those.
Maybe people owning car parking in manhatten suffer so that’s probably a win.
I totally get that the money they have to pay is inconsequential for them.
But it still pisses them off. And I love it.
“I supercommute weekly from Kingston by bus. Each week, my bus round trip is 30-60 minutes faster than it was before congestion pricing.”
That’s a 170km commute one way.
I wonder what sort of industry they work in that requires their physical presence and associated carbon emissions?
Fuck cars, but also fuck office buildings and RTO, for many reasons too numerous to list, but also to some degree transit created to enable unnecessary commutes.
I do know quite a few people who do that. Usually it’s people in high paid jobs (high level engineers or middle management) who live in a cheap area and work in a high salary area.
The reason they do the commute is because if they don’t and instead work remote they will not get the salary associated with the high-salary area.
So at least with the people I know it’s not a “I’m a poor worker forced in RTO and have no other option” but more of a “I’m deliberatly gaming the system and min-maxing my salary and living expenses”.
For example, I used to know a guy who worked in London but lived in a ridiculously large mansion in the Welsh Valleys. He said he couldn’t afford what he wanted in London, so he moved to Wales. He now commutes weekly via plane to London.
He now commutes weekly via plane to London.
That’s a climate criminal right there.
True. He’s damaging the climate for personal gain.
Telling how NYTimes shoves “Better Quality of Life” to the very bottom of the article like it’s a footnote. I’d lead with that.
Eh, the others are more objectively measurable, so that makes sense to me.
Except that besides the quotes that section is nothing but objective measurements: Noise complaint numbers, injury counts, air quality changes. Equal or greater number of objective measurements as the other sections.
Probably republicans are still screaming about freedom or something
