[offsign]

One thing that irks me about these schemes is that they often ignore cities role as regional hubs -- i.e. many cities became cities because they serve as geographical gateways interlocking the surrounding region. They are happy to take the benefits of being at the hub, but (increasingly) adopt a nativistic dialogue with the rest of the spokes.

I get that no one likes highways running through their communities, but when you decommission historical arteries while aggressively adopting anti-car transportation policies throughout the rest of the hub, it's somewhat inevitable that the network get snarled.

Maybe congestion pricing is the way to go -- it can certainly work for major European cities built inland, and surrounded by ring roads. For NYC / SF (surrounded by water), I'm less convinced. Sure, I'll 'just take public transport' to go downtown, but the options significantly diminish if I want to travel from North Bay to South Bay to see my parents, or Jersey to South Brooklyn to visit my inlaws.

[JumpCrisscross]

> when you decommission historical arteries

There are no highway arteries running through the congestion zone. Building one would require hundreds of billions of dollars of eminent domain.

Manhattan has a $1tn GDP [1], on par with Switzerlad [2]. Its economy is larger than all but 6 states (between Pennsylvaia and Ohio) [3]. More than all of New Jersey. If it crossed the pond it would be the fifth-largest member of the EU, between the Netherlands and Poland [4].

It's a tremendously productive jewel that towers–literally–over the economies of its neighbors. Sacrificing Manhattan to save a few bucks on a trucker who doesn't want to take a highway through the Bronx is absolutely mental from a social, economic and environmental perspective.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City $939bn in 2023

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

[offsign]

Didn't advocate for "more highways" -- I totally get it. More offering that maybe these problems shouldn't be viewed as a purely zero-sum game, where cities get all the benefit at the expense of the larger region due to a form of geographic tyranny. (Or at least, perhaps we shouldn't pretend that externalities don't exist through studies that largely look at quality-of-life factors in the hub.)

You can see some of these same dynamics playing out in SF with the decommissioning of the 'Great Highway' on the west side, which led to a recent recall of the local council member. Why does the majority vote of a city of 800k people get to unilaterally dictate the transportation options for a region upwards of 7MM?

[ixtli]

I understand what you're saying but after 100 years of uninhibited car-centric design i think its reasonable for those of us who live here to want to prioritize the experience of people who live and work in manhattan, south bronx, and west queens and brooklyn. if people want to commute from places surrounding the city in a more efficient fashion i think its reasonable for them to redress that with the local or state governments instead of using nyc infrastructure for free in a way that inhibits community growth here.

[drewbeck]

> it's somewhat inevitable that the network get snarled.

Is this happening in/around NYC?

> Sure, I'll 'just take public transport' to go downtown, but the options significantly diminish if I want to travel from North Bay to South Bay to see my parents, or Jersey to South Brooklyn to visit my inlaws.

The are the same, you just have to pay the fee.

Also, for like 90% of NJ you'd be going the southern route into Brooklyn anyway, no congestion pricing involved.

[cguess]

The Verazano is already more expensive than congestion pricing. It's cheaper to drive to Manhattan from Jersey than Brooklyn via Staten Island. Never heard any Jersey driver complain though.

[michael1999]

Both NY and SF were regional hubs before cars disfigured them. No commercial vehicle is going to be discouraged by a $10 dollar charge, and trade is so much easier when the roads aren't clogged by single people demanding 1000 sq-ft of ground space to move around.

[oatmeal1]

It doesn't seem reasonable to complain that multitudes more of people should substantially worsen their everyday trips and suffer much higher risk of being killed by cars to make occasional trips that would pass through the city more convenient.

[bluGill]

> the options significantly diminish if I want to travel from North Bay to South Bay to see my parents, or Jersey to South Brooklyn to visit my inlaws.

This is a fixable problem. I'm still waiting on someone to do it though. NY is mostly interested in corruption from their preferred interests. (which is why they are working on a law to require a conductor on all subways instead of working to eliminate all that extra labor, instead of fixing their system so it is fast and reliable and then covers more area)

[TulliusCicero]

What you're describing as a problem is actually the solution, and what you think is the solution is actually the problem.

Highways running straight through the middle of major cities is stupid, unnecessary, and harmful. Going to the major cities is fine, but there's no good reason they need to go all the way through them. They should just go around/near the cities instead.

[tclancy]

Robert Moses has you covered.

[saalweachter]

Manhattan is surrounded by a ring road. It is excluded from congestion pricing.