this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
576 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9883 readers
933 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 137 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Outstanding move on NYC's part.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 6 hours ago (12 children)

Prior to this going live there was a lot of talk about how congestion will simply move from one place to another. I don't know new york so can't name places but it was regarding commuters using a street or bridge that is now under congestion charge so they will flow an alternative route through roads that aren't designed for the additional traffic.

Is that now the case?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

The other location would be the Subways and buses in this case. I went home at 5 yesterday, right in the heart of rush hour, and it seemed like a normally packed subway not an especially congested one.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (10 children)

Some people may be inclined to go up and over Central Park to get to the other side without paying the $9. That likely only affects uptown residents. I can’t imagine anyone driving around the park from midtown to avoid the fee.

The only legitimate concerns I’ve read are from contractors with tools and small businesses who deliver. They should be offered exceptions if walking or mass transit are unrealistic options. You’re not riding the subway with acetylene tanks or delivering fresh meat on Metro North. Other than that, I love it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

Construction firms make a ton of money in NYC, they can handle it, and I don't think I've ever seen someone delivering food from a car in the city, they all use bikes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The other concern I've heard, and has not been brought up in this thread yet, is the lobbying influence from rideshare companies to pass the congestion laws.

It's arguable that ride share vehicles are a better traffic density alternative to single rider personal vehicles, but there are pretty clear downsides to consider as well.

Source:

https://nypost.com/2025/01/04/us-news/uber-lyft-spent-millions-pushing-for-nyc-congestion-pricing-and-stand-to-make-killing/

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 hours ago

You can be self interested and still accidentally be on the right side of an issue. It doesn't spark joy, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this. It's still a win, imo.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The only legitimate concerns I’ve read are from contractors with tools and small businesses who deliver.

Maybe, but anecdotally the lighter traffic allows contractors to accomplish more jobs per day because they spend less time in traffic, which more than offsets the congestion charge.

Going from three hours per day in traffic down to even just two means there's an extra hour a contractor has available to make money each day.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 hours ago

We've been seeing a lot of anecdotal posting on Xitter of people who were skeptics or in opposition to this suddenly realizing that they just gained an hour or more per day because the traffic has been significantly reduced. So even some regular people (i.e. not the wealthy) who have to drive in NYC because of their job are realizing that there's a cost benefit even if they do pay for the congestion pricing.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Does anyone have a good before screenshot of the same map view / area? I want to stitch together a before shot before I share so that people not from the area can get an idea of the change and not just immediately think "oh well my small town has traffic and it looks like that so what's the big deal"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

not exactly but with Google Maps you can setup a route with a start time set in the past and look at the congestion at that moment:

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Half an hour to cross that bridge isn't even that bad.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

yeah i wasn't sure when rush hour would be, i just put something random and took a screenshot before my battery would die ^^

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Gotcha, I found that on desktop you can do "average traffic" for a day of the week and time for the whole map without putting in a destination so I picked an average Monday at 5:30:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Lmfao, that's the same distance as my commute to work, and I can bike that in 17-20 minutes

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, but you can't bike through the tunnels

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 hours ago (31 children)

Nice. Now cars are only for the rich like they should be.

Real solution: Ban cars in parts of NYC.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago

True wealth is not needing to drive a car at all.

[–] [email protected] 84 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Right because everyone needing a car means everyone who can't afford one just automatically gets one.

Step one of reducing car-dependency is to reduce their number on the road. Then you can start bulding shit that accommodates the poor through actually nice-to-use public transit, bicycle paths, and walking routes.

Charge the rich. Build for the poor. Better yet, charge the rich, build for everyone. Not just cars. Because not everyone has cars.

Like FFS "good job now the poor can't drive" is hardly a comeback when it's like the most expensive mode of transit, massively subsidized with taxpayer money, just to kind of make it work. It wasn't something that could be made affordable or even efficient enough for everyone to use on a daily basis to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Zippity zoppity let's redistribute some property

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Cut to me dramatically removing my "fuck cars" jacket like a Yakuza character to reveal a "fuck private property" t-shirt

[–] [email protected] 37 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

What was that saying again, something along the lines of: A great city is not where the poor own and drive cars, but the rich take public transportation.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.

- Gustavo Petro, current president of Colombia, former mayor of Bogota

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›