Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (2018)

Re:Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (2018) by namdnay on Monday October 07, 2019 @01:28AM (#21177806)

You realise there’s a lot of people between wealthy professionals and part-time/odd job workers right? A secretary has to be on time, so does a cashier. I’m not sure what good peak pricing would do, apart from push them to less carbon-efficient forms of transport?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (2018) by s1artibartfast on Monday October 07, 2019 @02:39AM (#21178084)

As long as the lines are still running at max capacity, you are still taking the same number of vehicles off the road. If you extend the period of max-capacity, you taking more cars off the road.

The question is if the benefit of more revenue and environmental savings warrants making the secretaries an cashiers adapt to less efficient schedules (eg come in earlier, stay later)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (2018) by SmellyGeekBoy on Monday October 07, 2019 @07:17AM (#21179512)

It's sad that making lower earners' lives even more difficult would even be a consideration in the first place.

Increasing capacity would also result in taking more vehicles off the road.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (2018) by bluGill on Monday October 07, 2019 @09:32AM (#21180546)

Increasing capacity can only be done with money, which needs to come from somewhere - most likely a tax increase elsewhere that will hit not only those same poor people, but also their neighbors who walk to work.

Peak fares to encourage people to work non-peak hours if possible can shift demand enough to mean you don't need build more transit now saving a lot of money now. Eventually there is no substitution for building more, but better utilization can ease that somewhat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (2018) by s1artibartfast on Monday October 07, 2019 @02:16PM (#21184176)

I agree that it is sad, but it is a real consideration. Nearly every environmental proposal has the potential increase hardship on low earners. Most commonly, this comes in the form of higher costs for consumer products, utilities, and housing.

There are are a lot of similarities with road congestion pricing going into effect in San Diego and NYC, and planned for LA and SF. Who will bear the greater burden, high earners who can easily pay the fee or low earners with rigid schedules.

[ Parent | on HN ]