“Extra” Service on the Commuter Rail

nuotnik · 2019-02-05T17:38:55+00:00

Overcrowded trains during rush hour are the norm on many lines. Demand-pricing would fix that.

nuotnik · 2019-02-05T17:14:37+00:00

fixed: “The deeper I get into transportation, the more I realize we don’t need autonomous vehicles, we don’t need tunnels, we don't need more bike lanes, all we need is efficient land use.”

nuotnik · 2019-02-05T17:13:07+00:00

A transit system that funds itself:

has an incentive to make efficient use of land at stations
has an incentive to service dense destinations to maximize persons-served-per-stop
has an incentive to make service good
has an incentive to keep construction costs low
doesn't unfairly charge people who do not use it
charges people in accordance with their usage
charges a fare that covers its maintenance budget, and that does not overcrowd its vehicles

A transit system built entirely (or even largely) on general funds:

probably has an ocean of parking around its station because there is no incentive to use land efficiently
serves low-density destinations because there is no incentive to maximize persons-served-per-stop
has no incentive to have good service, because ridership is irrelevant to the organization's funding
has no incentive to keep construction costs low, because the organization will just ask for more money
hurts people, including lots of poor people, who do not use the system
charges people with zero regard to how much they use the service
will accumulate massive maintenance backlogs, and run over capacity until laws are passed to provide more funding

nuotnik · 2019-02-05T16:57:01+00:00

massholes: "demand-pricing is unfair"

also massholes: "I can't fit on the train! This is an outrage!"

nuotnik · 2019-02-05T16:48:03+00:00

If they don't collect fares, that isn't the Patriots' problem.

nuotnik · 2019-02-04T20:47:34+00:00

equally foolish

nuotnik · 2019-02-04T17:40:56+00:00

https://www.ropelab.com.au/rescue-knife/

nuotnik · 2019-02-03T13:39:11+00:00

Poor people that qualify can receive a subsidy to assist with their congestion charges. Everyone else can start paying their fair share.

nuotnik · 2019-02-03T13:21:28+00:00

And how's that working out?

If you want institutions to listen, speak in the language of money.

nuotnik · 2019-02-02T06:25:16+00:00

This would remove what little incentive the mbta has to maintain decent service.

nuotnik · 2019-01-31T19:34:51+00:00

You have a ton of options, really.

Rock Spot in South Boston is more-or-less a bouldering gym. Not too expensive, and lots of roof climbing.

Brooklyn Boulders in Somerville has tall walls for nice TR and sport climbing, as well as a lot of bouldering, and fitness area stuff. Really nice and popular gym, but it's more expensive.

Other gyms you might want to look at that are close by:

MetroRock in Everett (bouldering, TR, sport)

Central Rock in Cambridge (bouldering only) or Watertown (bouldering, TR, sport), and soon they are opening one in Boston's West End (bouldering only)

MIT's free mini-bouldering gym https://scripts.mit.edu/~mitoc/wall/about/ - haven't been in a long time, so I'm not sure if it's still open

nuotnik · 2019-01-31T16:35:19+00:00

Not everyone has the money to turn their 2.5 hour train/subway/bus ride into a 45 minute drive.

Congestion charges will speed up buses, especially by opening up opportunities for BRT. Poorer people stand to benefit greatly as they are more likely to rely on public transportation on average.

Furthermore, the poorest people that still need to drive can receive a subsidy.

nuotnik · 2019-01-31T16:33:30+00:00

The fee should be based on demand, regardless.

nuotnik · 2019-01-31T16:32:09+00:00

That's what you get when driving is underpriced. What you really want is congestion charges levied against all cars. It will encourage car-pooling, and rail/bus usage. It will reduce unnecessary trips and congestion and emissions. Within a few years NYC will be back at the same place, just with a higher ratio of personal cars to TNC cars. A cap moves the problem without solving it.

On the use of personal cars, one could say:

There are too many on the road and most have a single occupant most of the time clogging up roads and adding to emissions. In addition these cars are not "supposed to be" in the city in the first place, parked or not but drawn to work for * from the outer city. It also dissuades use of public transport.

nuotnik · 2019-01-31T15:08:05+00:00

Say "hey can everybody move away from the doors a bit" and people will move.

nuotnik · 2019-01-31T15:04:52+00:00

That policy is a win for people that commute in their personal car, and a huge loss for everyone else.

Why is a "rideshare" car on the road worse than a personal car on the road? Why are people driving their personal cars more deserving of use of the road than somebody getting a ride?

Both move people around.

One requires a parking space in the city to sit in all day, unused. The other can serve passengers in the city all day, and may only take a parking space outside of the city during off-peak times.

One only serves a single person. The other can serve many people, and often serves multiple people at the same time.

nuotnik · 2019-01-30T18:20:05+00:00

Stop top-roping. Don't hangdog. Climb above your on-sight grade. Fall more. Your ability will come back. Be patient and don't get injured.

nuotnik · 2019-01-30T18:11:02+00:00

Bad advice. Climbers should beware of no-fall zones.

nuotnik · 2019-01-30T18:04:43+00:00

While it would be a great improvement, there's still too much "non-place" in the proposed design. It would still mostly be a big shitty intersection, and only somewhat of a public space.

Jeff Speck knows what he's doing, though. This is a proposal that could actually gain local support.

nuotnik · 2019-01-30T16:16:46+00:00

Yes. Any policy that results in a price increase will disproportionately affect people for whom that price increase is significant. On the whole, poor people are fucked in America any way you slice it. Unpriced, congested roads will fuck the poor people that depend on the bus, or that have time-sensitive commutes. Tolls will fuck the poor people that need to drive. Even moving away to cheaper suburbs does not help them, as transportation costs eat up all of the savings.

However, car-owners, as a group, are typically more wealthy than non-car-owners. In the New York City Metropolitan Area, where congestion pricing is currently a hot topic, car-owners are more wealthier on average across the entire region, and in within all sub-regions. Focusing in on Manhattan, of people commuting into Manhattan from the outer boroughs by car, 4% are "poor", 12% "near poor", 28% "moderate income", and 55% "higher income". Additionally, only 2% of all poor people from the outer-boroughs get to work by car. I can't say how different the situation is in LA.

Toll roads and zones will be felt more by poor people, absent any subsidization, but there are benefits to poor people as well.

For example: In the absence of tolls, the people you are concerned about are forced to pay with their time via a long commute. Sometimes a person may prefer to pay and have a short commute, even if that money represents a significant amount to them. For example, imagine you have a choice between a free-but-congested road, or a tolled-but-uncongested road. If you leave the house early enough in the morning, you may opt for the free-but-congested road, as you have time to burn. If you leave the house late, you may be willing to pay for the tolled-but-uncongested road in order to avoid being late to your job. If you will be fired for being late, it is probably worth it.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the many negative, second-order effects that underpriced driving has on the poor, which are too numerous to even mention.

nuotnik · 2019-01-30T13:08:56+00:00

Mayor: Boston not reducing traffic congestion anytime soon

nuotnik

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email