Gothamist: Confirmed: NYC Subways Are More Crowded

ianmac47

Wed, 14 May 2008 11:38:05 -0500

Wouldn't congestion pricing make even more sense, by providing the money needed to upgrade the mass transit systems that are quickly being inundated with more passengers?

Tim N.

Wed, 14 May 2008 06:57:24 -0500

I am oversimplifying. It's a post, not an essay. :>) For years OPEC nations's interests were cheating other OPEC nations. Would they have gotten their act together in such a way if Gore had been President? Sure, it's possible. But consider this: Bush, as a man, has a huge self-interest in the price of oil going as high as it can. Consider also that by starting the war, this Administration did what the Arabs have not been able to do since the end of WWI, which is unite them around common economic interests (not to mention basically put cash in their hands by taking most of Iraq's oil reserves off the table). You are absolutely right to say that the pieces to this nasty puzzle were in place before he took office. But what he has done with those pieces, and the damage his actions have inflicted on the nation he's supposed to be leading, borders on the criminal. IMHO.

bornbrednewyorker

Tue, 13 May 2008 23:53:57 -0500

This is what you get for the high gas tax. It's only going to get more crowded. Like having sweaty people up your ass? It's coming.

EastRiver

Tue, 13 May 2008 18:32:56 -0500

Tim, you're vastly oversimplifying. Yes, we should be doing more to use less oil but to think OPEC wouldn't be acting in its own interest if we had a different President or hadn't invaded Iraq is just wrong. On the supply side much of the cuts in production began in 1999 after the Asian currency crisis brought oil down to $10 a barrel. Saudi Arabia got OPEC and non-OPEC countries like Mexico and Russia to agree to cuts and for the first time they largely complied. All of those countries were scared to death of the loss of revenue. Then they underestimated global demand. China's use of oil has doubled from 1999 to 2007. Once the power was back in their favor they kept it. In 2005 when oil prices retreated a little they cut production again. So explain to me why they would agree to pump more oil when prices where going up, demand wasn't slackening thanks to China and the world had not gone into recession. Do you expect me to believe they would all do us a favor simply because we asked?

JacqueMehoff

Tue, 13 May 2008 17:42:09 -0500

I know the internet is great for anonymity but I'd love to see what post #2 looks like. That's the first time I've seen "local" spelled that way. Considering the poster is a bicycle hater makes me think he/she has some money to own an automobile.

piercep2

Tue, 13 May 2008 17:05:23 -0500

Times Square...looks about the same above the street as it does below

Ben K

Tue, 13 May 2008 17:04:59 -0500

Aw, Jen. Where's the love? I had this story a full six days before the Daily News did.

Tim N.

Tue, 13 May 2008 16:39:59 -0500

#2... your foaming at the mouth is making your fingers on the keyboard slip. ER, friend, I do read the business section, but the result is the same. I blame Bush. :>) At least for everything but India and China's increased consumption. Flat oil production? OPEC taking advantage of our weak government. Wall Street speculators? Greedy slime taking advantage of our deregulating government. Dollars decline? Think our failed economic policies have anything to do with it? I know we are way off the subject, but there's not one energy-related issue that the Bush Administration hasn't made worse.

sonyactivision

Tue, 13 May 2008 16:31:57 -0500

Other cities get billions for more freeways. New York needs more subways. But the Republicans hate mass transit because you can't sell a Buick to a subway rider. That's why we want them gone forever, but those Democrats better step up and deliver or they can get fucked as well.

plk779

Tue, 13 May 2008 16:18:15 -0500

Jeez, #2, got a problem with cyclists, do we? I do believe that cyclists ARE ticketed in much the same way motorists are. And what exactly does all this have to do with the fact that more people are taking the subway than this time last year?

edEx

Tue, 13 May 2008 16:02:22 -0500

i'm no bush supporter, go yankees!!!, but if you honestly believe that this is all bush's fault you're a pretty stupid person. it's called over 30 years of american ignorance. we're all at fault. the 1973 oil crisis taught us nothing and here we are reliving it... we're all as pathetic as the "one man" you blame for this oil "shortage"!

edEx

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:58:31 -0500

#9 *They can't add anymore trains if they wanted to.* Sure the MTA could. I waited 20 minutes for an A train at 34th street/Penn Station on Monday, May 12 at 6PM. If they added four trains to that time frame of 20 minutes, the express could actually be called an express and the thousands of people that piled up in that 20 minutes could have been dispersed more evenly freeing up the train delays.

The Edge

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:51:53 -0500

#11- No, but it's easier to just say it's because of Dubya. Just because, y'know?

randomdilemma

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:09:00 -0500

#11: But all of those things are hard to blame on one person....

lagomorph

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:55:16 -0500

No, we didn't necessarily need congestion pricing to reduce driving however we're also not getting any additional funding to help handle the people who have switched to public transportation.

EastRiver

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:50:14 -0500

war has driven oil to new records, helping reduce congestion helping increase mass transit. Yeah, because increased demand from India and China and the rest of the developing world, flat oil production, Wall Street speculators, and the dollar decline had nothing to do with it. Does anyone read the business section?

Think twice

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:37:03 -0500

Automakers will plot to take gasoline out of the picture altogether and we'll be back to square one when it comes to congestion. The only way to KEEP transit riders is to improve the speed, quality, capacity, and variety of transit options.

jaja007

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:35:25 -0500

The subways, especially along the "express" tracks are already at rush hour capacity. They can't add anymore trains if they wanted to. This is just a taste of what you would've gotten had congestion pricing passed. On a racial note - I find it interesting that most of the people who get seats are either minorities (black, hispanic, asian, or white immigrants like Russians). I guess living out in crappy neighborhoods has a plus side to it.

JMH

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:16:11 -0500

Congestion Pricing? No thanks. As you can see, subway ridership is UP, and we didn't need a tax to get there! Similarly, we can reduce congestion without a tax.The premise of congestion pricing was that by raising the cost of driving relative to other means of transportation, people could be induced to use those other means of transportation rather than drive. Congestion would be reduced (with the accompanying safety and environmental benefits) and money would be raised to finance transit improvements. Instead, we've seen the cost of driving increase relative to other means of transportation (but due to the increased cost of gas) and as a result fewer people are driving and more people are using public transit. The difference is that instead of the increased cost to those who are still driving being used to improve mass transit (CP), that money is going to the oil companies and OPEC. I'm sorry, you're saying this is somehow PREFERABLE?

cherrycoke

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:07:08 -0500

OMG! I'm in that photo!

edEx

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:56:16 -0500

*Similarly, we can reduce congestion without a tax.* war has driven oil to new records, helping reduce congestion helping increase mass transit. war is good?

S.D.

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:53:11 -0500

# 3, I'm betting the shift to Mass Transit is a permanent one.

streber

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:53:09 -0500

Congestion Pricing? No thanks. As you can see, subway ridership is UP, and we didn't need a tax to get there! Similarly, we can reduce congestion without a tax.

interlard

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:45:29 -0500

Time to schedule a few extra trains & busses, then. Now is the time to make the investment to keep people on public transit. Even after they work out they just need to buy more efficient cars (y'know like we all drove 10 years ago).

brooklyn and i

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:37:43 -0500

as to have a Safer Roads and locel streets it is to make new laws )that a bike hwo is passing red-light should be ticket 2)a bike living a seen of a accident like crashing in walking people kids property damage should be like a hit and run the same as a car 3)a bike passing red-light form a school bus should be ticket as a car 4) the new york city and state dot should keep a record and track from all bike lanes bike accident on living a seen of a accident like crashing in walking people kids property damage ... 5)the city should register all bikes riding on city streets like all motor vehicles to have a record of anybody who was involved of a accident and property damage

S.D.

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:22:19 -0500

Seems to be a national trend. As for "Congestion Pricing", if people really want it (I think the current plan is flawed): Start harassing the Council and State Assembly early. Don't wait till the 11th hour like the council did last time.