NYC Roads

[corco]

That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?

[cl94]

That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?

Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.

[1995hoo]

Yup. I remember my grandfather taking his car onto the ferry in the 1980s when we had gone into the city for something and we were then heading to my cousins' house on Staten Island. I don't ever remember seeing trucks using it.

[empirestate]

That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?

Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.

But they allow people on it. And as we all know, cars don't kill people, people do.


iPhone

[Pete from Boston]

That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?

Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.

But they allow people on it. And as we all know, cars don't kill people, people do.

Then it's simple.  They should ban people.  Skynet, are you listening?

[route17fan]

On old sign sighting that I have passed many times when I lived in Albany but was not sure where it was to get a picture of it.

A white-on-black MERGING TRAFFIC sign!!

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8436093,-73.9450125,3a,15y,38.57h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFJWOSZXTaaO9qQtHBr8fjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here seems to be the deal - it's facing the wrong direction on the ramp.

The next link is its' profile. I can not get a good view of it from under the overpass - but it is definitely there!!

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8437267,-73.9444253,3a,15y,271.06h,87.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqf4X4j7w7GJUhRKm1KeVmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[route17fan]

Here it is - a better link

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8436215,-73.9444886,3a,15y,305.7h,86.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss6NnJTgw-pYoexIIdPUW3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's on a concrete wall in the trees

[Duke87]

That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?

Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.

Yup, the bottom deck of the boats was originally used for vehicles - buses were allowed as well (not sure about trucks). Today you can go down there and walk around if you are so inclined, one reason to do so would be the relatively unrestricted views you get from the bow and stern. Lotsa empty space in the middle though.

Both terminals were rebuilt in the mid-2000s and as far as I'm aware there is still roadway in place for cars to get on the ferries if the city saw fit to allow it again (the Manhattan entrance is through here), but to date officials are still paranoid concerned about the fact that it would be impractical to give vehicles boarding the boat any sort of security screening. Yes, the people walking on board are not security screened either and someone could do some pretty nasty damage with things they can fit on their person, but as with so many things in the world of trying to prevent terrorism it's more about security theater than about actual security.

[AlexandriaVA]

Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...

[noelbotevera]

Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...

It's just 14 years and counting...

[1995hoo]

That's nonsense. Since when can you drive a car onto the Staten Island ferry?

Before 9/11. They stopped allowing cars for security.

Yup, the bottom deck of the boats was originally used for vehicles - buses were allowed as well (not sure about trucks). Today you can go down there and walk around if you are so inclined, one reason to do so would be the relatively unrestricted views you get from the bow and stern. Lotsa empty space in the middle though.

Both terminals were rebuilt in the mid-2000s and as far as I'm aware there is still roadway in place for cars to get on the ferries if the city saw fit to allow it again (the Manhattan entrance is through here), but to date officials are still paranoid concerned about the fact that it would be impractical to give vehicles boarding the boat any sort of security screening. Yes, the people walking on board are not security screened either and someone could do some pretty nasty damage with things they can fit on their person, but as with so many things in the world of trying to prevent terrorism it's more about security theater than about actual security.

I seem to recall vehicles having been banned from the Staten Island Ferry at one point prior to 9-11 but then being allowed back on. An Internet search indicates vehicles were banned after a fire in the Manhattan terminal in 1992 messed up vehicular access and that they were allowed back onto the ferry in 1994 after repairs were completed.

Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...

It's just 14 years and counting...

I assume he's referring to the 2010 incident where one of the ferries crashed while arriving at the St. George terminal because the reverse thrusters failed.

[Pete from Boston]

Didn't take terrorism for the tragedy several years back...

It's just 14 years and counting...

I assume he's referring to the 2010 incident where one of the ferries crashed while arriving at the St. George terminal because the reverse thrusters failed.

I thought it was a reference to the 2003 medicated-captain crash in which 11 people died.

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Flushing,+Queens,+NY/@40.749755,-73.850277,3a,66.8y,330.64h,83.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sj4WYXnxEDTbKltJYMgjhnw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c260054dc0633f:0xfaec24d1b474281e

To change the subject a bit this overpass is very interesting how they split the carriageways around the pier of the Long Island Railroad Overpass near Citi Field.  I know that the original 4 lane parkway went through here as the EB lanes do not do this as well as this side being constructed much differently then the EB overpass.  It obvious that when the GCP was expanded, they left the original overpass and just added another one to the end.

I have seen this done in various places in the US and its a sound solution then taking more time and money to make it look better for aesthetics.

Also nearby I see there is an Exit 9P.  Rather unusual suffix, but then again NYS uses directional suffixes over A-B-C or else this would have been 9C.  I am guessing the P stands for Park which Exit 9P is the ramp leading into Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

[mrsman]

Even outside of rush hour, there are plenty of cars using this bridge.  And plenty of "carpools" (i.e. families heading back to the city together) that there probably is justification for keeping the lane HOV3+ at all times. 

I have family in Queens, so most of my trips from MD to Queens involve taking the SIE to the VZ.  And even at off-peak times, it's generally a crawl.  Usually, the lane is closed off to all except buses and it's a pain, but I understand that there would be a bottleneck as the HOV lane merges in with the left lane before the defunct toll plaza.

Currently, the HOV lane merges into the left lane.  The left two lanes of the SIE lead to the upper level of the bridge.  The third lane leads to either upper level or lower level.  And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level.  To me, it would seem wiser to have the HOV lane become the left lane of the upper level of the bridge without merging, even if we can't restrict it to HOVs on the bridge itself.  This would eliminate the last minute merge and provide a good excuse for keeping the lane open to general traffic (or HOV) at all times.  Then, the next two lanes will go to the upper level.  The third lane will go only to the lower level.  And all lanes further to the right (coming in from entrances near the SIE) lead only to the lower level.

The whole point of the project currently on the bridge is to create a continuous HOV lane. It will still end into the left lane at most hours, though, because outside of the AM rush you just don't have many vehicles using it. The bridge is only wide enough for 7 lanes (barely), so something's gotta give. The bridge lane will be reversible, matching the Gowanus. You'll have to deal with the merge otherwise. Also, know that the entrances near the SIE lead to both levels. They drop into the middle between Upper and Lower with a choice of where to go.

There would absolutely be use of this lane outside of AM rush.  This is a very busy road, especially at the end of summer weekends (return to city after a trip to Jersey Shore) and a significant number of people travel on weekends with their families.

As far as making a HOV lane on the bridge itself though, it seems that this would require some kind of bypass ramp on the Brooklyn end (so that HOV traffic can continue onto the Gowanus and not be forced to go to the Belt Pkwy).  Is something like this really planned?

In the meantime, the HOV lane on the SIE could be opened full time.

[roadman65]

Why do they not use the left lane lower level for an exclusive HOV lane and use the lower level ramp as its exit for the Belt Parkway?  Just so you know for well over a decade (maybe for well over  that even) there was no lower level access to the Belt Parkway.  Even though the ramp was always there for some reason the TBTA did not allow traffic to use the ramp for whatever reason.

A sign on the gantry across E Bound I-278 at the split informed motorists with a Belt Parkway and an arrow pointing to the upper level.  It stood since I was a kid back in the 70's, it was there back in 1987 when I decided to clinch the JFK airport roads and part of the LIE in Queens.  However, when I went to Coney Island back in 01 or 02, I noticed that the exclusive arrow was gone and both levels had access to it.

Anyway, if NYC survived that for all those years having only one ramp, then they can again.

[empirestate]

Anyway, if NYC survived that for all those years having only one ramp, then they can again.

NYC can't even survive a three-inch snowfall anymore...

[roadman65]

Where do all the high taxes go then?  NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent,  and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.

The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs.  That is a big shame! 

[Pete from Boston]

Where do all the high taxes go then?  NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent,  and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.

The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs.  That is a big shame!

You're familiar with the law of supply and demand, I'm sure, and know that New York would be very, very expensive without high taxes, right?

[roadman65]

Where do all the high taxes go then?  NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent,  and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.

The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs.  That is a big shame!

You're familiar with the law of supply and demand, I'm sure, and know that New York would be very, very expensive without high taxes, right?

Probably, but still raises a question why the most expensive city to live in has terrible amenities.  Same for California being bankrupt for a state that has the highest cost of living.  You would think that the more money that goes in would have something to show for, but it does not.

Yes I am familiar with supply and demand, as its when you have that last piece of food in a crowd of people, you could charge whatever you want to the highest bidder as long as it does not go over the maximum amount of what the person with the most money.

The original point is that taxes are high and none of it goes to roads, buses, or subways.  No matter what NYC charges to live, its not going into the city treasury as the supply and demand is for the landowners to profit because of NYC being the place to move.  Sean Hannity and his butt buddy Governor Dick Scott of Florida are not going to get all of New York to move to Florida as part of a campaign that Hannity wants to stab Cuomo in the back for all the jabs Andrew gives him about his show and how pro gun the Fox News/ Radio host is.  Plus Scott has his own agenda, of raping all the farm land of Florida and rid the Orange Groves so new developers can build more homes to get more property taxes for our state that needs to cap development instead of expand it.  Right now we have more than enough housing to handle everyone, as many older subdivisions are empty because the newer ones are tempting first home buyers to move into a much newer home.

[Duke87]

The original point is that taxes are high and none of it goes to roads, buses, or subways.

Much of it does, but for various reasons the money is spent very inefficiently because people just don't coordinate. NYCDOT repaves a street, the next year Con Ed comes through and rips it up to do utility work. NYCDOT paints a bus lane one year, then repaves the street the next year requiring the paint be redone. MTA replaces a switch in the subway, then replaces it again five years later because they have to rip it out to fix something with the structure underneath it. And so on and so forth.

[corco]

Where do all the high taxes go then?  NYC has very high taxes, hence the high rent,  and why you have to pay your landlord to park your own car in your own apartment house extra on top of your ultra high rent? Even for us to park a car in a garage is pretty steep for even a half hour.

The city that charges more you seem to get so much less then the cheaper suburbs.  That is a big shame! 

High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.

[Zeffy]

High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.

I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.

[corco]

High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.

I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.

Right, because incomes are higher and land is relatively scarce in that part of the country.

People don't like paying taxes. Therefore high tax rates are not something that drive up property values, because property value is inherently based on the things that people like about a place. Value is generated from things perceived positively, not things perceived negatively. High tax bills are perceived negatively.

Now, if those high tax rates are spent well, then government provides a higher level of service in those communities, which provides amenities like good schools that are otherwise unavailable, which drives up property values. But the high tax rates themselves absolutely do not drive up property values. 

Generally, I'd bet areas with high property values are more likely to also be taxed at a high percentage. But correlation does not equal causation. In Duke's NYC example above, if seven different agencies didn't have oversight over functionally the same thing and agencies had more capacity to coordinate, taxes could be lower without diminishing level of service. That would not cause property values to drop - the level of service provided by government is part of what generates property value, not the tax rate.

Take a counter-example. Put yourself in, say, Carter County Montana. You're given five acres and a unabomber cabin along a county road. The county road is graded once every three years and is only passable by a 4WD vehicle most of the year. You are taxed at a rate of  20% of the assessed value of that property every year. Your tax dollars are sent to, say, Billings, to fund coal subsidies. You see no benefit from those tax payments. How much is that property worth to you? Probably nothing. You probably don't want it. You can barely get to it because the county can't afford to maintain the road, it's in an area where land is plentiful, and you're being asked to pay thousands of dollars in property tax annually to cover it. Under a normal tax regimen, such a property is probably worth $50,000 or so. Under a tax regimen where you have to pay $10,000 annually to receive no benefit, the property would actually have negative value. Somebody would have to pay you to take it. Property tax rates do not inherently cause property value to rise.

[empirestate]

NYCDOT repaves a street, the next year Con Ed comes through and rips it up to do utility work.

The next year? Try the next week; exactly this happened right outside my old apartment (more than once).


iPhone

[yanksfan6129]

High taxes actually drive down property values, not up, because who wants to live somewhere where the tax bill is ridiculous? Rents are really high in NYC despite high taxes, not because of them.

I dunno man, New Jersey's property taxes range from 70-120% higher than the national average, yet New Jersey has some of the highest median housing values in the country.

Right, because incomes are higher and land is relatively scarce in that part of the country.

People don't like paying taxes. Therefore high tax rates are not something that drive up property values, because property value is inherently based on the things that people like about a place. Value is generated from things perceived positively, not things perceived negatively. High tax bills are perceived negatively.

Now, if those high tax rates are spent well, then government provides a higher level of service in those communities, which provides amenities like good schools that are otherwise unavailable, which drives up property values. But the high tax rates themselves absolutely do not drive up property values. 

Generally, I'd bet areas with high property values are more likely to also be taxed at a high percentage. But correlation does not equal causation. In Duke's NYC example above, if seven different agencies didn't have oversight over functionally the same thing and agencies had more capacity to coordinate, taxes could be lower without diminishing level of service. That would not cause property values to drop - the level of service provided by government is part of what generates property value, not the tax rate.

Take a counter-example. Put yourself in, say, Carter County Montana. You're given five acres and a unabomber cabin along a county road. The county road is graded once every three years and is only passable by a 4WD vehicle most of the year. You are taxed at a rate of  20% of the assessed value of that property every year. Your tax dollars are sent to, say, Billings, to fund coal subsidies. You see no benefit from those tax payments. How much is that property worth to you? Probably nothing. You probably don't want it. You can barely get to it because the county can't afford to maintain the road, it's in an area where land is plentiful, and you're being asked to pay thousands of dollars in property tax annually to cover it. Under a normal tax regimen, such a property is probably worth $50,000 or so. Under a tax regimen where you have to pay $10,000 annually to receive no benefit, the property would actually have negative value. Somebody would have to pay you to take it. Property tax rates do not inherently cause property value to rise.

For the record, NYC's property taxes are actually quite low. NYC has plenty of other ways to generate revenue.