DAS Blog

But could someone please explain the logic of restricting individual's driving in(to) Manhattan on account of an MTA strike? Aren't many of those people who would drive in Manhattan going to take public transport instead, thus putting more pressure on the MTA system at a time when it will already be broken?

In general, I would agree with the idea of reducing automobile traffic in Manhattan -- it is such a lovely pedestrian island and cars do get in the way of pedestrians and each other. But don't you have to give people better alternatives? I don't know how many people are in my situation, but when I drive through Manhattan, it is typically because it's quicker and just as cheap as either using public transportation to get between points west of Manhattan and points east and quicker than going through Staten Island. Why should I pay around $20 and spend 2 hours each way taking public transport when I could spend a dollar or two less (tolls, gas, and rounding up to account for auto upkeep) and spend 1-1.5 hours each way going by car? And why should I spend $6 to go via the Verrazano bridge when I can go via Manhattan for free -- and not have to worry about going out of my way or the mysterious yet omnipresent traffic backups on the westbound Staten Island Expressway.

In general, if they want people to take public transport, they got to subsidize it as much as they subsidize automobile transport by paying so much money into highway maintanance. And if, specifically, they don't want people driving through Manhattan, they need to at least figure out why traffic is always so heavy on the Staten Island Expressway and what to do to alleviate the problem.