No, It's not "fair"

 An opinon piece showed up on Yahoo entitled "Congestion pricing could reduce traffic, but is it fair to ask drivers to pay up?" which I will go through because of the ridiculous claims in it.

Congestion pricing works in a similar way to typical road tolls, but rather than asking drivers to pay a fee to cross a bridge or use a certain highway, it imposes an extra cost on anyone driving into heavily congested areas.

Toll roads, like the Garden State Parkway were originally supposed to  pay for the construction of the highway.  They were supposed to be temporary. Of course, once the state got a taste of the revenue the tolls continued with various excuses, the usual one being "to maintain the road". Back before cameras and electronic tolling, these tolls actually caused congestion as everyone had to slow from 65MPH or so to a dead STOP to pay a toll. 

So in this respect, congestion pricing is like toll roads: Another means for the state to extract revenue from people.

Supporters of congestion pricing say it’s long past time for the U.S. to finally take serious action to reduce traffic, which not only robs millions of Americans of their precious time but also causes a wide range of harms to residents and the planet. Advocates say reducing the number of cars clogging the roads would lead to safer streets, less noise pollution, cleaner air and fewer climate-warming emissions and bring in a major influx of funding to help improve other modes of transportation. Others make the case that it’s simply a matter of fairness, because the drivers who flood into cities impose real costs on the people who live there, but currently pay nothing to help mitigate those harms."

There's a lot to unpack here. Traffic doesn't rob people of their time. They have choices. Different job, different mode of transportation. I say this as someone who has a significant commute. I choose to leave early to avoid the worst of the traffic. I did NOT have to take the job.  I don't work in Manhattan but I know for certain I would not drive there. I would not pay the parking costs. I will not sit in the traffic. Other people will do so.

Per the safer streets, lets be clear. In the city, the biggest risk of getting hit is due to jay walking by pedestrians who are often looking at their phones rather than where they are going. Don't get me started on trying to make a right turn.

 But undercutting the 'less cars" argument is that the state believes only 120k cars would be taken off the road. Given the millions of crossings daily, I don't think they expect, or want, too much reduction. After all, no cars means no toll collected.

Can't argue with the noise pollution. Manhattan is loud. Of course, if you choose to live there...

"Drivers who flood into cities" Actually bring this thing called "economic activity" to cities. Every time you see an out of state plate in Manhattan, that's taxable income (tolls aside).  They are likely to pay to park. They are likely to pay to eat. They are likely to pay to be entertained. They are likely to pay to shop. Who exactly do you think that benefits? They didn't have to leave their state to come to NY.

Per pollution. Vehicles today emit far less noxious gasses and particulates than even the 1970s.  If THAT  was the issue EVs would be exempt from "congestion pricing" 'cause they do not contribute to particulate or gas emissions. The main contributors to air pollution in NYC are diesel vehicles: Trucks and busses.  18wheelers rarely go to lower Manhattan so it's not them.

" London, for example, still has the some of the world’s worst gridlock despite more than 20 years of congestion pricing. There are also concerns that the plan would merely reroute traffic out of rich city centers and into poorer communities that are ill-equipped to take on the extra burden."

That's because the congestion pricing in London, like NY is not really about congestion.

If NY wants to be serious, as possible about congestion, it would:

1) stop eliminating vehicle lanes and turning them into bike lanes. Every lane removed just causes more congestion upstream.  I doubt they'll do this but you cannot keep eliminating vehicle lanes and then complain about congestion. It could actually be argued that the bike lanes have *increased* congestion.

2) Stick a knife into Uber and Lyft. When these companies started the idea was that people who already had cars and commutes could get paid to give a lift to other people going to the same (or close) locations. Now people buy cars with the express purpose of being a taxi. This put a whole bunch of cars on the road as taxis that hadn't existed before. I would guess that upwards of 30% of vehicles on NY highways and roads is some kind of taxi.  Each one of those taxis are fares not being paid to public transport. I'm sure there are reasons for that, but the fact is, that these Ubers both add to congestion and "rob" the MTA of fares. Deal with that before turning on people in actual private vehicles doing private business.

Medalion Taxis should have been exempted because by purchasing the Medalion they paid for the "right" to around Manhattan.

3) Get these climate crazies and people who talk about "vehicle violence" out of the decision making process.

4) The zone should NEVER have included tolls on entrances to and from bridges that do not have direct entries or exits to highways. That was the clearest sign of a money grab. That the Queens representatives went along with this just shows their corruption.

NYC Congestion Pricing Dead?

 Eh, I don't think so.

New Yorkers were surprised to see Hochul announce that congestion pricing was on indefinite hold. People have translated that into "dead". I don't think so. I would like to believe the Hochul or someone in her circle read my posts on the matter and woke up. However; I doubt that, partially since I have not seen any traffic from Albany. That said, I am not sad to see it put off. The more days without tolls the better. That said If NYC congestion pricing is to go forward, it needs to have the following done:

1) Move the camera from 60th Street to  57th. Nobody trying to use the Queensboro bridge should be tolled because the bridge has no exit that directly enters a highway. The planners knew it and wanted to implement a toll on that bridge and this was how they got it.

Shame on them. Kill that.

2) It's congestion pricing. There is no reason to have the toll in effect after rush hours. The fact that this tax exists 24/7 365 exposes it as the money grab that it is.  I could possibly understand early nights for Thurs-Fri, but other than that, by 8PM, the tolls should be off for the day. Weekends should not be tolled unless there is some event.

The former comments are only IF congestion pricing must happen. I don't think it does. If NYC is serious about reducing congestion, it would drop the hammer on Uber and Lyft. The numbers of TLC plates I see on the road is infuriating. I have been in situations where every car around me (immediate) was an Uber or Lyft. Uber and Lyft put people who would have taken public transport and puts them in a private vehicle. 

While there are many arguments against the medallion system, the one thing it didl, was reduced the number of cabs in NYC. That was on purpose. First it guaranteed a living wage for drivers which has now been decimated. Secondly it kept the number of cabs on the road in check.  You wanna put a congestion price in effect, have it on Ubers.  They should pay the top tier of the toll not trucks making deliveries and other things that cannot be done a different way. Folks in an Uber can [often] take public transport. Get them back on the buses and subways and the MTA gets it's money.

If the city and the MTA are truly short on money rather than say, mismanagement, then the thing that should be done is to a flat tax on all city residents. All city residents benefit from roads whether they drive or not. Lets just fund it via a tax and end ALL tolls in NYC including the GWB and Lincoln Tunnel. 

Enforce the law against fare evasion. You all are cracking down on people hiding their license plates to avoid bridge and tunnel tolls (and foolish speed cameras) but folks can hop a turnstyle or whatever they are using without much of anything. Why? Oh they're poor. You know what? Poverty is not an excuse to fare beat. 

So what is Hochul up to? Well I understand she wants a tax. It could be that but I seriously believe she's using congestion pricing as a bargaining chip for something else. I'd be very glad to see congestion pricing tossed completely (along with these speed cameras and lowered speed limits) but I don't see how the city paid for those cameras and maintenance contracts to totally backing out.

Operation Mockingbird

 Operation Mockingbird:

 Mockingbird was a covert U.S. government operation run by the CIA to implant pro-US propaganda in American media and front organizations. Starting in the 1950s, the CIA began to hire and contract students and people in the media to write false stories, or embellish stories to favor the U.S government.

Where you see "to favor the US Government" you can read "Deep state".

Now, knowing what this operation is:

 

If you are still trusting what the "journalists" tell you, then I don't know what else to tell you. And mind you this is why the govt wants to manage "disinformation". Because people like me cannot be bought and sold or told what to say by the deep state.

Wrecking the "Four Olds"

In the below clip the woman, supposedly college educated or at least a student, reveals her conditioning into the Maoist ideal of destroying the four olds:

Me: So what’s a woman then?

Her: It’s someone who feels like they want to be a woman.

Me: But, a woman is not just a feeling.

Her: Why does it need to have a cookie cutter definition? Older people like you guys, you just, you can’t grasp the idea.pic.twitter.com/n6ch1dzCq9

— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) June 3, 2024

 

Note how she commits "ageism" without pause. Without second thought. You see we "olds" carry knowledge that the current generation may never know. We know life before digital. We know of airplane flights before security checkpoints. We know an America before the confusion and thus we have to go. We are the resistance. 

Now the reason I brought that up is as a preface to another post where I'm showing the trend of the subversion of the law and science by these literal maoist.

In this "Spokesman-Review" article, they try to smuggle absolute nonsense into common discourse. There is no "debate". It has been known as long as humans have been on the planet that there are, generally, large physical differences between men and women and in competitions where speed and strength ad key, you do not have men and women compete against each other. In fact, entire women's sports are predicated on the fact that women were unable to get recognition because they don't win.

In the Marathon, men and women often start at different times so that the women can have their own finish, Tennis does the same thing. Track and field does the same thing. 

There is no debate. What there is are Maoist communists trying to kill the "olds".

"In recent years, debate has gripped society regarding whether it is fair to allow transgender women to participate in women’s sports. One University of Washington professor believes an answer to the debate cannot be found in science or simple biology."

No the trans movement has assaulted the rest of us and too few of US  are willing to put a stop to it.

"According to Dr. Bradley Anawalt, the science of whether transgender women have an advantage in sports remains up in the air."

Total and utter nonsense. This "Dr." should have their degree stripped from them.

"“There can be no scientific answer to what is fair. There is never going to be a perfect answer and there is always going to be some level of controversy,” he said."

This is what left-liberals do. They simply declare shit.

 "“The factors that influence athletic performance are incredibly varied and incredibly widely distributed. Just because some forms of athletic ability are correlated with gender – like men on average being taller than women, does not mean any one specific athlete has any particular advantage in any given sport.”" [My underlines]

It's true. A specific athlete may not have an advantage. However; do you actually think these men who are competing in female events (and it's NEVER the opposite) are doing so because they don't think they can beat the competition? Often the men who do this are 4th rate male athletes who fail to 'podium" but they are good enough to beat the top females in their region.

Every top tier female half-marathoner can beat me. Even the 4th rate ones can beat me. I still beat 95% of women who run half-marathons though. But this is the "logic" these Maoists are using to kill "the old". Since you cannot say if a particular athlete has an advantage, then let them all in. That's not how a sane society works.