NYC Gets Its Bridge Toll

 For those of us with memories that go beyond last week, we know that NYC has been trying to put a toll on the Queensboro bridge for quite some time.  For example

:

"The East River bridges between Queens and Manhattan have been free since 1911. And business, civic and political leaders stood in the shadow of the Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge on Sunday demanding that it be kept that way..."

 “Tolling the East River bridges would be devastating for Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island residents,” Weprin said in a statement issued by his office. “The people who rely on these bridges are a diverse group of New Yorkers who are trying to make affordable choices in this city and any future transportation plan for New York must take into the account the needs of outer borough residents.”

That's from 2017. Here's 2015 from the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — Reviving a congestion-pricing idea that has been rejected before, an influential transportation coalition proposed implementing tolls for all cars that cross 60th Street in Manhattan and the free bridges spanning the East River...

The new toll of $5.54 each way with E-ZPass would be charged to drivers crossing 60th Street on every avenue, northbound and southbound, from the West Side Highway to FDR Drive. It would also apply to four major bridges owned by the city: the Queensboro, Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. That matches the current toll fare on the Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery tunnels. Metered taxi cabs would be exempt from all tolls.

Each time this came up Queens polls rejected the plan. Now under the congestion pricing, they got their toll. I don't think outerborough citizens realize what is in store for them in about two months. From the Gothamist:

The MTA has sold congestion pricing as a simple tolling scheme: $15 during the day for vehicles that enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. Drivers are exempt from the tolls if they stay on the FDR Drive, West Side Highway and Battery Park Underpass.

But about two months before the MTA hopes to flip the switch and begin tolling, the agency has confirmed it’s not quite that simple.

Ye olde..bait and switch. Let me give you a scenario that was sold to us. Say you live in NJ and you want to go to JFK. The most direct route would take you over the GW Bridge. That's a $17 toll as of this post. Then down the FDR to the triboro bridge. That toll is currently $9.11 for non NY residents. 

Each way.

We haven't discussed gasoline.

So in tolls alone your out $36 dollars. Now say you decide to not pay that extra $10 and spend your time going further south to the Queensboro bridge. It's "free" but you lose time and burn more gasoline. Your trip cost drops a whopping 47%. Do that enough times and you're saving quite a bit of money. So of course a lot of people make that decision. On a side note, using the Queensbridge during rush hour is, shall we say, a painful experience. When I did that commute, I found paying the toll on the triboro to be a decision that was better for my mental health.

I am also of the opinion that citizens should be able to cross into and out of any borough of NY without paying a toll. Back when the "outer boroughs" were NOT considered a part of NYC, I could see an argument for a toll. A bad argument to be sure, but I could see it. Once they were brought into the fold, I find such tolling ideas fundamentally contrary to free movement.

Anyway, 

Certain exits on both the Queensboro and Brooklyn bridges will be tolled differently. One route on the Queensboro Bridge avoids the toll, while some drivers crossing the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan will face an unexpected charge despite taking an exit for the FDR, which is exempt from the toll.

 You can read the entire article but I'll give my explanation here.

The Queens Bridge has NO direct on or offramps that puts you onto a highway like the Verazano or Brooklyn Bridges. The planners KNEW THIS and threw up a plate reader BEFORE any street that gives entrace to the bridge anyway.  When I saw it I knew there was going to be a problem. But the city continued to claim that people going to the bridges would be exempted.  Therefore I expected to see a reader at the entrance to either the upper or lower levels so that drivers who passed under reader one, would be read again at the bridge entrance and given a credit. However, if you didn't pass under reader two (within a specific timeframe), then you paid the congestion fee (which I disagree with anyway but that's another post). No such reader has been installed on the bridge. Therefore since you MUST pass "into the zone" in order to get onto  The Bridge (shout out to MC Shan) outbound, they have effectively tolled that bridge.

When it comes to inbound traffic, there is ONE way to avoid the toll. The upper level off ramp places traffic above the congestion zone. Currently  there is only ONE LANE functioning in that direction. 

One.

I can imagine everyone trying to avoid the toll by trying to get on the upper level, That will not work out for very long (I say no longer than a week). All other inbound lanes dump the driver in the zone with the closest being exactly 2.25 blocks into the zone. That 1/4 is the portion of block 3 that is within the zone before the gantry.  Yes, you will pay anywhere from $3 to $11 to drive 2 blocks to get from the bridge exit closest to the FDR to the FDR.

Yes, the planners in NYC new this and said "Meh. Too bad".

Now they did NOT have to do this at all. Since it is known by all the relevant parties that there is no way to get onto The Bridge, without entering local streets, they could have made a carve out so that the readers would be located on the southern side of the bridge access streets until 2nd avenue and then place them back on streets north of the bridge AFTER the entrance to the bridge from the affected streets. 

Similarly they could have made carve outs for the most direct routes from The Bridge to the FDR. For example the lower level exit that dumps at The Tram should allow vehicles to make the "U Turn" onto the same street the "earlier" exit. Of course the reason you cannot do this is because 1st Avenue is one way, in the opposite direction. Drivers so situated must go another block west, make the right turn, go another block, then make another right to go back east.

Again, it's not their fault. That's how the bridge was designed. How about some eminent domain and knock down those towers and build on and off ramps? Oh right. Too....rich?

I kid. Its not practical or necessary. This is a policy problem not a geography problem.

Speaking of, I understand there is a plate reader ON the FDR.

Why?

Well I believe that eventually they will collect on the FDR south of a certain point. Just like how the speed cameras were posted to, you know, save the children and are now 24/7 revenue generators. They will NOT be satisfied with bending drivers over for driving 2 blocks.

Of course NY residents, well some of them, will complain but they won't do anything about it. They voted in the people who made these decisions and they apparently like it.

They get taxed and are good with illegal aliens running up in their city and getting paid to be there. They're good with rising subway crime and having people who defend themselves or others get  arrested and prosecuted. They are good with fake trials of ex-presidents whom they don't like.

So they're good with this because I guarantee that not a single representative in Albany will lose their seat in the next election over this. 

I see reports of NYC residents complaining about the NJ plates and the lot. These dummies don't realize that the presence of out of state plates (that don't belong to residents) is a sign of money (and therefore tax revenue) INTO the city by people volunteering to come into NY. All that traffic equals money. No traffic means people are not coming into the city and spending money. 

Y'all may find out sooner rather than later how that turns out.

Where Vox Clears Trump of Insurrection

 One of the legs of the "Trump is an insurrectionist" argument is the speech that Trump gave on Jan 6. Those proposing this argument, including the Colorado court, claim that Trump knew or should have known that peopld would take his speech as a call to violence. Indeed, they say that Trump should not have even exercised his right to petition his government BECAUSE such people would likely be in attendance.

Now, sane people know this is a bunk argument even without citing the follow up video that was deleted from Twitter BY Twitter telling people to go home. Now we have Vox making the argument against the Colorado court AND those still hanging onto the chad that is "muh Trump speech":

Now what would this article have to do with anything?

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

Unless what?

"The speakers words were intended (NOT JUST LIKELY) to produce imminent disorder .

Hence even if they were to argue that Trump's speech as "likely" to produce "imminent disorder", There still could not be a case against him based on that.

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again.

You don't say.

Indeed, as Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett, who dissented from his court’s Mckesson decision, warned in one of his dissents, his court’s decision would make protest organizers liable for “the unlawful acts of counter-protesters and agitators.” So, under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, a Ku Klux Klansman could sabotage the Black Lives Matter movement simply by showing up at its protests and throwing stones.

Or you know, instigators at the Jan 6 rally.

I would expect this to show up in the Jack Smith trial, should it occur.

Babylon Bee on Censorship

 Given the recent censorship applied to this blog, I find the below appropriate. I want to highlight the part where Twitter tried to get them to delete their own post AND check a box stating that they had committed "hate speech". It was a clear example of what these people want (and why I won't give it to them).

The second thing, was when he discusses how people were waiting on BB to back down and just do what Twitter wanted and check the box and get back to "making money". They refused. This is like what I went through when I was put under pressure and eventually fired from my job. People thought I was crazy to leave 6 figures plus a lot of sick pay, over "just a shot". These people like, unfortunately most, did not understand standing on principle. Too many people are beholden to the almightly dollar. Too many people who proclaim "God is in control" and "The Lord is My Sheppard", folded the minute the pressure was applied.

But enough about me. 

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon says a lot of things. This time, it's an important message about the battle against censorship. pic.twitter.com/ltpeMu40hK

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) April 5, 2024

Fix The Battery Problem

 A change of topic today. For the past year I've been eyeing used BMW i3s. My employment situation severely changed my commute and so I was considering a change in vehicle. At one point I was looking at an 2015(?) i3 REX. Black of course. I knew that the battery range meant I could get to work on the battery (at least in decent weather) but I would be on gasoline on the way home.

But I was wary of the battery. I've had phones, earbuds, and other things with lithium ion batteries and I know that its only a matter of time before they go bye-bye. This particular model was ~19k at the time. I passed on it and went on with my life.

A few weeks ago, I saw an article online where people who recently purchased an I3 discovered they needed to replace the battery. The replacement cost would be between $30k and 70k.  More than the vehicle was purchased for. More than the vehicle was purchased for NEW.  I said then , that once word got out how expensive the battery is, Nobody in their right mind would pay for one of these vehicles. It is literally a wallet destroying time bomb.

Lo and behold, I took a gander at Autotempest.com and saw that the bottom has fallen out from under the i3 and prices have dropped into the mid to upper 4 figure range. It was bound to happen and it underscores a major thing that needs to be addressed if EVs are going to be suitable replacements for gasoline and hybrid vehicles:

The Battery Problem.

Imagine you purchased a car and every year it lost power. Doesn't matter how much maintenance you do or how many miles you do, the engine would lose power.  Eventually you'd get in the car and it wouldn't start.  Now some people would get lucky and get 300k before that happened but on average, it would hit people at 100k (I'm making up numbers here for effect).  Imagine then, you had to replace the engine on this car to the tune of more than the car is worth. Imagine even worse that if you wait too long, there will be NO ENGINE for you to replace it with!

Imagine the second hand market for such a vehicle. Yeah, me neither.

Yeah, battery tech will get better in the future (and hopefully far less exploitative of child labour) but there needs to be a widespread development of third party battery services and suppliers who can provide cost effective replacement batteries for old(er) EVs. If not the environmental waste that will be "old EVs" will be massive.* There needs to be an ability to put new batteries with better range and BMS into older vehicles as well. There is absolutely no reason that an I3 battery cannot be replaced with an upgraded one from a 3rd party. These are carbon fiber vehicle with mostly aluminum appendages. These can go for years. We already know the industry is going out have to move on from Lithium Ion tech. There simply isn't enough of it to replace all gasoline propelled vehicles and the environmental impact is huge (we just don't see it).  When that transition happens, all the current vehicles will be dead if they cannot be retrofitted and nobody in their right mind would pay more than a few bucks for a used one knowing that the battery will go to sleep on them in short order.

So the problem, at least A problem I see that needs to be addressed quickly is the battery replacement problem. I believe the range problem will eventually sort itself out with tech (and not weight 4 tons), but in the end, it is simply not feasible to expect people to dole out 5 figures for a replacement battery or purchase another vehicle (and putting yet another one in the EV graveyard) when their battery degrades too much.

Meanwhile, I continue to look at a 120ah i3 REX (with sun roof) which I too can put a gas tank in the frunk and hope I don't rear end someone.

Biden's Child Labourers

 As we know, Biden has been flying Illegal aliens all over the US via private flights. They use the euphemism "migrant" to get around the laws they are breaking but we know exactly what is going on. Well we also now know what these aliens are doing (and why there is no serious Republican efforts to stop this):

Kids as young as 14 were found working at a Tennessee factory that makes lawn mower parts

What kind of kids?

Immigrant children as young as 14 were found working illegally amid dangerous heavy equipment at a Tennessee firm that makes parts for lawn mowers sold by John Deere and other companies, according to Labor Department officials.

Immigrant children? Well that's interesting. What KIND of immigrant children?

 Pott, the general counsel for Tuff Torq’s majority owner, said the child workers were temporary and were not hired directly by Tuff Torq. He said they used fake names and false credentials to obtain jobs through a temporary staffing agency

What kind of immigrants use fake names and fake credentials (all crimes by the way)?

Illegal aliens do so in order to get work. 

So this is actually a story of illegal aliens breaking more laws in order to work for people who are also breaking the law by hiring them. It's not mentioned in this piece whether the agency (if in fact that claim is true) has ALSO been prosecuted. You'd think THAT would be important. Perhaps the Feds are ONLY concerned with the type of work being done rather than the fact that they shouldn't be employed anywhere in the first place. 

The Diddy Raid

The saying goes something along the lines of:

When you plot revenge, make sure to dig a hole for yourself.

When I saw the raid on Diddy's two properties, I knew that it was fallout from the decision to allow people with claims of sexual abuse from way back when, to get to file suits. Diddy's lawyers said as much in response to the raids.

The alleged reasons for this extension of limitation was to get pedo priests and Trump.  Russell Simmons saw the writing on the wall and broke the hell out of the USA to a non-extradition country, making sure nobody from his past could file charges against him for things he either did not do or were done consensually at the time but could now generate income for those who suddenly find themselves aggrieved.

As we know, Diddy has had 3 suits filed against him. I believe 2 have been settled and settled QUICKLY. The swiftness of the settlements leave the skeptical person thinking there was fire to that smoke.

Another thing I was thinking about is this: Is Diddy everything Michael Jackson was said to be? Is Diddy worse? I do not know and I'm not claiming to know anything in particular. I don't generally follow celebs so I don't really care. I just find it interesting how we still don't have the Epstein client list and then this goes down. If there was in fact sex trafficking going on, WHO took part? Will we be told? How many black celebs will be caught up AND will they be exposed? If they are then why the protection of the Epstein people?

Haiti Shits The Bed. Again.

 I know that sounds harsh.

I have a poster of Toussaint L'Ouveture and Jean Jaques Desalines on my walls.  That the Haitian people threw off slavery back in 1804 is a great thing.  But that was a long time ago.

Yes, I know France made Haiti pay for it's freedom. 

But still.

Haiti first came to my knowledge due to Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier. 

Then there was a the very pretty Haitian girl in high school, but that's another story.

Hearing about the horrors of the Duvaliers stuck with me. 

Then there was Aristide, a "saviour" who, being familiar with how things went down on that Island, knew would not last long.  By that time having seen what had gone on in Gaza/Palestine, I had become very wary of charismatic leaders AND the volatile situation that occurs when citizens of such places think that this guy is going to make their lives better...RIGHT NOW.

Of course we know what happened to Aristide.

To be honest, right now, I don't even recall who came after or how many. I do know that there have been repeated failures to properly run that country. It has been example number one of those who points out the failures of black rule. And lets be honest, it's really hard to argue. Particularly when a less black half of the shared Island doesn't have the same problems.

One would have to seriously consider if Haiti is cursed. After all, there are other Islands not having such misfortune. But so long as the leadership diverts money to private accounts in America and Europe (like others such as Mobutu), and people think the government is some magic organization that produces wealth out of thin air, I don't see how I'll meet my life's end without seeing another "uprising in Haiti" story splash across a screen somewhere.

Does the Clinton Foundation, the UN and others who have been involved in Haiti bear some responsibility? Sure. Ultimately though it comes down to Haitians themselves. It's easy to burn down a building, kill a few elites and whatnot. Destroying is ALWAYS easier than building. Shooting is easier on the ego than peaceful resolution of conflict. The long game is always harder than the short game. But these are things that will need to happen to end this cycle.

This morning I read that a few power stations were destroyed by the rebels. Why? Do they not plan on using electricity ever again? Who's going to pay to rebuild these stations that need not have been destroyed? Who's GOING to get paid to rebuild?

Who's going to be making money [this time] to change the proverbial sheets?

I don't know and I don't wish I'll on Haitians, but it's time to get "potty trained" and stop being the laughing stock [and ward] of the world.

Brown-Jackson Reveals True Rot

 So i come home after driving all day returning from a half-marathon when I open my feed to see Brown-Jackson of SCOTUS claim that she's "bothered" that the First Amendment is inhibiting the government from "interacting" with speech *it determines* to be harmful.

I had to listen to the comment a few times because I thought maybe she had been taken out of context or the way she was speaking made it look like she was saying one thing (pauses can do that) but really was saying something else. 

Nope.

She had responded to a solicitor suggesting, correctly, that the government can make it's own speech. Her commentary about the First Amendment made it clear that she did not believe it is good enough that the government can speak. No, she's concerned that some other speech by citizens, could be deemed problematic by the government...let me stop here.

The minute "that the government determines" popped out of her mouth she should have paused HERSELF given the gravity of the train of thought she was embarking on. Also, I seriously believe that the OTHER JUSTICES should have given audible gasps and yes, interfered with her question at that point. But I heard no such thing. I can only hope she gets put on blast in the decision, whichever way it goes.

But I am not surprised by this from Brown-Jackson. Not in the least bit. I said she had disqualified herself when she boldly lied about not knowing what a woman is. It was a bold faced lie. It was a clear sign that she was willing to put ideology ahead of facts if that was what required to get where she wanted.

That the senate approved of her appointment is a stain on their already nasty grimy garment that is their reputation. That answer ALONE should have resulted in her removal from consideration and WOULD HAVE a mere 10-15 years ago.

Now Brown-Jackson (and no doubt others) are looking for an end run around the First Amendment so they can censor just as Google removed my factual post about a report on  myocarditis following "vaccine" doses.  They just want to declare a swatch of speech "harmful" and "conspiracy" and then censor it and punish those who dare speak the "unspeakable".

There are those saying Brown-Jackson should be impeached over this. I would agree but as I said earlier, The senate approved of her even after her bald faced lie. And those senators were put into office by the voters. Inevitably, Jackson's commentary reflects a rather large percentage of the electorate.

That is the true rot.