this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

news

23575 readers
554 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 44 points 5 months ago (1 children)

New York continuing to be a warning call for what "vote blue no matter who" gets you.

A bunch of completely useless democrats who are to the right of Nixon.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A state government dominated by Republicans at all levels means a conservative government.

A state government dominated by Democrats at every level means a thousand Joe Manchins.

[–] darkmode@hexbear.net 34 points 5 months ago

The New York dems didn’t deliver on a promise? Really? This is the first time I’m hearing this. trump-who-must-go

[–] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 33 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Nothing good ever happens. Can't wait for NYC to go back on its 95% subway station accessibility by 2060 promise as well. 🥴

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

once sea level rise floods the tunnels, we'll just issue SCUBA equipment to each MTA rider and accessibility becomes easier because of buoyancy

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 11 points 5 months ago

Aren’t the subways in New York already built under basically actual rivers and require continuous drainage to maintain functionality?

[–] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago

Don't worry the Democrats will run on replacing 73% of the subway lines with Els by 2115

[–] Rojo27@hexbear.net 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Can't wait for NYC to go back on its 95% subway station accessibility by 2060 promise as well.

Honestly the current plan is insulting enough as it is. Accessibility laws passed in what, the 1970s? I get its tough to build in the city with all the craziness going on underground (all sorts of utility pipes and what not), but for it to take this long to formulate a plan and then carry it out... just a sad state of things.

[–] thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net 29 points 5 months ago

Cowardice to the most insane degree. The one good thing that I was looking forward to is gone. Infinite jihad against Hochul.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hochul is responding to worries raised by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader who is fiercely trying to win back a Democratic majority this year. Republican victories in New York congressional races helped the GOP seize power two years ago, and Hochul and Jeffries are both anxious to reverse that fortune."

angular-merkel

[–] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Republican victories in New York congressional races happened because of an own-goal redistricting process done by Democrats while they controlled a supermajority of the state legislature.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-new-yorks-redistricting

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That's minimizing all the hard work that state dems have put in to being dumber than dogshit and trying to campaign to republicans while telling anybody left of Clinton to go fuck themselves.

I would legit be ok with hochul eating shit just so maybe dems could be aware of the fact there actually is a basement to the amount of shit people will put up with while begrudgingly supporting you.

[–] Rojo27@hexbear.net 22 points 5 months ago

Not so surprising given how much of a voice the media gave to opponents to attack congestion pricing.

[–] wombat@hexbear.net 13 points 5 months ago

we may have to start making excuses for the lack of terror

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Aren't congestion charges a regressive punishment for those who are stuck driving in cars? Increasing the cost of driving is an attempt at a market solution to traffic. Market solutions suck balls, are ineffective, punish the poor, and don't mean anything to the rich.

I don't think anyone on Hexbears should be supporting making driving (something that working class folks are forced to do and rich folks treat as a luxury) more expensive. We need to focus on making alternative transportation modes more effective and free instead

[–] thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

At least as far as New York City goes this is wrong. Car ownership in the city is correlated with income; the poorer you are the more likely you are to not own a car and instead take public transit to work. https://wellango.github.io/posts/2021/06/who-owns-cars-in-nyc/

There have been repeated studies (see https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2007/11/02/fact-check-congestion-pricing-is-not-a-regressive-tax or https://citylimits.org/2017/09/07/debate-fact-check-is-congestion-pricing-regressive/) that in NYC congestion pricing would not be a regressive tax, and in fact would be progressive given the composition of car ownership in the city. Couple this with the fact that less cars means a more pleasant experience for those walking and taking transit (the vast majority of New Yorkers, especially amongst the poor) it's clear that congestion pricing would be a good thing.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oops, I replied before actually looking at the studies you put in there. That is good info.

I would still say that overall, opposing flat fuel taxes, tolls, and congestion taxes is a good stance, because in nearly all areas it is the workers who are tied to car ownership for their employment. We should be making it easier for workers to save time and money and have more time for organizing!

However, it appears in this case there is at least an argument in support of the tax. Although diverting existing gas and driving tolls and taxes instead of adding new ones might be better.

It is good that the money is going to fund transit.

I feel like a crazy person though being the only one to suggest that carbrained america has tied it's workers to the expense of driving and then ratchets up the cost in the name of fighting climate change or congestion if peace of mind and that that hurts workers. It's true.

[–] thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah your last point is correct, which is why having a congestion price that just makes it harder to drive with no increase in transit is stupid. Luckily that's not the case here, the congestion pricing is directly tied to expanding transit options for workers to get into the city.

[–] Rojo27@hexbear.net 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, there's the IBX rail project which should help a lot with transit in the outer boroughs. Also the Q line expansion, which should help add more transit capacity to East Harlem. And there's a lot more that could be done.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the people who this is going to negatively affect can afford to live in Manhattan. They live outside and commute in.

The environmental and peace push is fine but it's really a NIMBY argument and separate from the extra cost on the workers.

[–] thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net 8 points 5 months ago

Yeah the studies I linked show that it's not just folks who live in Manhattan, most workers commuting into Manhattan don't drive cars, and those that do are disproportionately wealthy.

[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The congestion pricing was only going to apply to cars driving downtown in Manhattan. The only people driving to work in downtown Manhattan are wealthy Americans who work a bullshit email job and commute from their oversized mcmansions in New Jersey or Long Island.

The money raised from the congestion pricing was also going to be put into public transit.

[–] Shinji_Ikari@hexbear.net 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I know several gen-x and millennial working class folks who need to drive into Manhattan with their tools to do jobs in Manhattan. Offices don't just materialize and sadly its hard to bring ladders and boxes of power tools on the subway.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago

Yes, exactly.

[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do they pay the bridge tolls out of their own pocket, or does their boss/customer pay the tolls?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There aren't service workers who drive to downtown Manhattan or Uber drivers? I would be supportive of a progressive charge, but simply implementing a new cost for people forced to drive isn't supporting the working class.

[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Think of it like this: A parking spot in downtown Manhattan costs more per hour than minimum wage. Working class people already cannot afford to drive there. It's cheaper, faster, and easier to take the subway. But white email job workers don't want to share a physical space with working/non-white people so they pay extra to drive in.

As far as Uber goes, the cost gets passed on to the customer so it doesn't really matter.

[–] thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net 5 points 5 months ago

Also note that in Manhattan there is already a service charge tacked on to all Ubers, and you need to be a licensed cab driver by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission to drive an Uber in the first place. It's not like other places in the United States where anybody can be an Uber driver.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Strange how NYC is somehow the only place in the world where service, technician, maintenance, etc workers magically don't own cars but still get their tools around town.

Think about it like this: if driving is a necessity for many working class jobs, even if it's already expensive, how does making it even more expensive help? Also, if it's already rich people who can afford driving in Manhattan, what will adding a congestion fee do to deter existing drivers who already pay out the butt?

[–] waluigiblunts@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (10 children)

Strange how NYC is somehow the only place in the world where service, technician, maintenance, etc workers magically don't own cars but still get their tools around town.

Mate, what are you trying to insinuate? Do you really think that commercial van drivers pay tolls out of pocket instead of their employers paying for them? Or are you weeping for petit-bourgeois owner-operators who are just going to pass down the costs to their millionaire clients anyways?

Do you know what does hurt commercial van drivers? It's the unrelenting and crippling traffic congestion that NYC suffers from. And do you know what will relieve this traffic congestion? It's a congestion tax.

Also, if it's already rich people who can afford driving in Manhattan, what will adding a congestion fee do to deter existing drivers who already pay out the butt?

Congestion taxes empirically reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality downtown, as shown in London and Stockholm. This is not up for debate. This is proven by empirical evidence.

And so what if millionaire laptop workers drive anyways? Let them pay out the ass even more for the privilege! Society needs to stop subsidizing these useless drivers whose cars carry nothing but their ass and their laptop.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you sure? I would believe that tons of workers (maintenance, technicians, service) live outside of Manhattan and commute there, and probably many drive, since the subway is good, it doesn't reach everywhere

[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 5 points 5 months ago

They do not commute in their personal cars, no.

Sure, they drive the company van or truck in to work, but who pays the gas and tolls for the company van or truck?

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone on Hexbears should be supporting making driving (something that working class folks are forced to do and rich folks treat as a luxury) more expensive. We need to focus on making alternative transportation modes more effective and free instead

This is, at it's core, reinventing homo oeconomicus but for transportation. I don't mean this argumentative, but it stems from the idea that "were they alternatives good enough, people would not drive a car" which sounds reasonable, but given how carbrained society and many individuals are, just isn't true.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, it is true. What doesn't make sense from a leftwing perspective is making life less affordable for people who depend on driving to get to their work. Rich people don't give a shit about a few extra dollars to drive. Yes they'll whine about it, but it doesn't affect them really. Who it does affect is the maintenance worker who has to pay more to get to their work site with their safety equipment and tools, or the technician who comes in from out of city to work on fixing stuff.

[–] waluigiblunts@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Who it does affect is the maintenance worker who has to pay more to get to their work site with their safety equipment and tools, or the technician who comes in from out of city to work on fixing stuff

I think commercial van drivers can afford to have their millionaire clients pay a few extra dollars for their services.

Who congestion pricing does affect is maintenance workers who would save tens of minutes per trip from reduced traffic congestion. In these tens of minutes, these workers could get to other clients and earn way more money instead of sitting still in unrelenting gridlock.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MaxOS@hexbear.net 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 14 points 5 months ago

It's the lack of spine

[–] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Wow, them curves 👀

[–] ped_xing@hexbear.net 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm relieved. Turning private cars into a revenue stream means the MTA will always want large numbers of private cars rolling into the city. That's the opposite of what a transit system should aim for. A ban on private cars will put rich people too snooty for the metro in favor of a better metro, as it will be the only game in town, and they will get what they want. I know Hochul's opposing it from the opposite direction, but that doesn't make it a good policy.

[–] thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

OK but you see how this is not really a solution, right? This is the ultraleft position of "if we can't do the best possible thing we shouldn't do anything at all." Congestion pricing discourages cars from entering the city and is a step towards a private car ban. The MTA does not control the bridges or tunnels into Manhattan, that's the Port Authority, so they're not in a position to ever ban or affect cars entering or exit the city. There's no like perverse incentive this creates on the part of the MTA to support cars because they have no policy levers to do so.

[–] ped_xing@hexbear.net 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's a step away from political feasibility of a car ban. As it stands, the opposition should just be drivers. With a congestion charge in place, a car ban would mean budget cuts to the MTA and/or tax hikes, so you'll see people who never set foot inside a car opposing the ban because they'd be impacted by one or both of those things.

As for the policy levers, they run the metro. If they improve the metro to the point that a lot of drivers stop driving in, they lose money. That's the perverse incentive.

[–] waluigiblunts@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

As it stands, the opposition should just be drivers.

This is unrelated to your overall point, but suburban motorists are irrational for opposing congestion pricing. The addition of a congestion tax/toll would do wonders for rush hour traffic. The current experience of driving in Lower Manhattan during rush hour is sitting in a sea of cars at 0 mph while watching pedestrians walk faster than you.

The reason motorists oppose congestion pricing is because they wrongly perceive driving as free. The millionaire NYC middle manager who commutes downtown every day in their Audi A8 L pays $5.10 every 25 miles in gasoline, but they don't realize this because they only feel the cost once they hit the pumps.

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=45613

There is an irrational aversion to taking the train because the cost is paid upfront, so you're constantly facing the reality that travel costs money. With cars, you only pay once you're done driving - up until then everything appears free.

Because of these factors, motorists have this idea that driving downtown "has always been free" when in fact it is not free and has never been free. Rational motorists who understand that they are already paying lots for the privilege of driving have no qualms about paying a little bit extra to shave tens of minutes off their commute.

load more comments
view more: next ›