The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Of course now park-and-rides are having capacity issues, but that is a problem we can deal with. We're American. Building more parking lots is in our blood.
On the New Jersey side, some years ago they built a very large station one stop from Penn Station... with no commuter parking. Most of the train towns won't allow any more parking, so unless you applied for a permit 10 years ago you probably don't have a spot and are stuck taking a bus (or cab, which gets expensive fast) to the train. If they did build parking you'd get stuck in a traffic jam trying to park, because of course everyone is trying to arrive all at once to get the train.
Or you can take a bus across the Lincoln Tunnel express bus lane, and spend half your morning in bus congestion to get into Port Authority Bus Terminal, and half your evening lining up to get a bus out (that you'll likely be standing on). I've tried all the ways in and out of Manhattan to suburban NJ, and they're all terrible.
It describes Manhattan pretty well. The Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn badly, and Staten Island not at all.
Good for getting lots of people through bottlenecks though. "Everyone commuting to downtown across the same bridge" is a pretty common situation in American cities, and one transit can solve well.
Except not really. You have to collect the people on one end of the bottleneck and distribute on the other, and that introduces more delays and bottlenecks.
Of course, using congestion pricing just means that all the lawyer software devs working downtown pay the fee just like they all pay to park in the same downtown highrise parking lot.
Why would they drive, if transit works so well?
Mass transit is so much more efficient at moving people through dense areas.
It's efficient at moving large numbers of people who are coming from the same place and going to the same place. It's pretty terrible at anything else.
This is leaves out its genuine major benefit.
What benefit? Less congestion? We won't see such a benefit.
Most urban planning studies show that people will adapt to whatever transit conditions are present, and the impact of induced demand is quite real.
What urban planners call "induced demand" is simply "pent-up demand"; the roads were so oversubscribed that when a new lane or road opens of course it is still at LOS F. The demand wasn't caused by the road; it was caused by the useful things along the road.
It's a different Supreme Court. You cannot at the same time have
-
Lack of disparate impact according to a protected characteristic
-
Lack of disparate treatment according to a protected characteristic
-
A test which truly measures merit.
-
Merit which is correlated with the protected characteristic.
If the Supreme Court were to confront this head-on, they'd have the job of deciding between
A) Banning tests based on merit. This is practically absurd but legally sound
B) Deferring to the legislature and allowing disparate treatment (discrimination against the group whose membership is correlated with greater merit) in such instances. We are, in effect, here.
C) Ruling that "equal protection" in the Constitution bans disparate treatment and striking down the requirement to avoid disparate impact.
However, the Supreme Court will not confront this head-on; they will do almost anything to allow B) to remain the case while pretending that it isn't and 4) does not attain.
Obvious sophistry. It's a way to get people from outside the city to pay for NYC transit unions.
Too late for that. If we're going to switch back to "states rights", it has to be for a Red issue or it doesn't look like "state's rights" but rather "who/whom".
We've tried the method of making whites take all the rancor and blame. It didn't work out too well. All the other solutions put a significant amount of burden of changing this on blacks, and that's anathema to progressives (especially white progressives).
GiveSendGo hosted Rittenhouse's fundraiser; it was GoFundMe which banned it. They ended the ban after the acquittal, pretending the issue was that they never allowed money to be raised for defense of alleged violent crime.
Schoenfeld, arguing for Montgomery County, says these books that are part of a curriculum that preach uncontroversial values like civility and inclusivity. Alito, skeptical, said Uncle Bobby's Wedding had a clear moral message beyond civility or inclusivity.
Alito should have been more skeptical that "civility" and (especially) "inclusivity" are uncontroversial. Any teaching of "civility" is teaching not just that people should act in ways which are civil and not in ways which are uncivil, but teaching WHICH ways are civil and WHICH ways are uncivil, and those things vary sharply across the population. "Inclusivity" is worse, in that it's basically a positive label for progressive values rather than a label for anything uncontroversial at all.
Yes, but parents and kids take it seriously now. And I think the official punishments have gone up, like losing your license until age 18 for a single violation.
Human nature, it turns out, demands more than just the absence of vice.
More than that, absence of vice may actually be harmful.
It's part of the DOJ, and DOGE clearly went after "independent" agencies first.
You mean the Community Relation Service of the Department of Justice? Paging DOGE, Elon Musk to the whitey courtesy phone...
Their lives are also ridiculously locked down. They are tracked by phone apps, social media is read, driving privileges are extremely limited (you can’t drive with more than two friends in the car until 18 under graduated licenses).
And this is all taken seriously. When I was a kid we had the start of some of these rules... but I went to driver's ed with kids who drove themselves to the class. Restrictions on passengers and times driving were ignored by the kids themselves and not taken particularly seriously by the parents.
The social conservatives thought if they could stop the kids from having sex, drugs, and rock and roll that the kids would be healthier, more socially connected, and happier. This turned out not to be the case.
Formal recognition of Crimea is the biggest thing an intact non-puppet Ukraine has to offer Russia. I can't see Putin accepting any deal without it.
Plumbing is rather well-known for having large amounts of poop.
I think you don't get the benefit of the default.
Single bridge? This is about most of the roads in Manhattan.
From the document, this came across as an argument rather than a statement of fact (Sec Transp argues that the 1991 exception for congestion pricing was vague so he he's going to interpret it as he sees fit )
It's a conclusion, being made by the official in charge of making such conclusions.
Reading between the lines, it's pretty much a 'Biden let you do it. I wont. Fuck you' letter. It even acknowledges the positive reception among the public.
"Biden let you do it even though it was unlawful. I won't. Fuck you."
Congestion pricing is popular. Its in a deep blue state and doesnt have a partisan bent. (Republicans take the subway too). Im not sure why Trump is so appaled by it other than simplistic 'highway good, transit bad' memes.
It's popular in New York City, because many in New York City don't drive so it's a tax on other people. Not so popular outside NYC.
I think you've posted this before. I've probably posted a similar answer.
America's love affair with the car started before the cities became wretched hives of scum and villainy and (despite the best efforts of New Urbanists) continued when most of them recovered. Having a car means you can go anywhere the road network can take you, when you want, the way you want. You can change your plans. You can bring your stuff with you. You can listen to your radio/music, converse with your passengers, or go in silence. It's your space, it goes where you want to go. It's also generally faster -- typically much faster -- than public transit, and cheaper per trip given that you need a car for any trip,
LOL, it doesn't work that way. Defy the feds from the left you get a shrug and you can resist until the feds change their minds. Defy them from the right you get the 101st airborne on your doorstep.
It doesn't matter. Civil rights is like gun control -- the conservatives on the court (with 1 or 2 exceptions) believe one side is in accord with the Constitution, but they want what the other side wants. That is, they want "the blacks" to succeed without discrimination in their favor, but their second choice is the appearance of same, with "Asian and white Harvard" WAY behind. So they will do the "Supreme Court as a debating society" thing where they'll agree that yes, the Fourteenth Amendment means you can't discriminate against white people, but really, can't The Man give a brother a chance for crying out loud?
More options
Context Copy link