***Official Political Discussion Thread***

0


This sentence was... surprising.

New York Road Runners — which reported a total income of $100.2 million last fiscal year — hasn’t yet caved to the MTA’s demands and, instead, is asking Gov. Kathy Hochul to step in.

Generally I'm all for using the commons in whatever way best benefits the public, but maybe this org doesn't need the subsidy?
 
screenshot 5.png


Bro, "Chestfeeding"? "Lactating person"?
 
Id just re route the marathon and not deal with their extortion.

It wouldn’t even be hard to do. They kind of go out of their way to start in States Island (or shimmy into the Bronx)


But their schtick is that it goes through all 5 boroughs and there’s just no way to include Staten Island without crossing that bridge.

Not too sure how this is extortion, though. I’d understand the vitriol if they were trying to do anything aside from be made whole, but it’s inconvenient enough that the streets get shut down. Why should taxpayers who don’t care about the marathon subsidize an extremely wealthy nfp that is generally supported by wealthy participants?
 
It wouldn’t even be hard to do. They kind of go out of their way to start in States Island (or shimmy into the Bronx)


But their schtick is that it goes through all 5 boroughs and there’s just no way to include Staten Island without crossing that bridge.

Not too sure how this is extortion, though. I’d understand the vitriol if they were trying to do anything aside from be made whole, but it’s inconvenient enough that the streets get shut down. Why should taxpayers who don’t care about the marathon subsidize an extremely wealthy nfp that is generally supported by wealthy participants?

This.
 
I don't know anything about it I thought it was just regular people running it.

if it's only rich people idc then.
 
If your organization has booked the use of a crucial transportation artery AND it has a lot of money, you should pay whatever congestion taxes exist in that place. If it's a spontaneous protest, ok, I get it but otherwise, you should pay for the disruption.

On the issue of congestion pricing in major US cities, IMO, Manhattan is exceptional. It has great access to public transportation including good access to the suburbs other boroughs. That is the perfect place to do congestion pricing for private vehicles. MOST cities in the US should not do congestion pricing yet. In most places, it would be a regressive tax on the lower income workers who commute from the suburbs to the city.

It can get a bit vexing to argue this issue with affluent white people who are wealthy enough to live in the middle of smaller but very, very expensive California cities like Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Monterey, who have iron clad faith in congestions pricing and minimum $20/hr. Normally liberal or left leaning people become chalk board economists in this particular issue. They claim that if they make it really expensive to commute into the city, every one will take the train, and I'm like "what train"?!

They are indulging the fallacy of instant supply curve adjustments. Sure, in perfect markets, higher prices create an immediate and commensurate increase in supply. In the real world, it's hard for established industries to quickly see higher prices and produce more. The feedback loop is even longer for public policy.

Under certain conditions, a simple demand-supply interaction can self correct very quickly, but congestion pricing (outside of a few large cities) isn't a good example of this dynamic.

If you want urbanism, advocate for comprehensive regional transit and massive increases in urban housing supply. At that point, your city can copy Manhattan and do congestion pricing. But until your city can do that, don't do congestion pricing until you get the infrastructure to a much higher level.
 
Back
Top Bottom