> I'm just going to respond to the single point that everyone is making in one place, instead of repeating it: you don't just get to assert that the hypothesized "reduction in transit time" offsets the costs. You have to prove that argument.
> You're the one arguing in favor of a new tax. It's not my job to prove the negative.
You ok man? Like, respect for your passion on this issue but you’re also seething pretty hard about New York City having cleaner air and less traffic.
I'm not seething, and I can assure you from the disgusting piles of city dust that accumulate in my apartment that the air is not cleaner in any way that matters to me.
> The New York City health department’s readings of PM2.5, one air quality measure, improved citywide the first three months of this year compared with the same period in 2024. The improvement was more pronounced within the congestion zone, but it’s too early to attribute that to the program, or to know if that’s a lasting pattern, experts said.
"My apartment still gets dusty" seems like a pretty desperate anti-congestion charge argument.
Again, in case it's not clear: I was being whimsical. I'm obviously not resting my opposition to this on a one-off argument about dust in my apartment.
I personally don't think the PM2.5 thing would justify the implementation of the system even if it were true, but that's not a debate I want to get into.
You ok man? Like, respect for your passion on this issue but you’re also seething pretty hard about New York City having cleaner air and less traffic.