DC has a larger metro population than half of those cities, and is the clear economic hub of its respective area. I’m not sure the national capital is a great example of a smaller city, although of course is smaller relative to the US than London is to the UK.
It doesn't seem to me that the GP comment is arguing for the cut in funding, but rather that 'gutted' may reasonably imply to many readers that a relatively significant portion of the budget was cut, which would be misleading in this case even if unintentional. The percentage helps put the number into context as at least I would not have an intuitive sense of expected or historical LAFD budget numbers.
The median income of a household with a car in the city is more than double that of households without cars [1]. In a city where public transport is a viable and relatively cheap alternative, it doesn’t seem obvious that it disproportionately impacts the poor, unlike for instance a flat sales tax on essential goods.
If they only taxed passenger vehicles you'd have a point, but the cost for trucks is actually higher (up to more than double), which means that in the end it is a tax on essential goods, because those goods have to make it into the city somehow and businesses have to pass that cost on to customers. It's reasonable to be afraid that poor customers will see the largest change as a percent of their budget as prices go up to pay for the tax (though obviously we haven't had time to measure whether that to see for sure).
It disproportionately impacts the working lower classes. Poor in NYC likely means homeless. Dual income McDonalds working family is above the CarLess HHI median wage in the reports you linked. That same worker is heavily impacted by congestion pricing vs say a Quant trader
The dual income McDonalds worker was never driving into Manhattan. Though the fixation on “poor people” is fake. 100 studies could come out explaining that congestion pricing is better for poor people and the opponents aren’t going to change their view on it. It’s a fake argument used to launder more selfish opinions.
This has been a thing in Michigan and likely a few other states for decades, although with a 10 cent bounty at least 10-20 years ago. There was apparently a 90-95% recovery rate last I checked, but I'm not sure how reliable those statistics are.
That still doesn't solve the problem of recycling plastics or bottles in general, which this research may advance.
The ten cent deposit has been in place in Michigan since the 1970s. Back then ten cents was a big deal but over 500% inflation since then has eaten away at the incentive. What has changed is attitudes regarding recycling and waste disposal in general. Back when Michigan put the deposit in place, it made a very noticeable difference in the reduction of litter in Michigan and also in how litter compared to states without a deposit. From my purely personal experience, that difference is mostly gone now.
People hauling empties all over the place doesn't seem as eco friendly as it once did, especially when so many people have recycling pickup curbside with their trash pickup. In deposit states, you can't crush your cans before returning them but in non-deposit states you can, saving space. Eliminating the deposit probably would result in some amount of plastic going into trash cans instead of recycling bins, but it would be very far from being 100%. The math gets fuzzy when you start deciding on if people make special trips to return empties or are they usually returning them when they already were going to the store to shop. Same the more upstream you go. But that recycling bin at the curb is still there, waiting to be used more.
> it feels like a bike rental service operating on private property should not be the DOT’s jurisdiction.
I’m not sure I see how the private ownership of docking spaces should be relevant to DOT jurisdiction specifically. Rental car services are regulated, and owning the land housing the pickup location doesn’t avoid that probably because the vehicles are obviously used on public roadways.
either way, it's sorta symptomatic of the kneejerk overregulation that is plaguing a lot of blue states. i can understand the impulse to want to regulate dockless bikes that can cause problems... but just any bike rental?
This article is about the PSNI, a documentary released in 2017, and surveillance in 2018. While the history between NI, the rest of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland is obviously relevant, it’s a bit of a stretch to reduce this to the relationship between the UK and Ireland.
It's really not. The existence of NI as part of the UK is not something that Irish nationalists have historically been very happy with. They aren't in charge, and the people who are in charge are scared shitless of them ever getting truculent again.
And they try to pre-empt it in the only way that they know how.
I’m aware of the broad history, and I’m not claiming the PSNI is particularly neutral or otherwise unwilling to engage in these tactics. However, discourse that reduces the PSNI abusing power to a UK vs. Ireland conflict doesn’t
promote holding the appropriate features of society and institutions accountable as they should be.
You misspelled gangsters, terrorists, and thugs who murdered civilians willingly. I'll say the same about the RUC, which at its worst was a facade for loyalist paramilitaries. But let's not pretend a revival of the Troubles will do anything or that the UK wouldn't hand over NI if a durable majority wanted it that way.
Yes, the new terminal in Bengaluru is BEAUTIFUL! I was amazed walking through it with how lush it was. Really love that look and very fitting for the climate (more or less)
That seems incorrect. The mayor is the mayor of Greater London which includes the City of London, although the City also has a Lord Mayor, as London boroughs have elected or ceremonial mayors. In other words, the City has its own mayor in the sense that other parts of London have their own sub-governments, although with a few differences such as policing and city status.
> The mayor is scrutinised by the London Assembly and, supported by their Mayoral Cabinet, directs the entirety of London, including the City of London (for which there is also the Lord Mayor of the City of London)
> In 1965 the county was abolished and replaced by Greater London, a two-tier administrative area governed by the Greater London Council, thirty-two London boroughs, and the City of London Corporation.
reply