Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ame_No_Uzume t1_j9whui0 wrote

Reply to comment by TeamMisha in MTA Pushes Congestion Pricing Back to Second Quarter of 2024 by perspicatic

What do studies have to do with financing and sociopolitical influence? Ah yes, keep believing that the major outlets aren’t reflections of their financial backers and I will have FOX News and Rupert Murdoch to sell y’a.

−4

TeamMisha t1_j9wisgb wrote

I am confused by what you mean, the study was released? You can read it here: https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP/environmental-assessment

There's over 1,000 pages... so I ask again what do you mean by claiming to do the study? It has been done. What's happening now is the MTA is waiting for the FHWA to complete its in house review. If they respond to comments with disapproval or conditional approval it means the study will need to be modified, but it's already been done and submitted in draft form last year. Sorry but no idea what you are trying to say about FOX news and influence?

7

KosherSloth t1_j9xk1x9 wrote

Why did this need to happen in the first place?

3

TeamMisha t1_j9yz8oj wrote

The scope of Congestion Pricing was decided to fall under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the government eventually decided that an EA was necessary. With NEPA, you must perform a study to create what is called an Environmental Assessment (EA) or, in the most stringent cases, an Environmental Impact Statement. These studies qualify and quantify what impacts, if any, your project has on various aspects of the environment and population. You submit your study and then await a decision, the end goal being a FONSI, or "finding of no significant impact" which will allow you to proceed with your project. They can be quite extensive and costly to perform, often at thousands of pages in length with up to 20 appendices. EAs and EIS are quite common for major projects and developments, NYC has its own processes related to NEPA, called CEQR: City Environmental Quality Review, as well as a state version called SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review).

You can read more about NEPA here: https://www.epa.gov/nepa
CEQR: https://www.nyc.gov/site/oec/environmental-quality-review/ceqr-basics.page
CEQR process: https://www.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/environmental-review-process.page
SEQR: https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/357.html

4

KosherSloth t1_ja0578v wrote

Seems pretty silly to spend millions of dollars to do an environmental assessment on reducing driving. Why do we need to do this in the first place?

5

Ame_No_Uzume t1_j9wjcac wrote

You missed the point of the statement and it’s follow up, but keep the tangential reference to the subjective interpretation of the word ‘claim’ as the basis of your inquiry.

−5

TeamMisha t1_j9wkqr5 wrote

> The money is being pocketed by the 3rd parties claiming to do the study

3rd parties claiming to do the study, per your post, is WSP Engineering. The study was completed. What am I missing about your post?

5

jm14ed t1_j9wjrt8 wrote

I don’t think you know what the point of your statement was either.

2