"Team Murdoch's approach has several frontws: Find as many angry drivers as possible, sprinkle in some business owners to complain (without evidence) about toll cutting into their bottom lines or getting passed on to customers, top it all off with some extremely bad data analysis - then use it all to put pressure on Gov. Hochul, who has demonstrated a willingness to make policy decisions based on the paper's fact-averse campaigns against the toll."
"On Thursday, a news story in the paper juxtaposed the 11 percent reduction in traffic in the congestion zone measured by the MTA to the mere 5 percent drop in entries through the Port Authority's two tunnels. But those tunnels had tolls before congestion pricing went in effect, and drivers who use them get a discount on the congestion fee. Naturally, the drop in traffic will be less on roads where the additional toll is also less."
"So The Post's idea that the MTA is misleading the public about the data is bunk, and someone at the paper's editorial board must've realized it: In an editorial amplifying driver complaints about the toll, the board raised the MTA's data against numbers from "tech company TomTom" that showed a mere 4 percent drop in traffic "in the first third of the year.""
Tabloid coverage relied on anecdotes and contradictory, selective data to oppose congestion pricing and push policymakers. The coverage assembled angry drivers and unverified business-owner claims alongside flawed data analysis to amplify opposition. A comparison cited an 11 percent MTA traffic reduction inside the congestion zone versus a 5 percent drop in Port Authority tunnel entries, but tunnel traffic had preexisting tolls and congestion-fee discounts. Lower declines on tolled roads are expected when the additional fee is smaller. A touted TomTom 4 percent figure used early-year, limited metrics that do not align with the MTA measures.
Read at Streetsblog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]