N.Y. governor says congestion pricing will remain despite federal deadline to end the program Sunday
New York City's $9 congestion toll on drivers in Manhattan's busiest areas will remain in effect, despite the federal government's Sunday deadline to scrap it.
In a statement about the deadline, a spokesperson for New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said, 'The program is working. Traffic is down, business is up and the cameras are staying on.'
The U.S. Transportation Department said in a statement to NBC New York on Friday that it expected New York to comply with the Sunday deadline to 'terminate this program.'
'USDOT will continue to fight for working class Americans whose tax dollars have already funded and paid for these roads,' it said.
But Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials told NBC New York it was unlikely anything would change Sunday, given that a federal judge has so far sided with New York that the toll is legal, and court filings suggest it will most likely take until the fall for the case to be fully resolved.
In addition, both Hochul and the MTA have said that unless a court directs otherwise, the cameras, and therefore the tolls, will stay on.
The plan has already faced a number of deadlines from the federal government, followed by just as many pushbacks.
Congestion pricing, which went into effect on Jan. 5, has goals to lessen traffic in the overcrowded city and pump money into the ailing subway system.
The plan charges most cars entering Manhattan's central business district — which stretches from 60th Street down to the southern tip of the Financial District — a peak fee of $9 from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekends.
The Trump administration sought to kill the program on Feb. 19, with President Donald Trump declaring himself 'king' in a social media post that celebrated the potential end of congestion pricing.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a letter to Hochul that the federal government has jurisdiction over highways leading to Manhattan, making the newly imposed toll an unfair burden for drivers outside New York City.
Hochul fought back, declaring: "The cameras are staying on."
The next week, the Trump administration gave New York until March 21 to end congestion pricing. On March 20, Duffy pushed the deadline back 30 more days, according to The Associated Press.
The Transportation Department said April 8 that it was not backing down on Sunday's deadline. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will stop congestion pricing.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What To Make Of Yum! Brands' (NYSE:YUM) Decelerating Rates Of Return
If we want to find a stock that could multiply over the long term, what are the underlying trends we should look for? Amongst other things, we'll want to see two things; firstly, a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an expansion in the company's amount of capital employed. Put simply, these types of businesses are compounding machines, meaning they are continually reinvesting their earnings at ever-higher rates of return. So when we looked at Yum! Brands (NYSE:YUM), they do have a high ROCE, but we weren't exactly elated from how returns are trending. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. If you haven't worked with ROCE before, it measures the 'return' (pre-tax profit) a company generates from capital employed in its business. To calculate this metric for Yum! Brands, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.47 = US$2.6b ÷ (US$6.7b - US$1.2b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). So, Yum! Brands has an ROCE of 47%. In absolute terms that's a great return and it's even better than the Hospitality industry average of 9.6%. View our latest analysis for Yum! Brands In the above chart we have measured Yum! Brands' prior ROCE against its prior performance, but the future is arguably more important. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Yum! Brands . Things have been pretty stable at Yum! Brands, with its capital employed and returns on that capital staying somewhat the same for the last five years. Businesses with these traits tend to be mature and steady operations because they're past the growth phase. Although current returns are high, we'd need more evidence of underlying growth for it to look like a multi-bagger going forward. This probably explains why Yum! Brands is paying out 46% of its income to shareholders in the form of dividends. Given the business isn't reinvesting in itself, it makes sense to distribute a portion of earnings among shareholders. While Yum! Brands has impressive profitability from its capital, it isn't increasing that amount of capital. Although the market must be expecting these trends to improve because the stock has gained 64% over the last five years. But if the trajectory of these underlying trends continue, we think the likelihood of it being a multi-bagger from here isn't high. On a final note, we found 4 warning signs for Yum! Brands (2 are a bit concerning) you should be aware of. High returns are a key ingredient to strong performance, so check out our free list ofstocks earning high returns on equity with solid balance sheets. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With 71% ownership of the shares, TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUE) is heavily dominated by institutional owners
Significantly high institutional ownership implies TrueCar's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions 54% of the business is held by the top 6 shareholders Analyst forecasts along with ownership data serve to give a strong idea about prospects for a business Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUE) can tell us which group is most powerful. With 71% stake, institutions possess the maximum shares in the company. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Since institutional have access to huge amounts of capital, their market moves tend to receive a lot of scrutiny by retail or individual investors. As a result, a sizeable amount of institutional money invested in a firm is generally viewed as a positive attribute. In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of TrueCar. Check out our latest analysis for TrueCar Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in TrueCar. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of TrueCar, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. It looks like hedge funds own 5.2% of TrueCar shares. That worth noting, since hedge funds are often quite active investors, who may try to influence management. Many want to see value creation (and a higher share price) in the short term or medium term. Caledonia (Private) Investments Pty Limited is currently the company's largest shareholder with 20% of shares outstanding. USAA Investment Services Company is the second largest shareholder owning 9.1% of common stock, and BlackRock, Inc. holds about 8.4% of the company stock. In addition, we found that Jantoon Reigersman, the CEO has 0.8% of the shares allocated to their name. We also observed that the top 6 shareholders account for more than half of the share register, with a few smaller shareholders to balance the interests of the larger ones to a certain extent. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. We can see that insiders own shares in TrueCar, Inc.. In their own names, insiders own US$4.3m worth of stock in the US$127m company. It is good to see some investment by insiders, but we usually like to see higher insider holdings. It might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 14% stake in TrueCar. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. Public companies currently own 6.1% of TrueCar stock. This may be a strategic interest and the two companies may have related business interests. It could be that they have de-merged. This holding is probably worth investigating further. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We've spotted 1 warning sign for TrueCar you should be aware of. If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
