Today’s Headlines

  • Times to Albany: Bridge Tolls or Horrendous Transit Cuts? The Choice Is Clear
  • News: Permanent Plazas on Broadway the Right Call By Bloomberg; Post: Safety Gains ‘Meaningless’
  • Deliveryman Killed By Drunk SUV Driver in Long Island City (News)
  • Intoxicated Off-Duty Cop Plows Into Garbage Truck, Flips Onto Sidewalk in Front of Tiffany’s (NYT)
  • State Senators Vote to Give Drunk Drivers a Break (On Transport)
  • Yglesias: Transit Service, Not HSR, Gives You the Best Bang for Your Transpo Stimulus Buck
  • Brooklyn Eagle Psyched for Select Bus Service on Nostrand Ave
  • NJ Gov Chris Christie Shows His Anti-Transit Stripes (MTR)
  • Irate, Childish Motorists Pay Less for Parking By Vandalizing Meters (Post)
  • Kaid Benfield: Vancouver’s Olympic Village Deserves a Medal for Walkable, Sustainable Development

Catch more headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

Streetsblog will be offline for the rest of the holiday. See you back here tomorrow.

  • arthur

    The Post does not say that the safety gains are ‘meaningless’ they say the following: “Meanwhile, drops of 35 percent in pedestrian injuries and 63 percent of driver injuries were statistically meaningless, because the absolute numbers were so small. And cyclist injuries were unchanged.”

    While you may not like their perspective – their choice of words is specific and has a different meaning than you imply.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    The sample was small for the traffic statistics as well, the Post likes statistics that agree with their position but statistcs that refute their position are insignificant.

  • The conceit of grading the project according to through traffic speeds is conditioned on the notion that a taxi is the fastest way around Manhattan. MTA says it takes 12 minutes to get from Columbus Circle to Broadway & Houston St via D train.

    Taxi is third place at best, however (after cycling). I’m not overly concerned about Post readers accustomed to the bronze-medal mode of transport taking a few minutes more or less to complete their trips. If they wanted to get around most expeditiously, they’d use the subway.

    If the idea of giving more street space to more poky transport is so crucial to New York City’s identity, perhaps DOT should dedicate special lanes for horse-drawn carriages as well. Liz Krueger, what do you think?

  • Larry Littlefield

    “The Post likes statistics that agree with their position but statistcs that refute their position are insignificant.”

    The old game. No data is perfect. If it doesn’t support your self interest, you say that it cannot be relied up because it is flawed, so let’s just use another method of decisionmaking (who yells the loudest). If the data supports your position, you use it because it is the best available and decisions need to be made.

    Most of the straightforward fact I see are the ones I post myself on Room Eight. And that’s because no one is paying me to do otherwise, unlike others in the field. And the biggest fraud isn’t in the information that is presented and the issues that are talked about. It is in the unsaid and unreported.

  • Wow, I think one of the Post comments just “won”

    “I wonder if this traffic toad is a muslim terrorist trying to cut down response times of emergency personnel. Remeber she screwed up ninth ave also below 23rd street and allen st from south street up past delancy.”

    There’s no topping this one folks, pack up your keyboards and go home.

    Anyway, since this blog was discussing the street security and bollards around Barclays center, I thought you might be interested in looking at the street treatment given to the new Red Bull Arena.

    I spot bike racks right in front, small metal bollards and planters, as well as extra wide sidewalks.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/47279604@N02/4336070237/in/set-72157623244104529/

    Thats the kind of treatment that should be demanded in NYC, not the giant coffins. The capacity of the stadium is 25,000, vs 19,000 proposed for Barclays.

  • That “State Senators vote to give drunk drivers a break” piece was some piece of work.

    My post on that thread:

    What? You object to courts being required to follow due process of law before people are deprived of the ability to drive? Because “their test results are proof positive that they were driving drunk”? By that logic, why not skip the trial altogether, and just throw them in jail immediately! Why do we even bother with due process of law? Errors during investigation, with the chain of evidence, and the application of technology are never committed by law enforcement or other agents of the judicial system, right?

    I’m glad that we have these constitutional protections in place, so that self-righteous people like you are not able to rush to judgment and ruin people’s livelihoods in those circumstances where the individuals are actually not guilty of the offense.

  • Glenn

    Jonathan – No further response from Sen. Krueger’s office beyond “oh, of course we support the plan, but just wanted a better process”.

    I’m pretty sure there are thousands of bigger decisions made every year by a Mayor that have less of a public process and probably a lot less data collected than the pedestrian plazas on Broadway. To focus on this issue seems petty at best at a time of celebration for advocates of safer streets.

    I really like Sen. Krueger and agree with her on a wide variety of issues – especially reforming Albany (which needs a lot more work than the City). Mayor Bloomberg just got elected by 10 points and like it or not, the Mayor has wide discretion on the use of city streets. There was no violation of sacred democratic ideas as far as I can see.

  • Repeat after me, Nan:

    Driving is not an inalienable right.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required to take someone off the road, nor should it be.

    The way to allow people who lose their licenses to keep their livelihoods is to provide an alternative way for them to get to work, as Correa had.

  • I never said it was an inalienable right. I was pointing out the indignation espoused in that article about the proof positive of the person’s guilt immediately after an arrest.

    Let me repeat it for you since you seemed to have some trouble understanding it the first time: “”their test results are proof positive that they were driving drunk.”

    Whether or not proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required to take someone off the road is, thankfully, not a determination that you get to make.

    Most of the time, in the rest of the country that operates differently from the transit mecca microcosm in which you live, losing one’s license will result in loss of livelihood. Some of us care about people being deprived of that before they have been convicted of a crime they very well may have not committed, whether or not constitutional law has not been interpreted in such a way to keep that from happening.

  • Most of the time, in the rest of the country that operates differently from the transit mecca microcosm in which you live, losing one’s license will result in loss of livelihood. Some of us care about people being deprived of that before they have been convicted of a crime they very well may have not committed, whether or not constitutional law has not been interpreted in such a way to keep that from happening.

    Well, I was drawn to this “mecca” specifically because I wanted to get away from places like the ones you describe. I take exception to the condescension in your comment. You think I don’t care about those people? I do. I just care more about the others who are put at risk. My high school history teacher was killed by a drunk driver, and two boys lost a loving father that day.

    If you care so much about people being deprived of due process, why not push for a law expediting cases involving license suspension, so that the truly innocent can get back on the road as soon as possible?

  • It’s always anecdotal experiences like the one you describe about your history teacher that are used to support these arguments, when they shouldn’t be. It’s the inappropriate use of emotion instead of logic to support a policy that will not achieve what you hope from it.

    My point is that policies like these are misdirected. The habitual offender who drives drunk repeatedly will not care about this law, and will continue to drive drunk after his license is administratively suspended. The only people that will be affected would be the ones that are most likely to follow the provisions of a restricted license: namely, to drive sober to and from work. For these people, this law would constitute an undue hardship in places where transit is not a viable alternative for transport to work.

    Evidence has shown time and again that the drunk drivers who are killing people are extremely intoxicated (more than twice the arbitrary legal limit of 0.08) habitual offenders who continue to violate the law in spite of the penalties levied against them. These are the people we need to focus on, by making the penalties so severe that a disincentive to their behaviors exists.

    I would prefer to live in New York as well, where there are so many alternatives to using an automobile. At this point, I can’t. There are many, many people who are in my situation, and the reality is that most people are not going to live in places like New York. I think living in New York has given the majority of people posting on here a unique perspective that makes it difficult for them to empathize with how others must live. Just like the windshield perspective you lambast, your own tunnel vision perspective compromises your objectivity.