Today’s Headlines

  • Without Funding Fix, MTA Capital Program Is Debt Bomb for Riders (NYT, WSJCrain’s, MTR)
  • MTA Wants de Blasio to Pitch In More Cash (Capital)
  • SI Board Member Votes Against Budget; Wants New Transit Lines, Not Just New Rail Cars (Advance)
  • Bicyclist Seriously Injured on Allen Street (Lo-Down)
  • Off-Duty NYPD Lieutenant Arrested for Drunk Driving on Staten Island (Advance)
  • Another Staten Island Driver Arrested for DWI After Smashing Into Parked Cars (Advance)
  • People Who Drove in Bus Lane Aren’t Satisfied With City’s Attempt to Clear Their Tickets (Bklyn Daily)
  • Parks Department Has Yet to Fix Hole in Forest Park Sidewalk (News)
  • Highlights From Talk at NYU About Potential for Tech to Improve Transportation and Safety (Capital)
  • Right of Way Installs “20 Is Plenty” Signs In Central Park (NewsGothamist); Animal NY Not Impressed
  • The Awl and The Week Take on the Latest Bikelash

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • WalkingNPR

    Not real news, but I happened to see this this morning. Isn’t it just HI-larious that this guy got revenge on the bad parker by parking on the sidewalk?!?–abc-news-topstories.html

  • Bolwerk

    FFS. It’s time to push for congestion pricing again. There are literally no meaningful losers with a CP scheme. For the subset of drivers in the metro area who are actually drive for economically productive reasons, it’s a good deal.

    Step up, de Blasio!

  • datbeezy

    You might want to watch your tongue with talk of “meaningful” [drivers]. I don’t assume you mean anything untoward, but one could easily assume that you mean middle-income and lower drivers in NYC are not meaningful. Those cars parked at NYCHA properties belong to somebody, after all.

  • Bolwerk

    I was not even thinking about class, but need. Nobody who values their trip at less than the congestion price has any need to make the trip. Anyone who needs to drive wins in a CP scenario.

    But, if you really want to inject income class into it, you have it backwards. The people who need cars the most are probably in the working class, moving tools/materials/equipment around. It’s paper pushers in the middle-income and “higher” who need them less. They just happen to be able to most afford them.

  • Daniel

    Some of the things in the MTA Capital Plan look like regular maintenance.

    In the subway section we have:

    1962m for track and switch replacement
    890m for repairs to lighting, signage, stairs, etc.
    436m for elevator and escalator replacements
    274m for paint
    203m for priory repairs
    190m for repairs to electrical systems
    336m for repairs at employee facilities

    That’s 4.3 billion in repairs or replacement of short lived assets, over a quarter of the capital budget for the subways. This doesn’t seem like a very good way to run your books. It often makes sense to borrow for capital investments such as building a new subway line or upgrading the signal system, so putting operating costs on a capital plan raises a lot of red flags. Is it done to borrow to fund operating costs ? Is it done to fake a better operating P&L ? Is this done to access some federal funds ?

  • Bolwerk

    None of those meet the accounting definition of short-term assets (even paint). They’re all capital expenses for pretty much any business, and most of them are improvements that will last several decades.

  • datbeezy

    I don’t disagree that CP would vastly improve NYC for essentially everyone; but as we saw in 2009, “Optics” are very important: democratic assemblymen representing largely working-class blocs blocked CP last time.

  • Bolwerk

    They voted against the interests of their own constituents. Most of them are incompetent yes-men, but not stupid, so I assume they know what they were doing. Well, I’m seriously curious: how would you say it?

    Here’s the challenge: find a way to describe it in a way that won’t/can’t be misconstrued by fake populist cretins. All they need to do is wave a flag, mention the middle class, and poo about socialism or how it only benefits “rich people.” Our side has to articulate a complex, theoretically- and empirically-supported idea as concisely as possible, but it’s still going to be more than can ever fit in a soundbite.