Today’s Headlines

  • How Cuomo and His Predecessors Failed to Invest in the Subway Infrastructure That Matters Most (NYT)
  • Cuomo Insists He’s Not “Shirking Responsibility” for MTA, Proceeds to Shirk Responsibility (Politico)
  • More Info on MTA/DOT Bus Plans for L Train Shutdown, But Nothing About On-Street Busways (DNA)
  • Errol Louis: Placard Enforcement Is a Joke in This Town (News)
  • 2nd Ave Subway Daily Ridership Up to 176,000 — MTA Adding One Roundtrip Run Per Day (AMNY, DNA)
  • Amtrak Won’t Relinquish Penn Station; Cuomo Mulling LIE Bus Lanes For Displaced LIRR Riders (Post 1, 2)
  • Evergreen Headline: “My Subway Commute This Morning Sucked” (Gothamist)
  • You Know Your Transit System’s in Desperate Straits When People Think Wall Street Can Help (Crain’s)
  • DOT Dump Truck Driver Runs Over and Kills Man in Midtown (PostNews)
  • Tickets for Speeding and Texting Are Up in 2017. What Impact Is That Making? (Post)
  • NYPD Stonewalling Request for Race and Location Data on Fare Evasion Arrests (DNA)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • JudenChino

    People in downtown Utrecht just offload their traffic elsewhere, and other people have to cope with it instead. But whoopee, they get to reap the benefits.

    I know downtown (centrum) Utrecht very well and I respectfully disagree with your contention that the “traffic gets offloaded elsewhere.” Traffic moves quite well through Utrecht. It’s just on bike or bus. It’s like you’re completely oblivious to the external costs imposed on others by the use S(ingle) O(ccupancy) V(ehicles) in dense urban environments. Utrecht is smart about it. They have bus only ways. The buses are on time and frequent. It’s really a great city.

  • AMH

    Every night I’m awakened by obnoxious honking and car alarms, I fantasize about calling in an airstrike.

  • JudenChino

    If you want to see some of the newer stuff they’re doing in Utrecht, check out starting at the 1:10 mark of this video. They’re trying to lower the capacity of the roads that run along the Singel (so as to minimize through traffic along the river/canal), they took what were, narrow, two way roads, which already had large bike lanes, and replace the two way car lanes, with a single lane that goes both ways. So it forces the cars to go real slow as there’s literally just one car lane for traffic, that goes both ways. I actually preferred the prior set up. But car traffic volumes are down!

  • JudenChino

    Starting at 5:43 is a good example of the “shared space mixing zones” we’ve heard so much about https://youtu.be/xZ2Iz-cd204?t=5m43s

  • Kevin Love

    The public health benefits of the industrial revolution were largely delivered before our transportation system became car-dominated in the post WWII era. There have, of course, been significant gains since then, such as the development of polio vaccine. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with cars.

    If you had actually been to Utrecht you would know that the car-free zone is largely surrounded by a car-light zone. In other words, most of the streets can be accessed by cars, but rat-running “cut-through” car traffic is prevented by steel bollards and other safety measures.

  • Kevin Love
  • Driver

    Have you tried a white noise machine? It won’t block out all the honking but it will eventually help to keep you from noticing it.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Errol doesn’t get the big picture.

    “Gifted and talented programs” with admission based on testing of 3 year olds are education placards.

    The highly subsidized ferries and express buses are mass transit placards.

    Etc.

    As I noted here.

    https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/education-in-an-era-of-institutional-collapse-reprised/

    I have described the future of public services and benefits as “privatization” and “placardization.”

    By placardization, I mean that to the extent that public sector has anything worthwhile to offer, it will not be able to afford to offer it universally, and it will be allocated instead to insiders and those with connections by a variety of means. The way scarce public on-street parking is allocated to those with the connections to get placards, legal and illegal.

    By “privatization” I do not mean that the government will provide universal, equal benefits by hiring private contractors rather than public employees, as it does in the Medicare program or under a school voucher program. I mean that those who have the resources to provide what were once public services for themselves will be permitted to do so (as long as they are grateful for that permission), while those who lack such resources will be left to do without. In other words, we’re heading for a pre-Progressive era level of public services and benefits, at a Swedish tax rate (because those who matter have received Swedish-plus benefits while paying Reaganite taxes or less).

  • Driver
  • Driver

    Side guards are not standard or required safety equipment for trucks in this country or in this city. Drivers working for a company, or in this case working for the city, do not have any say over whether their vehicles are equipped with safety devices that are above and beyond the federal standard. I think it is fine to make the argument that trucks should have greater safety standards and equipment through legislation and regulation. It is not OK to put the onus on individuals simply doing their job. If this driver refused to drive this vehicle because it did not have side guards, then he would likely be disciplined and sent home and the truck would simply be sent out with another driver.

  • Kevin Love

    You picked the wrong person for that argument. I am an Army veteran. I absolutely 100% do not accept “I am just obeying orders” as an excuse for endangering or killing people. Nobody put a gun to that truck driver’s head and forced him to endanger people’s lives by driving without side guards.

  • Driver

    So what do you say to the subway motorman who kills the person on the tracks or leaning over the platform? I suppose they are equally as guilty.

  • Joe R.

    Just a minor aside on the life expectancy thing. Yes, we’ve doubled life expectancy since the Industrial Revolution but remember life expectancy is simple a mathematical average. Most of the reason that average went up had to do with greatly reducing infant and childhood mortality, as well as death during childbirth.

    A better metric to see how much (or rather how shockingly little) we’ve done is to look at life expectancy at age 30:

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011

    In 1850 if you made it to 30 you could on average expect to live another 34 years, or to age 64. In 2011 if you made it to 30, you could expect to live to age 78 on average. Granted, that’s still another 14 years but a jump from 64 to 78 isn’t as dramatic as the doubling of life expectancy at birth which occurred over the same time period. Also, much of the reason for those extra 14 years has to do with less stressful living and working conditions, as opposed to advances in medical science.

    More reading on this subject:

    http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889

    Interestingly, maximum life spans under near ideal conditions hardly changed at all in the last 2000 years. I had a great-great grandmother who made it to 102 years and 8 months. Even nowadays people seldom live past this age.

  • Kevin Love

    Yes, he is if:

    1. He knows the train violates safety standards and chooses to drive it anyway, and;

    2. That violation is the cause of the death.

  • AnoNYC

    *North to E 149th St.

    If the SAS terminates at that madhouse that is E 125th St/Lex, no one is going to bother to hop off the 4/5/6 there unless they have to get to some place on the UES east of 3rd Ave.

    Built the line to E 149th St and a lot of riders will skip coming down Lex who are headed to points in Midtown along the Q.

  • AnoNYC

    Anecdotally, the increased capacity is noticeable on the Upper East Side. At least for me when I take the line (my regular line).

  • AnoNYC

    They chose to live in those areas, usually after joining. The parking permits subsidize that choice.

  • Fool

    Exactly. It would be an open revolt if you forced them to park legally.

    The illegal perks are part of their compensation.

  • Driver

    Driving a truck without side guards does not violate any safety standards.

  • Kevin Love

    It took me about 10 seconds on Google to find those safety standards. They may be found on the USA Department of Transportation’s website at:

    https://www.volpe.dot.gov/our-work/truck-side-guards-resource-page

    Before operating any dangerous heavy machinery, the operator has an obligation to determine how to do so safely. Failure to follow the standards of the USA Department of Transportation is failure to operate safely. The USA Department of Transportation’s recommended standard is DOT-VNTSC-OSTR-16-05, available at the above link.

    Driving a truck without side guards is an unsafe act because it violates the safety standards recommended by the USA Department of Transportation. Anyone who chooses to engage in this unsafe behavior is responsible for the entirely foreseeable consequences.

  • AMH

    It helps, can’t sleep without that or a fan, but not even earplugs work when it’s right outside.

  • Ken Dodd

    Yes I’m aware of the statistical averaging angle of life expectancy rates, however that doesn’t change the fact that the average shot up considerably, and that decreases in infant mortality were ENTIRELY due to advances in technology and living conditions brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

    Less stressful living conditions were brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

    Less stressful working conditions were made possible by the industrial revolution. With or without unions, those improved conditions would have happened for two reasons: firstly, that it is and always has been in the best interests of employers to keep their workforce productive, and sick and/or disillusioned people don’t make productive employees, and secondly, that it was only improvements in the means of production which made higher wages possible.

    In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when manufacturing technology was in its infancy, the unit production of a worker was severely limited. Meaningfully higher wages were only made possible when technology improved this unit production and increased the revenue made per employee.

    It’s also worth noting just how bad things were before the Industrial Revolution. The history of Great Britain is interesting in this regard. Before the IR, education was almost non-existent and most children died before the age of 10. Even if they reached 10 years, it was unlikely that they’d ever experienced a full stomach, and alcoholism was rife even at that age. Kids were dying of liver failure in ditches. They were most commonly thieves, vagabonds or child prostitutes. The reason why people flocked from rural areas to the cities with the advent of industry was that, even though working conditions were horrific compared to today, what was on offer was substantially better than what they had before.

  • Ken Dodd

    From Wikipedia: “About 38% percent of its population either earns a minimum income or is dependent on social welfare (17% of all households). Boroughs such as Kanaleneiland, Overvecht and Hoograven consist primarily of high-rise housing developments, and are known for relatively high poverty and crime rate”

  • Ken Dodd

    Utrecht is a entirely different city than New York in terms of population, commercial density, economic activity etc. It has an urban population of under half a million people. New York has almost 20x its population density. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

  • Ken Dodd

    Any word on safety standards for pedestrians with regards to willfully jumping onto the side of moving trucks out of anger?

  • Ken Dodd

    How much more careful could the driver be? He had absolutely no control over whether or not someone jumped onto the side of his vehicle. I still maintain that that headline was worded in such a way as to insinuate blame on the driver. Like I also said, when road fatality headlines are written in such a way as to absolve a driver of guilt (i.e. “SUV kills pedestrian”) then people on here complain about that. I’ve seen it.

  • JudenChino

    My wife grew up on social welfare in Utrecht and her other family still lives there. Thank you for copying and pasting a portion of the Utrecht wiki page. The Centrum is also one of the most beautiful downtowns (Centrum) in all of Western Europe. I’d gladly move there if I spoke Dutch and could find a well paying job. Alas, I’m stuck in NYC.

  • Driver

    Recommended and required are two different standards.

  • Kevin Love

    The only relevant difference is safe vs. unsafe. Failing to follow USA DOT safety standards is unsafe. Those who engage in this unsafe behavior are responsible for the consequences.