Today’s Headlines

  • More on Kerry and Lieberman’s Climate Bill (NYT)
  • Who Is Sgt. Tim Horohoe? A Cyclist Assaulter Who Still Has a Badge (NYT)
  • Homeland Security Cuts Transit Safety Aid to NYC (SAS, News)
  • Judge Questions Whether MTA Can Lay Off Remaining Station Agents (WNYC)
  • Say It Ain’t So, Fred Wilpon — Mets Thinking About Building Soccer Stadium, More Parking (NYT)
  • What Can Be Done About the Chinatown Bus Glut? (Gotham Gazette)
  • Pedro Espada Draws Second Primary Challenger (City Room)
  • DUMBO Farmers Market Moves to Pearl Street Plaza — a Reclaimed Parking Lot (Post)
  • NYT Sounds Skeptical That Bikes Belong on Revamped High Bridge
  • When a Barnes Dance Isn’t a Step Up for Pedestrians (GGW)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Please don’t fall for the trap of calling the Kerry-Lieberman “American Power Act” a “climate bill.” It’s an energy-subsidy bill, plain and simple, dressed up as a climate bill.

  • Steve Faust

    You gotta love the Times for statements like this:

    “Residents of the area will soon be asked to give their ideas about how to use the High Bridge — foot traffic, yes, but bicycles?”

    High Bridge is the southern end of the Old Croton Aqueduct, a shared bicycle and walking trail all the way down (literally downhill) from the Croton Dam. Why does the Times insinuate that cyclists should not be allowed to continue the full length of the trail? There is an almost continuous trail from the Jerome Reservoir to the High Bridge. In Manhattan, the Aqueduct runs south in deep tunnel with no surface trail, so Highbridge Park is the end of the trail.

    The Times anti-bike attitude might even be “slightly” justified if they were also calling for installing full bike lanes on the nearby Washington Arch Bridge, which has only very narrow sidewalks, shared with pedestrians, and high speed narrow car lanes. In other words, there is no “good” bicycle alternative to the High Bridge for crossing the Harlem Valley in this corridor, and the Times does not care. The Times has had a Killer Bike editorial policy since at least 1980. It has not really changed.

    Side note, the cost to install the new railings to reopen the High Bridge is about twice as much as the estimated cost to complete the Verrazano Narrows Bridge bicycle/pedestrian paths, and more than the cost to rehab the Walkway Over the Hudson at Poughkeepsie (open to bicycles and pedestrians.) While I really want the High Bridge reopened, I am wondering what extras are included to make the High Bridge cost so high.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Here’s an amazing story.

    DiNapoli and Liu are going to audit the MTA to find out if it is really necessary for the MTA to do track work.

    Define necessary? If the stop doing it and the system wouldn’t collapse until their generation died off or moved out, would that make it unnecessary?

    We had a bridge taken down upstate because it was ready to collapse. Does anyone recall any politicians doing audits about maintenance that WASN’T done?

  • Kerry-Lieberman is just a first step. It is the only hope of getting an international agreement that will make global ghg emissions peak in time to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

    Clearly, K-L won’t lead to 350 ppm itself. It might lead to a global agreement in a couple of years that puts the world on a path to peaking at somewhere between 450ppm and 500ppm.

    During the coming decades, as more science comes in, the world will realize that stronger measures are needed and could strengthen the existing frame work so the world peaks at 450 ppm and then declines to 350 ppm. That is obviously not a certainty, but it is a possible path to avoiding catastrophic global warming.

    By contrast, if we don’t pass something in this Congress, we are even less likely to pass anything in the next Congress. A world agreement will be delayed for so long that it will be impossible to avoid catastrophic global warming.

  • Steve Faust

    Larry asks the right question about MTA track work.

    The Good News: NYC Infrastructure is built like a brick shit-house to last 100 years.

    The Bad News 1: The hundred years is up.

    The Bad News 2: If you don’t pull ongoing capital maintenance on that shit-house, it will fall down less than 20 years. If it gets a cheap coat of fresh paint, it will look great, until falls down.

    Dave Gunn forced the NYCTA to evaluate the useful life of everything, to keep the system in a State Of Good Repair (SOGR). Track and ties for instance, depending on straight or curved, lasts between some 20 and 70 years; just for a good guess say 50 years. So about 1/50th of the track has to be replaced every year to keep the system in a SOGR. If you don’t replace it near schedule, you will be getting trains sitting on the ground – like the 1970s.

  • Some attendees at the last High Bridge meeting thought the bridge should be pedestrian only. Perhaps the Times is merely reflecting those community members’ views.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “An Islanders move west to Flushing would probably alter the team’s identity a bit, even if Queens is part of Long Island, and irk some fans accustomed to driving to the old arena. But it would give fans an option to ride the Long Island Rail Road to games.”

    I don’t see how this is a bad thing. I doubt the number of parking spaces would rise, and it might fall, since the arena would be built in the parking lot.

    Perhaps Ratner’s Russian partner will bid, if the Barclay’s arena can hold a rink. In that case, everyone on Long Island could take the train there EXCEPT those on the Port Washington line, who are probably Ranger fans anyway.

  • TKO

    Reclaimed parking lot? Pearl Street Plaza is just green paint and the DUMBO grill cart. I don’t own a car but miss the parking instead of a pretend cement park with bad sculptures that sometimes fall over.

  • Westchesterite

    I agree with Larry that the Islanders moving to Flushing would be a good thing. And he’s right that the Brooklyn arena will pull lots of Long Islanders into the Devils’ fan base.

    One thing missing in this discussion is the need to thru-route trains, something Yonah Freemark has talked about alot. Getting to Flushing from Westchester by train is a major pain, taking almost 2 hours. If MTA started running MetroNorth trains down the West Side, and then had them continue out to Flushing on game days, it would allow a lot of us to take transit instead of cars.

  • Jason A

    I don’t have a problem with the logistics of the Islanders move, I just have to add this point: of all the infrastructure problems we have in this country, it’s depressing we can only muster up the political will to build new sports arenas.

    Currently there’s an arena glut in this country – please, we don’t need anymore sports complexes!!!

    The big reason owners clamor for these new facilities is to outfit them with luxury boxes and exclusive seating options – ultimately pricing out average fans. Spending public money to create exclusive facilities is despicable. End of discussion.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “It’s depressing we can only muster up the political will to build new sports arenas.” Don’t forget convention centers. “Currently there’s an arena glut in this country – please, we don’t need anymore sports complexes!” There is a glut of convention center space too.

    And a glut of casinos.

  • If we actually still built sports arenas that could evoke a sense of civic pride due to a combination of their architecture, their giving the citizens of a city something to rally behind together, naming them to reflect important persons in local history or other aspects of local culture, etc., then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, I can think of better ways to evoke my New York City pride than going to see the Mets play in some physical manifestation of a Citi Bank advertisement; or in a few years to see the Brooklyn Nets play atop the rotting corpses of real Brooklyn residents, houses, businesses, etc.