Today’s Headlines

De Blasio or Quinn or Liu or Thompson will sing a different tune after they collect their donations and win the primary.  They’ll be real “progressives,” in favor of the serfs then.

Which shows you something.  Wouldn’t you think a Democrat would have to appear to be MORE in favor of the less well off and future generations to win a primary, and then move in the other direction in the general election?  Not so.

A century a go there was a bi-partisan “progressive” movement.  Progressive Republicans wanted the government to be more fair and efficient so it could do the things that they agreed it must do more cheaply.  Progressive Democrats wanted the government to be more fair and efficient so it could do more for people.

The progressives were opposed by machine Democrats backed by unearned privileges in the public sector, and robber barron Republicans backed by unearned privileges in the private sector.

The progressives won for a while.  But that era has long ago ended, turning the government, for the most part, back into what it was.  And most of those who calle themselves “progressive” today are also defenders of unearned privilege against the common people, the less well off, the future.

The real political philosophy of New York is feudalism.  Whatever you have grabbed you have a right to keep, without any notions of equity however defined.  Except that when more is available, those with the most have a right to that to.  Street space is just an example. 

> After a year in which he has been repeatedly criticized for his political ties and his leadership of the office, Mr. Hynes faces a challenge from Kenneth P. Thompson, a prominent lawyer in private practice, and Abe George, a former prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Both raised more campaign money in the first filing period than Mr. Hynes.

Is it worth opposing Hynes from a safe-streets advocacy point-of-view? I mean, obviously he lets murdering drivers off, but would Thompson be any different? Be great if Streetsblog could find out!

At least Quinn and Liu have trouble even hiding their contempt for those they see as beneath them. 

The TWU is plain selfish. Slowing trains down primarily accomplishes wasting lots of people’s time. They have no conception that time matters to people on the subway.

The TWU reminds me of some of my college professors who would come up with totally bizarre ideas to solve problems which even a layperson knew wouldn’t work in the real world. The idea of slowing trains is one such idea. The contempt the TWU shows here for ordinary people’s time is beyond belief. Even worse is how they blatantly lie about the time cost of this (i.e. a few extra minutes per trip). It takes about 40 seconds to run the length of a subway platform at 10 mph. In fact, you’ll need to be down to 10 mph before you hit the platform but let’s not worry about that for now. Compare this to entering at ~35 mph, and starting to brake when you’re about halfway down the platform (this seems to be SOP). This takes around 20 seconds. That’s 20 extra seconds PER STOP, at least. Probably closer to 25 seconds once you figure that you’ll start decelerating long before you even hit the platform so as to enter the station at 10 mph. Most of the runs have at least 30 stops from end to end. 25×30 = 750 seconds = 12.5 minutes. Now if we assume 1.5 minutes per stop running normally, we’re adding at least 12.5 minutes to what is normally a 45 minute run. That’s huge for a form of transportation where speeding up schedules by a minute is actually considered significant. A nearly 30% increase in run times implies either 30% more trains for the same frequency of service, or headways which are 30% longer. Coupled with the ~30% longer trip times in a system which is already slow by any reasonable measure, and you have a totally unworkable idea here. Besides, it won’t even save lives. Anyone hell bent on committing suicide will just wait until the train is nearly on top of them. The rail industry is full of fatalities caused by trains running at 10 mph or less.

Hint to TWU-time matters for the people riding the subway. As it is a lot of people have very long, tiresome commutes. And now you want to add 20% or 30% to them?

But did he mean what he said?  Brooklyn Bridge:
1980: The fences blocking the Manh. end of the BB path were cut open during the transit strike and stayed down.  Cyclists and peds could now ride right out to Center St instead of carrying the bike down and up via the subway steps.   Kids, the BB path was a mess back then.

Later 1980, Koch & DOT agreed to replace the remaining 6 flights of stairs in the BB with ramps.  Major effort needed help from handicapped community who asked for wheelchair access alongside us asking for bike access.  “Minor” unpleasantness that year, the BB path was closed for some 30 days after a suspender cable snapped, “several” cyclists were arrested protesting no alternate to closure.  Koch recognized bike protest could be persistent and effective.

1985: Brooklyn Bridge path now fully ramped and handicapped accessible.  First time a cyclist could cross the bridge without putting a foot down and carrying since before WW-II, when cyclists could ride the roadway with the horse wagons.
Queensboro Bridge:  more problems, but in the end, a bike-ped path was created.

Bridges may not vote, but cyclists using them and the cyclists banned from using them, do vote.

No doubt, Koch was crazy, like a fox.  But unlike Giuliani and
Bloomberg, Koch had the ability to admit to his errors, even if
reluctantly and laugh at himself. 

Story told after the Mid-Town Bike
Ban was thrown out of court: Koch asks out loud, “Who was the idiot who
suggested this stupid bike ban?”  “It was me. How stupid.” 
I have never
seen or heard Giuliani or Bloomberg take personal responsibility for
any of their failures or stupid ideas.  It’s always someone elses fault.

But Koch would and did admit responsibility.  Crazy,
but a mostly honorable man.

Previous two comments were supposed to be in Koch column.  My Bad.  Not Koch’s.