Today’s Headlines

“But most candidates, including Ms. Quinn, a Democrat, demurred when asked if they would pledge to substantially raise the share of the city budget devoted to mass transit.”

I view Quinn as the candidate most likely to care about the future of the city, and thus the deferred maintenance and deterioration likely to begin with the next MTA capital plan.  But she won’t say so.  That is Quinn’s view of the primary electorate.
 
“I can’t see how we could make that kind of increase in the contribution to mass transit responsibly,” said Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, citing the city’s unresolved labor contracts.”

So in exchange for just about the highest tax burden in the country, we can expect deteriorating transit service, so public employees can get cash raises on top of the huge raise in their pensions (in 1995, 2000 and for teachers 2008, but only paid for now, and not yet fully).  Mr. Blasio seems to also have a view of the primary electorate.

“John C. Liu, the city comptroller, a Democratic, was the most striking exception, deeming a prospective jump of one percent — the amount proposed by a moderator — “already a pittance.”

That’s a surprise.  But if the city puts more in, how does it stop the rest of the state from taking more out?  We have been operating under a joint city/state agreement to destroy the transit system at some future date by running up the debt and lying about the consequences.  It has been in place for 20 years.

The New York Times piece on the Transit Mayoral Forum ignored Sal Albanese’s call for a fair toll swap (not entirely unlike the Schwartz/Move NY offering) yielding $1Billion for Mass Transit, concerned as they were with explaining Joe Lhota’s conspicuous absence.

Very profound statement by Randel, the guy who designed and implemented the Commissioner’s Plan, justifying the lack of parks in his plan:

“It’s an island. You want fresh air and a view? Walk in any direction and you’ll find a river.”

Fast forward to 2013:  Walk in any direction and you’ll find an expressway.

“Whence this optimism?”

Most likely doesn’t mean likely. 

I appreciate the fact that Quinn was willing to put aside parochial considerations with regard to the Department of Sanitation waste transportation system.  And going back to the period before she was speaker, she stood up for funding for parks and libraries, which I knew at the time to be underfunded (and thus less politically powerful).  When Bloomberg wanted to do things with short term costs and long term benefits, she didn’t demogauge it to raise her profile.

Then again, to be fair when Bloomberg wanted to do the opposite she didn’t stand against it.  Like that retroactive pension deal for teachers cashing in and moving out in 2008, followed (inevitably) by huge cuts in benefits for new teachers soon after, cashing out the whole retiree health benefits trust fund before the new Mayor takes office, and using debt for ongoing expenses such as street repaving and painting, (as at the MTA — if you read my recent osts on “Saying the Unsaid in New York” you’ll see the consquences. (Thompson and Liu, as Comptrollers, were’nt opposed to future selling either).   And there was that term limit deal.

@85211970d034887d032f8c319f70adbb:disqus I’ve heard that argument before. Apparently these anti-big-government opponents of red light cameras and believers in personal responsibility don’t believe it’s their personal responsibility to confront their friends or family members if they get a ticket while borrowing the car.

I personally wish car drivers would complain more about the red lights than red light cameras. Given how it seems their “needs” are disproportionately considered when making city transportation policy, the end result would be removal of many (most?) traffic signals, a situation which would certainly benefit cyclists far more than drivers.

Do they notice or respect them in the first place?
Every year it seems there is another illegal liberty that car drivers allow themselves.
This year it seems to be rolling through the red light. A few years ago it was driving on the wrong side of the road. Once these illegal allowances take hold, they don’t go away.

@2555783a6f62598b6aadd2d882a4830f:disqus : I don’t know about the traffic light lobby, but I think one reason that DOTs in the New York area use stop sign instead of yield signs is that drivers treat stops signs like yield signs. Of course, there is little to no enforcement either way. We’ve got ourselves into a status quo which is difficult to get out of.

One option out might be to replace traffic signals with camera enforced stops signs (yes, that is a thing).