Today’s Headlines

  • De Blasio Housing Plan Eliminates Some Parking Minimums (Capital, WSJ)
  • The Daily News Has No Idea Why NYC Enacted the Right of Way Law; Brooklyn Spoke Responds
  • Times Calls on Cuomo to Secure the Future of NYC’s Transit System
  • Will DMV Reveal the Truth About NYPD’s Vehicular Killing of Ryo Oyamada? (Gothamist)
  • Private Bus Driver Kills Man on Coney Island Avenue in Midwood (News)
  • Box Truck Driver Kills Woman at 76th Street and Woodside Avenue in Elmhurst (PostNews)
  • Bus Bulbs Coming to Intersection of Allerton Avenue and White Plains Road (BxTimes)
  • Julio Acevedo, Hit-and-Run Driver Who Killed Couple in 2013, Found Guilty of Manslaughter (Bklyn Paper)
  • Van Driver Charged With Careless Driving for Injuring 80-Year-Old Woman in Flushing Crosswalk (DNA)
  • Van Driver Crashes Into Little Italy Restaurant; No Charges (PostNews)
  • Why It’s Hard to Hold Someone Accountable for Killing With a Car (Salon)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Jeff

    “But it would eliminate all parking requirements for new low-income, inclusionary and affordable senior housing units that are within a half-mile of mass transit. That zone covers the vast majority of the city.”

    If I’m reading this correctly, isn’t this kind of a big deal? Like something us advocates have been bitching about for years, every single time the concept of “affordable housing” comes up? Especially if I’m interpreting “inclusionary” correctly–those projects where the developers agree to set aside a certain percentage of the building for lower-income households, which is supposed to be a huge part De Blasio’s housing plan.

  • Bolwerk

    Check out The Times’ reelection endorsement for Cuomo back in October. It praises his courage and talks of his prowess with state finances. Why, state budgets were even on time!

    Already, even back then, Cuomo rarely took positions on issues unless he had to, hardly a sign of courage. The Times never pressed him to take positions on the transit system, despite Cuomo even having a history of stiffing it in his first term. But now they raise an eyebrow? They really suck at the journalism thing.

  • Bolwerk

    Getting rid of requirements isn’t the same as finding incentive to get rid of parking that already exists. It doesn’t even seem to stop parking if the developer wants it, which seems dumb since there is so much of it cratering the city.

    Still, it’s something.

  • There was a hit piece in the Staten Island Advance yesterday titled “DOT acknowledges its own red light camera report is misleading; local pols demand more transparency”.
    http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/local_officials_want_more_tran.html#incart_m-rpt-1

  • Joe R.

    Arguably, parking is the area which would not only make the biggest difference towards reaching Vision Zero, but it’s also the area most directly under the control of NYC. In the end all our traffic problems stem from traffic volumes which are much too high. The biggest way to reduce them is to make it much harder to own or use a car by reducing the supply of available parking, both off-street, and especially on-street.

  • JudenChino

    Here’s a good one from Gelinas in today’s NYPost about how Cuomo is just a disaster for transit and in particular, the Airport Redesigns http://nypost.com/2015/02/22/jamming-up-laguardia-andrew-cuomos-airport-meddling/

    All this is consistent with Alon Levy’s post on Cuomo/Authoritarianism https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/authoritarian-leaders-and-agenda-setting/ in which the only thing Cuomo cares about re: transit/mobility — is making himself look good. All this, to be fair, is PolySci 101 — but still fascinating, notwithstanding cynicism inducing and terrible policy, to see this all play out in real time and to see the court jesters (the press) praise the emperor on his new clothes.

  • JudenChino

    Also, you guys gonna do a recap on last night’s episode of Girls which had a nice segment reflecting the ridiculousness of CB meetings. If only they were like in the show.

  • Bolwerk

    Definitely. Also, think of all the foregone economic activity. That means foregoing a massive amount of potentially taxable income. Such that could go to things like the MTA capital plan.

  • AnoNYC
  • AnoNYC

    Good step forward but too limited. Should be one mile and all construction.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Based on the link, perhaps I smoked Brennan and the Times out, sort of, with this post.

    https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/where-is-jim-brennan-hiding/

    Per the Times:

    “Assemblyman James Brennan, chairman of a legislative committee that oversees the M.T.A., puts it starkly. The authority simply “has a funding crisis,” he says. And it is a crisis that is not getting enough attention from Congress or — less understandably — from New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo.”

    And that’s pretty much it.

    Why does the MTA have a funding crisis, given all the additional dedicated revenues it has received over the decades and record ridership? What was the state legislature’s role in creating the funding crisis? Who benefitted? And who should have to sacrifice what to solve the funding crisis?

    They don’t say. Did the Times not ask, or did Brennan not answer?

    Except to imply, despite NYC getting far richer relative to the rest of the country, that the city and state should fall back on that old excuse “we need more federal money! We didn’t get it? Then it isn’t our fault!”

    Or that Cuomo, and only Cuomo, should propose the sacrifices and take the blame. What about the rest of them?