Today’s Headlines

  • Ambulette Driver Who Failed to Yield Kills Pedestrian in Flushing Crosswalk (DNANews)
  • Man Who Killed Brooklyn Shop Owner With His Own Van Charged With Murder (NewsPost)
  • DNA Interviews 24th Precinct CO Marlon Larin, Who Drives to Work From the Suburbs
  • NYC Transit President Hears From Queens Commuters About 7 Train Problems (NY1News)
  • Last Night’s Subway Commute Was Hellish (DNA, Gothamist)
  • DOT Is Installing a Neckdown at Bowery and Division Street
  • Ydanis Rodriguez Tours Times Square Ahead of Today’s Vote on Plaza Regulations (AMNY)
  • Cuomo Aide Explains How the Governor’s Petulance Is Good for NYC (News, Crain’s)
  • De Blasio Cuts Funding for Back-Up Water Tunnel, NYC’s Biggest Capital Project Ever (NYT)
  • Errol Louis Thinks Participatory Budgeting Is Pointless and Stupid (News)
  • Filmmakers Take an Interest in the Guy Who Keeps Stealing MTA Rolling Stock (NY1)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Alexander Vucelic

    the local PD CO speaks to UWS bike lanes:

    “…Deputy Inspector Larin: I think that the bike lane, from what we see on Columbus Avenue, it has helped in terms of reducing the injuries. What we, as a police department on our part, we have to ensure that the double-parking situation is corrected because once a vehicle double parks, it’s almost like it’s in the middle of the road. The protected bike lane takes up a former parking lane, so once you have the protected bike lane, row of vehicles that are parked legally, and then this double-parked vehicle, it literally feels like it’s in the middle of the road and it can cause the traffic to be reduced one lane if you have double parkers on either side. We have noticed that that’s a newly manifested problem, but it’s something that we continue to address.

    Emily: You’ll be on the double parkers.

    Deputy Inspector Larin: Yes, we have to. We have to for the sake of keeping the traffic flowing, otherwise it comes to a complete standstill. Right now one of the recurring problem is Columbus Avenue from 97th to 100 Street. We’re working on that every day….”

    Poor fellow, wait until Bratton hears about this.

  • Jonathan R

    If it’s so difficult for Errol Louis to get out to community meetings, he should welcome PB, as the PB voting booth moves around in his district during the voting period. The other afternoon I voted at my local library, on my way home from work; it took 10 minutes. A lot more time-efficient than going to an evening meeting and listening to entitled neighbors drone on for most of two hours.

    Perhaps, however, the part where Mr. Louis complained that PB allowed people who didn’t know anything to vote, and that only the dedicated community board members should have a say, was edited away.

  • BBnet3000

    It’s OK because its to keep auto traffic moving. It shouldn’t directly benefit cycling or walking, and I bet they aren’t going to touch the cars that park on the buffers and ruin visibility in the “mixing zones”, because they aren’t “in the middle of the road” as Deputy Inspector Larin put it.

    Helping to move cars faster while not benefiting walking or cycling is the NYPD Holy Grail. Why do you think Bratton is hiring 300 more TEAs to wave cars through when pedestrians have the right of way?

  • bolwerk

    From NYT article:

    “You look back over the last 50 years, whenever there were fiscal
    pressures, the unseen world of the municipal water system is where weak
    city leaders turned to cut spending,” said Kevin Bone, a professor of
    architecture at Cooper Union and an editor of “Water-Works: The
    Architecture and Engineering of the New York City Water Supply.” “I’m
    disappointed to hear that they’ve deferred it. It is symptomatic about
    planning for the future in America.”

    Of course, in NYC, “weak city leaders” preferred to ignore and cut transit. While arming the police state. Good thing we can still drink soda!

  • “Affordable housing” without reliable water supply or sufficient transit is not affordable housing. I keep wondering how de Blasio (or his advisers) can be so clueless as to ignore how infrastructure helps with affordability.

  • Reader

    The best part about that illogical Errol Louis rant is that he dismisses PB because it’s greatly tilted toward a small group of people” who have the time to vote once a year, yet he thinks neighborhood-level decisions are best handled at monthly community board meetings, as if those aren’t people with even more free time on their hands.

    He also thinks people are far more selfish than they really are. My kid does not go to 282, but I voted for lights for their auditorium. I also voted for music programs for senior centers, even though I’m not a senior. And I know lots of people who voted for all kinds of projects that don’t affect them personally. PB brings out the best in people, and I hope it grows and grows. Louis’ view is nothing but “let them eat cake” paternalism.

  • Reader

    He doesn’t want to deal with the political implications of slightly higher water bills right now, so he’s willing to risk nearly half of New York City possibly being uninhabitable for months or even longer sometime after he’s out of office.

    But at least we’ll have a streetcar!

    This should be a much bigger problem for de Blasio than it is. The press shouldn’t let it go.

  • HamTech87

    I’d take the water tunnel over the proposed Brooklyn-Queens light rail connector.

  • Komanoff

    The Times broke the story only late yesterday afternoon. Based on a few quiet convo’s I’ve had w/ folks, as well as my own incurably naive optimism, I think de Blasio is going to get slammed on this — perhaps big-time. Deservedly, of course.

  • HamTech87

    Another set of articles about MTA-related complaints with zero mention of the Governor who controls the MTA. Someone should start keeping a list.

  • Our region recently voted to raise our water rates 10% every year for 4 years in order to fund repairing the enormous backlog of maintenance. I have let the councilors who supported the motion know loud and clear that I strongly support this move, and that those who voted against it, to continue to compromise the future of my water supply for short term financial and political gains are either terrible people, ignorant people, or both. But either way, I’ve made lots of noise in support of this position. The silent majority who have common sense should not be silent anymore. God I hope we’re a majority.

  • I think its projection. People who are selfish who would only vote for things which directly benefit themselves feel that other people do the same.

  • Jonathan R

    Young people like you support raising taxes because you foresee wage increases in your future. Older people, especially those on pensions, who don’t expect much wage growth, may have different opinions about the feasibility of this plan. That doesn’t make them “terrible people, ignorant people, or both.”

  • ohhleary

    Heck, I forgot that PB voting had even started and was able to vote when I stumbled upon voting in my local park. There were literally a dozen different places at all different hours, including weekends, where PB voting happened in my district. That part of his argument has no basis in reality.

  • djx

    This.

    Also, fear-mongering by some advocates/lobbyists/media contributes to it.

  • AMH

    Exactly–I can’t believe he cuts funding for vital water supply infrastructure to ‘keep water affordable’. How affordable will it be if the supply gets cut in half?

  • Joe R.

    That’s certainly true but let me put this in perspective. Our total water/sewer bill for 2015 was $920. In terms of line items water and sewer are way down there. My mom is on a fixed income. Despite that, if need be we can afford what might amount to a $200 a year increase over the next few years if it means the third water tunnel completes on its original schedule.

    I’m getting sick and tired of shortsighted policies which mortgage the future for short term political talking points. In a generation nobody will remember or care that deBlasio kept increases in water bills low. They probably won’t even remember it at the next election. However, if one of existing water tunnels collapses with no back up that’s something which will be remembered for generations, probably centuries.

    We’re playing the same game with our subway system, really with most of our other infrastructure. Sooner or later this will come back to bite us in the behind. I’m betting on sooner.

  • I disagree. The generation who might be worried about those things were handed incredible gifts by the investments their parents made. For them to choose instead to mortgage *MY* future to improve their prosperity now is incredibly selfish. Generally they justify it with individualism, by believing they weren’t handed anything, and instead built everything from scratch. I happen to argue its “terrible or ignorant”.

  • JudenChino

    Apparently you missed the notice at the bottom of Gothamist’s post. Whenever they do an article about a suicide, they include a notice re: the suicide prevention hotline. Whenever they do an article on the MTA shit show, they include this beauty:

    If you found this commute frustrating, tell your state representatives and Governor Cuomo to stop robbing the MTA of badly needed funding and figure out a way to come up with more cash for a 21st Century transit system.

    .

  • Joe R.

    It’s especially ignorant when you consider many of them will be DEAD within a decade or so. A tiny amount of additional wealth likely won’t make any difference in their lives. However, failing to provide essential infrastructure will make a huge difference in their children or grandchildren’s lives.

    Infrastructure is probably the only thing where I would actually support a tax increase, provided 100% of the increase went to infrastructure.

  • The demonization of taxes is a whole other can of worms.

  • I should also point out, I am sympathetic to the argument “I have a fixed income and I don’t have a dollar to spare, if you raise these water rates, I’ll lose my home or go without food or something”. That’s unfortunate, and those folks I can definitely support helping out. That describes very very few of those who complain about taxes. Most who complain about taxes are in the situation somewhere between, I will have to get my daily coffee at Tims instead of Starbucks now, and, I might have to reduce my cable subscription package, if these rates increase. I have no sympathy for those folks. I live within my means, and I don’t feel justified in mortgaging the future of anyone to live outside of them.

  • Joe R.

    I actually live WAY below my means. No car, no vacations, no fancy clothes. I spend under $1,000 annually on personal items. Like you, I totally sympathize with people whose budget on essentials is already stretched to the limit. I have have nothing but disdain for people who live beyond their means (seriously, middle class people have no business going to Starbucks every day) then complain when taxes or gas goes up. Cut the discretionary spending. That daily Starbucks someone and his wife might have which costs “only” $6 each adds up to over $4,000 over the course of a year. It’s actually daily impulse buying like this which breaks budgets. The stores know it, too, which is why they have racks near the cashier devoted only to impulse buys. Spend $3 extra each time you go into a store, you could be looking at thousands of dollars a year down the drain on crap you don’t even really need.

  • Jonathan R

    I believe the issue at hand is how craven the mayor is on this subject, not where some notional set of constituents buys their morning coffee. We both agree that the mayor’s decision is shortsighted.

  • Lincoln

    It does not make them terrible and ignorant. It does ensure one or the other. Not planning for the future because you don’t understand the needs is ignorance. Not paying for the future because you don’t care is terrible.