Today’s Headlines

  • Cuomo’s MTA: Board Approves Capital Plan, Says Don’t Worry About $14B in Added Debt (NYT, 2AS)
  • Prendergast Says MTA Hasn’t Settled on Canarsie Tube Repair Plans (Gothamist)
  • Paul White: NYPD Indifference to Street Safety Starts With Bill Bratton (News)
  • Motorists Injure 2 Kids and Senior in Separate Crashes; Driver Kills Self in Queens (News 1, 2Post)
  • James Gregg: Trucker Cited for Off-Route Violation; Adams Speaks Out (CBS, Patch); News: Helmet?
  • DOT to Start Construction on Amsterdam Avenue Bikeway Next Month (DNA)
  • Local Cranks, Brooklyn Daily Lose Their Minds Over DOT Plan to Save Lives in Sheepshead Bay
  • Uber Tries to Get Ahead of TLC on Accessible Taxi Rules (Politico)
  • City Council Approves East New York Rezoning (Politico)
  • Feds, Vance Probe NYCLASS (WSJ); City Freezes Shomrim Funds After NYPD Bribery Arrest (Post)
  • Post Columnist Basically Makes the Case for Driving as a Constitutional Right

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • BBnet3000

    How many driveways will the Amsterdam Ave protected bike lane disappear at? Why aren’t they following better design practices and keeping the pavement green across these to avoid hook crashes and blockages and to reinforce the presence of the bike lane where it is visible from the other travel lanes?

  • Zero Vision

    How many lives were wrecked yesterday? At least five? And two of them were kids?

    Perhaps Bill de Blasio could have taken some time from his drive to gym to issue a statement on the failure of one of his signature policies.

  • “Local Cranks, Brooklyn Daily Lose Their Minds Over DOT Plan to Save Lives in Sheepshead Bay”

    Thanks for highlighting this. It’s part of Rosen’s car-first plan to systematically object to any DOT safety measures because he thinks his not-suburb of Sheepshead Bay is some special butterfly in New York City.

  • Kevin Love

    The Post columnist is unintentionally hilarious… in a rather disturbing way.

    Things like, “In a sense, the court was saying that driving is a privilege, not a right.”

    Kevin’s comment: Every state in the USA clearly and explicitly says in their laws that driving is a privilege, not a right.

    Or how about this gem:

    “It’s hard to think of a constitutional-rights question that affects more people.”

    Kevin’s comment: This question affects people who drink and drive. I suspect that questions like freedom of religion, affect more people.

  • Joe R.

    If you replace “driving” with “operating heavy machinery” then it should be clear there are no constitutional issues. This paragraph especially is patently ridiculous:

    Is driving a constitutional right? The Supreme Court has never said so, although it has recognized a constitutional right to travel. In today’s United States, especially if you live someplace without public transportation (like most of North Dakota), you can’t really travel if you can’t drive.

    Some large fraction of the population can’t legally drive because they’re either underage, can’t pass the driving test, or can’t afford a car. And yet these people still manage to get around. Driving is purely a contractual privilege. The state can set any terms they wish for that privilege. And they can change those terms whenever they want for any reason, or for no reason at all. If a state decided tomorrow to greatly increase the licensing standards, tested drivers to the new standard, then revoked the licenses of everyone who failed, those former drivers have no legal recourse whatsoever. Driving isn’t a right nor a necessity anywhere in the 50 states. If large numbers of people could no longer drive, those who could would make a living ferrying them around.

  • AnoNYC

    Can Streetsblog create a column on the side with estimated start and completion dates for new infrastructure? Maybe a little bar below to show progress?

  • J

    NYPD indifference to traffic safety starts with Bill DeBlasio

  • This is an argument for the right to effective public transit more than anything related to driving.

  • Joe R.

    That’s kind of how I was framing it. In this country we talk about the “right” to drive but we haven’t stopped to look at how inherently undemocratic and elitist a transportation system based almost entirely on private automobiles really is. For one thing, those who are physically unable to drive are shut out. So are those unable to afford a car. Many who do buy a car really can’t afford it. They do so out of sheer necessity, but forced car ownership condemns them to a life of poverty by eating all their disposable income. But the worst effect of an auto-based transportation system is the fact that thoroughfares designed for cars often effectively negate mobility by any other means. So yes, there should be a right to effective public transit, including to and from where jobs are.

  • neroden

    Good on White to finger Bratton.

    Bratton belongs in prison for conspiracy to commit manslaughter. But I’d settle for de Blasio firing him for cause.