Today’s Headlines

  • Second Avenue Subway Is Lightening the Load on the Lexington Avenue Line (NYT)
  • Here’s NY1 on the Injustice of Replacing Parking With Housing; Bike Snob Dismantles Bikelash Piece
  • De Blasio Stands With NYPD in Hiding Cops’ Disciplinary Records (NYT)
  • Pat Lynch-Approved NYPD Contract Will Put Cameras on Some Officers (NYT, DNA)
  • De Blasio Budget Includes Funds to Armor Up Police Cruisers (AMNY)
  • Ydanis to Introduce Hit-and-Run Alert Bill Today (AMNY)
  • De Blasio: Drunk Driving That Doesn’t Result in a Crash Not a Big Deal (CNN, News)
  • Evidently These Toll Cheats Didn’t Have a Placard (NY1)
  • People in Riverdale Are Organizing for Better Bus Service (Press)
  • City Looking to Redevelop Inwood Library and Parking Lot With Affordable Housing (DNA)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Kevin Love

    It is disturbing that the New York Times is taking steps towards “fake news.” I expect this sort of thing from the Post, but…

    What am I talking about? Take a look at the linked article on the Second Avenue Subway. NYT has got all the real news about ridership on the new subway line and about ridership being down on the Lexington Avenue line. News based upon evidence such as Metrocard swipes and manual counts of ridership. Resulting in reporting things like daily ridership at 86th street fell from 132,000 to 95,000.

    But then look at how the article ends:
    “Still, some were skeptical that the new line was reducing the misery along Lexington Avenue. At the 86th Street station, Margery Singer said the platform seemed just as crowded.

    ‘I don’t notice any difference,’ she said.”

    In a city as big as New York, it is always possible to find someone who will echo any point of view, no matter how delusional it may be. Serious newspapers rely upon things like “facts” and “evidence.” Pity that NYT is falling from this standard. What’s next, reporting someone describing how he was “probed” by a UFO alien?

  • Jeff

    I think that subjective perception is important when discussing transit service. So I actually do think it’s relevant to present the hard data, and then at least nod to how much, if any, of a difference this would make to the everyday transit user.

    Another example would be if DOT made safety fixes to an intersection, which resulted in a drop in serious injuries of X%. If people still felt unsafe crossing the intersection, this would be important and relevant to the overall story. When you cross a harrowing six-lane arterial which recently got some half-assed traffic calming, is the experience any less unsettling by reminding yourself that injuries dropped X% thanks to some painted neckdowns?

  • qrt145

    Yes, but quoting one person (probably not even a random person, but the result of fishing for opposing quotes in the name of “balance”) does not represent people. If they had conducted a survey it would be a different story.

  • Joe R.

    There are certain facets of the transit experience where I think perceptions are more important. For example, station cleanliness and crime are good examples. If a station looks grimy it does little good to say the number of rats is down by 40%. Likewise, quoting crime statistics to people walking a threatening, dimly lit passage offers little comfort.

    For things like crowding we need to rely more on numbers. A reduction of 25% or 30% at peak times might not even be all that noticeable to most people but it will result in far fewer train delays due to overcrowding. That’s really the problem with using perceptions here. To a lot of people when you tell them the fewer people are using their station they automatically think that should mean near-empty platforms, not crowded platforms which are just less crowded.

    Same thing with street safety. I’ll grant that perception of safety is important BUT we shouldn’t drive policy by people’s feelings. That’s exactly what happened with cycling in this city. Some small minority of people complained anecdotally about how bikes are “dangerous”. The end result was unnecessary police crackdowns on cyclists plus greatly slowing the pace of new bike infrastructure. In general, most public policy needs to be data driven. As such, the media is obligated to keep their reporting as fact-based as possible. As others have mentioned, in NYC you can pretty much always find someone who will say something negative about any development. Those opinions have no place in the mainstream media.

  • Two of three interviewees on the IRT line suggested that perceived crowding had not diminished significantly, Ms. Singer and Mr. Allen. If you look at the bar chart, it shows that at present the pairs of 86th and 96th St stations have greater passenger totals than the IRT alone had. The article doesn’t go into this, but perhaps ridership on the M86 bus has dropped concomitantly as people can now use the Q to go to Times Square and other West Side destinations instead of transferring from the M86 to the 1/B/C trains.