Today’s Headlines

  • De Blasio Wants Stronger Penalties for Drivers Who Kill People in Crosswalks (AdvanceNews)
  • State Legislators Didn’t Sign Off on DOT’s Fast-Track BQE Rebuild (Gothamist)
  • The Times Editorial Board Says the Mayor Should Do More to Help the MTA
  • De Blasio: Rahm Was Right About New York City Transit Problems (News)
  • Transit Riders Demand Answers From MTA and DOT on L Shutdown (DNANY1AMNY)
  • Amtrak Already Hedging on Timetable for Penn Station Work (Post)
  • 7 Train Breakdown Stranded Riders Yesterday (Post)
  • A Group of People Beat a Man to Death for Opening Car Doors in the Bronx (News)
  • The Post Wants You to Be Outraged Over Tolls for Out of State Drivers (1, 2)
  • Who Woulda Thought the Staten Island Ferris Wheel Would Be a Huge Boondoggle (Advance)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Daphna

    Does anyone know why the street improvement on 8th Avenue from 42nd to 43rd Street was removed? The tan pigment for the sidewalk extension has been sanded off, as well as the bike lane striping. The planters placed in the painted sidewalk extension have also been removed. The only remaining thermoplast is the buffer for what had been the bike lane. There are ugly metal crowd control barriers in that buffer. Streetsblog wrote an article on this improvement on June 27, 2017.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Federal courts: for members of Generation Greed, the type of corruption the political/union class engages in to destroy our public institutions is just as legal as the type of corruption the executive/financial class engages in to destroy our private institutions.

    We are all experiencing the impact of what these people did, and continue to do, in our transit system among other places. These convictions are strictly “Capone on tax evasion” compared with the real crimes, which are also apparently legal.

  • We’re looking into it. Looks like that area has been milled in preparation for new pavement and striping.

  • reasonableexplanation

    Okay, what’s the problem with the Post’s EZ-Pass articles?

    If you register for EZ-Pass in NY, you get reduced rates on MTA B&T(aka the EZ-Pass rate you see posted). If you grab an EZ-Pass from anywhere else you pay the full cash rate, which is, as the post mentions, kind of against the spirit of EZ-Pass.

    Note, you can register for EZ-Pass in NY even if your car is registered in another state. So this is basically a tax on the unaware. Why is this a good thing?

  • Larry Littlefield

    I agree. I didn’t think it was right when I went with a relative to a state park in Connecticut, and they charged me much more as an out-of-state resident. Didn’t think NY would do something like that.

    I guess that with debt, pension and other senior costs soaring, the nasty political search for victims (and scapegoats) is on, in spades.

  • reasonableexplanation

    Agreed. Out of state/in state cost differences make sense in certain cases, like state university tuition. But for things like tolls and parks? It just becomes another tourism tax, which is easy to implement, since those who vote for it won’t be paying it, but it’s not really right.

  • qrt145

    Why isn’t it right? Don’t state residents pay for state parks and roads with their state taxes? What’s the difference between those user fees and state university tuition?

  • Larry Littlefield

    You tend to know what you will be paying before you attend a college or university. It’s common practice, not sneaky. And it’s big money, not nickel and diming people.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Here’s the state-required information from Geico on my auto insurance renewal.

    It says that 33 percent of fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers have a blood alcohol content of .08% or higher. At night (9 pm to 6 am) that rises to 59.0%. For nighttime single (motor) vehicle crashes it rises to 68.0%. We aren’t even including other drugs here.

    The NYPD knows this. And yet when a driver kills a cyclist or pedestrian late at night when they do not expect there to be witnesses, why is the cyclist or pedestrian always assumed to be at fault — even when the driver leaves the scene because they “didn’t know they hit someone?”

  • bolwerk

    De Blasio: Rahm was right about how awesome it is when police kill blacks. I mean, transit problems.

  • bolwerk

    It’s because anti-alcohol hysterics come from dogmatic libservatives bumping their heads against a wall called reality. Tens of millions of people drink socially, most of them drive, a 0.08% BAC is a mild buzz that doesn’t make the act of driving much more dangerous than driving stone sober, and even with all the money we throw at arresting and convicting people for stuff that other countries found better ways to deal with, there just aren’t the resources available to punish everyone who drinks and drives. We also know that people will not stop drinking and driving, no matter how severe the penalties are made.

    We are therefore stuck dealing with the problem selectively. The natural result of this is a detente where DUIs are handed down when it’s convenient for the police officer. That is, the officer doesn’t like you, doesn’t like the owner of the bar where you were drinking, doesn’t like skin color of the owner of the house you came from, etc..

  • reasonableexplanation

    I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you there. Driving a car is dangerous business, and a huge responsibility.

    At 0.08 BAC, you’re definitely impaired; as in you can feel a buzz (like you said). That’s no good to drive. You’ll be okay with actually physically operating a vehicle, but you’re definitely less aware and less prepared to react to unexpected things.

    Under 0.05 you’re probably okay, but my own personal rule is that if I can feel ANY effects of alcohol, I wait.

    You can try it yourself; get a breathalyzer and drink until you’re at about 0.08. Then go for a bike ride (in a safe area/PBL just in case). See how alert and aware you are compared to normal. See if you can anticipate the actions of others instead of just reacting. The difference is noticeable.

  • qrt145

    For a hysterical country when it comes to alcohol policy, the US is actually notable for having one of the highest legal BAC limits in the world. 0.05% is much more common, and some countries go even lower. See

  • bolwerk

    You’re impaired with any alcohol. You are also impaired with several legal prescription drugs, tiredness, and probably even satiety. Many people would not get the equivalent punishment to a DUI for all three, and that can easily be much, much more dangerous than being alert with a 0.08% BAC. You can throw in other distracting yet legal things drivers do, such as monkeying with electronics (should we ban car stereos too?), lighting cigarettes, driving with screaming kids, etc.. By necessitating driving, our society compels all these things.

    The obsession with thresholds is silly and distracting. The thing to address is the consequences of actions, not the physiological conditions that led to those actions. But that requires recognizing something discomforting: driving is inherently dangerous to yourself and others.

  • walks bikes drives

    When EZPass first came out, everyone got the discounts. The each state switched to instate only discounts. The post is annoyed that out of state people are charged more, but aren’t complaining that NY residents get charged higher rates on NJ tolls. It wouldn’t be fair for NY to change its rules if the other states don’t change too. Let AAA negotiate an interstate treaty on tolls.

  • bolwerk

    I’m aware, but most of those countries are satisfied with addressing the problem, at least in some cases by simply suspending driving privileges. Many also take proactive measures to make drinking without driving practical.

    The U.S. throws the problem entirely onto the lap of an overbearing police state, with tragic results. It’s a public health issue. Or an environmental issue, even.

    (There are some parallels to how we deal with litter. Americans are unlikely to litter more than other places, but there usually isn’t a strategy to deal with litter. There definitely isn’t in New York, beyond brushing it around with a gas-guzzling street sweeper.)

  • bolwerk

    I wonder how this correlates to DUIs per 100k people.

  • bolwerk

    Well, that’s probably it. The “New York” Post’s editors almost certainly all live in New Jersey!

  • There’s no corresponding discount on NJ roads and tolls for those with a NJ transponder. But there’s nothing preventing NJ residents from getting a transponder from NY and taking advantage of the discounts that transponder offers.

  • Joe R.

    Definitely true. I’ve felt the effects of drinking 6 ounces of beer prior to riding. Thankfully on a bike chances are I would probably only kill myself if I screwed up but your point seems valid. If you can feel any effects at all from alcohol, don’t drive. And if you can feel anything beyond mild effects, don’t ride a bike.

    That said, there is probably some validity to bolwerk’s point about using thresholds. Some people can have higher BACs and still be functional. I’m just the opposite. Two glasses of wine affects me pretty badly. Three and all I want to do is get into bed.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Seems we have an issue. Who else is pulling this stuff, or not? Interesting discussion.

  • bolwerk

    I wouldn’t discern any effects from 6 ounces of beer under typical circumstances.* But if we have similar BMIs, we’d likely have the same BAC. And if I had 2-3 12 ounce bottles of typical beer, I’d be more likely to notice the impact of the calories than the alcohol.

    I don’t see why this is being hijacked into a moral debate. Nobody agrees with drunk driving. The issue is that it will happen, no matter what rules you make. Therefore rules are no more than a tiny part of a solution. Arguing with people who agree with drunk driving would be futile even if there are any (“Libertarians”?).

    * Not discerning them is different from not having any, of course.

  • Joe R.

    No arguing here that rules and enforcement is a tiny part of the solution. That really applies to most facets of traffic violence. We would go a long way if we had reasonable alternatives to driving so those who get drunk might see taking the train home as the sensible thing to do. Once you get outside NYC, there are often few alternatives to driving. And not everyone drinking socially has a designated driver.

  • What about the Staten Island resident discounts for the Verrazano Narrows Bridge?

  • bolwerk

    Yep, and the drunk driving jihadists are mostly silent on other forms of car casualties.

    Some of taken on txting while driving, though I bet they still fiddle with their car stereos trying to switch from Howard Stern to Rush.

  • reasonableexplanation

    I think it’s silly.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Silly is not the word, if you are from Brooklyn.

  • Ian Turner
  • Larry Littlefield

    This is all new (meaning last 10 – 15 years).

    Shows where this country is going.

  • Vooch

    pre-crime dude that’s what’s it’s about

  • Right. For a government to charge a premium to people from outside the jurisdiction makes perfect sense, because those people are consuming resources without contributing the tax money that local residents contribute.