Today’s Headlines

  • Cuomo’s Broken Subway Left Riders in the Lurch Again Yesterday (Post)
  • Are Officials Finally Serious About Protecting NYC’s Car-Free Spaces? (News, Politico)
  • If So They’ve Got to Do Better Than This (NYT, News)
  • Gelinas: City Has to Rationalize Scattershot Approach to Separating Cars From People (CJ)
  • News: Intransigent de Blasio Is the Outlier on Congestion Pricing
  • Parking Is a Bankable Commodity That NYC Gives Away for Free (NYT)
  • MTA Opens Renovated Prospect Avenue R Station (Bklyn Paper)
  • Staten Island DA’s Office to Motorists With Out of State Plates: We See You (Advance)
  • Fetty Wap Charged With DWI and Drag Racing in Red Hook (News)
  • A Paean to the 210th Street Bikeway and Growing Up on Two Wheels in Queens (EQG)
  • Blow to Safe Streets Coverage: Ricketts Shuts Gothamist and DNA After Union Vote (NYT, Voice, WNYC)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • What is the reason that they could not install retractable bollards of the type that protect the bike paths on the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges?

  • r

    Those will take time to install and should be a long-term solution. But there’s still no excuse for the clumsy installation of these military-base-style barricades that will squeeze greenway users and probably result in a fair share of conflicts and injuries.

  • Jesse

    Gothamist really is a legitimate loss for livable streets coverage. DNAinfo was just a great place to go to troll anti-bike cranks; a lot of their coverage just recapitulated NYPD’s victim blaming.

  • reasonableexplanation

    Wow looking at those barriers, that’s just terrible.

  • crazyrainmatt

    A truck kills cyclists, and what does NYPD do? Put the barriers so they block the bikes of course. They could have just as easily put the barriers perpendicularly so as to block the driveways. But obviously closing the vehicle access points instead was never in the cards.

  • Brad Aaron

    DNAinfo reporters were beginning to question reflexive police victim-blaming and were more likely to assign agency to motorists.

    DNA also did a lot of important interviews with victims’ family members. Their coverage tended to be more empathetic overall than the tabs and TV.

  • qrt145

    I wouldn’t call it a loss of liberty, but definitely a loss of usability of our infrastructure.

  • iSkyscraper

    The loss of DNAInfo is pretty severe — good luck getting any other reporter to show up at a Community Board Traffic & Transportation Committee meeting, or write about a proposal by a school to improve street safety, or to talk about Slow Zone implementation.

  • Nanah

    Seriously! You can’t even get Streetsblog to show up anymore.

  • To DNAInfo’s credit, their reporters covered all the ways in which community boards worked, down to the tiniest of issues. As vital as Streetsblog is, it was also important to have a local news outlet speaking to the non-inside-baseball types who don’t live and breathe this stuff. Without DNAInfo’s reporting, a lot of people might never have known that things like bike corrals or curb extensions get voted on at neighborhood meetings and can get shot down by one crank who wants to park a car. I’d imagine more than a few people turned into livable streets advocates because of this kind of granular-level reporting.

    It’s a huge loss.

  • Simon Phearson

    Right. It’s just another example of punishing the victim. No surprise that it’s Cuomo’s agency doing it.

  • Joe R.

    That’s their idea of protection???? To me it looks like someone left behind a jersey barrier after a construction project.

  • Guest

    This is probably the worst week for livable streets since at least the Koch era, if not sooner. First, the tragic attack and loss of life on the path. Then we lost the city’s most hard-hitting media outlet for streets coverage. Now the city’s formerly best bike path has been effectively made impassible for cycling with the choke points at every intersection. Eventually the city and state might come up with a better solution, but that will take years of planning and an allocation of money that probably doesn’t exist.

  • Maggie

    Wrapping my head around not just closing the outlets down out of malice, but deleting access to the archives, such that years and years of in-depth local coverage are lost to the public view, dropped down the memory hole with no notice. It’s a staggeringly spiteful, dare I say evil, act.

    Take him at his word that he no longer wanted to own the business he started or the one he acquired, because as a billionaire whose son owns an MLB team with unionized players, he didn’t want to own news outlets with a unionized newsroom: there is a market price for the archives and the business as a going concern. Normal people put their businesses up for sale to maximize value in a case like this.

    Unbelievable that this happened the same week congress is arguing for tax cuts at upper echelon income levels.

  • iSkyscraper
  • Joe R.

    Totally agree he should have at least kept access to the archives. It’s a minimal cost for a data center to manage something like that.

    As for the business itself, sure, in general news outlets aren’t charities and should be run as a business. However, as a billionaire would it really have hurt him to keep things going, even at a loss, for the public good? Think of it as philanthropy. Or he could have did as you say, and put it up for sale. Maybe he wouldn’t have gotten any takers if indeed the unionization caused the business to operate at a loss, but he should have at least tried to sell it off.

    I’d personally like to see the numbers here. No mention of what the union would demand, and whether or not that would have put things in the red. If it turns out the business would have broke even, then why not keep it going? There may not have been profits in it, but at least it kept people employed and also served an important function. Everything shouldn’t be about dollars and cents.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Gothamist covered the deterioration of subway service before anyone else did. It will be missed.

    As for the shutdown, the company was losing money, but if the owner wasn’t such a ideologue he could have used unionization to his advantage.

    Instead of paying two months severance, he could have started negotiations with the demand that he be paid $150,000 per year as publisher and a 5 percent return on his investment, or he would go on strike in two months. Push the staff to figure out a way to do that. Instead he shut it down in a fit of pique.

  • Andrew

    They came back on Friday.