Today’s Headlines

  • So Long as He Neglects the MTA, Cuomo Is a Climate Change Pretender (Politico)
  • Transit Troubles Lead the NYT’s Year in Review Feature
  • Stalled NJ Transit Train Strands Hundreds Outside Penn Station (Post)
  • Road Pricing Foes de Blasio and Murphy Had a Sit-Down (AMNY, Politico)
  • MTA Workers Not Clamoring to Be Subway “Ambassadors” (News)
  • Mark-Viverito Wants More Licenses for Street Vendors (Politico)
  • Too Bad the Man This Maniac Killed Can’t Hold a Media Event (NewsPost)
  • Carl Heastie Said Some Things About Senate Democrats (Politico)
  • The Times Comes Out Against City Council Term Limit Extension
  • Distracted Walking! (Rag)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Larry Littlefield

    It’s a little late, and a little rich, for the NY Times to be against extending term limits, given that it was against term limits to start with, and against a constitutional convention that might have extend them to the state level.

  • BKLN
  • mfs

    The NYT oped was hard to swallow. here is a summary:
    -we are against a third term for Council Members because the voters hate it
    -we were for third terms before because we liked Bloomberg and Quinn
    -we are calling the reason Jumaane Williams has a third term a “loophole”, even though the reason the 2013 election class has only two terms was part of the deal with Bloomberg.
    -oh, PS, we are against term limits in general

  • bolwerk

    There’s no contradiction there. I’m against term limits, but I sure as shit don’t want politicians to be able to exempt themselves from a rule everyone else is expected to follow.

    Term limits are intended to reduce electoral choice and make politicians dependent on wealthy donors. Term limits with arbitrary extensions for desirable politicians are usually okay with wealthy donors. Why would they want to lose sycophants like Christine Quinn or Melissa Mark-Viverito? But if populism becomes too rife the donor class will need to come out against extensions.

  • AstoriaBlowin

    Re: the Politico article on Cuomo and climate change.
    NYC is already ahead of other areas in terms of emissions per capita, since so many people either don’t own cars or don’t drive regularly. So fixing the MTA, while necessary in so many ways, isn’t as central to reducing emissions as changing land use and transportation policies in the rest of the state. If Cuomo came out full bore in favor of dense walkable communities, reducing sprawl and VMT in the rest of the state then he would really be making a difference in reducing emissions. Will that happen, of course not, but just wanted to point out that there’s more to it than just the MTA.

  • stairbob

    It’s my understanding that Phil Murphy is against congestion pricing because he doesn’t want NJ drivers to get charged extra but my reading of MoveNY is that the Hudson river crossings won’t change. Would make more sense for him to support that, since NJ residents are already paying they have nothing to lose and less congestion to gain.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Looks pretty clear she wasn’t in the car lanes. I just hope it wasn’t someone I know.

    Last chance to retaliate against the park closing, I guess.

  • Joe R.

    Another reason we’re ahead in emissions per capita is the fact most people here either live in apartments or reasonably-sized private homes (often attached). That said, the MTA is one of the reasons we’re able to have these types of living arrangements. Fixing it is vital to the long term goal of continuing to reduce emissions.

  • Vooch
  • AstoriaBlowin

    For sure, critical for the NY metro area, definitely. Was just saying we need changes in the rest of the state to reduce driving also. And i feel like walkable density is a more realistic goal than rebuilding the old interurbans and electric streetcar networks, as fantastic as that would be.

  • Not related to anything in today’s headlines, but a bike issue:

    Good news and bad news on Clinton Street. The good news is that the sidewalk between Broome and Grand Streets is almost completely restored. During the time that it was blocked by building construction, many particularly jerky pedestrians walked in the two-way bike lane, despite the eye-level presence of huge orange signs on both ends informing them of the requirement to cross to the other side of Clinton Street.

    So, no more of this lamentable sort of scene:

    The bad news is that the segment of Clinton Street’s two-way bike lane between Grand Street and East Broadway seems to be gone. The road has been repaved, and cars are now parking where the two-way bike lane had been. I’d like to believe that the lane will be repainted; but, if that were the case, then presumably the DOT would have put up cones to prevent cars from parking on the curb.

    Is this just a quiet loss of a portion of this bike lane? Or will it indeed reappear?

  • J. Geoff Rove

    This picture reminded me of the driver 20+ years ago who took pictures of offenders on CA-17 during his commute from Santa Cruz to Silicon Valley. It was before digital cameras were cheap. It was amazing to see a civilian post pictures on his website regularly.

    The “middle jerk” walking in the painted buffer area could downgraded to “putz”.

  • J. Geoff Rove

    Once again, do NJ tunnel tolls contribute anything to NYC streets? They sure don’t buy gas in Manhattan when an immigrant will do it for you at full service NJ gas stations.

  • stairbob

    I forget. Would you look into where the tolls from the Hudson crossings go and report back here? Though, ultimately it doesn’t really matter since the cost of those car trips encourage commuters to use modes that are more space-efficient.