Comments on: Today’s Headlines http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Niccolo Machiavelli http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/comment-page-1/#comment-36058 Niccolo Machiavelli Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:39:24 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/#comment-36058 Maybe I'm the only one that follows industrial retention (or in this case explusion) issues but the NY Times article on Jamaica refers to "sleepy" Hillside Avenue. Sleepy? Six lanes of constant agressive outer borough traffic? Maybe I’m the only one that follows industrial retention (or in this case explusion) issues but the NY Times article on Jamaica refers to “sleepy” Hillside Avenue. Sleepy? Six lanes of constant agressive outer borough traffic?

]]> By: Christian http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/comment-page-1/#comment-36037 Christian Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:46:49 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/#comment-36037 A very interesting article that got missed: Acela ridership up 20% in 10 months, Amtrak up 6% overall. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118781538275205642.html?mod=googlenews_wsj A very interesting article that got missed:

Acela ridership up 20% in 10 months, Amtrak up 6% overall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118781538275205642.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

]]> By: mike http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/comment-page-1/#comment-36036 mike Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:18:56 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/#comment-36036 Sorry, that's 3 reasons. Sorry, that’s 3 reasons.

]]> By: mike http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/comment-page-1/#comment-36035 mike Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:18:00 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/23/todays-headlines-226/#comment-36035 Re: Parks Dept allowing cars to park on the grass at Flushing Meadows: It's interesting to contrast this with Bloomberg/Benepe's hysterical reactions when folks wanted to have an anti-war protest on Central Park's Great Lawn. Surely they would not like thousands of cars parking on the Great Lawn (though they don't seem to mind thousands driving *around* it on the loop roads). What can possibly account for this extreme hypocrisy? Could it be that they don't really care about parks in Queens? Or that they only car about the reactions of the very wealthy donors to the Central Park Conservancy? Or could it be that they value the privileges of car drivers over "the rights of the people to peaceably assemble"? Maybe it's all 4 reasons. Re: Parks Dept allowing cars to park on the grass at Flushing Meadows: It’s interesting to contrast this with Bloomberg/Benepe’s hysterical reactions when folks wanted to have an anti-war protest on Central Park’s Great Lawn. Surely they would not like thousands of cars parking on the Great Lawn (though they don’t seem to mind thousands driving *around* it on the loop roads).

What can possibly account for this extreme hypocrisy? Could it be that they don’t really care about parks in Queens? Or that they only car about the reactions of the very wealthy donors to the Central Park Conservancy? Or could it be that they value the privileges of car drivers over “the rights of the people to peaceably assemble”?

Maybe it’s all 4 reasons.

]]>