Holy cow, I want to know about this magical place where people who block bike lanes actually get ticketed. It sounds amazing, like Middle-earth, or Shangri-La. Certainly not like New York City.

On democracy and the politics of positive change the Neurosciences and Free Will Symposium held by Columbia’s Earth Institute may provide some insight:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/symposiumIII.html

“On Sunday and Monday, March 30-31, 2008, the Center for the Study of Science and Religion at the Earth Institute, Columbia University, in collaboration with the Fetzer Institute of Kalamazoo, Michigan, held a public symposium to discuss Neurosciences and Free Will at Columbia University. For two days, this program brought together leaders in the fields of neuroscience, physics, philosophy, psychology, and theology from a variety of religious traditions to discuss the scientific, philosophical, and moral questions raised by recent findings in the sciences on free will.”

I wholeheartedly support opening the DOT to new public participation, but only if it bypasses, or at least reduces the influence of, “community leaders” like Avella and Donato. They are anti-democracy, elitist thugs defending their own power structure.

The choice is not between the “elite” Bloomberg and the “community” Avella and Thompson, but between a dictator beholden to citywide interests and one beholden to local ones. Given the choice between two dictators, I’ll go with the one who leans in the direction of safety and ecological responsibility.

If government can’t afford it, then may be we advocates should be taking the lead in creating new models of public participation and accountability. Streetsblog and its website kin have been an incredible new tool to foster community and coordination among the advocacy world, to provide information that had previously been obscure or inaccessible. So may be the next step is making the connection between that and the actual workings of government.

How does DOT (and the other actors who affect our transportation system) select, plan and design projects? How are the agencies organized and how do their various parts interact? What approvals are or are not necessary? Where are the opportunities for the concerned (and informed) public to be involved? Is there a way for government to more proactively involve communities in planning both citywide policies and local projects?

Improved community input would require outreach to make it representative, but that is expensive, and governments everywhere are broke.

So, which do we want? A philosopher king/queen situation where we (our limited interest group, at least) get exactly what we want or more of a messy democracy where the things that we’re convinced are right are not guaranteed outcomes? May be we need a little of both, and clearly the purpose of government is to do things for the common good so local input can only drive citywide issues so much, but I would argue the public input side could still use some improvement.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/kent_ave.pdf“

I’ve been riding Kent Avenue early 5:30 AM to work and the new kermit green two-way bike protected bike path emerging on the East River side this week seems quite nice. Didn’t really understand that the other side is the loading lane probably also a necessity in this heavily mixed-use neighborhood.

Maybe in the future they can start considering using large electric transport for freight just like they replace deisel locomatives with electric when Amtrak comes into Penn Station (for interior air-quality reasons).

Now no business or property is entitled to free curbside parking. If regular loading of delivery goods in trucks is vital to a business, than that business would be better located in a property with a truck yard or loading dock, not staging that along the curb and sidewalk, compromising the safety of pedestrians and cyclists like so many do. But the Kent Ave. bike lane designs were particularly punishing by removing parking on both sides of the street and CB1 really should have known that wouldn’t fly before they approved it. Glad to see that, through focused community interaction, a workable compromise has been reached.

The elitist dictator label is a little preposterous and undeserved – just the aspersion of those who have been outvoted or overruled by their community boards. These are streets, not private property. And we’re talking about bike lanes being installed – just thermoplastic lines – it’s not like the Cross-Bronx Expressway tearing down peoples homes, or sewage plants being built next door to schools, or the King of England coming in and annexing personal property. Can people be any more dramatic about some painted lines on the road ruining their livelihoods?

It just reinforces the concept that you can’t build a bicycle network through community-based planning or you will have a gap-toothed smile. Any city that has achieved it will tell you that to make cycling represent a meaningful share of a city’s transportation balance means having safe, uninterrupted bicycle facilities that criss-cross the city to take would-be cyclists safely and comfortably to and from all their destinations, or else it doesn’t work at all.

Glad to see Bloomberg and JSK don’t capitulate to small, vocal, self-interested groups with unsubstantiated, sensationalized complaints. And now we know who does.

Will see what response they have, if any.

Further, in this town, the Democrats are the conservatives because there hasn’t been anyone to oppose them and because it’s not in their self-interest to make changes and risk upsetting anyone.

This is where Bloomberg comes in.

(And, yeah, I know he’s not perfect.)

Have you not noticed that you loading zones are returning. The dictator you are speaking of is listening to you, yet you are still screaming. I agree that the original design was lacking, but now they are changing it.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/kent_ave.pdf

This is a big reason why we need congestion pricing and serious parking reform.

I’m not a big fan of selfishness, but at least I can understand rational selfishness.

What I don’t get is Lower Manhattan politicians who don’t object to their neighborhood being a through motor vehicle route between Long Island and New Jersey, but do object to people on bicycles riding from Brooklyn to Midtown on their streets, and want more street space for the former and less for the latter.

I can only sum up the attitude this way. Any change is going to tick off someone. Those who will benefit from the change, even if the vast majority, are either unaware of can be convinced they are threatened. Therefore, the winning strategy for those who see the policies of our government as a fun little game played for profit is to oppose change. Particularly since the most organized and tuned in interests are those benefit from unearned special privilege, and they are the only people that matter.

What is the principle? “Community opposition” is hardly it — just an excuse. This is exactly like the whole “death panel” thing. These sleazebag pols are all the same.