Comments on: Today’s Headlines

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 02:49:32 +0000

Thanks for the correction Brad, fortunately Ms. Schor picked up the ball and ran off with the worker bashing for the New York Times. Neither she nor Mr. Grynbaum managed to contact any worker representatives for and actual fair and balance view of the situation. Apparently, no union representatives were available for comment for either writer.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:08:17 +0000

My favorite part of the West Side Independent article is the quote from that 11-year-old. Someone raised that kid real good.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:52:38 +0000

The one problem with the elimination fo the station agents is service gate access. The Times article suggests that some stations with multiple unconnected platforms have service gate access (which requires a live person) for less than all of them, reporting that “at the 110th Street station on the No. 1 line, no agent remains on the uptown platform.” If that’s so, does this mean that if you’ve got a bike or a stroller, you can only access the subway if you are going downtown? That’s a serious problem.

It is also imperative that every entrance to a station prominently and clearly advise patrons, while they are at street level, (1) whether there is service gate access at that entrance and (2) if not, the precise location of an alternate entrance that does. Nothing is more irritating than getting to the bottom (or top) of the stairs only to have to turn right back around.

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:38:05 +0000

I think its good that the MTA is eliminating station agents – if anything they should get rid of more. A small investment in signs would aleviate most of the confusion – although for the most part I think the MTA has pretty good signage and maps relative to other subways in major cities.
People always complain at first when you take something away, even something as useless as the station agents, but within 12 months everyone will be used their absence.
The MTA needs to take more actions like this so that inefficiency and bloated budgets can’t be scapegoated when the subject of funding comes up.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:44:33 +0000

Re: The Post story.

I expect Paterson to veto the DOT and MTA plans when the Senate and Assembly pass them. He’s a sure bet to face a primary challenger, and with his popularity ratings so low, he’s basically a lame duck. If he truly think the state cannot afford to pay, he won’t approve it just to curry political points. Whether the Senate and Assembly can override the veto is another matter entirely. How they’ll pay for it is a real problem true.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:34:34 +0000

Nice write-up in the Westside Independent of the CB 7 meeting earlier this week, embedding the protected lanes Streetsfilm and inviting readers to answer a poll on whether they want protected bike paths on the UWS--read it and add your vote to the 88% of readers who favor the separated paths!!

By: Queens

Queens — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:32:46 +0000

You can add this one: http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nyc-girl-15-killed-by-suv-1.1512504

By: Fifth Avenue Fan

Fifth Avenue Fan — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:21:27 +0000

So Fifth Avenue needs a municipal lot to “bring more customers to the area” because there’s not enough parking? Then how about raising meter rates to free up more spots? Nope, ’cause the Fifth Avenue BID thinks raising rates will drive people away.

1957 or 2009, the BID’s logic just doesn’t add up.

By: Brad Aaron

Brad Aaron — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:40:58 +0000

Nic, looking at it again, the Times piece is pretty clear. My headline was off. Corrected now. Thanks.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:24:54 +0000

Why a municipal lot instead of a private one? Oh because they charge market rates and the municipal one is subsidized?

And how does a municipal lot = new bookstore, which it seems is her original idea for generation FOOT traffic.

Instead of creating more public parking, how about opening a public library?

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:22:54 +0000

Though you’d never know it from either the NYT piece or your headline but the LIRR has nothing whatsoever to do with either the approval or denial of claims for disability or benefits from the US railroad retirement board. That’s in Chicago, unlike the Olympics. You would be just as accurate saying that Chicago was denied the Olympics because of the high rate of disability approvals in the Windy City.

By: Slope Guy

Slope Guy — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:07:24 +0000

As a merchant how would you like to see Fifth Avenue improved?

Unfortunately the vacancy rate is going up and that is never good for a commercial strip. I would like to see more unique and fun retail shops open on 5th. In terms of stores, I would like to see a bookstore on Fifth Avenue. I think it would do well and would be a great addition to the avenue. It would also be great to have a municipal lot here. I think that would bring more customers to the area.

To help me better understand Irene’s business logic I’ve simply begun adding the phrase “…if this were 1957″ to the end of everything she says. For example:

It would also be great to have a municipal lot here. I think that would bring more customers to the area if this were 1957.

See!? Suddenly she makes sense.

But seriously: At what point does Park Slope’s 5th Avenue BID come to the conclusion that Irene’s “leadership” is becoming a p.r. liability?

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:02:17 +0000

“When the MTA was faced with similar issues in previous years, it borrowed billions of dollars — the interest on which is being felt now. It’s one reason fares were hiked this year and will jump again in 2011.”

People don’t get it. None of the current proposals, including the Ravitch Plan and its variants, call for ongoing funding at $5 billion per year.

All call for borrowing money for 30 years, spending it in five years or two, and coming up with a tax or fee to pay for the bonds. That tax or fee would still be there after five years, or ten or twenty, but could no longer be used for transportation.

All the existing revenues would pay for the capital plan. Except they are all being used to pay back past debts, unfunded pension liabilities, etc.

By: Brooklyn

Brooklyn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:31:03 +0000

No direct connection to the headlines, but I rode the Allen Street bike lane at 6:30a this morning — my nomination for new nicest lane in NYC. The fence on your left side means no pedestrian leakage from the median; and the new planters at Broome and Stanton eliminate two nuisance intersections. I rolled smoothly through Grand and Delancey, even caught the light at Houston to meld seamlessly onto First Avenue.