The Long, Ugly Road to a Federal Transportation Plan
Come September 30, Congress has to have a plan in hand to fund the nation's trains, buses, bikes, bridges and roads -- or pass an extension of the 2005 federal bill, locking in the same spending patterns that have nurtured Americans' addiction to the automobile. But the odds are that you haven't heard much about how the process works. What has to happen in order for Congress to meet that September deadline? Let's break it down a bit.
Continue reading »
Alon Levy
Is PIRG also calling for nationwide campaigns for connecting transit, or just for the form of rail that's high on pizzazz?
Also: connecting Atlanta to Birmingham and Macon but leaving Charlotte for "future HSR" is insane.
in response to New Report Maps a High-Speed Rail Link For Every Major U.S. City
Alon Levy
Corn grows in Iowa. Good luck not stopping giving them that privilege.
in response to First Lady Launches Childhood Obesity Push With Nod to Biking & Walking
Alon Levy
Nope. The average auto gets 20.3 vehicle-miles per gallon, and 32 passenger-miles per gallon.
Seriously. Read the links.
in response to PlaNYC Report Takes a Restrained Approach to Promoting Electric Cars
Nathan H.
Everyone is going to be talking about tolls and zone pricing again. We're in a prolonged funding crisis and those are available sources of revenue that will not significantly affect a majority of voters whether you're looking at the state, city, and almost every district. It was simply innumerate of the NY senate to reject bridge tolls and impose a tax on jobs when unemployment was spiking. We don't know how many jobs the state senate killed, but we do know they didn't raise as much money as they promised, which was itself less than what was needed and what the tolls could have brought in. (They're like a faucet, with positive externalities.) Every clown in our senate deserves to pay for this failure of policymaking, Republicans and Democrats alike. I can't wait to vote for any primary or general election challenger that displays a basic familiarity with the economics and demographics of local transportation. You can run on this issue from the left or the right; the incumbents made objectively bad decisions and their constituents are paying the price.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
mrbadexample
Look, the suburbanites are not paying their way here and Patterson's payroll tax gift makes things worse. I've been looking for work for months now, and it's an extremely tilted playing field-- my outbound commute to some remote suburban office complex in Valley Stream or Parsippany is impossible, while the suburbanite mass transit commute to the city is a piece of cake. Instead of arguing about tolls or overly generous pay for transit employees, let's reinstate the commuter tax.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
jooltman
It is hard to measure the impact on local businesses since the closing of Broadway to vehicular traffic coincided with the huge economic downturn. However, from a purely anecdotal standpoint, myself and many people I know now actually spend time in Times Square hanging out, relaxing, and buying the occasional item when before it was the last place on earth we would choose to linger.
Also, isn't there someway to quantify in $ (the bottom line) how much better the environment in the area is due to decreased traffic? Better health of residents, fewer street maintenance dollars required, less damage to buildings from pollution, etc., etc.
in response to Great Public Spaces for Midtown
will
SAVE THE SERVICE ROAD!
This beautiful example of 60's urban vernacular needs to be preserved & cherished!
in response to What Should Happen at Myrtle Avenue's New Plaza? The Public Weighs In
JK
Be nice to see the mayor start raising tolls/pricing again as a real world solution. There is opportunity in this crisis and the next one etc. The mayor is lame duck, he has nothing to lose and calling for tolls/pricing again would not effect a senate or presidential run. The mayor is always asked for his reaction to MTA money problems, instead of just blasting the payroll tax hike, he could call for tolls/pricing instead. For that matter, Richard Ravitch could say "tolls" every other word. It's not going to make or break the chances for his guy. Kathy Wylde is also well placed to beat the toll drum. They don't need to do anything other than mention it to reporters to keep it in play.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Herbert
The jaystrolling "pants on the ground" crowd will love this idea.
in response to Strict Liability: Civil Law for Civil Streets
Niccolo Machiavelli
Pete, there are many people at the MTA and LIRR that would love to run more local service, connecting with BRT on the major north south routes. But what if they did, that service would interfere with the East-West rush hour commute into the Golden Mountain in Manhattan and the Long Island political class would rush to protect the Manhattan commuters, that is the history of this service.
Presently, a Nassau Democratic Senator, Craig Johnson, has been bravely fighting off the main-line third track program from his seat (and veto) on the Capital Plan Review Board. So the MTA gets condemned for spending money in the city (even if a lot of it is on an LIRR capital project, East Side Access) and it gets condemned for spending money on Long Island.
Main-Line third track is supposed to do all three, smooth commutes to the city, enable reverse commutes from the city to LI and enhance local service possibilities. Yet, it faces bi-partisan opposition. Go figure.
in response to Today's Headlines
Niccolo Machiavelli
It is really a tribute to Mr. Kruger's and Mr. Fidler's politics to see how quickly the debate on this blog degenerated from a solid piece accurately recounting how the opposition to bridge tolls has led inexorably to a reallocation of transportation resources from city to suburb into hyperventilating anti-labor rants.
There used to have to be at least a kernel of some kind of labor related critique in the body of the blog for the artillery volleys to commence. Now, even when you write a piece strictly concerning the behavior of two outer borough Democrats, neither favorites of TWU or any other MTA unions by the way, you still lead to a chorus of race-to-the-bottom, anti-labor hallelujahs.
$66,000 is not a shocking median income for NYC employers. Yes Larry is right, they make more on LIRR and more is owed on pensions. For only the waste of an hour it would be pretty easy to take apart most of this, but to what good effect?
How about this? This proposed shift in the payroll tax was the subject, deal with that, there is plenty to chew on, you will have plenty of future opportunities to whack the TWU, they aren't going anywhere.
Neither, probably, is this legislation. It is however a clear shot-off-the-bow of an upcoming campaign for Governor. It is Patterson's Nassau strategy. It may force Lazio to explain his position, compromised as it is by the history of suburban Republican control of the MTA (and the pension debt). And, more importantly, it is designed to pull Mr. Cuomo out of the bushes.
What would Andrew do?
Hate on the TWU all you want for protecting their members, it makes it much easier for the likes of Fidler, Kruger, Espada, and Diaz.
This is like one of those Ukranian Eggs made up of institutional scapegoats. The MTA is the big egg, it takes all of the blame for the political class. But inside of it is the TWU egg, it takes up all of the blame for the MTA. Kruger and Fidler aren't inside the TWU egg.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Andy B from Jersey
BicyclesOnly,
I don't have the time to give you a really thorough response but I need to reply on a few things.
First, you talk about strict liability on products which I think is a much different argument than strict liability on operators of a non-defective product. Just making a point but don't have much to argue against you on that.
If your analysis of tort law is correct, I agree that it is onerous if not out right biased to have to prove wrongdoing on the motorist part to recover damages. I totally agree that simple carelessness should be the only threshold particularly with regard to "vulnerable user" victims.
However, I still have a problem with definition of "due care" proposed by the narrator in the video. I think it is completely unreasonable that the only time a driver would NOT be considered liable is if a bicyclist crashes into a car that is not moving. It just doesn't seem just to put that much of a burden on a motorist who is otherwise operating a vehicle in a safe and cautious manner. And that is coming from someone who spends much more time on two wheels then behind one. I don't think you have to be removed from the "windshield perspective" to see how this isn't fair or just.
Plus, it will be a cold day in Hell before such a version of strict liability is accepted in the United States. It's a totally unwinnable battle to try to forge at this moment. I believe we would be better served trying to reform the traffic and criminal justice system when it comes to "vulnerable users" first. Maybe then we can start talking about some version of strict liability.
Thanks for you perspective.
Andy B.
in response to Strict Liability: Civil Law for Civil Streets
John C.
@BicyclesOnly: you wouldn't like it if NYC transit separated from the MTA. That's the situation we have here in San Francisco, with Bart and Muni as different agencies. You'd have a future of 2nd ave. subway funds re-allocated to build a new Westchester Airport line. Yes, it really is that bad here.
in response to Today's Headlines
JTS
Here's a thought: phase out corn and soy subsidies so that sugary HFCS laden foods are not cheaper per calorie than vegetables. Combine that with a serious commitment to TOD, complete streets, and farmer's markets and you've got a sensible policy. Otherwise youre just throwing money away.
in response to First Lady Launches Childhood Obesity Push With Nod to Biking & Walking
Kaja
How about making it a pocket park, like all the other beautiful pocket parks in Brooklyn, and eschewing the postmodern embellishment?
Wrought-iron fence, 3-5 gated entrances, trees and undergrowth; a brick or hex-block path running through it; benches.
All of these designs look both awful and expensive.
in response to What Should Happen at Myrtle Avenue's New Plaza? The Public Weighs In
BicyclesOnly
Andy,
There was a very similar view regarding products liability up until the mid-1960s, at which point courts brought a revolution in American tort law by implementing strict liability for defective products. Strict liability achieved the judicial goal of fair compensation for victims, although at a substantial cost, including arbitrary "jackpot" verdicts bearing no relationship to the harm done, rampant tort fraud, and the unnecessary bankrupting of several large companies. We as a society have been willing to accept those downsides to achieve justice for victims of dangerous products.
In contrast, I don't think a revolution is needed for the civil justice system to work much more fairly in favor of vulnerable street users. All we would need is a rebuttable presumption that the motorist is responsible for a crash. Much like the presumption that a motorist who rear-ends another is responsible for the crash, even if the driver in front stopped short. I actually think that the Netherlands use a "rebuttable presumption" system, because at one point (1:27) the video has a text-over stating that crash victims are entitled to compensation unless the driver can prove the victim was at fault. In other words, the presumption of driver fault can be rebutted if the driver can prove the victim was at fault.
In contrast, under current rules the tort victim must prove wrongdoing on the motorist part to recover. The question of who the burden of proof is on makes all the difference. You seem to almost agree with me, in proposing that where fault cannot be established, the motorist should be deemed at fault. That is not much different than a rebuttable presumption in favor of motorist fault.
I think the reason why the Netherlands system comes off so much more favorable to the traffic victim is because as a substantive matter, there is much less of a windshield perspective. We are told, for example, that a judge will not accept a motorist's explanation that a cylist's unpredictable behavior was the cause of a crash, because the motorist should have anticipated unpredictable cyclist behavior. In fact, the same principle is set forth in New York law under VTL 1146--a motorist must exercise due care to avoid striking bicyclists and pedestrians, but a bicyclist does not have a reciprocal obligation to the motorist. (In the most broad sense, bicyclists have a general tort obligation not to cause harm to others, but it is significant that the statutes speak only of the motorists' obligations). Although this arrangement would appear to disfavor motorists, the concept of "due care" is distorted via windshield perspective, witht he result that "due care" becomes virtually no care at all.
A good example of this is the investigation into the death of a cyclist struck on the 67th Street Central Park Transverse in December 2006, where it took the NYPD months to reach the conclusion that the driver failed to exercise due care when it should have been immediately obvious, and only after focusing on irrelevant facts, such as whether the victim wore light-colored clothing.
in response to Strict Liability: Civil Law for Civil Streets
Giffen
Howard K.,
If the MTA offers such good jobs, why don't you go and take one up yourself?
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Andy B from Jersey
Even the most egregiously reckless drunk driver has lights on his/her car.
I don't think its too much to ask or to reach out to the less fortunate who ride a bike out of need and help them with getting lights on their bikes. First, its the law and second, the person who will be helped the most is the bike rider him/herself! It's not about being in the "club".
Also, how is helping the less fortunate or trying to bring the topic to forefront offensive?
in response to The Invisible People on Bikes Right in Front of Our Eyes
Justin Lee Miller
This whole post is sort of offensive. Lots of people bike for various reasons. Who says poor people have to belong to Streetsblog and wear helmets and have $30 bike lights? A bike is just a tool. Not everyone who walks on sidewalks or takes the subway needs to know anything about the advocacy movements dedicated to making them better. Who says these folks are invisible anyway? The article has a very condescending tone. Not all motorists or pedestrians follow the rules or have middle class incomes. Why do all cyclists have to belong to the "club"?
in response to The Invisible People on Bikes Right in Front of Our Eyes
sivia braunstein
It's terrific to see the creative juices flowing on this crucial need! Especially good isss that the visual aspects of the designs are not being shortchanged for the concepts!
in response to What Should Happen at Myrtle Avenue's New Plaza? The Public Weighs In
Andy B from Jersey
I really don't like Strict Liability as demonstrated in this video and this is what I had to say on Copenhagenizing when they Mikael posted this video:
I don't know if I like that and I can't believe it is true. In the US it would give cyclists free reign to act more like idiots then they do now (I'm a daily commuter cyclist and most/many others I see ride like idiots!). Plus, people here love to sue.
I think it may be much more preferable to make driver liable when it can not be determined who was at fault. Otherwise, if a cyclist makes an illegal turn, goes through a red light or otherwise does not yield the right of way when an automobile has the right of way, then the cyclist has got to be liable.
&
I'm very familiar with the concept of Strict Liability but feel that if it is undeniable that the motorist was driving cautiously, within all due reason, the pedestrian or cyclist was reckless in their behavior and there are witnesses or video to corroborate the actual happenings then I DO NOT feel it is just to hold a driver of a motor vehicle liable.
Also this would NEVER fly in the US at least as demonstrated in this video.
Still, I also feel it is completely unacceptable when a driver kills a cyclist during overtaking and then gives the lame excuse, "he swerved into my path." That is an example crash where I believe some form of Strict Liability is definitely warranted.
in response to Strict Liability: Civil Law for Civil Streets
garyg
Boris,
I have no idea what you're talking about. Nowhere have I said or suggested that any change in average vehicle occupancy would reduce the efficiency of the subway.
You also seem to be confused about the numbers. 0.96 is the amount of CO2, in pounds per vehicle-mile, emitted by the average automobile. Since the average automobile has 1.6 occupants, this works out to 0.96/1.6 = 0.6 pounds of CO2 per passenger-mile. The corresponding figure for the NY subway is 0.17. So the average auto emits 0.6/0.17 = 3.5 times as much CO2 per passenger-mile as the NY subway. If we express this using fuel efficiency in mpg as a proxy for CO2 emissions, this means the NY subway gets the equivalent of 20.3 * 3.5 = 71 passenger-miles per gallon. Not 114 as Alon Levy still falsely claims.
in response to PlaNYC Report Takes a Restrained Approach to Promoting Electric Cars
Joerg Schwartz Architec
The "New Wave" design is great for its humanistic scale, ease of use and relation to street.
Hope you choose it.
JS
in response to What Should Happen at Myrtle Avenue's New Plaza? The Public Weighs In
Omri
It's not enough. Before implementing strict liability, you have to step up the punishments for hit&run, and step up enforcement (by among other things, requiring all body shop visits to be recorded by license plate and VINs).
Otherwise, you just give people incentive to step on the gas.
in response to Strict Liability: Civil Law for Civil Streets
JK
Um, on the issue of relevance, J:Lai, do you really think TWU comp and pension are going to be cut to solve this latest funding crises? Nope. Anyway, take a look at the relative cost per subway and bus ride in NYC that Larry Littlefield posted at Room 8 today (should be Sblog repost/summary and chart of this, it's interesting.)The cost per ride here is not the problem. The problem is that both the city and state government have decided that public transit is not a public service worth adequately funding. If runaway TWU costs were the problem, and funding was at pre-cut levels, the MTA would face operating deficits but still have a robust capital plan. That's not the situation. Riders are funding the capital improvements, and an ever increasing share of operating costs.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Peter G
Strict Liability is a legal concept which applies in a variety of criminal and non-criminal circumstances. On the criminal law front, however, it is not used that often for several reasons. First and foremost, with strict liability, the government is basically saying that the mental state aspect of the crime does not matter and it is enough that the defendant physically committed the act, i.e., we won't concern ourselves whether the defendant acted intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. Rather, because the crime is deemed so serious or society has such a compelling interest to try and prevent the crime, the government is willing to essentially take away a whole line of possible defenses in that you can't say "I didn't intend to do it, I was just reckless etc." For example, statutory rape is one type of crime where a defendant is strictly liable for his or her actions. It doesn't matter that you didn't intend to have sex with someone who is under the legal age of consent, all that matters is that you actually did. On the other end of the spectrum, the government is also willing to make many moving violations strict liability offenses in that it is no defense that you didn't know you were speeding or that you didn't mean to speed. If you are caught speeding, you get a ticket. But, here, the government is willing to forgo the necessity of establishing a particular mental state precisely because the penalty being assessed is a relatively small financial one as opposed to the possibility of having your liberty infringed upon in the form of incarceration. At the end of the day, removing the requisite mental state component of a crime is a very serious and complicated question.
in response to Mionske: Vulnerable User Laws a First Step Toward True Traffic Justice
J:Lai
JK, while that may be true, I don't think it's immediately relevant.
Even if you cut back funding for those other programs, there is no reason to believe it would increase funding for the MTA.
In terms of making funds available right now for the MTA, cutting payroll and benefits would have a huge effect (if it were possible.)
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Larry Littlefield
Well that's true Tubulus, and it sound like a justification for eliminating all MTA taxes outside NYC. Except that most of the MTA payroll lives there.
How about cutting all MTA taxes outside NYC, using the residual to pay off the suburban share of debt and pension obligations from the past, and shutting down MetroNorth and the LIRR? I think the locals, even those who don't commute to NYC, might eventually notice an effect on property taxes and local business activity.
And then, after a decade or two, perhaps new organizations could gradually restart the service.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
JK
You're missing the big picture if you think TWU comp is the big problem. The big problem is that NY has the most expensive (by far) Medicaid and among the highest K-12 spending in the nation. Education and Medicaid costs have crowded out state support for transit, and for infrastructure of any kind. The pols aren't afraid of the TWU, they're afraid of WFP, UFT, 1199 and GNYHA--- the teachers, hospitals and hospital workers. If the pols were afraid of the TWU they wouldn't have started defunding the MTA decades ago.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Tubulus
One thing you're forgetting is that many of the people who benefit from the excess subsidy on commuter lines (ie those who commute into the city from the suburbs and vice versa) are also going to have to pay the increased payroll tax (or their employer will- same thing).
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Boris
Sorry, 36. Doubling occupancy to 3.2:
0.96/3.2 = 0.3 pounds of CO2 per passenger-mile
(0.3/0.17)*20.3 = 35.8 passenger-mpg
in response to PlaNYC Report Takes a Restrained Approach to Promoting Electric Cars
J:Lai
Howard K, I don't anyone is missing that issue. It is the proverbial elephant in the room.
The MTA needs 2 things, if it is to avoid catastrophic cutbacks and deterioration.
These are additional dedicated revenues sources, and reduced overhead costs.
The costs side has come to be dominated by the labor costs, but no state politician is going to go head to head against the TWU. It would be almost guaranteed political suicide, and there is a good chance it would not do much to control costs as the TWU has shown their willingness to strike over far less than the types of cuts needed today.
The only real hope I can see to control labor costs is to force the MTA into bankruptcy/restructuring. This would allow the agency to pay less than the full value of all the pension and other benefits that it is now funding, and to negotiate an entirely new contract with labor. This is the "nuclear option", but I don't see any other way for it to happen. Maybe that is the secret game plan in the legislature.
Regarding revenue, I thought this mobility tax was a bad idea when it first came out, and even worse now that it is tiered to tax the city more heavily than the suburbs. A tax that increases the marginal cost of employing people will raise some revenue, and result in fewer jobs at the margin. Compare that with a tax on driving or road usage, such as some kind of bridge toll or congestion charge, which would raise some revenue and result in fewer or shorter car trips at the margin.
Skewing the tax so that businesses within the city pay a higher rate than the surrounding counties just adds another layer of distortion with lots of poential for unintended consequences.
I agree with Bloomberg on this one: bad economics.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Charles Siegel
"Under the new proposal, New York City businesses would now contribute 88 percent of all mobility tax revenues, up from 70 percent. This will ensure a more equitable distribution of tax liability in line with the fact that New York City is the destination for over 90 percent of weekday ridership."
Does anyone know exactly what that quote means? If someone commutes from a suburb to New York City, does that count as ridership with New York City as the destination?
Of course, after work, that same person commutes back from New York City with the suburb as the destination. The tax liability should not all fall on NY city.
in response to Today's Headlines
Larry Littlefield
"Why not get rid of them all and hire tens of thousands of out-of-work New Yorkers to take their place at the same salary but without all the crazy benefits?"
You fail to note that transit workers in the suburbs are paid far more than TWU workers, as are teachers and police officers -- one reason NYC's state aid is being cut more. We could close more of the gap by having TWU members take jobs on the LIRR.
It is also the case that the best paid NYC local government workers were long ago permitted to move to the suburbs -- by state law. A large share of them live there. Less well paid employees of the City of New York recently followed.
Governemnt employment and payroll account for a far larger share of total employment in payroll in the suburbs than in the city. So the state legislators are not about to allow the MTA to "hire tens of thousands of out-of-work New Yorkers to take their place at the same salary but without all the crazy benefits." Or hire New Yorkers at all. Among younger generations, New Yorkers tend not to get any benefits at all.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Jonathan
From the Kaid Benfield article's source:
in response to Individuals Can Make a Difference: A View from India
Anon
Yes, MTA workers are relatively well-treated compared to other blue collar or clerical workers. But meanwhile there are many, many people in NYC and its suburbs who make multiple times that $25 an hour. Just try to live in a "decent" neighborhood or town while making less than that amount.
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Boris
The Fare Hike Four, et al, are now officially Job Killers. Where is the media blitz?
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Howard K.
Everyone who discusses the MTA's crisis seems to miss an issue I think is crucial: the pay and benefits of the employees that are severely taxing the system.
Go to http://www.seethroughny.net, and you can check out the MTA's payrolls. You'll see that a median employee made about $66,000 for the 2009 fiscal year - note that that was before the recent contract arbitration decision, which included pay raises across the board as well as back restitution for pay raises that were deemed withheld.
How is it that in an economy where people can't even find work, we are paying some city bus drivers upwards of $25 an hour (seethroughny shows this) in addition to their astronomically good benefits package (ask anyone in the private sector about their health care and pension - many don't have them anymore!)
The bottom line is that the TWU is starting to price its members out of jobs... the more they demand pay raises in these bad times, the more services will get cut and the last work there will be.
Why not get rid of them all and hire tens of thousands of out-of-work New Yorkers to take their place at the same salary but without all the crazy benefits?
in response to Gov's Proposed NYC Tax Hike: A Testament to Your Local Pols, New Yorkers
Glenn
Heading over the First Avenue right now with some orange cones to protect and bike lane and Bus lane.
in response to Individuals Can Make a Difference: A View from India
BicyclesOnly
Can NYC Transit secede form the MTA?
in response to Today's Headlines
garyg
garyg is saying that if average vehicle occupancy doubled tomorrow (because of congestion pricing, for example), subway efficiency would fall by half to 30.5 mpg.
garyg hasn't said anything remotely like that.
in response to PlaNYC Report Takes a Restrained Approach to Promoting Electric Cars
Pete
Reading one of the local North Fork papers, they're understandably upset about the MTA. Train service out there is already awful (2 trains/day, geared around commuting to the city), and now the MTA is proposing to get rid of that entirely, save weekend trains in the summertime.
It's still diesel out there - you have to change at Ronkonkoma to get out there. Locals have been chomping at the bit, asking for the right to take over the service, and I can't say I really disagree - the MTA's focus is entirely about getting people in and out of the city, and all they want is more frequent and reliable service.
If the MTA isn't going to provide the service, why not let them take over?
in response to Today's Headlines
Boris
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but garyg is saying that if average vehicle occupancy doubled tomorrow (because of congestion pricing, for example), subway efficiency would fall by half to 30.5 mpg. That makes no sense. I don't see why AVO and subway efficiency should be interrelated.
in response to PlaNYC Report Takes a Restrained Approach to Promoting Electric Cars
Brad Aaron
TKO: Yesterday we linked to three stories using the headline "Tale of DC Blogger Hit by G-Man Less About Street Safety Than Partisan Sniping." No corrections needed that I can see.
in response to Today's Headlines
Doug
I definitely think businesses should encourage bike commuting by offering parking and more. Healthy employees are employees who don't take sick days!
in response to Sponsors Sold on Health, Economic Benefits of Minneapolis Bike-Share
Niccolo Machiavelli
The suburbs exist to extract value from the city, the MTA is only one tool in the cabinet. There are no solutions short of annexation. For all the press about the North Fork seceding it is funny no one talks about the 51st State option. Breslin and Mailer for Mayor.
in response to Today's Headlines
TKO
Correction to yesterdays last news story?
The latest is that it was not the Secret Service that ran over conservative blogger Jim Treacher, but possibly a security employee of the State Department.
in response to Today's Headlines
Larry Littlefield
"I don't know if I see the problem in a health insurance company giving subsidies for gym memberships but not for bike commuting. They are businesses, after all, and one is verifiable, the other is not."
How about paid bike parking and other facilities? If insurance companies were handing out subsidies, businesses would presume a market and try to meet it.
in response to Sponsors Sold on Health, Economic Benefits of Minneapolis Bike-Share
Doug
San Francisco has tons of bike commuters and it's notoriously hilly. So why does it matter that one city is flat or not? Boston also has a fair amount of hills.
I don't know if I see the problem in a health insurance company giving subsidies for gym memberships but not for bike commuting. They are businesses, after all, and one is verifiable, the other is not. My old health insurance company gave subsidies for health club memberships, but you had to provide proof of membership as well as an attendance record, which was generated every time you swiped your ID card. Going as little as ten times a month netted you a check at the end of the year. You didn't just get a check simply because you had a membership; you had to actually go. (I'm guessing the amount of people who checked in at the gym but didn't actually stay to work out was small.)
Since insurance co's aren't exactly in the business of handing out money, as we all know too well, why would they subsidize something that they can't easily verify? There may be ways to verify who is a bike commuter and who is not, but unless you checked in every day at work, how would they know that you had ridden your bike? It's why religious joggers, who may be healthier than a gym goer, wouldn't qualify for such a subsidy.
in response to Sponsors Sold on Health, Economic Benefits of Minneapolis Bike-Share
Larry Littlefield
What is nonsensical is to expect anything else. This tax was sold as a benefit to New York City at the expense of the suburbs, even though it wasn't.
Note my concern expressed on Room Eight a while back:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/fta_2007_operating_cost_data_the_subway_is_cost_effective_but_will_have_to_be_more_so_or_die_with_the_res
"Let’s focus on the subway for a moment. There are those who would be pleased that the subway was covering less of its costs in 2007. There are some who agree with me on other things who would like the subway to be free, even if it meant less money for maintenance and service. As I’ve argued on other forums, however, the subway’s reliance on operating subsidies, and New York City’s reliance on the subway, allows the city’s transit riders to be blackmailed and treated as welfare queens by people and places whose transit systems -- and roads -- are far more subsidized than the subway."
"Rather than beg for a bailout to be blamed on those residents and subway riders, a bailout that will prove to be inadequate, New York City and its transit riders would have been better off under the MTA’s so-called “doomsday” scenario, or worse. Because with some adjustments the subway could cover its cost and keep operating, when other parts of the transit system would have to shut down. Most people don’t read my posts, don’t read the newspaper, unless they are reading about celebrities, and will not stop sneering at those they are in fact draining until reality hits them in the face."
So, New York City residents and businesses are treated like welfare Queens, even as others are subsidized far more, and we get doomsday anyway. A particular doomsday in which there are more cuts in the city than the suburbs. I ask again, what is the city's share of MTA subsidies, operating and capital spending minus fares? I have that data at home, not in the office, but it isn't 90 percent.
in response to Today's Headlines