Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    notsurprised

    Ok, officially /s

    This was a Pct 19 burn

  2.  

    walks bikes drives

    No no no. A cyclists killed a person in the 19th precinct back in… way back in… I think it was… well, I forget, but it was sometime…

    Seriously, though, I am not against all bicycle enforcement. I strongly believe that we need to address bad cyclist behavior, both as cyclists and as cycling advocates. That will get the community on our side. But I think that the priorities of enforcement should be on dangerous behavior. In other words, instead of focusing on whether th focus should be on cars or cyclists, we should all push for the focus to be based on the violations- a big push on speeding, recklace operation, failure to yield, etc. If an officer sees any road user doing such, they pull them over. If they see both a car and a cyclist failing to yield, then obviously they should pursue the car over the cyclist. If we, as advocates, went with this frame of mind, we would get more community support. Now I realize this is hard because the cops don’t handle it right. But if the big advocacy groups pushed these, maybe we could see some top down pushes from NYPD to do it right, which could help the buy in from the rank and file. I, for one, am a cyclist who gets really irked when I see another cyclist cut too close to a pedestian, or salmoning, or riding on the sidewalk in Manhattan.

  3.  

    Vooch

    Judge Judy today SUV versus Cyclist case

  4.  

    Miles Bader

    From what I’ve heard, bikes are a big problem.

    Cars are a big problem.

    Nothing else comes even remotely close.

  5.  

    Mike

    Can we now get a separated lane on Plaza St,? That plan was a casualty of this “backlash.”

  6.  

    Vooch

    Those 80 year olds Are just so spry These days – able to dart into Motor Traffic at Olympic Sprinter Speeds. Those poor cars, Imagine how Those Cars feel after being forced to kill.

  7.  

    Komanoff

    I see! Thanks. so NYC is undercharging for parking in its owned W 108th St garages, with two consequences: (i) missing out on revenue, (ii) engendering excess attachment to the garages by owners of the cars stored there. As ever, it’s not just “parking,” it’s *underpriced* (bargain) parking!

  8.  

    vnm

    The idea that cars should given priority over people is patently absurd, and was pretty well demolished by the Ginia Bellafante last week.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/parking-concerns-take-a-back-seat-in-pursuit-of-affordable-housing.html

  9.  

    David Meyer

    Overall, they’re significantly cheaper. This chart is from the Nelson/Nygaard report. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e543b232da38d5e94a5edc80a2c27f5102a24de08689347bf96f205fa1a7f9f.png

  10.  

    DarrylD

    Sounds like they’ve got their priorities WAY out of wack if they’re worried about ticketing cyclists, who have killed no one, while letting drivers who kill pedestrians go free.

  11.  

    notsurprised

    “From what I understand, bikes are a big problem,” McPherson said at the precinct’s May community council meeting, according to Our Town. “I think the 19th precinct is the only command in the city that writes and confiscates more bicycles than the 17th precinct. I think the officers here… are aggressively pursuing it. And my goal is to continue that.”

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2016/06/02/do-the-19th-precinct-and-ben-kallos-know-drivers-cause-most-street-carnage/

  12.  

    DarrylD

    Bikes rarely (like….rarer than people dying from taking selfies) kill anyone. Cars? All the time. Bikes aren’t the problem.

  13.  

    RT

    Ye have little faith. The L train shutdown is more than two years away. That gives us plenty of time to:
    1) finish inventing robot automobiles
    2) build eight more Williamsburg Bridges to accommodate the extra 300,000 cars

    Ideally, those 8 new bridges would be made out of plastic, so that they could be scrapped and recycled 18 months later since they’ll no longer be needed once the L train is running again.

  14.  

    notsurprised

    From what I’ve heard, bikes are a big problem.

  15.  

    Brian Howald

    If I’m not mistaken, the pedestrian killed last week was standing in the exact same spot crosswalk at SW corner of 71st Street and 3rd Avenue as the man killed by yet another driver reversing into the crosswalk in May.

    http://nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/elderly-driver-backs-pedestrian-pinning-cars-article-1.2631824

  16.  

    MatthewEH

    Hey, I’m not saying any of those ideas are without merit. They’d require careful examination — it’s a complex system and relatively simple changes may have far-reaching unexpected consequences — but it could be better over all.

    But that’s an awfully small tail (“it would be nice if we could shut down LGA for a year to complete an airport revamp”) wagging an awfully big dog (“let’s reform how is flight planning done in the US on a national basis”).

  17.  

    Boris

    If, to some residents, cars are as important as people (if not more so), the city can beat them at their own game by simply taking their concerns seriously. The city (or the developer) should create a “car relocation plan” by providing every car owner who parks in the three garages with a new parking location that is either off-street or on-street in a different neighborhood. The city doesn’t need to subsidize their new parking, but it should show that such alternate parking exists (for example, in the 12 block radius mentioned above). Perhaps those car owners who can prove hardship can also receive a token payment to help them move their car.

    What hurts us the most is the lack of data regarding how much parking the city has in a given area, how much is too much or too little, and how much is “enough”. Therefore, the NIMBYs can invent whatever numbers they want and never get any pushback based on facts.

  18.  

    Komanoff

    Anyone know the monthly parking rates at the city-owned garages in question? And how they stack up vs. other/private garages in the area? Just curious if they’re lower than “market.”

  19.  

    bolwerk

    Must be more than that if there is a sizable population of taxi-dependent elderly.

  20.  

    van_vlissingen

    Why not implement a congestion charge on flights to ensure that:
    1. flights from third tier cities go to a regional hub before coming to NYC?
    2. airlines use bigger planes?

  21.  

    MatthewEH

    At least one of the people promoting the NIMBY pro-status-quo oh-my-god-won’t-somebody-think-of-the-cars argument here packing-taped the group’s flyers to street trees on Broadway, and directly to the exterior painted wall of a (presently shuttered) local bar. That should give you an idea of their actual community-mindedness.

  22.  

    MatthewEH

    Happened to me a few times too. And god forbid if you yell at the driver or, say, slap the trunk-panel of their car to get their attention. You’ve just assaulted their ego and you’re obviously the a-hole.

  23.  

    MatthewEH

    Assuming you’re not being completely sarcastic:

    Half of air traffic delays in the whole nation originate in the crowded airspaces and limited runway capacity of the three NYC airports. La Guardia represents, what, 25-30% of that capacity? The repercussions would be astonishing and would affect many, many more people than the 100,000 people directly using LGA.

  24.  

    ahwr

    All the elderly, or just the ones who drive and are most likely to hit someone while backing up their car?

  25.  

    Joe Enoch

    I can’t even count the number of times where a backing up vehicle would have crushed me as a pedestrian if it weren’t for the fact that I’m able-bodied and able to evade them. Ironically, it’s often the elderly in the UES who most vocally oppose anything that would make the neighborhood safer.

  26.  

    qrt145

    Water-walking pony share!

  27.  

    Komanoff

    Re lead item (killing of Lee Strong in UES x-walk): Section 4-07(d) of N.Y.C. Traffic Rules reads: “Restrictions on backing. No person shall back a vehicle into an intersection or over a crosswalk … ” So 19-190 charges will be filed, um, when?

  28.  

    Vooch

    you are so clever – indeed close LGA for rehab. If the L train can be shut down for rehab, then why not LGA ?

  29.  

    Jesse

    Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others.
    http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra-1434

  30.  

    Vooch

    ditto for M60, should also have dedicated bus lane in Queens to LGA

  31.  

    aarrrrrimapirate

    Ooooh me too!

    -Giant circus cannons and nets
    -worlds tallest longest and highest capacity roller coaster
    -worlds tallest longest and highest capacity WOODEN roller coaster
    -wormholes
    -weird Chinese elevated bus
    -Magic Schoolbus

  32.  

    snrvlakk

    We all know how the “let it burn” crowd will be voting come November.

  33.  

    JudenChino

    This so obvious it’s painful. It’s not as bad as the “well, if you close a street to car traffic that will just jam up the streets around it” fallacy. But you’d think actual traffic engineers should get this one right. The Q70 needs a dedicated freaking lane. It’s an insult and a half to have it wait in regular traffic. Christ. I really am going to just take JFK/EWR for the next 5 years.

  34.  

    AMH

    The first step is to create dedicated bus lanes and HOV restrictions. Then we can talk about the best way to facilitate ride sharing (not ride hailing).

  35.  

    Joe R.

    We should put car pool restrictions in place on every entry point into Manhattan for the duration of the tunnel repair. When people see the world didn’t end because of it, then we might have political support to make such a restriction permanent.

  36.  

    ohnonononono

    The new lane at LGA should AT LEAST be a HOV-3 lane if not an actual bus lane. This mismanagement is making me believe the conspiracy theory that it’s intentional delay to make Cuomo’s stupid AirTrain look like the only solution.

  37.  

    ohnonononono

    That would just shift the gridlock to JFK and EWR, and induce more people to travel further distances to get to those airports. Not really thinking big there…

  38.  

    sbauman

    There’s a fairly easy way to eliminate gridlock during the LaGuardia Airport reconstruction. Follow the same example of the Canarsie Tunnels. Close the airport during construction and divert the flights and passengers to the City’s other two airports.

    Approximately 265,000 people use the Canarsie Tunnels on an average weekday. Approximately 100,000 people use LaGuardia Airport on a busy day.

  39.  

    qrt145

    It seems likely that cars will still be allowed on the bridge, but car pool restrictions could be put in place.

    For many people, Uber/Lyft’s ride pooling features are actually more efficient than the old-fashioned way of trying to figure out whom to carpool with, or the old-fashioned picking up of hitchhikers. Therefore, these companies could actually offer something.

    I only hope the authorities will finally realize that the driver of a taxi shouldn’t count for car-pooling purposes. I cringe whenever I see a taxi with one passenger on a “two person minimum” car pool lane. A taxi with one passenger is transporting one person. The driver is effectively part of the car.

  40.  

    Vooch

    map of six months worth of traffic violence on UES – it’s horrifying https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0442e34582153e3bb30a0658a7a6cf32c895a6a985ed3c3e680cb30a5153519a.jpg

  41.  

    Fool

    While some may consider it low cost, I do not. I do consider it the BETTER use of funds.

  42.  

    Kevin Love

    Let’s call it “Nero syndrome.”

  43.  

    Kevin Love

    Swan boats! Can a hundred amusement parks be wrong?

  44.  

    Miles Bader

    Uber and Lyft’s model fails once you get beyond a few passengers, and cars with only a few passengers are no better than private cars in terms of congestion, capacity, etc.

    So Uber and Lyft basically have nothing to offer.

  45.  

    Michel S

    Some people just want to watch the world burn…

  46.  

    Jules1

    Woo hoo! I hope the end of this lawsuit gets as much media coverage as it did during the peak of the “bikelash” drama.

  47.  

    NYCBK123

    I vote for dolphins with saddles.

  48.  

    ADN

    Cars are still going to be driving over the Williamsburg Bridge. Those cars should only be multi-passenger, shared vehicles. There is is clearly a place for companies like Uber and Lyft in this plan. Those companies can be part of the solution here. And they are a lot more nimble, creative and willing to try things than the MTA or DOT.

  49.  

    sbauman

    According to the 2014 Hub Bound Travel Report, approximately 20K passengers travel on the #7 from Queens on 27 trains between 8 and 9 am. During the same hour, approximately 32K passengers enter the PABT. If the same load levels are used (67 pass/railcar), the Secaucus service would require 43 trains per hour.

    If the TA could operate 43 tph or cram 110 passengers into every railcar on 27 tph, there’s still the question of getting these passengers out of the 34th St, Times Sq, 5th Ave and Grand Central stations. The platforms on these stations barely clear of passengers before the next train arrives. They would now have to clear 160% more passengers in the same amount of time.

    All these stations have center island platforms. Simply adding more stairways on these platforms is a non-starter. The existing platforms do not have the space to accommodate the extra passengers. A new platform, such as what was done at Bowling Green, would be required. Unlike Bowling Green, Times Square, 5th Ave and Grand Central share their streets with other subway lines that run above them. These lines would have to be shored up during construction. Their presence would also present design constraints on how well these new platforms could function.

    When design complications increase, it’s usually a hint to step back and consider other approaches. One such approach would be to build a completely separate line from Secaucus. This would also permit using bigger railcars, so that fewer railcars and trains would be required for the service. It would also solve the jurisdictional problem; it would be a Port Authority project.

    The cost for a completely new line would be high. It would probably not be much more than what retrofitting the #7 line would be, when all the complications are considered. Whether the cost would exceed the bloated figures for the PABT replacement is problematic.

    One thing is clear, expanding the #7 into New Jersey, isn’t the low cost solution its proponents claim.

  50.  

    Guy Ross

    Berliners would beg to differ.

    http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/fahrrad/infrastruktur-wie-gute-radwege-fuer-berlin-aussehen-koennen/11561116.html

    (you can read the comments because this is Germany where civil discourse is still civil)