Local Groups Hit Atlantic Station to Push Ravitch Plan

but a very interesting one, dittoburg. I always wondered why, since I don't own a car, my taxes pay for roads that are used by them. Why shouldn't I be able to designate that my tax dollars go to mass transit? And those with cars should pay a higher rate, with a larger percentage going to mass transit. Only seems fair- I suffer from their noise and smog and dangers, as well as paying for the wear and tearpersonal vehicles put on the streets.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 10:21 AM

Any city job where you are out and dealing with the public is dangerous. How about the sanitation worker who was killed by toxic fumes from a bag he picked up on his run?

On the other hand, some of these people are unnecessarily churlish and rude.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 10:25 AM

goldie- first of my comment is about fairness, and trying to rethink a bad system - not about a plan of action. Some of us actually believe there is room for improvement and care to think about it.

rob- churlish= Goldie before coffee. Perfect example. It's curmudgeonly without aforethought.:-)

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 10:47 AM

Hey snappy- he sounds like a guy after my own heart :-).

But actually I have no problem with my taxes going to the school system or the roads and infrastructure. I was simply pointing out the unfairness of the system and kind of expanding on what dittoburg was saying. Which goldie misinterpreted in his churlitude.

I would love a free mass transit system too- but I think it's unrealistic. Yet the money we are spending on the second Ave. subway infuriates me- Manhattan is packed with subway and bus lines. How about adding to Brooklyn, the Bronx or Queens. Or at least upgrading the services in those boroughs?

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 11:13 AM

11215- in the long run better serving the outer boroughs will have more impact. Not to mention, perhaps cut down on the necessity for cars. In many places its an necessity because of a lack of mass transit. 2 buses and then a train is torture, not mass transit. And for those who must depend on cars due to that, chances are they will be paying tolls now- something which will impact working people in the outer boroughs. So they get screwed twice.

I'm sure the 2dn Ave. suybway will make a lot of people happy- just not the ones who really do need a better system.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 11:39 AM

oops- subway. A little fumblefingered here- Goldie, I need that coffee.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 11:43 AM

Prioritizing has to take a longer view.You can't maintain just one section of infrastructure at the cost of others. It doesn't work that way. And it isn't about serving more people- have you even been on the A during rush hour? And I mean before it gets into Manhattan? People are packed on from nearly the ends of the line- for miles. Yet the second ave. line will run from 125th to the financial district and is merely for convenience sake. Upgrading the outer boroughs is a necessity for the whole system.
----------------
goldie- much prefer the churmudgeon - I would not want to be the reason for your ulcer. It'sa skill I have but I try to apply it judiciously :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 12:08 PM

11215- I have been on the 2/3/4/5/6/7 and all the alphabet lines (Not the Z, however). And I explained that thinking in the short run is a mistake. There are millions of people in the outer boroughs who depend on mass transit- and while it is less densely packed than Manhattan, it is far more inconvenient and wasteful and underserved. I see no reason to spend billions on a line that only serves Manhattan while the rest of us go wanting. We pay taxes too, ya know.

I also remain a little skeptical about the benefit of the 2nd Ave. line- no one hass even looked at the new light rail systems that would have been far less expensive and perhaps would have allowed a better use of those billions than digging into bedrock. Your argument doesn't hold water. Its all to the benefit of Manhattan at the cost to the other boroughs.No surprise there.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 12:48 PM

11215- benefiting one specifc area, especially with a $15 billion dollar benefit is a waste. Mass transit is much more densley concentrated in Manhattan and having walked all over the city, I do know how long a walk it can be. But it isn't nearly as long as the trip tp stations in the Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens, which also do not have the same good bus service either. And that I can speak of from much personal experience. So when someone needs to drive to a station, or has to take a bus and 3 trains (there are times I need 3 trains just to get to a stop in manhattan, please don't expect me to wax enthusiastic over the convenience of people on the UES. They've gotten around quite well up to now- the new line is not nearly as crucial to the overall health of the system as improving mass transit everywhere. Or don't you think there are no old people, children or sick who live in those boroughs also?

I am not so shortsighted that I can only see one small area to fix. That's why I won't give you a specific neighborhood- bcause the question you're asking is totally inadequate to what the real problem is. And FYI- you are right that the subway maps are out of scale and misleading. The transit stops are often far more distant and hard to reach than the map gives you reason to believe. trust me on this one- I learned it the hard way.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 2:44 PM

11215- yo don't get to win an argument by titlting the rules to yourself. Fact: There are hundreds of thousands of people all over the city- not just on the UES and I guarantee you the walks the elderly, children nad the disabled have to some of these train stations in the outer boroughs are much farther than what you have to walk on the UES. I do know- I walked it. Walking to mass transit on hte UES is a cakewalk compared to areas in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Queens is even worse.

I've already said why I didn't name a specific area- I've said it 3 times but you seem to not want to get my point. $15 billion dollars is a lot of money to spend in one place in a transit system that has greater needs - while you may consider it bs, I think the money pit that is Manhattan is bs. You . Please don't throw out a sop to morality by touting how much this new line will help poor people in Harlem. The second Ave. line is about wealthy UES folk - don't kid yourself.

And I repeat- it's short-sighted, and self-destructive. Do you think the rest of the system is going to wait patiently for funding before it falls apart? Please. Your argument is so full of me me me. You have no idea how much many improvements they could have done with the money they are wasting on the 2nd ave. line. It's criminal.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 4:53 PM

oops- fumble fingered again- "you don't get to win an argument by tilting the rules in your favor."

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 5:07 PM

Snappy- can I change my name to "Insert SnappyButFumblefingeredCommentHere?" :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 5:21 PM

ENY- can you provide stats to back that up? More than on the WestSide? Or Lower Manhattan?

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 5:46 PM

putnamdenizen- I'm really interested in the new light rail systems. I understand one manufacturer or advocate has been trying to get the city to look at them. From what I understand, they are quite successul in the cities that use them,. and less expensive to set up than the traditional underground line.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 7:23 PM

this is the garbage that makes me want to smack you, rob. You have no clue. The majority of people in poor, black neighborhoods are hardworking, not on drugs and even- gasp!- married. I have no idea where you get some of your crap from but grow the hell up. The only point you made is that you're immature and a lousy social analyst.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 10, 2009 11:56 PM