oreosfly

oreosfly t1_j63zxq1 wrote

There is no law or policy on the books that gives her a veto. The City Council has a practice called “member deference” where the City Council votes in line with how the affected district’s member votes. Since this project is in KRJ’s district, the Council votes the way she votes. The practice exists solely because of tradition.

Each member of the city council has an effective veto on projects in their district due to this practice. Think of it as a back room deal between Council members - “I won’t mess with your district if you don’t mess with mine’s”.

37

oreosfly t1_j61yjub wrote

I disagree. They overengineered the fuck out of this project because MNRR did not want to share tracks with LIRR - hence you have a station 15 stories below ground that takes forever to reach ground level. Could you imagine an elevated station 15 stories up? Throw in the fact that it was over a decade late and went more than 3x its original budget and you have a project that deserves criticism. Is it great that society wants to invest in public transit infrastructure? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean projects like this should be immune to criticism.

38

oreosfly t1_j52lo91 wrote

They still refuse to itemize their construction costs, so the public has no idea how exactly they spend their money in projects.

Florida DOT can tell me that it costs exactly $36 to remove litter for a new road project, but the MTA can’t tell us how much anything costs for a new tunnel? Smh

5

oreosfly t1_j52kyu9 wrote

A private real estate developer built the elevator at that entrance for $10 million.

Big brain.

https://gothamist.com/news/new-times-square-subway-entrance-includes-an-elevator-and-the-largest-mosaic-in-the-system

> and $10 million, for the new elevators, paid by Jamestown Properties, the company that owns One Times Square.

1

oreosfly t1_j0wv6hr wrote

> It's like asking the post office to turn a profit

Fun fact: It actually did until circa 2006. The Post Office makes enough money to cover its operating costs. Its main issues are retiree pension and healthcare costs. The Post Office is also a bit different from Amtrak in that USPS does not recieve direct subsidies from the government.

Anyways, I agree that Amtrak is a public service and that profit is not a main concern. But I also think it would behoove Amtrak and the public to examine its biggest money losers to see whether or not a restructuring is called for. As an example, one of its biggest losers is the California Zephyr, a 52 hour trip between Chicago and SF. Not only does it cost more than a plane ticket between ORD and SFO, but a plane will also bring you between the two cities 49 hours ahead of the train. Routes this long inevitably face delays along the way, hence its 36% on time rate. Perhaps Amtrak thinks about breaking its route into multiple segments so that it is not so prone to delays? Maybe beef up frequencies in its most crowded segments (Denver to Salt Lake)? Who knows.

I don't think Amtrak needs to make money, but it could probably benefit from someone taking a closer look at how the service could be made better

5

oreosfly t1_j0vuxjt wrote

Most cases end in pleas rather than trial. There is no such thing as a “slam dunk case”. DAs don’t want to face political blowback for losing “easy” cases (see OJ Simpson and Gil Garcetti), defendants don’t want to stare down the barrel of life in prison without parole.

That being said, 20 years for a 33 year old for murder is a disgrace.

8

oreosfly t1_j0hpi35 wrote

The way we treat cows, chickens, and pigs is not any better, yet there is no widespread call to ban eggs, chicken, beef, and pork.

Egg laying hens in cages have an average of 67 square inches of floor space. That’s less area than a sheet of copy paper. Where’s the outrage from the City Council?

For the record, I don’t eat foie gras nor do I care to eat it, but I’m sick of our massively hypocritical City Council thinking that they are holier than thou with these laws.

9

oreosfly t1_j0aaiyb wrote

The idea I meant to convey was one where moderate density housing surrounds an easily accessible town core. In this case, the campus is the core where everything is. No such thing really exists here. In America you're either in a city or you're out in the sprawl. There's no middle ground. Thus you are forced to decide what you're willing to give up when deciding on a place to live

8