SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #201 Posted October 12, 2011 Oh so now it's a crime to be a wealthy old white woman? Your stereotyping is really unbelievable. :eek: The neighborhood that I'm moving to has plenty of old white wealthy ladies up in Riverdale and I suppose they're elitists too for fighting to protect the charm of the area and fighting over development of the area and fighting to keep the great oasis that is Riverdale, with its superb express bus and MetroNorth service and low crime rates. Are you illiterate or just insistent on repeating the same wrong thing over and over again? What part of "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF UPPER EAST SIDERS - THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF A VERY SMALL, RICH MINORITY THAT NEVER USES THE SUBWAY - WHICH IS NOT INDICATIVE AT ALL OF THE UES" do you not understand???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #202 Posted October 12, 2011 Oh so now it's a crime to be a wealthy old white woman? Your stereotyping is really unbelievable. :eek: The neighborhood that I'm moving to has plenty of old white wealthy ladies up in Riverdale and I suppose they're elitists too for fighting to protect the charm of the area and fighting over development of the area and fighting to keep the great oasis that is Riverdale, with its superb express bus and MetroNorth service and low crime rates. Are you illiterate or just insistent on repeating the same wrong thing over and over again? What part of "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF UPPER EAST SIDERS - THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF A VERY SMALL, RICH MINORITY THAT NEVER USES THE SUBWAY - WHICH IS NOT INDICATIVE AT ALL OF THE UES" do you not understand???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #203 Posted October 12, 2011 If the existing structure is deemed to be insufficient or potentially unsafe there appears to be only two viable solutions. Build another entrance/exit OR eliminate the stop. I've seen that station in the pm rush hour and when classes let out and it appears to be bursting at the seams at times. Before my transit career I used to drive a yellow cab extensively in that area (UES) so I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on the street level as well. So far it seems that the gist of this thread revolves around the community and the homeless. It's worth noting that the "community" that's getting the biggest responses, pro and con, in this thread are not the broad community in the truest sense but a few people who live on the block where another entrance/exit may be built..I find it hard to believe that a vocal minority speaks for the ENTIRE population of users of this one stop. Do these people use the subway station on a regular basis? Do they have an alternative proposal to allieviate the obvious congestion at this stop? All I've seen in this thread so far is references to the homeless people as a reason to object to this proposal. What, and where, is the counter proposal ? Is the increased access to the station needed? I happen to think so especially if it comes down to a safety issue. What do the working people who actually use the station think? Someone mentioned the landmark issue in an earlier post. I highly doubt that a NYC landmark law would trump a public safety issue in any court and if the were to throw ADA accessibility into the mix I would guess that federal law would trump all. Therefore I think that "landmark" and "homelessness" are red herrings thrown into mix for arguments sake and hold no merit as the lawyers and judges would probably say. Maybe we forum members should try to judge this particular PROPOSAL on it's merits and it's effect on the community as a whole. I've seen arguments about the homeless, charity, class warfare, Fifth Avenue, Park Avenue, Park Avenue South, Brighton Beach, express buses, and what have you, but if overcrowding IS a problem at this station how do we propose to correct it? The (MTA)'s way or some other method? What do you, as a forum member think? Maybe there is some fall-back compromise position out there. How about it? Carry on. THANK YOU. The voice of reason speaks again. The actual purpose of this hearing was to solicit feedback from the neighborhood on this generally supported (by the neighborhood) idea. Meaning it was to discuss what the concerns of the neighborhood as a whole would be about this measure and the proposed entrance. Things like: what should the entrance look like? Which way should it face? While construction is ongoing, what are the major concerns? How should the construction take place to minimize inconvenience to those who use the station on a daily basis? NOT to get complete opposition to the entire project on the faulty logic of baseless, elitist claims designed to stop all improvement, by a very small wealthy minority that sees its "prestige" being tarnished because of a poor people mover entrance on their block. None of the elitists - the ones in that meeting nor the ones here in this thread - have suggested any feasible alternative solutions that meet the original intended purpose of the project - which is to improve customer flow and provide ADA accessibility at the station within a specific timeframe without expensive capital construction (sorry Wallyhorse, just not feasible) that would serve no purpose except to placate the interests of a wealthy minority with public funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #204 Posted October 12, 2011 If the existing structure is deemed to be insufficient or potentially unsafe there appears to be only two viable solutions. Build another entrance/exit OR eliminate the stop. I've seen that station in the pm rush hour and when classes let out and it appears to be bursting at the seams at times. Before my transit career I used to drive a yellow cab extensively in that area (UES) so I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on the street level as well. So far it seems that the gist of this thread revolves around the community and the homeless. It's worth noting that the "community" that's getting the biggest responses, pro and con, in this thread are not the broad community in the truest sense but a few people who live on the block where another entrance/exit may be built..I find it hard to believe that a vocal minority speaks for the ENTIRE population of users of this one stop. Do these people use the subway station on a regular basis? Do they have an alternative proposal to allieviate the obvious congestion at this stop? All I've seen in this thread so far is references to the homeless people as a reason to object to this proposal. What, and where, is the counter proposal ? Is the increased access to the station needed? I happen to think so especially if it comes down to a safety issue. What do the working people who actually use the station think? Someone mentioned the landmark issue in an earlier post. I highly doubt that a NYC landmark law would trump a public safety issue in any court and if the were to throw ADA accessibility into the mix I would guess that federal law would trump all. Therefore I think that "landmark" and "homelessness" are red herrings thrown into mix for arguments sake and hold no merit as the lawyers and judges would probably say. Maybe we forum members should try to judge this particular PROPOSAL on it's merits and it's effect on the community as a whole. I've seen arguments about the homeless, charity, class warfare, Fifth Avenue, Park Avenue, Park Avenue South, Brighton Beach, express buses, and what have you, but if overcrowding IS a problem at this station how do we propose to correct it? The (MTA)'s way or some other method? What do you, as a forum member think? Maybe there is some fall-back compromise position out there. How about it? Carry on. THANK YOU. The voice of reason speaks again. The actual purpose of this hearing was to solicit feedback from the neighborhood on this generally supported (by the neighborhood) idea. Meaning it was to discuss what the concerns of the neighborhood as a whole would be about this measure and the proposed entrance. Things like: what should the entrance look like? Which way should it face? While construction is ongoing, what are the major concerns? How should the construction take place to minimize inconvenience to those who use the station on a daily basis? NOT to get complete opposition to the entire project on the faulty logic of baseless, elitist claims designed to stop all improvement, by a very small wealthy minority that sees its "prestige" being tarnished because of a poor people mover entrance on their block. None of the elitists - the ones in that meeting nor the ones here in this thread - have suggested any feasible alternative solutions that meet the original intended purpose of the project - which is to improve customer flow and provide ADA accessibility at the station within a specific timeframe without expensive capital construction (sorry Wallyhorse, just not feasible) that would serve no purpose except to placate the interests of a wealthy minority with public funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted October 12, 2011 Share #205 Posted October 12, 2011 Are you illiterate or just insistent on repeating the same wrong thing over and over again? What part of "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF UPPER EAST SIDERS - THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF A VERY SMALL, RICH MINORITY THAT NEVER USES THE SUBWAY - WHICH IS NOT INDICATIVE AT ALL OF THE UES" do you not understand???? Yeah, according to you they don't, but that doesn't mean its so just because you say so. No need to shout. We get it. You have a problem with affluent folks and anytime they complain they're automatically elitists and snobs. You still didn't answer my question though. I asked you since when was it a crime to be a white wealthy old woman in this country? I didn't know that was a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted October 12, 2011 Share #206 Posted October 12, 2011 Are you illiterate or just insistent on repeating the same wrong thing over and over again? What part of "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF UPPER EAST SIDERS - THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF A VERY SMALL, RICH MINORITY THAT NEVER USES THE SUBWAY - WHICH IS NOT INDICATIVE AT ALL OF THE UES" do you not understand???? Yeah, according to you they don't, but that doesn't mean its so just because you say so. No need to shout. We get it. You have a problem with affluent folks and anytime they complain they're automatically elitists and snobs. You still didn't answer my question though. I asked you since when was it a crime to be a white wealthy old woman in this country? I didn't know that was a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted October 12, 2011 Share #207 Posted October 12, 2011 It's not and has never been a crime to be affluent, but being affluent does not mean you you have the final say in ANYTHING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted October 12, 2011 Share #208 Posted October 12, 2011 It's not and has never been a crime to be affluent, but being affluent does not mean you you have the final say in ANYTHING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #209 Posted October 12, 2011 Yeah, according to you they don't, but that doesn't mean its so just because you say so. No need to shout. We get it. You have a problem with affluent folks and anytime they complain they're automatically elitists and snobs. You still didn't answer my question though. I asked you since when was it a crime to be a white wealthy old woman in this country? I didn't know that was a crime. Show me where I specifically and explicitly stated that it was a "crime" and then I will answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #210 Posted October 12, 2011 Yeah, according to you they don't, but that doesn't mean its so just because you say so. No need to shout. We get it. You have a problem with affluent folks and anytime they complain they're automatically elitists and snobs. You still didn't answer my question though. I asked you since when was it a crime to be a white wealthy old woman in this country? I didn't know that was a crime. Show me where I specifically and explicitly stated that it was a "crime" and then I will answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #211 Posted October 12, 2011 It's not and has never been a crime to be affluent, but being affluent does not mean you you have the final say in ANYTHING Precisely. Especially when your opinion, regardless of affluence, runs counter the general consensus of the neighborhood. Affluence is no reason to suddenly give more weight to the contrarian position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Share #212 Posted October 12, 2011 It's not and has never been a crime to be affluent, but being affluent does not mean you you have the final say in ANYTHING Precisely. Especially when your opinion, regardless of affluence, runs counter the general consensus of the neighborhood. Affluence is no reason to suddenly give more weight to the contrarian position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted October 12, 2011 Share #213 Posted October 12, 2011 Are you illiterate or just insistent on repeating the same wrong thing over and over again? What part of "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF UPPER EAST SIDERS - THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF A VERY SMALL, RICH MINORITY THAT NEVER USES THE SUBWAY - WHICH IS NOT INDICATIVE AT ALL OF THE UES" do you not understand???? Exactly. Even on that block in question, I'm sure there are people (probably also "affluent") who support the new entrance, but they're not being heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted October 12, 2011 Share #214 Posted October 12, 2011 Are you illiterate or just insistent on repeating the same wrong thing over and over again? What part of "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF UPPER EAST SIDERS - THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF A VERY SMALL, RICH MINORITY THAT NEVER USES THE SUBWAY - WHICH IS NOT INDICATIVE AT ALL OF THE UES" do you not understand???? Exactly. Even on that block in question, I'm sure there are people (probably also "affluent") who support the new entrance, but they're not being heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted October 12, 2011 Share #215 Posted October 12, 2011 Freaking NIMBYs. Build the entrance. It will help wheelchair bound individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted October 12, 2011 Share #216 Posted October 12, 2011 Freaking NIMBYs. Build the entrance. It will help wheelchair bound individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted October 13, 2011 Share #217 Posted October 13, 2011 Just put the entrance somewhere else then. There was a lawsuit over entrances for the proposed Second Avenue Subway on 86th Street because one building didn't want them on both sides of it but you don't hear about that. I don't agree with what they say about ADA and being a charade, but if they're willing to put up a fight then it's not worth it, and the MTA should just build the entrance elsewhere. IDIOTS if you don't want transit move to upstate NY or Montana or Georgia this is NYC STFU NIMBY TRASH!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted October 13, 2011 Share #218 Posted October 13, 2011 Just put the entrance somewhere else then. There was a lawsuit over entrances for the proposed Second Avenue Subway on 86th Street because one building didn't want them on both sides of it but you don't hear about that. I don't agree with what they say about ADA and being a charade, but if they're willing to put up a fight then it's not worth it, and the MTA should just build the entrance elsewhere. IDIOTS if you don't want transit move to upstate NY or Montana or Georgia this is NYC STFU NIMBY TRASH!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 13, 2011 Share #219 Posted October 13, 2011 ADA accessability is a must when a subway station is next to a FOUR YEAR COLLEGE!. A college! Residents just wanna complain to complain and then when they get eldery they'll wonder why didnt the MTA add elevators. And if anyone want to say, "well it IS their neighborhood", remember this, the subway was there LOOOONG before any of them were born. They worry about crime< good! Ask for more of a police presence. Thats what they are there for! otherwise, dont complain when you take 10 mins to leave the station or cant even walk up or down the stairs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 13, 2011 Share #220 Posted October 13, 2011 ADA accessability is a must when a subway station is next to a FOUR YEAR COLLEGE!. A college! Residents just wanna complain to complain and then when they get eldery they'll wonder why didnt the MTA add elevators. And if anyone want to say, "well it IS their neighborhood", remember this, the subway was there LOOOONG before any of them were born. They worry about crime< good! Ask for more of a police presence. Thats what they are there for! otherwise, dont complain when you take 10 mins to leave the station or cant even walk up or down the stairs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted October 13, 2011 Share #221 Posted October 13, 2011 ADA accessability is a must when a subway station is next to a FOUR YEAR COLLEGE!. A college! Residents just wanna complain to complain and then when they get eldery they'll wonder why didnt the MTA add elevators. And if anyone want to say, "well it IS their neighborhood", remember this, the subway was there LOOOONG before any of them were born. They worry about crime< good! Ask for more of a police presence. Thats what they are there for! otherwise, dont complain when you take 10 mins to leave the station or cant even walk up or down the stairs! They're not saying they don't want to add elevators or whatever, just not on their block. Why can't the MTA just add them on 67th Street or 70th Street? Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted October 13, 2011 Share #222 Posted October 13, 2011 ADA accessability is a must when a subway station is next to a FOUR YEAR COLLEGE!. A college! Residents just wanna complain to complain and then when they get eldery they'll wonder why didnt the MTA add elevators. And if anyone want to say, "well it IS their neighborhood", remember this, the subway was there LOOOONG before any of them were born. They worry about crime< good! Ask for more of a police presence. Thats what they are there for! otherwise, dont complain when you take 10 mins to leave the station or cant even walk up or down the stairs! They're not saying they don't want to add elevators or whatever, just not on their block. Why can't the MTA just add them on 67th Street or 70th Street? Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 13, 2011 Share #223 Posted October 13, 2011 They're not saying they don't want to add elevators or whatever, just not on their block. Why can't the MTA just add them on 67th Street or 70th Street? Problem solved. the station is from 67th st to 69th st. and its not that easy to just change construction plans. maybe 69th is the most feasible and cost effective. maybe theres something about 67th thats blocking. like zoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 13, 2011 Share #224 Posted October 13, 2011 They're not saying they don't want to add elevators or whatever, just not on their block. Why can't the MTA just add them on 67th Street or 70th Street? Problem solved. the station is from 67th st to 69th st. and its not that easy to just change construction plans. maybe 69th is the most feasible and cost effective. maybe theres something about 67th thats blocking. like zoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted October 13, 2011 Share #225 Posted October 13, 2011 Actually, I believe 68th Street's entrance is closer to the south end of the station. It's not like 77th or 86th where it's actually in the middle. That's why I brought up 70th as an option if it became necessary. Option 2 would be to have the entrance on Lexington between 69th and 70th, as far north as you can go without having to extend the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.