New Yorkers Split on Strike Blame

BROOKLYN BRIDGE, 7:30am As we enter day 3 of the transit strike, it's a good time to reflect on public opinion. NY media coverage has focused mostly on commuter frustrations and heated words between the heads of the MTA, TWU, Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg (who actually has no control over the MTA). If you were to just watch the local Fox News channel, with their "Illegal Strike" graphics, you would think everyone hates the union and there is no public support for the strike. However, according a new Marist Poll, New Yorkers are actually pretty split about who's to blame for the strike with 39% blaming the MTA vs. 40% for the TWU. As you could imagine, due to the many inconveniences, a majority (55%) of New Yorkers are against the strike, but surprisingly 38% of people actually favor the strike. When broken down on ethnic and racial lines, there is a wide divide between support for the strike between New Yorkers who are white (23%), Latino (44%) and African-American (61%).

While no public official gets high approval rating for their handling of the strike, TWU president Roger Touissaint's approval is 39% vs. 27% for Pataki (who really controls the MTA's board). Bloomberg has a 43% approval rating for the strike.

In general I think this shows that there is little love for the MTA and shows that minority groups have higher support for unions taking action.

Wow! Awesome photo PeakGuy. Is that yours? Look at how many people the pedestrian walkway moves versus how few people the vehicle lanes move. And think of the health of the pedestrians and the particulate matter, carbon monoxide emissions and traffic angst of the motorists.
My sister sent it to me. I have some other great ones that I can send you. Did you see the HUMMER one in one of the previous posts? I thought you might like that.

When we talk about transit, I think the key metric should be throughput - how many people can you transport within a given space. SOVs are a big waste in terms use of public space, while pedestrians, bikers, skaters, and mopeds are much more efficient from a throughput basis as well as when you consider parking issues for both.

Yeah, I thought that HUMMER was ridiculous. I guess they feel bad about sending all that money over to Saudi Arabia, so they put American flags up on the vehicle to make up for it. I thought it was incredibly ironic the other day when the TV screen I was watching in the elevator showed an Iraq war casualty count and a HUMMER commercial side by side.
I'm a proponent of public transport and pedestrian transport, but as a question of efficiency, "how many people can fit on a bridge in cars vs. on foot" is not the right way to put it - time has to be a factor, as in, how many can move across it.  More people can fit on a bridge on foot, but can cars move the same number of people across it faster?  I have no idea.  In heavy traffic, pedestrians would win, unless the great number of walkers makes them walk more slowly (pedestrian traffic)...

Anyway, just thought I'd be annoying and point out a detail.

That's a fair point on speed, but I think you will find that our bridges are much less efficient now versus 1900-1920 (before cars) based on the amount of passengers that make trips across them on a daily basis. Mostly because we took off streetcars and replaced them with less efficient automobiles.
Well, see, now, there you go!