Environmentalists Against Mass Transit. Who would have thunk it?

[jbg]

The New York City area, like the Toronto area and most major urban areas, is well overcapacity in terms of automobile traffic. Also, cars contribute greenhouse gases (if you believe in that nonesence, as some who would buy into China's demands that the West cut back emissions 25-40% so it can pollute more [link to article]), so one would think that environmentalists would want people out of their cars and into mass transit. Well, maybe not.

It today's Journal News, it was reported that the same "environmental" coalitions that tried to block the addition of 100 spaces to a 90-space lot back in 1998 are at it again, trying to block the addition of another 108 spaces. Is this advocacy for the environment, or selfish "NIMBY", i.e. "not in my back yard" advocacy? Excerpts below (link to article):

Mount Pleasant plans for more train station parking in Valhalla

By STACY A. ANDERSON

THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: December 5, 2007)

MOUNT PLEASANT - The Town Board wants to increase parking spaces for commuters at the Metro-North Railroad station in Valhalla.

Town Supervisor Robert F. Meehan said the plan was to expand the parking lot farther south along the Taconic State Parkway with 104 more spots.

"The demand for parking spaces (has) exceeded what is there," Meehan said.

The expansion could be a boon for commuters and patrons of the station's restaurant. However, environmental groups oppose it.

****

"This is something we opposed in the past and we are unhappy to hear they are going to do further expanding," said Carolyn Cunningham, a former director for the Federated Conservationists of Westchester County.

The environmental group sued the county and Mount Pleasant after the town first expanded the then-90-space lot by 100 spaces in 1998.

[marcinmoka]

Even more absurd is the environmentalist movement against nuclear power stations.

Ah, the miseries of missing out on the big(ger) picture.

[Michael Hardner]

Speaking of the bigger picture....

The article linked adds this tidbit:

The group claimed the extended lot was built on 1.5 acres that was part of a 98-acre parcel the county bought in 1964 and dedicated for parkland.

It's not clear that this group is against ANY expansion of the parking lot.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Michael Hardner

[jbg]

Speaking of the bigger picture....

The article linked adds this tidbit:

It's not clear that this group is against ANY expansion of the parking lot.

I am familiar with the area. As a practical matter they are. The train station is adjacent the Taconic Parkway. Almost all parkways were originally constructed as leisurely, easy to drive roads though parks, and excluded trucks. The "park" is thus a strop between a few hundred meters and a few kms. wide on each side of the highway. The train tracks, in this case, are about 10 meters from the parkway. Thus, any parking would encroach on "park" land.

Parkways have long sinced ceased being leisure roads, and now have speed limits ranging from 65 km to 90 km. The Taconic Parkway's limit, at that point, is 85 km. It carries a heavy load of commuter traffic to and from New York City and White Plains to points north. In no way does it have the ambience of a park. It is, in practice, one step short of a superhighway (since it does have grade crossings and traffic lights in that small area).

Given that the area is about a 1 1/2 hour drive to New York City during rush hour, and about 50 minutes at other times, anyone using the train station is a car off the road for about 100 km of driving. The "environmental" tradeoff is clear that building the parking benefits the environment.

Similarly, and recently, the leftist governor of New Jersey opposed New York City's imposing congestion pricing, saying there was simply no way for more New Jerseyites to ride mass transit to their jobs in New York City. What he's saying is the suburban voters would not favor huge parking garages built at train stations. The time savings are startling; travel time from Metro Park-Iselin by train is about 38 minutes; by car, about 100 minutes, during rush hour. Corzine is suppose to be a "green", very liberal Democrat. Contrast this article, where Corzine, in signing a bill requiring New Jersey to reduce emissions, "called on individuals to do their share with simple acts like driving less and using mass transit" (link), with his opposition to "congestion pricing" (link) (which I have my own issues with) in neighboring New York City, where many New Jerseyans work:

Congestion pricing (the New York City proposal to charge motorists in certain areas of Manhattan more during rush hour): "I have some concerns about how it would (affect) New Jersey commuters. We don't have the capacity to handle dramatic surges in additional riders on our mass transit system. ...It's an economic hardship. ...We have some real work to do with our neighbors, but we would like to be cooperative."

I detect some cognitive dissonance on this matter. Clearly, Corzine favors his own re-election over the cause of reducing greenhouse gases. Thus, this is not environmentalism; this in "NIMBYism" (not in my back yard).

Edited December 6, 2007 by jbg

[Michael Hardner]

What I see on this thread and others, with respect, is people disbelieving other people and attributing selfish attitudes to them that aren't provable.

[jbg]

What I see on this thread and others, with respect, is people disbelieving other people and attributing selfish attitudes to them that aren't provable.

You've never met these kinds of people?

[Michael Hardner]

I've encountered people like them (you) on forums only.

[Brain Candy]

Even more absurd is the environmentalist movement against nuclear power stations.

Ah, the miseries of missing out on the big(ger) picture.

The bigger picture is the only way to prevent the continuous larger need for more energy, houses and highways is regulation of population growth either through stricter immigration laws or more drastic measures implemented on people allready in 1st world nations. Everything else (aside from developing new, cleaner sources of energy) is just a quick fix for all these problems.

Cancer rates in children higher around nuclear power plant.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Brain Candy

[Oleg Bach]

The bigger picture is the only way to prevent the continuous larger need for more energy, houses and highways is regulation of population growth either through stricter immigration laws or more drastic measures implemented on people allready in 1st world nations. Everything else (aside from developing new, cleaner sources of energy) is just a quick fix for all these problems.

Mass transit is stupid - why transport people who generate no real wealth - and don't tell me that "information technology" is a real and useful job - we have a lot of free time on our hands and fake working at jobs that have no real or true purpose - if you commute by car - your real job is to burn fuel to stimulate the econonmy - that leads to war to stimulate the weapons business and connecting industry - why don't we not transport the people - have 80 stay at home - why not? They are not really doing anything other than clicking at computers. They can do the "pretend to work" thing at home...we have to trim down our work force to those that actually work and put the rest out to pasture - where is it written in stone that all must labour or pretend to...we have slaves in Mexico that supply our food - and slaves in China doing our factory work - how many bean counters do we really need? North America is a managerial office that is over staffed - fire half of them and put them on welfare - the system will still work just fine - and no grid lock...but what will the militiary industrial complex do? Not our problem - fire half of them also.

[gc1765]

Maybe commuters can take mass transit to the train station

[jbg]

Maybe commuters can take mass transit to the train station

Are you responding to the Opening Post?