I do not think that North American politicians necessarily lack the political will to do good things, but they are not getting the right incentives!

I've placed a link to your story in Ciudad Posible, a blog about ideas for a city in northern Mexico. Hopefully you wont mind!

http://www.ciudadposible.blogspot.com

Human-scale transport and transit makes good economic sense besides many other things.

Pouring any more funds than absolutely necessary into legacy transportation does not.

In fact subways transport in packets better known as "cattle cars" with a huge amount of overhead. Human-power transit can stream like ants which is a lot more efficient and humane.

Nope. That'd just be a return to the way the bridges worked 100 years ago when their capacity was about triple what it is today.

See page 4:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/preservation/spie1.pdf

The new buses now are probably over a one-half million dollars, which would buy a lot of recumbent hybrid human-electric vehicles with a fraction of the upkeep, much more efficient, and most likely a lot more fun to use.

Maybe, but "opportunity cost" is always an issue. Whenever you get something, there is something else that you didn't get, now or later. Hence my growing interest in modes like bikes and carpools, because the public opportunity cost is very low.

That's the current vision of human-powered and human-scaled transportation. No wonder it is not taken seriously.

Recumbent bicycles and tricycles can probably be configured as such to even have stripped down versions of Aeron chairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeron_chair). Recumbents are also much more aerodynamically efficient where air resistance is the major energy sink in human-scaled vehicles.

One example of very inspiring recumbent tricycles (but, without electric power assist) can be found at: http://www.windcheetah.co.uk/

The developing world uses bicycles because it has no other choice since it does not have the resources. One-half billion cyclists have helped build modern China. In many ways we are starting to get like the impoverished developing world because we waste huge amounts and things have gotten so expensive, complicated, and difficult; it seems pretty clear we really do not have the money for conventional infrastructure any more; as well as the natural environment to destroy.

It is difficult to understand how anything else will work except highly efficient, accessible, and practical human-scale transportation.

Ultimately, human-scale transportation is a direct extension of human self-propulsion making it many times more cost-effective, practical, widely distributed, and on-demand than any other mode.

But most areas of Queens away from the subway are not sense enough to support a rapid transit line, and residents of those areas like it that way, which is why they fought the new line that would have connected to 63rd Street after the MTA was formed.

Yes, and that's why they're fighting congestion pricing: if they had to pay the full costs of that sprawly way of life, they'd be a lot poorer. It's not sustainable, and eventually it will have to be replaced by something that is.

All I'm suggesting is that rather than have the bus drop someone off at a subway further out in Queens, where a long subway ride would probably be followed by a change of trains, that the bus route be extended by a 10 minute busway ride to Long Island City, where a choice of subway lines could allow a ride to a destination without an additional switch.

I guess I'm skeptical about whether such a ride would really be only ten more minutes. Google Maps says it takes 16 minutes to get from 164th and the LIE to Queens Plaza; can anyone confirm that? What kind of traffic does that assume?

If you extend the R instead of the V train to 179th Street, that covers two Manhattan lines; the only lines that you can get at Queens Plaza but not at 169th would be the Eighth Avenue (E) and the 7 (Grand Central). Plus you're much more likely to get a seat if you get on at the beginning of the line than at Queens Plaza.

I just want to point out that these are relatively minor issues. The big point that we all agree on here is that people who live in Eastern Queens need reasonable alternatives to driving. I would be happy to see a busway installed on the LIE, and I'd bet that Larry would be happy to see the subway lines extended.

I'm afraid in NY labor AND capital are expensive. If we get the upper half of the SAS, East Side Access, the Flushing Extension, MetroNorth to Penn, and the new Jersey Tunnel before we reach the point where very last dollar goes to senior citizens (in about 10 years), we will have done well.

We are not Columbia, with very few seniors, all those young people, and a low cost of the labor that is used to produce infrastructure capital (ie. construciton workers). It's our last chance, now if the MTA debts run up in the past 15 years have not already taken it away.

That's why bicycles are making sense to me -- no labor OR capital, just a reallocation of space.

In addition, you need high density to fill a train. Will the density of Queens rise to the level of Manhattan? Then maybe the IND second system would make sense -- if we could afford it. But most areas of Queens away from the subway are not sense enough to support a rapid transit line, and residents of those areas like it that way, which is why they fought the new line that would have connected to 63rd Street after the MTA was formed.

So it's a bicycle or a bus. All I'm suggesting is that rather than have the bus drop someone off at a subway further out in Queens, where a long subway ride would probably be followed by a change of trains, that the bus route be extended by a 10 minute busway ride to Long Island City, where a choice of subway lines could allow a ride to a destination without an additional switch.

There is a turnout past the Roosevelt Avenue stop, supposed to have been the start of a new line in the IND second system, that could be built as an additional terminal for some of the trains.

One more thing, which I couldn't resist: this proposed line, the Winfield Spur, and its connections with the Myrtle/Central Avenue line and the Utica Avenue line, would have allowed Congressman Weiner to get from Metropolitan Avenue and Fresh Pond Road to Middle Village in a more reasonable amount of time than the bus would take today.

I'd have to get the opinion of a dispatcher on this, but my guess is that it would be much easier to have one line continue on and turn two, as opposed to turning all three. If that's too difficult logistically, then how about extending the R to Jamaica Center or 179th? Sending two trains on and turning one should be easier than the situation at Bowling Green.

I still want to see dedicated ROWs on the LIE and Grand Central feeding the V at the 165th Street bus terminal, and eventually extending to the Midtown Tunnel, but extending the V is much more doable in the short term.