in any case, it’s obvious that the 2nd Ave Subway is New York City’s Big Dig. question is — do u want to make the project work, and is it possible to turn around?

the Big Dig was always a horrific idea — its value was never clear. the 2nd Ave Subway, on the other hand, has clear value — even among critics.

so — is it possible to turn the project around? well, no. but can it eventually reach completion? maybe. it’s worth a shot.

as others have pointed out, we should not be looking to give up at the first or even the twentieth sign of trouble. if we want a decent future for our kids and grandkids, then we have to stop being so selfish and start taking the long term view of things — 50 years out, 100 years out, etc.

we can wait ten years. no big deal. we shouldn’t have to, and we should work to remedy the situation as much as possible, but 10 years is nothing, if it’s the right thing to do, and it is.

is it possible to get accountability for such a large project? at this point, it’s obvious that answer is ‘probably not’. but we can still march on.

so, what can be done to get some accountability for the project? a special watchdog group? got me.

if u want to bail on the underground transit, then at least give new yorkers a decent way to travel — start promoting surface rail – light rail, trams, etc. streets are getting ripped up anyways, so why not? new york needs some trams.

http://www.vision42.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Railways

Just count the number of subway trains (which carry about 1000 people at capacity at rush hour) on the Lex line between Bowling Green and 125th Street and get the equivalent in bicycles and other personal vehicles and set aside safe places to use them; especially, on cycle tracks straight down the center of some of the broad avenues.

Central Park is available immediately!

Bloomberg and Sadik-Khan have already proven that doesn’t make sense to be inhibited about doing the right thing.

Bus rapid transit is legacy technology which works under the old concept of moving a lot of people by packing them sardine-like into large vehicles.

Most people can move themselves much better on bikes, trikes, (including ebikes and etrikes), Segways etc. Preventing cars, trucks, and buses from killing them is the first big step.

One proposal that had a lot of support from the suburbs, during the consideration of alternatives, was eliminating #4 and $5 service in the Bronx and upper Manhattan, and having the express trains just shuttle suburbanites from Grand Central and Atlantic Terminal to Lower Manhattan, pushing city residents to other “under-utilized” lines.

I’m not kidding.

Transfer the funds from the bloated Pentagon-Pentagram military budgets- that’s what transportation groups would call for if they were truly progressive!

If Russianoff knew that cutting the fare steeply relative to inflation (as he advocated for successfully) would mean cancelling expansion projects and allowing the system to deteriorate, why didn’t he say so at the time?

I said so at the time.

Are we not talking about a $700 billion – $1.2 TRILLION bailout of Wall Street? Will we not we not have spent as much on a pointless war in Iraq?

It is not a lack of money, it is an abject failure of leadership and a failure of vision.

We’re going to have a new President and a new congress in a couple of months. Let’s put our energies into thinking big and demanding that our leadership prioritize transit spending. It is all about priorities. I simply do not accept that we can’t afford to make these improvements.

We can’t afford not to!

Call your reps in Congress and tell them that $700 billion would be better spent on infrastructure than on Wall Street bailouts.

With the city already on board with Select Bus Service, and with the MTA cutting capital projects, struggling to maintain existing infrastructure, and pondering cuts in service, is it time to consider shifting capital resources toward a true BRT network?

Yes, shift capital resources toward a true BRT network from boondoggles like “Moynihan West” as currently conceived, the #7 extension to the Javits Center, the Stewart Airport rail link and the Lower Manhattan JFK rail project. No, please do not shift resources away from the Second Avenue Subway.

Do drivers have to choose whether to do without either streets or highways? No, they feel both are integral parts of their transportation system.

Maybe we should raise our expectations and think that way ourselves.

We are faced with the dire dilemma, forecast some years back by Gene Russianoff, of the system expansion posed against the “core” capital program. That core program — new buses and subways, rebuilt and modernized tracks, signals and stations — is what keeps transit from breaking down from wear and tear.

So really, it should be considered part of operating costs, right?

On the subject of buses without trolley poles, I was thinking about the other big bus story today, about the humungous fuel costs. When I first heard that I thought, “at least the subway runs on electric power.” Until you can find a cost-effective replacement for low-sulfur diesel, replacing a subway project with a BRT project means much higher operating costs.

I agree with Ben, if any project were to be put on hold for another option, it should be the 7 line, especially in light of Bloomberg’s disastrous plan to scrap the second cavern station in the plan.

With the Bush administration openly advocating a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street (which is a horrible plan), I have a different idea. How about a modern WPA program for rebuilding our local mass transit, inter-city rail, clean energy and communications infrastructure?

Tough times are the time when fiscal stimulus can carry the biggest wallop. Look around our city and you can see the lasting, tangible legacy of FDR’s job creation programs. $700 billion for Wall Street? Hell no! $700 billion for infrastructure spending? Now you’ve got my attention.

Now is not the time to be cutting back or cutting corners on infrastructure spending. Unlike other forms of spending, infrastructure pays dividends in enhanced growth and higher standards of living for decades.

It’s undeniably true that the city needs more subway lines to shuttle service off of the overcrowded lines. While some of that added service would probably be put to better use in non-transit accessible areas in the outer boroughs, the SAS serves a valuable purpose.

As for the argument about BRT, I think the issue here is enforcement. Until the city is willing to build physically separated BRT lanes and has the power – thanks, David Gantt – to enforce the bus-only lanes, BRT will never achieve its potential. Unlike in Bogota, where they were able to build BRT lanes in wide boulevards, New York’s avenues are relatively narrow, and enforcement will remain an issue until the city is willing to do something about it in what would come across as a heavy-handed way. Of course it would be better than a new subway, but it has to be just as fast and able to meet the passenger demands of a ten-car train that runs every 5-8 minutes.

Thankfully the Select Bus Service is off to a decent start and is being well-received. That means off-board fare collection is possible in NYC and should be explored further, along with some other amenities.

But let’s not kid ourselves with what is really possible in NYC with surface buses. Much improvement, yes. Capacity to rival the subway? No.