Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Joe R.

    Part of the idea here is also to make transit for Queens trips better. A grid of N-S trains connecting to E-W trains could facilitate that. Transit for Queens trips is at present lousy because most of the time that transit is bus. Bus is slow and uncomfortable compared to rail. A lot of drivers who wouldn’t even think of taking a bus will use a subway. The usual ways to make buses faster, like bus lanes, are often opposed by drivers. With subways there is really no such downside. You’re not taking away lanes or parking. Then you also have the fact subways usually keep running in weather which brings surface streets to a standstill.

    Note that it doesn’t take all that many cars to congest streets. It’s true a minority drive all the way into Manhattan from points east. But it’s still enough to significantly increase traffic at points in between. That’s traffic which could largely go away with better subway service to Manhattan. Once we do that, we can start tackling the intra Queens trips. We can’t make it feasible for everyone who drives to jobs in Queens to take transit, but if we can get 50% on transit that’s another big traffic reduction. The idea is to use more carrot than stick to get people out of their cars, at least in the beginning.

  2.  

    The Overhead Wire

    This is part of what Yonah and I discussed in the podcast last week. Are streetcars/lightrail/urbanrail or whatever you call them viewed in a pure transportation mode sense or are they viewed as a way to switch over land uses with an acceptable carrot. This is a perfect example of that since from all I’ve seen it looks like a way to get in behind zoning changes to get more development, affordable housing or otherwise.

  3.  

    ahwr

    https://www.docdroid.net/n3K8zmu/acs-14-5yr-s0802.pdf.html

    I can’t seem to get a pdf with all the columns on one page so the transit is cut off and listed below, but if you go to the census factfinder site you can get that if you want. Transit is used by ~35% of commuters in your zip. Most drive or carpool. Almost half overall work in Queens. A bit more than a quarter of transit commuters worked in Queens. Transit to Manhattan might not be great, but it’s worse for lots of intra Queens trips. Especially off hours. People who drive to work are less likely to leave during the 6-9am peak than those who take transit. Making transit to Manhattan better isn’t enough to get people to give up their cars. Notice that almost 85% of those who take transit to work live in a household with at least one vehicle. Improving transit to Manhattan can appeal to people who won’t necessarily support anything that makes driving for other trips more difficult. Whether it’s your proposals to reduce car usage or the added traffic and parking trouble that comes from increased density.

  4.  

    Joe R.

    I think the issue here is more the number of potential users than anything else. Had this been in an area with heavy foot traffic, I’m sure an elevator would have been seriously considered. As things stand now, suppose you go through the expense of building an elevator ($1 million+ easily with today’s inflated construction costs), and you get two people a day who actually use it. Now assume the elevator lasts 25 years before needing replacement. $40K per year plus ongoing maintenance costs to serve under 1,000 users annually. That’s not a good use of limited city funds. And then you have the fact this is NYC, with its wonderful track record of maintaining things. I’ll bet the elevator would be out of service 300 out of 365 days.

    ADA requirements were well-meaning but really more suited to a world where we have virtually unlimited funding for capital projects. Building expensive accommodations which might only serve a tiny number of people means those funds can’t be used elsewhere. Even in really dense areas, it seems these things don’t get much use. For example, I’ve never once seen the elevator at the Main Street subway station being used by anyone.

  5.  

    Joe R.

    I kind of agree but we should have at least put in a ramp.

  6.  

    Joe R.

    Zip is 11365. I’m pretty sure a majority here take public transit to work. As for concerns about a subway, a lot of those complaints seem nonapplicable here. There were concerns about people driving to the last stop on the line, parking, and taking the train in. If NYC did things right, any new subway line or extension would end at, or even slightly past, city limits.

    For a lot of them their parents didn’t buy the house in the ~50s, they chose the suburban style much more recently. If they wanted to live in a denser area they would have moved to one instead. They might not like it if their neighborhood changes.

    If anything I tend to think those who have lived here for decades might object more to changes than those who moved here recently. Most of the people here moved to the area in the last 20 years. By then there was already considerable infill development compared to when I moved here in 1978. If they really wanted a suburban type atmosphere, they probably would have chosen east of Springfield Blvd.

    Not sure there’s many people left whose parents bought houses here in the 1950s. Given the way housing prices are, most of those who inherited a house from their parents likely would have sold it.

    No subway project will be built east of the Van Wyck unless it comes with a significant increase in density. Your car free fantasy won’t be a part of the transit expansion. The streets will be far more crowded.

    This is interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/nyregion/12traffic.html?_r=0

    When plotted on a map, the data make a striking picture, showing that some of the densest concentrations of auto commuters are from the outer fringes of Queens and Brooklyn, where access to subways is limited.

    It makes some sense that this is the case. We seem to have a lot of through traffic during the day, mostly people coming from the east. I can’t help but think if we make commuting into Manhattan by subway viable for these people peak traffic levels will drop significantly. Subway service isn’t going to impact those who drive on local errands much, but then again I won’t expect it to. It may or may not reduce the numbers who drive to jobs in Queens. I think if we also add significant N-S service to the E-W extensives we could cut into that number a bit.

    I’ve been in lots of neighborhoods. Those with subway service seem to have less traffic on off-peak hours than my neighborhood, other than Manhattan which seems congested nearly all the time. So I’m skeptical subway service would make traffic worse even with density increases. It might not be much better, either. The general trend though is fewer people driving to work, so long term we might see significant traffic reductions everywhere. NYC needs to have a citiwide policy in place to discourage auto use. Congestion is costing us big time.

  7.  

    AnoNYC

    Does anyone know if the pay-by-phone meter system will enable variable pricing?

  8.  

    bolwerk

    Totally. It’ll probably hit prices a little, and most of that would be a herd reaction.

  9.  

    ahwr

    Seriously, why would any of my neighbors complain about transit improvements like that?

    The same reasons that were used to block connecting the 63rd street tunnel subway to the montauk line in the 80s, extending the astoria line to LGA and SE queens extensions in the 90s.

    Many of your neighbors like where they live and don’t want it to change.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/boroughs/reaction-mixed-call-subway-extension-article-1.830049

    “People who live here want a suburban-type atmosphere. A subway in the
    neighborhood brings a lot of negatives,” said City Councilwoman Juanita
    Watkins (D-Laurelton)

    “Why dig up a lovely community? We have a tranquil area. I like it like that and so do the residents.”

    The streets here are horribly crowded.

    No subway project will be built east of the Van Wyck unless it comes with a significant increase in density. Your car free fantasy won’t be a part of the transit expansion. The streets will be far more crowded.

    Life will also be much easier for those who current take public transit to Manhattan

    Most in your neighborhood don’t work in Manhattan. Don’t know your zip, but in much of Queens east of the Van Wyck the majority drive to work. For a lot of them their parents didn’t buy the house in the ~50s, they chose the suburban style much more recently. If they wanted to live in a denser area they would have moved to one instead. They might not like it if their neighborhood changes.

  10.  

    sbauman

    Have you considered the following?

    There are 20 L Trains crossing into Manhattan during the peak hour. Somehow, these 20 train sets must be matched by 20 additional train sets on the alternate routes. Except for people who can walk to Bwy-Jct, Myrtle-Wyckoff or Lorimer, these people will now require 2 train sets instead of the previous single train set.

    MTA policy has been to equalize rush hour loads throughout the system. There isn’t much unused capacity on the A/C/J/M/Z rush hour trains to absorb more than the current passenger load without more trains. Running the L Train between Canarsie and Bedford Ave would free up 5 of the 24 train sets required during the morning rush hour. That still leaves about 15 trains sets to find for the peak hour.

    Most systems have 20% or more spares available. NYCT is efficient in its rolling stock use. It operates with only 16% spares. The downside for this efficiency is that it lacks the capability to operate more trains than it currently does during the peak period.

    There’s no point if hoping the cavalry will arrive with new rail cars. The delivery of new R-179 cars is in limbo because of Bombardier’s impending bankruptcy. In the meantime, current peak hour schedules are dependent on the continued use of the 222 remaining R-32 cars. These were delivered in 1964 and have survived over 50 years of MTA maintenance.

  11.  

    JK

    Supporters of this project need to keep in mind that Tax Increment Financing or value capture doesn’t mean free. The “free” money is solely from the increase in property value due solely to the creation of the new streetcar. Otherwise, this is property tax revenue that would go to the general fund for schools, police, fire etc. As Ben Fried has pointed out, the value of the land in this corridor has skyrocketed over the last decade, and there has already been a ton of development. This matters because the research on TIFs is very mixed, and it remains unclear if they promote growth, or are viable only in places that were already growing. Point is, it is way too early to claim this project will come at no cost to tax payers.

  12.  

    Jeremy Miller

    Seriously…I just moved here from NYC, and it amazes me how every main street is way too wide and every side street is about 4 feet too narrow. I assume there’s some changes that need to be made to deal with earthquakes and such, but even still the roads just seem so poorly designed.

  13.  

    bolwerk

    Hmm, have you looked at Pedestrian Observations? https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/construction-costs-and-perceptions/

    If Prague isn’t already mentioned somewhere on his site, the editor of that blog might be interested.

  14.  

    bolwerk

    Density won’t follow transit if it’s banned.

    Also, though I like your thinking about distance, you might want to consider the way a person interacts with a subway or transit line can probably change a lot from location to location even if the distance to a stop is similar. If you live at Fulton Street in Manhattan, you can easily fan to nearly every point in Manhattan no matter what your destination is. Okay, so, the subway is quick ride for going to lunch, going to work, going to the doctor, going out to a bar, going to a play, even going to Penn Station, going to GCT, hipstering it up in Billyburg, etc..

    Living near Lorimer or something is already different. Not really in a bad way per se, but you probably walk to go to a restaurant or only go straight from work, avoid going uptown as much because of transfer penalties, maybe limit subway usage to work and special occasions.

    Living in the Rockaways, the subway is a real chore but might be your only way to work.

  15.  

    BBnet3000

    When I say bike/ped path, I mean it. I’m talking about taking all available sidewalk and buffer space and combining it into a path shared by bikes and peds, similar perhaps to the narrowest part of the Budnick Bikeway on Sands Street in Brooklyn.

    Given the potential narrowness, a better comparison might be to the bikeway leading from Prospect Park to Ft. Hamilton Parkway in Brooklyn (which ironically is next to a single 15+ foot auto lane):

  16.  

    BBnet3000

    I may have spoke too soon about the width and configuration, though I still think having 10 feet to work with would be a typical configuration.

    As for the narrowest bits: if they can do a section of 5′ bidirectional multi-use path on the East River Esplanade, I don’t see why they couldn’t do it here. That’s paralleled by usable streets, but this provides basic connectivity across a huge barrier.

  17.  

    Dr. Bones

    I’m not convinced. There’s no shoulder. And there are multiple gratings that munch up the road and bicycle spokes, three feet out from the curb …in other words they double as self perpetuating pothole/bicycle deathtraps as they get bigger and deeper the longer time passes. But if someone did manage to pull this off, and create a semi protected bike lane on each side, I’d be for that, but STILL…parks are also for bikes. We deserve to have a way to cross the park INSIDE the park, and enjoy the park just like everyone else. They are created for everyone’s enjoyment, especially such a big park as Central Park with so much space and so many miles of pedestrian pathways.

  18.  

    Toddster

    People already considering a move, may move to other areas, but I think the impact on the housing market overall will be fairly minimal. Assuming it’s a one year total shut down, it can easily take a month if not two to find, secure and move into a new apartment, especially in this city. Add the cost and the stress of a move, most people not already considering a move for other reasons will probably opt to stay put and find alternatives.

    For new residents who might have normally considered these areas: again assuming it’s a one year total shut down, one year isn’t very long in the housing industry. Apartments already under construction will continue construction. Most landlords probably prefer to rent for less than collect no rent on a construction site. New developments, not yet announced or planned, will continue to be built during the shut down too because the construction process takes so long they will come on line when the L is running again.

  19.  

    BrandonWC

    Do they really have that much room? Using the tape measure on google maps, it looks to me like the 79th and 85th St transverses get down to 25′ in places. A 5′ lane plus 2′ barrier on each side would leave 11′ for two-way car traffic. A narrow two-way barrier-protected path on one side would still take minimum 10′. I think you’d need to rip out the mostly useless sidewalks on both sides, which wouldn’t be the end of the world since they’re mostly useless, but it would take a capital project.

  20.  

    Toddster

    Great analysis, but busses would not have to transport the entirety of all L riders current;y going under the river. Come doomsday, it’s probably safe to assume almost all people from Myrtle Wyckoff east will transfer to the A/C/J/M/Z. A large portion of people at Dekalb and Jefferson may prefer to back ride to Myrtle for the M as well, maybe even people as far as Morgan. I would assume people living near Lorimer would also defect to the G. That’s close to two thirds of the line finding other means into the city. Granted the third of stations that must still rely on the L and busses are some of the more heavily used stops, some of them still will find other ways. I would reduce your ridership estimate by 60-70%. While still a feat, a substantially more manageable feat. There will always have to be a bus(s) boarding if not only because there isn’t enough space for a train load of people to wait on a sidewalk, but again, loading 3 busses simultaneously it much easier and realistic than 11.

  21.  

    sbauman

    Two shortcoming in the criterion for “underserved neighborhoods” is the density requirement and no distance measure from the nearest station. An area that is between 1/2 and 1 mile from a subway entrance is better served than one that is more than 2 miles from one.

    I’ve divided NYC as follows. Those who live within 1/2 mile of a subway entrance would walk to it. They comprise 75% of the population. Those who live between 1/2 and 2 miles from a subway entrance take a bus or could bike to the subway. They comprise 19% of the population. The remaining 6% are truly underserved by public transit. Bus rides to the subway are lengthy. The only way to serve these areas is to extend the rail network. Doing so would also bring the 19% of the population who live between 1/2 and 2 miles from a subway entrance closer to one.

    I believe the density requirement is a red herring. Density will follow transit. All one has to do is look at photos from when the system was extended into the outer boroughs between 1915 and 1920.

    How do NYCDOT’s enumerated “underserved neighborhoods” measure up?
    1. All of the Webster/3rd Ave Corridor is between 1/2 and 1 mile of a subway entrance. NYCDOT’s map is a bit misleading because includes Bronx Park within its circle.
    2. The section of Soundview shown in NYCDOT’s map is within 2 miles of a subway stop. The Throggs Neck section is beyond 2 miles from a subway stop. It was not circled because it lacks the required density.
    3. LaGuardia-East Elmhurst area lies within 1.5 miles of a subway entrance.
    4. The Middle Village also lies within 1.5 miles of a subway entrance.
    5. The “Main St-Utopia Blvd Corridor” displays NYCDOT’s ignorance regarding eastern Queens. The street’s name is Utopia Parkway. The circled area is within 2 miles of a subway entrance. Northeast Queens was not circled and lies beyond 2 miles of a subway station.
    6. Approximately half Jamaica Ave Corridor circled area is within 2 miles of a subway entrance. The eastern portion is beyond 2 miles. Left out is the area north of the Jamaica Ave Corridor and east of the Main St-Utopia Pkwy Corridor. It would be better named a Union Tpk or LIE corridor. It’s not mentioned because of the density criterion.
    7. There is much more to Southeast Queens than the circled corridor. The circled area is within 2 miles of a subway entrance. The communities of St. Albans, Laurelton and Rosedale are beyond 2 miles from a subway entrance. They were not captured because of the density criterion.
    8, 9. The only area of Brooklyn that lies beyond 2 miles from a subway entrance is Mill Basin. The Utica Ave Corridor (8) lies mostly within 1.5 miles of a subway entrance. The Nostrand Ave Corridor (9) lies within 1 mile of a subway entrance.

  22.  

    AnoNYC

    I wish the traverses were bus only with two-way physically separated bicycle lanes.

    A taste of BRT.

  23.  

    BBnet3000

    The transverses are not and will NEVER be a safe way for bikes to cross the park.

    Never say never. While not an ideal solution, they most certainly have room for a 5′ jersey barrier protected bike/ped path on each side. They could probably go to 7′ if they narrow the lanes.

    It should have been done years ago and should most certainly be done now that Citibike is coming to the UES and UWS.

  24.  

    Richard Garey

    Agreed. The Bronx is the geographic hub of the Northeast.

  25.  

    Bernard Finucane

    In LA you should half the width of the city streets first and ask questions later.

  26.  

    AnoNYC

    I wouldn’t even say that the transportation problems in the Bronx do not affect the powers that be. We live in an interconnected city, in an interconnected metro, in an interconnected region.

    Pollution, congestion, the costs of maintaining roads, the lost revenue from autocentric uses of space, the detrimental effects on public health and the social well being of the community. All of these factors cannot remain hidden under the rug. They will not and have not.

    Failure to invest appropriately in the Bronx has bitten the entire region in the ass and officials are only beginning to realize the implications of such inaction.

  27.  

    Marek B.

    The costs for a project are completely crazy. I’m from Prague, Czech Rep. and we have built a new 4 miles long deep-bore subway line with 4 stations for just $0,83B. That means we yould build 12 miles of subway for the cost of your planned streetcar. I really don’t understand the difference, we have to pay for the same things, as you have to.

  28.  

    Joe R.

    Yes, the railroads can fill in a lot of gaps if they go to fare parity with the subways within city limits (and also have free transfers to/from buses and subways). Ideally, you should be able to pay the same fare within city limits and ride whatever combination of modes serves you best. Obviously at $6 a ride, plus subway fare if the railroad can’t get you close to your destination, not a whole lot of people are interested in using the railroads.

    Add in sending a QB local to QC, maybe a bit further east to the Pomonok project or the shopping district on 188 and you fill in the densely developed subway gaps in that part of Queens rather nicely.

    Yes, that would fill in one of the gaps nicely. Probably if you bother building it then I’d say it makes sense to go at least to Springfield Boulevard. That’s where the density really starts dropping. Probably not enough ridership to justify 4 tracks (local/express) but I can dream.

    How many of your neighbors would support the changes this transit investment would bring?

    I would imagine many of them would. The streets here are horribly crowded. Commutes within the area often aren’t viable except by car but driving is slow and stressful. N-S train service, along with much better E-W service, could change that. Life will also be much easier for those who current take public transit to Manhattan but now must take a slow feeder bus to the subway. I don’t commute but I would welcome the decreased journey times. For example, a subway stop on 164th would probably be about 8 minutes travel time to Forest Hills, assuming it’s a local with stops every half mile or so. That shaves about 15 minutes off the normal bus travel times. If we made this a local/express route, and could route the expresses right on to the QB line at Forest Hills, then once I get a train I’m in Manhattan in about 22 minutes. If CBTC shaves a few minutes off the running time from Forest Hills to Queens Plaza, it might be more like 18 or 19 minutes. That’s huge. Now at best it takes me 35 minutes to get to Manhattan. That’s if the bus runs great and I don’t have long waits. 45 to 50 minutes is more usual. Seriously, why would any of my neighbors complain about transit improvements like that?

  29.  

    bolwerk

    Serfs is the wrong word. Serfs worked all day. Even the lowly cotters.

    These are the lumpen.

  30.  

    Richard Garey

    Agreed 100%. Building over the Harlem Line right of way would be so easy it’s ridiculous. It could be a bus, tram, subway, rapid rail, whatever. The Cross-Bronx could also be built over. The problem is that the transit shortcomings in the Bronx do not affect the powers that be. One would think that the fact that the Cross-Bronx is one of the worst bottlenecks in the nation would lead to some sort of transportation planning. NOPE!

  31.  

    Larry Littlefield

    Good article, love the map.

    But the analysis needs to go further. What is the average income in the corridors in orange? How many people there are willing to vote against incumbent politicians, or donate money to incumbent politicians, or vote at all.

    Serfs!

    I’ve got a way to spend much less than $2.5 billion. Build parking garages for bicycles so that those who are more than a half mile walk away from the subway can ride instead. With space for 2,000-plus a pop.

    If the beneficiaries are city employees, maybe the Mayor might get behind it.

    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/02/8590226/de-blasio-wants-slim-city-employees-trim-health-care-costs

  32.  

    Dr. Bones

    Bike lanes that are 2/3rds in the door zone should have those 2/3rds painted bright orange, with the words “door zone” every 15 feet. That way perhaps door openers would start to get the idea that they need to look before opening, and clueless bike riders that hug the parked cars out of fear of the moving traffic would get the idea that this is not actually the safer option.

  33.  

    AnoNYC

    SAS extension into the Bronx via Third Ave would connect an area pretty close to Midtown, with an already dense population and significant redevelopment opportunity.

    The Triboro RX should definitely take precedence before building a street car along the Brooklyn/Queens waterfronts. Without a doubt.

  34.  

    sbauman

    Here are some metrics that any bus substitution plan must address.

    The hourly counts of passengers crossing from Brooklyn to Manhattan on the L train during the 7-10 am period are: 13K; 22K and 16K respectively. That’s a total of 51K passengers or roughly 1000 bus loads in a 3 hour period. The hourly bus counts are: 255; 431 and 314.

    It takes a passenger approximately 3.5 seconds to board a bus without paying. The peak hour boarding time is roughly 21.4 hours (3.5 seconds x 22K passengers). It will take 11 buses boarding simultaneously and continuously at both doors to accomplish this task within one hour.

    The 431 buses per hour and the need for 11 buses boarding simultaneously can be used as a basis for determining the size of the boarding area. The curb space required for 11 buses loading simultaneously exceed that available on Bedford or Driggs Avenues. They will barely fit on the cross street between these two avenues. An alternate loading zone of equal size will be required to ensure continuous loading of 11 buses, while buses are departing. Reserve buses will need a staging area.

    I don’t know what BRT’s full arsenal is. The problem with any grade level lane is cross traffic. This goes for dedicated lanes, as well as shared lanes. Will the BRT routes allow cross traffic, or will barricades be placed to prevent vehicles and pedestrians from crossing these dedicated bus lanes? The former will reduce the bus lane’s capacity by half. The latter wrecks the street grid and thus creates much more congestion.

    How much time would be saved by a center busway on Delancy Street is problematic. Left turns in both directions are not permitted on Delancy between the Clinton (Williamsburg Bridge entrance/exit) and Allen Streets.

    The big delay would be discharging passengers at in the center median for the Delancy-Essex Street Station on the F, M, J and Z lines. The subway entrances are located on the sidewalks. This means the passengers would have to cross Delancy Street with its traffic to transfer to the subway. The other problem is the time it takes to get off a bus. It’s slightly more than boarding time (5.0 vs. 3.5 seconds).

    These are just a couple of problems that the authors have not considered. Any L Train suspension solution must be a 24 hour solution and must also pass a stress test. That stress test is the peak hour flow – 22K people from 8-9 am from Brooklyn to Manhattan.

  35.  

    Dr. Bones

    At 85th and 84th I see lanes that cross the East Side and then empty into the transverse across the park, which is designed for cars and yet is the only legal way for bikes to cross the park.
    On one hand, at least that’s better than the lanes on the West Side that require you to travel several blocks south, with no lane, in heavy traffic, and then a dangerous, crazy turn left among all kinds of competing tonnage, into the east-going transverse, while every fiber in your being is telling you, no, you should not be required to do this unless you enjoy risking your life for the sake of a commute.
    The transverses are not and will NEVER be a safe way for bikes to cross the park.
    And yet, bikes do need to cross the park.
    Bikes deserve safe and legal ways to cross the park. Not just one, at 72nd. We need a number of ways to cross the park,
    These crosstown routes are only partial.
    When will we have a way to do this?
    Just today, I was nearly run down by a tourist bus as I entered the transverse on 86th on the West Side. The driver sped by me and came within 5 inches of me, front to back of the bus as he passed me. I was able to catch up with him at the other end, knock on his window, yell at him, and then pull my bike in front of him while I explained to him that he had almost run over me and that he needed to watch for bike riders. There was a cop car right in front of him.
    He remained calm and just kept making the motion of pointing his two fingers to his eyes and then to me—I guess meaning “you have to look out.” And I kept making the motion of holding my hands five inches apart, meaning “that;s how close you came to killing me.”
    In a way, he’s right, in the sense that bikes do not really belong on those transverses, and of course we have to watch out.
    I just hope it doesn’t take another bicyclist death on these lanes before something gets done.

  36.  

    AnoNYC

    The Bronx needs more than a street car, it needs new rail rapid transit connections along several corridors.

    -Third Ave corridor is underserved with existing high density and potential for significantly more.

    -Lafayette Avenue in Soundview and Castle Hill, a once proposed extension that would serve a dense transit desert.

    -Multiple cross-Bronx lines with connections to Manhattan. E 161st/163rd St, East Tremont Ave, Fordham Rd, perhaps even Gun Hill Rd.

  37.  

    Jules1

    Good point, it is written more like a Sunday Real Estate section piece than a news article.

  38.  

    ahwr

    Right now cycling in places like where I live seems to be on a small enough scale that we can turn a blind eye to sidewalk cycling.

    NYPD already does. When they stop someone riding decently it’s almost always someone they would have wanted to stop anyway.

    If you want the council to take up a bike issue – and there are plenty that they should – this shouldn’t even make the list of things to discuss.

  39.  

    ahwr

    From the top map, subways to serve 3 and 4 were scrapped at least in part by NIMBYs in the 90s and 80s. 6,7 and the north end of 5 already have rail lines running through them. Add infill stations, lower the fare/add transfers and you can improve service cheap.

    As for 5…An early version of air train from LGA to JFK would have run over the VWE/GCP, just missing 5. Also would have charged double if you didn’t get on or off at the airport. Send the air train north from Jamaica under/over main/parsons/kissena to flushing, maybe onto LGA or the Bronx. The air train line needs to be overhauled at some point, include this extension as part of that and integrate it into the subway system. Add in sending a QB local to QC, maybe a bit further east to the Pomonok project or the shopping district on 188 and you fill in the densely developed subway gaps in that part of Queens rather nicely.

    How many of your neighbors would support the changes this transit investment would bring? Assume that most or all of the increase in land values from the investment gets grabbed by the city to pay for the project or subsidize low income housing.

  40.  

    AnoNYC

    -Nice to see the de Blasio rezonings make progress. Not perfect, but progressive.

    -Although it would be cool, even useful to have access to a waterfront streetcar along the Brooklyn and Queens waterfront; I would never support it at this time. That money is much better spent filling mass transportation deserts or increasing capacity along existing overburdened lines. There’s a lot of neighborhoods with even more opportunity for redevelopment that could benefit from improved mass transportation.

    -Do any SBS buses currently have traffic signal synchronization? Are there any plans to bring elevated platforms to bus stops?

    -The Inwood redevelopment is horrid. This is not Long Island. How could any developer want to build parking in that location? A strip mall…

    -Well no sh!t Sherlock @Bratton.

  41.  

    BBnet3000

    Should bike lanes that are 1/2 to 2/3 in the door zone be painted at all?

  42.  

    Joe R.

    I never said it did scale. Shared facilities work fine when the volume of pedestrians and cyclists are both low. That’s currently the case for large parts of the outer boroughs. Should cycling become a lot more popular, then you’re going to need cycling facilities. Right now cycling in places like where I live seems to be on a small enough scale that we can turn a blind eye to sidewalk cycling. Whether or not it’s worth the City Council’s time codifying this into law is a separate matter entirely. If police use common sense discretion enforcing the law then it’s not necessary. Then gain the City Council had time to contemplate giving themselves a ridiculous salary increase, so perhaps they need a few more things to keep them busy. That’s doubly true if the increase passes.

  43.  

    Doug G.

    Painted bike lanes that do not physically change street geometry – the UES lanes would not have affected the number of car lanes or parking spaces – should not have to go before community board for approval. In the Vision Zero age, City Hall needs to work with the City Council to change this process.

    It is simply a waste of people-power to have DOT come back to meeting after meeting to get something as basic as paint on the ground.

  44.  

    AnoNYC

    This is what happens when certain kinds of users are overlooked. It’s too long been culturally acceptable to lack provisions for those with limited mobility. An elevator installed along a stair street is not groundbreaking or elaborate and has already been successfully implemented in locations with similar topography internationally.

    We must design our cities with all users in mind.

  45.  

    Bluewndrpwrmlk96

    Coming from Queens, I’m always looking for a better route to Central Park as I have to ride up 1st Av to the 90s. This is a no-brainer proposal, regardless. DOT, don’t waste your time with the CB, the people will just find more baseless excuses to avoid implementation, even if it has no negative impacts.

  46.  

    Brian Howald

    That point that 72nd Street should present the best opportunity for a road diet and safe crosstown connectivity was made last night by one of the co-chairs of the committee and a few others.

    I must add that although there were the usual NIMBY responses, I was encouraged by the aforementioned chair’s comments in response to residents and other committee members’ comments. Many people said that their narrow streets were congested, somehow full of both speeders and double-parkers, and difficult to live on. His response was that these were problems to tackle, not to throw up our hands in defeat, and since bike lanes have seen significant injury reductions, perhaps they are the solution.

  47.  

    AnoNYC

    The city could remove one of two stairwells available and install a funicular elevator. This should be commonplace citywide.

  48.  

    Alexander Vucelic

    If a 2 Phase plan

    Phase one – immediate painted lanes

    Phase two – protected hike lanes Crosstown p

  49.  

    Alexander Vucelic

    chicago Apparently bans overnight Parking all WINTER

  50.  

    ahwr

    Some cities let people bike on the sidewalk. There are rare injuries, almost always minor. The worst offenders (fastest riders, least considerate of pedestrians) when I’m in west coast cities where it’s permitted are people trying to make a transit connection, not delivery people. While not all that dangerous, it makes walking far more stressful. Instead of conflicts at the occasional intersection conflicts on the sidewalk become continuous. It doesn’t matter if there is a law that says cyclists have to ride at an ill defined appropriate speed, give an audible warning before passing, yield to pedestrians etc… Following those laws makes cycling on the sidewalk too inconvenient when you do so for a mile, as in your scenario, or if the rest of their route was stressful, enforcement is negligible, so many people bike on the sidewalk however they want. Just like people drive however they want, the law be damned. Why discount the stress that results? Cycling in the street is very safe – I’ve often had cyclists point out to me that it’s safer than walking – but there are frequent calls for better accommodations anyway. Given how safe it is it seems the best argument for those accommodations is that cycling with traffic is stressful and at times slow. Should those calls for improved facilities be ignored?

    One bike on an empty sidewalk in eastern Queens late at night isn’t an issue. You think so because you never see conflict. But it doesn’t scale. If there are thousands of people riding like that it produces too much conflict. Want to expand cycling as a mode of transportation? It can’t be done on the sidewalk. Want to carve out an exception in the law that better accommodates your late night hobby? That seems an inappropriate use of the city council’s time.