Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    JudenChino

    This so obvious it’s painful. It’s not as bad as the “well, if you close a street to car traffic that will just jam up the streets around it” fallacy. But you’d think actual traffic engineers should get this one right. The Q70 needs a dedicated freaking lane. It’s an insult and a half to have it wait in regular traffic. Christ. I really am going to just take JFK/EWR for the next 5 years.

  2.  

    AMH

    The first step is to create dedicated bus lanes and HOV restrictions. Then we can talk about the best way to facilitate ride sharing (not ride hailing).

  3.  

    Joe R.

    We should put car pool restrictions in place on every entry point into Manhattan for the duration of the tunnel repair. When people see the world didn’t end because of it, then we might have political support to make such a restriction permanent.

  4.  

    ohnonononono

    The new lane at LGA should AT LEAST be a HOV-3 lane if not an actual bus lane. This mismanagement is making me believe the conspiracy theory that it’s intentional delay to make Cuomo’s stupid AirTrain look like the only solution.

  5.  

    ohnonononono

    That would just shift the gridlock to JFK and EWR, and induce more people to travel further distances to get to those airports. Not really thinking big there…

  6.  

    sbauman

    There’s a fairly easy way to eliminate gridlock during the LaGuardia Airport reconstruction. Follow the same example of the Canarsie Tunnels. Close the airport during construction and divert the flights and passengers to the City’s other two airports.

    Approximately 265,000 people use the Canarsie Tunnels on an average weekday. Approximately 100,000 people use LaGuardia Airport on a busy day.

  7.  

    qrt145

    It seems likely that cars will still be allowed on the bridge, but car pool restrictions could be put in place.

    For many people, Uber/Lyft’s ride pooling features are actually more efficient than the old-fashioned way of trying to figure out whom to carpool with, or the old-fashioned picking up of hitchhikers. Therefore, these companies could actually offer something.

    I only hope the authorities will finally realize that the driver of a taxi shouldn’t count for car-pooling purposes. I cringe whenever I see a taxi with one passenger on a “two person minimum” car pool lane. A taxi with one passenger is transporting one person. The driver is effectively part of the car.

  8.  

    Vooch

    map of six months worth of traffic violence on UES – it’s horrifying https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0442e34582153e3bb30a0658a7a6cf32c895a6a985ed3c3e680cb30a5153519a.jpg

  9.  

    Fool

    While some may consider it low cost, I do not. I do consider it the BETTER use of funds.

  10.  

    Kevin Love

    Let’s call it “Nero syndrome.”

  11.  

    Kevin Love

    Swan boats! Can a hundred amusement parks be wrong?

  12.  

    Miles Bader

    Uber and Lyft’s model fails once you get beyond a few passengers, and cars with only a few passengers are no better than private cars in terms of congestion, capacity, etc.

    So Uber and Lyft basically have nothing to offer.

  13.  

    Michel S

    Some people just want to watch the world burn…

  14.  

    Jules1

    Woo hoo! I hope the end of this lawsuit gets as much media coverage as it did during the peak of the “bikelash” drama.

  15.  

    NYCBK123

    I vote for dolphins with saddles.

  16.  

    ADN

    Cars are still going to be driving over the Williamsburg Bridge. Those cars should only be multi-passenger, shared vehicles. There is is clearly a place for companies like Uber and Lyft in this plan. Those companies can be part of the solution here. And they are a lot more nimble, creative and willing to try things than the MTA or DOT.

  17.  

    sbauman

    According to the 2014 Hub Bound Travel Report, approximately 20K passengers travel on the #7 from Queens on 27 trains between 8 and 9 am. During the same hour, approximately 32K passengers enter the PABT. If the same load levels are used (67 pass/railcar), the Secaucus service would require 43 trains per hour.

    If the TA could operate 43 tph or cram 110 passengers into every railcar on 27 tph, there’s still the question of getting these passengers out of the 34th St, Times Sq, 5th Ave and Grand Central stations. The platforms on these stations barely clear of passengers before the next train arrives. They would now have to clear 160% more passengers in the same amount of time.

    All these stations have center island platforms. Simply adding more stairways on these platforms is a non-starter. The existing platforms do not have the space to accommodate the extra passengers. A new platform, such as what was done at Bowling Green, would be required. Unlike Bowling Green, Times Square, 5th Ave and Grand Central share their streets with other subway lines that run above them. These lines would have to be shored up during construction. Their presence would also present design constraints on how well these new platforms could function.

    When design complications increase, it’s usually a hint to step back and consider other approaches. One such approach would be to build a completely separate line from Secaucus. This would also permit using bigger railcars, so that fewer railcars and trains would be required for the service. It would also solve the jurisdictional problem; it would be a Port Authority project.

    The cost for a completely new line would be high. It would probably not be much more than what retrofitting the #7 line would be, when all the complications are considered. Whether the cost would exceed the bloated figures for the PABT replacement is problematic.

    One thing is clear, expanding the #7 into New Jersey, isn’t the low cost solution its proponents claim.

  18.  

    Guy Ross

    Berliners would beg to differ.

    http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/fahrrad/infrastruktur-wie-gute-radwege-fuer-berlin-aussehen-koennen/11561116.html

    (you can read the comments because this is Germany where civil discourse is still civil)

  19.  

    Vooch

    might be good model for the streets surrounding Central Park

  20.  

    Larry Littlefield

    The big picture is, I’ve been irritated by these “environmental” and “process” NIMBY lawsuits since back when I was a junior planner at NYC planning.

    And disgusted at the extent to which city planning, and environmentalism, have been hijacked by “I’ve got mine jack” feudalism that has nothing to do with planning for the future or the environment.

    Over time, I’ve come to be less offended by selfish people advancing a philosophy of selfishness than by selfish people hiding behind “progressive” and “egalitarian” motives. The sort of thing that is thick on the ground here in metro NY, home of exclusionary zoning in the suburbs and class (less so than race) bias in the city and suburbs alike.

    As bad as this was, things were actually worse 30 years ago, and are heading in the right direction. Let’s send all those “environmental” consultants into retirement, and replace them with new experts who actually care about the environment.

  21.  

    Mike Dunlap

    Ha. This has to be a joke. Nicely done.

  22.  

    snrvlakk

    Normally NOT a fan of anything from the Manhattan Institute, but this… Technology we don’t have yet!!!???? Let me play!

    Star Trek style transporters
    Time machine (so you can go back to when subways were running)
    Citishare Jetpacks. (Blue jetpack stations at every corner)
    Pneumatic tube attached to the Williamsburg Bridge
    Dolphins with saddles

  23.  

    Doug G.

    Not just kids, but older people too. Real 8-80 design! Some of our strongest allies on PPW were older people who rode bikes (and a lot who didn’t). They helped counter the false narrative that the bike lane was only for young transplants.

  24.  

    Chen Li

    No one is talking about having to build heavy rail, except only in the cases where Amtrak and CSX owned ROW and infrastructure is largely already there, and left little used (Triboro RX). Most of the proposals under discussion here are intermediate modes of transit, such as BRT, LRT, Trams, etc. The G is poor in ridership not because subways are not needed, but because it doesn’t go many places where there isn’t already service, and no longer go to queen boulevard. I think you will see it do the heavy lifting once they shutdown the canarsie line for reconstruction in 2019. In eastern parts of the boroughs, of course subways are not needed everywhere, surface transit with limited ROW is your best bet in connecting transit points like Jamaica, Willets pt, Broadway jct, etc.

    There are plenty of circumferential routes where many transit deserts would be very well served, especially area such as middle village, utica ave, E. elmhurst, etc. There a rapid tansit system. In those places, not necessarily heavy rail, but something with high rate of on-time service during rush hours (so not surface bus), that can move a substantial number of people to connect to the radial transit corridors into Manhattan and B/Q water front, would do wonders for those communities. Extreme eastern queens is another story (where even with reliable rapid transit, you are looking at 1hr + commute time into manhattan).

  25.  

    Joel Epstein

    yup. how it looked to me back in 2011. glad it’s here to stay!

  26.  

    Vooch

    Bollards !

    everywhere across the roadway

  27.  

    Larry Littlefield

    Maybe not. But a host of cars driving into Manhattan for 18 months might very well solve the problem of auto commuters being willing to support better subway service for other people.

    Why don’t we propose opening up placard parking in Manhattan to all comers during the shutdown?

  28.  

    Joe R.

    Just change the lettering as follows:

    NO CARS
    24 HOURS
    MON thru SUN

  29.  

    Joe R.

    It’s worth noting the location of this bike lane helped a lot. In fact, this is a perfect execution in the perfect kind of situation to use a protected bike lane, namely one where there is no cross traffic. You don’t need mixing zones, the traffic signals for motor vehicles don’t need to apply to the bike lane, you can have bike traffic in both directions regardless of whether or not motor traffic is one way. These things give cyclists speed and safety advantages which they just don’t have on most other protected bike lanes in NYC. Unfortunately, there are rare situations where you can do this. The bike lane needs to be running next to a park, cemetery, railway, body of water, or superblock in order to avoid having cross traffic.

  30.  

    Larry Littlefield

    So I’m not the first guy to think of the PPW bike lane as Bastogne!

    On to Berlin! (Where they have a pretty good bike infrastructure).

  31.  

    Vooch

    so the best way to manage a shortage of roadway capacity in NYC would be to post these signs ? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/956934b7b9c03749ff5c3109cd127c40ad6705024960cf39e34cbc766ef27052.jpg

  32.  

    Arya Stark

    I was impossible to get from the parking garage to the NYBG for me last winter without walking in the dangerous section of street near the gate. The NYBG doesn’t clear their sidewalks! They only shoveled from the gate to the bus stop, and didn’t bother with the rest of the sidewalk. >:-[

  33.  

    Arya Stark

    I went there in the winter, and had to walk in the street (near the MetroNorth station) because NYBG hadn’t shoveled the sidewalks. They had shoveled around the bus stop, but not so that you could walk on the sidewalks from the parking garage and the train station to a NYBG gate that was open!

  34.  

    J

    Good design gets good results. PPW pissed off some powerful people, but it also was designed well enough for parents to allow children to ride bikes to school on it. Children! You literally can’t win in a fight against children riding their bikes to school. This is the lesson of PPW. Build designs good enough to allow children to bike on them. You may get a strong opposition, but you’ll ALSO get strong and lasting support. DOT has only done this level of design in one or two places, and I should mention that “Mixing zones” are NOT kid-friendly. DOT, build kid-friendly bike lanes, and you’ll get kids using them. And then biking will be a real option for a lot of people!

  35.  

    Sri Napasaran

    50,000 ride-sharing cars in NYC. And Uber wants more simply because it’s “more cars – more money for uber” This is anything but benign.

  36.  

    Andres Dee

    Uber and Lyft appear to be on a charm offensive the past few weeks, each trying their own way to advance their own long-term agenda – access to the urban for-hire market, minus the pesky regulations that today’s participants are subject to. Uber is promising that they’ll solve the L train crisis if we let them run “autonomous” (which does not necessarily mean “robot”). Lyft is promising to end private car ownership – in 10 years – if we give them the breaks they want…now, of course. A few months ago, I passionately defended Uber, being that (in NYC at least) they are regulated like any other car service. I saw them as just another way to order car service. An app instead of a phone call. Now, learning more about how they treat other cities where car service is regulated (like Austin) and what they’re trying to pull in NYC, I see them as less benign.

  37.  

    Sri Napasaran

    Too.Many.Cars.In.NYC.

  38.  

    c2check

    And don’t forget: The capacity of a single 10-foot lane (or equivalent width) by mode at peak conditions with normal operations.

    http://nacto.org/tsdg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d8b0a02e3382e27d8dd92b657cc403460e8b67d25a20c6dafab5d19ec3059bf.jpg

  39.  

    Joel Epstein

  40.  

    Vooch

    private car consumes 1,100 sqft of NYC roadway
    bicycle 97 sqft
    pedestrian 6 sqft

    chart attached https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/99fadaf88233f8563217c85434d85db514907833c4162a278c7106ccd748d1b4.png

  41.  

    Flakker

    Yes they must be built in the US because of what is commonly referred to as the “Jones Act” but is actually a different law: The Passenger Vessel Services Act.

  42.  

    RyanMcShane

    When I want to read lunacy of the bikelash+zionism flavor (seldom) I’m gonna go with Tal Barzilai. Sorry.

    It’s really a very limited niche, and there’s already one nutball on the beat, working full-time. Maybe come back in year or ten when you’ve worked up a fresh shtick of your very own? Or maybe not.

  43.  

    Jeff

    Ugh, I know, and what about the way the wheels on the grocery carts always get stuck?

  44.  

    Vooch

    cyclists and pedestrians DO own the streets

  45.  

    Mike

    Bikers always stay in this lane. There’s basically no way to zig and zag out of it into the car lanes. It’s part of what makes the lane awesome. Not sure how you wound up on Obamacare on this, but crazy is as crazy does.

  46.  

    Joe R.

    Knock yourself out. You and your ilk already lost this fight. It’s pretty apparent you’re needlessly stressing yourself out with all this. I’ve heard exercise helps reduce stress. Perhaps you should give cycling a try? You know the old saying—if you can’t beat them then join them.

  47.  

    Irene

    I find bike NIMBYs ridiculous! I notice that Dorothy Rabinowitz opposed Citi Bike. She’s written editorials for the WSJ. So has Karl Rove. But Karl Rove was pulling GWB’s strings. Then the Iraq war! Where was I? Oh, right, bikes…

    (I’ll cut it short. Sorry, I don’t have the stamina to write an off-topic rant that compares with yours. You win!)

  48.  

    RyanMcShane

    http://i.imgur.com/D7Azr4h.png

    Lifted from a 2011 post at our very own Doug G.’s excellent site, though image not hotlinked from there, because bandwidth.

    Doug credits it to Gothamist, and it looks like they may even be running it again atop their current piece on the lawsuit’s demise.

  49.  

    jeremy

    Nice trolling, but a waste of time on your end

  50.  

    Larry Littlefield

    Right, but half of them transfer. So if the NJT fare (bus or rail) was higher to travel all the way across the country that to transfer in NJ by a subway or PATH fare, those transferring would do so there.

    And the bus station in Manhattan could be smaller than is now proposed, and built in place because people could transfer at the additional bus station off the 7 in NJ for a while.