Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Joe R.

    Yes, tax dollars are involved. NYC is losing a ton of potential real estate taxes if that land was developed. That would also be a far better use of the land than to serve the relatively small numbers who fly regularly.

    And what profits? The airline industry has never made any money: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2625717,page=1

    Arguably most other modes of transport aren’t profitable either, except at least these modes serve the masses. Hard to argue for taxpayer subsidies for a mode of travel which only regularly benefits a tiny fraction of the population.

  2.  

    Bolwerk

    Seems the rule of thumb with air/rail is a reliable 5-hour train trip is competitive with air. At average speeds of 75mph, probably faster than anything in North America except maybe Acela, that’s 375 miles. At average speeds of 125mph, probably near the upper limit of plausible for conventional rail, you can get people 625 miles. 1,000 miles is probably pushing it, unless there is some environmental or economic reason why the trip can be made by train but not by plane.

    And it really has more to do with time rather than speed or distance. The setup time + the last mile time for taking a flight is already a few hours, so even a slow train trip can be competitive with a short flight.

  3.  

    ahwr

    Are tax dollars involved? Or is the PA just going to stop siphoning off airport profits to pay for other projects like PATH, PABT, and the WTC, and maybe payback some of what they’ve already taken from the airports?

  4.  

    Joe R.

    Exactly. I’ve been on a plane exactly once in my life. Same thing with most people I know who at most flew a handful of times. If passenger air travel disappeared altogether most people wouldn’t be affected, other than the wealthy who can afford to travel frequently. Plain and simple, this is a criminal misuse of taxpayer funds to benefit mostly the 1%, along with big corporations who use air for business trips. Improving LaGuardia will have about as much effect on the average NYer as improving a golf club in the Hamptons.

  5.  

    Joe R.

    The point is if you replace what air travel can be replaced with HSR, Newark and Kennedy would be able to handle the traffic.

    There is no way to replace air travel beyond 600 miles, wholesale, with HSR.

    HSR is viable out past 1000 miles. State of the air HSR can average 180 mph from city center to city center. You can cover 1000 miles then in about 5.5 hours. By air figure 2.5 hours for the flight itself, an hour on each end getting to/from the airport, and at least an hour for security and check-in. That’s 5.5 hours, same as HSR.

    I can make a good argument HSR is viable even for trips where it may take a few hours longer than air because a person can remain productive for the entire time on the train. If you go by air, outside of when you’re on the plane, you can’t get much work done.

    On another note, for a whole host of reasons we really need to reduce long-distance travel if it’s not able to be replaced by non-fossil fuel using modes.

  6.  

    J

    Yep, this pretty much sums it up. Cuomo is New York’s George W Bush.

  7.  

    Rough Acres

    I’d like to know what options were on the table before this “plan” was announced.

    If there were not a variety of options
    – shut down Riker’s Island, expand LaGuardia
    – expand Newark and high-speed rail to the City
    – fund revamping of the MTA
    – shut down JFK and make it a highspeed rail hub/local airport
    … plus some of the previous suggestions….

    How did they ever arrive at THIS corporate giveaway?

  8.  

    al

    This Airtrain better connect to 74th-Broadway or 61st-Woodside, or its a complete Boondoggle.

  9.  

    Jass

    Rich doners and political buddies don’t ride the subway. They do however, fly out of airports on luxury vacation romps.

  10.  

    al

    Offshore regional airport with HSR? It better float or you’ll get environmentalists opposing it.

    BTW, we are on one side of the country, with Appalachia in between us and the Midwest. There is no way to replace air travel beyond 600 miles, wholesale, with HSR. LGA covers destinations all the way to Denver and Dallas.

  11.  

    Matthew

    Hey, at least it’s going to cost less than it cost to rebuild a subway station.

  12.  

    Joe R.

    If Cuomo had half a brain he would realize LaGuardia is a dinosaur which should be shut down, not renovated. Over 2 million people live under the glide paths. The planes are a noise and pollution nuisance. The fact they mainly serve only a small percentage of the population on a regular basis, mainly the elites, makes the situation even more inequitable. High-speed rail is the solution to domestic travel, not putting more money into a mode which frankly should die. If the US is ever to reduce its fossil fuel dependency and combat global warming then we have to dramatically reduce air travel. Given that fact, it doesn’t make sense to be putting any money into airports. Close LaGuardia down, start building HSR. In the longer term shut down Newark and downsize Kennedy. Eventually replace Kennedy with an offshore regional airport on a manmade island far out at sea, connected to the mainland by a high-speed rail link. Planes are basically flying bombs. They don’t belong anywhere within 25 miles of major population centers.

    Even if all of the above wasn’t true, it shows a highly warped sense of priorities that Cuomo is more concerned with impressing tourists than he is with making travel easier for the millions of people who make NYC a worthwhile tourist destination. Again, this stinks of elitism. Only the wealthy have money to travel frequently.

  13.  

    Tal F.

    The solution to this mess is blindingly obvious. No minimums, no maximums, city-wide, and congestion pricing.

  14.  

    Lacking CitiBikes

    Has it been revealed how many docks will be at each station in UWS and UES? I was talking to a Citi Bike employee yesterday and was told some of the stations will be quite large, with 60 docks. Perhaps this is Motivate’s attempt to ameliorate the problem of too few stations allocated by DOT.

  15.  

    Mark Walker

    While it’s true that there’s been an epidemic of Republicans spiking transit projects around the country, it should also be noted that a large portion of the ARC money came from the Bush administration. It was very much a bipartisan project and that’s one reason why Christie’s action was so shocking. Much of the money for congestion pricing would also have come from the Bush administration.

  16.  

    Reader

    Presumably this is offset by a person, say, staying in a Midtown hotel, grabbing a bike, and then riding up to the Museum of Natural History.

  17.  

    Jass

    One thing I havent seen addressed is how zero capacity is being added to the existing area. So say you take out a bike in the expansion area, and naturally want to bike down to the old stations. Same number of docks as before down there….but a ton of new bikes potentially trying to dock.

    Isnt this a problem?

  18.  

    Reader

    Slow expansions are exactly how they do it in other cities. Capital Bike Share sometimes makes a big announcement about the addition of just one or two stations. (I think they had a ribbon cutting on just four stations in Arlington.) Same with Hubway in Boston. If NY’s press paid more attention to places outside of NYC or was at all intellectually curious about how things have been proven to work elsewhere, it would help on SOOOOO many issues, not just bikes.

  19.  

    Bolwerk

    It actually boosts road capacity, all things being equal. Slower cars can move more closely together, so there can be more of them.

    (Not saying that part is a good thing.)

  20.  

    AlexWithAK

    Is it really such a difficult concept to grasp that the issue isn’t Lehrer “disagreeing” with the concept of Vision Zero but that he clearly does not understand it?

    Let me state this as plainly as possible:

    The goal is not to have slow-moving traffic by any means necessary. The goal is to have free-flowing traffic moving at a safe and reasonable speed in respect to pedestrians and cyclists. This keeps everyone safe, reduces pollution, and allows business activities that require vehicles to operate efficiently.

  21.  

    AlexWithAK

    There’s a very big difference between disagreeing and misrepresenting. If you believe this to be disagreement, you clearly have even less understanding of the issue than Lehrer.

  22.  

    Bolwerk

    Well, the absolute best way to prevent drunk driving is to discourage driving. The neo-prohibitionists should have made the drinking age 16, and the driving age 21.

  23.  

    Bolwerk

    It’s probably wrong to reflexively accept Christie was concerned about costs in the first place.

    It was probably a mix of other factors like regionalism (how dare New York benefit from our hard work! Let’s mutilate ourselves!), sticking it to political opponents (ARC was a creature of Democratic dealing, for good or for ill), and general anti-transit hysteria and double standards. Sure, highways are crowded, but in an hour a few lanes of highway might move the equivalent of a few individual trains of people.

  24.  

    Bolwerk

    If they weren’t corrupt, or braindead, when Cuomo said something paraphrased as,

    New York should contribute more to the MTA because New York City gets most of the benefit.

    just about every NYC public official – mayor, council members, NYC senators/assemblypersons in both parties – should have said something like,

    Good point. And the rest of the state should contribute its fair share to the operations of the state government.

  25.  

    Eugene Weixel

    Without a cap on the number of drivers cities will be returning to the days of the early thirties. Look up why LaGuardia brought in the medallion system.

  26.  

    Mark Walker

    Christie says he’d be willing to green-light the Gateway tunnel if NJ, NY, and the feds go “even steven.” That would be 33.3 percent of the cost for NJ. For the ARC tunnel project, NJ would have paid 14.4 percent of the cost (GAO via Wiki). How is paying twice as much of the cost a better deal for NJ? Especially if the rising cost of everything means Gateway may cost more than ARC? Then there’s the question of timing. ARC would have been finished two or three years from now. I would put the chances of the 105-year-old tunnels surviving another decade at one in ten. They’re going down — it’s just a matter of time. Killing ARC is the biggest transport policy blunder since NY’s wanton destruction of Penn Station.

  27.  

    HamTech87

    Cuomo’s logic on the MTA — City residents use it, so the City should pay more — should frighten non-city residents. Take the new Tappan Zee Bridge. What if Cuomo asked Rockland and Westchester counties to pay half the cost?

  28.  

    stairbob

    If there’s no bike lane, isn’t bikes per lane per hour infinite?

  29.  

    van_vlissingen

    The best way to prevent drunk driving is better zoning. If you have density next to destinations and transit people will generally make that choice. When our land use policy has many folks in less dense transit deserts it’s no wonder they get behind the wheel rather than stumble home on foot.

  30.  

    Simon Phearson

    Gosh, it’s almost like the “political reality” of “congestion pricing” comes down to one man…

  31.  

    Bolwerk

    To an extent I actually do. Decent pay can discourage corruption, but NYPD pay is only really bad at the beginning of a career.

    Better pay doesn’t address poor selection practices or lack of accountability on the job. Maybe it could entice some better candidates over time, but police selection practices actually favor Barney Fifes over Bobby Gorens. Except the Barney Fifes have the manners of Captain McCluskey.

  32.  

    stairbob

    Like most “Wacky News,” the Christie/Tunnel/Presidential campaign is ultimately just very sad.

  33.  

    JoshNY

    “Cuomo: State Will Somehow Find $8 Billion to Help Fill MTA Funding Gap”

    But, by God, it won’t be by making drivers pay a penny more!

  34.  

    JoshNY

    Cuomo is less sympathetic because Cuomo’s fiscal policies aren’t much to the left of Scott Walker, whereas BdB is all about the unions.

    Do you think we could get the NYPD to stop being such thugs by giving them more money? It might be worth it.

  35.  

    JoshNY

    Where do I sign up to vote for that?

  36.  

    vnm

    Re the Daily News on Move NY, the Staten Island Advance also had an editorial in support of it.

    http://www.silive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/the_move_ny_plan_is_islanders.html

  37.  

    Daniel

    I agree that extending the hours would allow a lot more people to make it, but this could also be extended to other major streets, Flatbush Ave, Queens Blvd, Grand Concourse, and Victory Blvd could all make for nice summer streets.

  38.  

    JACK

    Traffic Court in NYC is a total joke. Most of the summons they write are money generating items and not for the safety of the road. Out of 10 about 2 seemed legitimate. As for me I was there in late March for biking tickets. One was going the wrong way down the street, the next was no helmet, another was for no light l on bike and the last was not listening to the cop. The cop showed up in court. I expected that. The judge ended up throwing out 3 of the 4 and I had to pay 50 dollars for going down the street the wrong way. Well I made it up for fare beating on the subways for 4 months. The state of NY stole $50 from me so I just decided to steal my money back for $50 the cost of the fine plus the lost salary of a day off for me and traveling to and from traffic cost. Cost of lost salary, $290. Cost of travel to Traffic court $5 and eating $5 after court in Coney Island. OK. The state of NY got $50 from me but the MTA which is run by the state lost $400 from me for Fare Beating for about 3.5 months. So in the end of the day the MTA/State of NY loses. I look at the $50 as a prepayment of future transit fares which I stole back. HA HA HA!!!

  39.  

    ahwr

    There’s a lot of slack built into the system. That’s why a lot of motorists get upset at red light and speed cameras. It catches them even when their infraction is only going to lead to a collision if someone else tries to cheat a little too. It’s why there are all red phases on a lot of traffic lights, so when someone runs a light a half second after it turns red nobody else is supposed to be in the intersection yet. In Boulder and Portland there are a good number of sidewalk cyclists and drivers are allowed to make a right on red. Both cities require cyclists entering a crosswalk to do it slowly (I think 8 mph in Boulder, ‘walking speed’ or something vague in Portland) and cyclists frequently flout that. Turning drivers, especially those making right on red, don’t look far enough for a cyclist riding at 12+ mph. A lot of close calls result. In cities with right on red pedestrians crossing against the light often look to see if a motorist has a turn signal on, or if there is any vehicle in the turning lane. Lot of close calls when a motorist turns without signals, or turns from a through lane.

    All that said, aren’t pedestrians allowed to cross outside of crosswalks as long as there isn’t a traffic light on both ends of the street (only on Franklin in this case)? Pedestrians doing so have a duty to yield to vehicles on the roadway. I wonder if that’s ever been interpreted to mean only vehicles operating legally. If not, I wonder what support there would be as a pedestrian first policy to make that change. And giving the ROW to pedestrians that enter the crosswalk at a signalized intersection after the don’t walk starts flashing to avoid this:

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/06/16/the-nyc-traffic-rule-thats-completely-at-odds-with-how-people-walk/

  40.  

    RoeJ

    The pedestrians are there, even if you ride too fast to see us. Next time you cut me off you can expect another free breakfast.

  41.  

    Joe R.

    Yes, I noticed that come to think of it. Still, if the delivery person was on the sidewalk because it was cleared more than the street, at least be respectful of pedestrians. Come to think of, other than maybe around the more industrial sections of lower Manhattan, I rarely see empty sidewalks in Manhattan. In eastern Queens though empty or nearly empty is the norm, even during much of the day. Late nights when I ride both streets and sidewalks are as dead as a doornail. I’ve been on 20 mile rides at 3 AM where I saw less than a dozen vehicles on the surface streets and zero pedestrians.

  42.  

    walks bikes drives

    Thats the difference between where we live. In eastern Queens, you 1) have sidewalks where you dont have doors that open up onto them, and 2) your streets are cleared before the sidewalks. In Manhattan, even the residential sections,, there is no such thing as an empty sidewalk or one that doesn’t have doors opening directly onto them. And the sidewalks are generally more clear than the street. The streets, when cleared, are a swath one car width wide. The only time all year I don’t ride is when there is snow on the ground. Just not safe.

  43.  

    Joe R.

    I agree about riding fast on crowded sidewalks. I rarely go on sidewalks myself. Generally it’s because of stuff like a street being milled in preparation for repaving. In any case, if there are more than a few pedestrians, I keep it at walking speed, especially if I see any children. I’ll admit to going as fast as 15 mph on totally empty sidewalks with good visibility, and no buildings with doors adjacent to the sidewalk, but generally I rarely go over 10 mph even on an empty sidewalk. Like you, I’m always covering my brakes in case something unexpected comes up. These delivery people I see going 20 mph on sidewalks deserve to be knocked off their bikes. I might excuse this behavior if I only saw it on completely empty sidewalks but they do this nonsense when there’s lots of people around.

    By the way, I’m trying to figure out the logic of riding a bike on a sidewalk after a snowstorm. Unless the street was totally blocked by construction, generally the streets are much more passable after snow than sidewalks. In fact, pedestrians often walk in the streets where I live until property owners have cleared the sidewalks. So in that regard the delivery person was being doubly obnoxious. I probably would have knocked him off the bike too if he didn’t stop.

  44.  

    walks bikes drives

    Lights, definitely. Looking at a phone I see, but not very often. I definitely notice it more after the city council issue, but still not usually an issue.

    As for the sidewalk, I sometimes use little taps on the pedals when I have to. I have clips on my pedals, so I will sometimes just have a single foot in the pedal and use half strokes, but I am never above 3-3.5mph on the sidewalk, walking speed, and only when it is a safety issue or because the street is fully blocked (not because of a traffic light) and I always have both hands on the brakes. Drives me nuts when someone is riding, even slowly (8-10mph) on the sidewalk.

    This winter, while I was shoveling snow, my 3 year old son was playing next to me with his little shovel as a delivery rider came up the sidewalk quickly under electric power. As he got closer, I stood in the middle of the sidewalk with the shovel horizontal to give him the obvious signal he could not get by. Cursed me out in Chinese, but he got off his bike and walked it past us. I’ll be honest, if he didn’t get off and tried to squeeze past, I would have knocked him off the bike rather than allow him to pass my son like that.

  45.  

    Joe R.

    I’ll add riding at night without lights, and looking at phones while riding to your list.

    You can ride very slowly on sidewalks by just just pushing the pedals once in a while and coasting, or by pedaling while riding your brakes. I’ve done it both ways. Easier than pushing with your feet, probably safer given that your feet aren’t sticking out.

  46.  

    walks bikes drives

    Even if they started crossing before the light turned, at that point you should not be running a red light.

    I disagree with the rule of two, but I see your point. All of my near misses were by a single infraction, all of jaywalking. Unless you make it a rule of two by saying jaywalking AND not looking before crossing. I’ve had four near misses: one, a woman crossed into the bike lane, in crosswalk, against the light but didn’t look up, two a mother and daughter jaywalked midblock through traffic and I was coming up quickly on the right while cars were essentially stopped, the third was a guy jaywalking out in front of a stopped bus mid block, and lastly, a woman was jaywalking across the avenue, apparently misjudging my speed – I went to go around behind her, but she stopped crossing and walked backward when she apparently realized I was traveling faster than she thought. So in these situations, I just don’t see the rule of two you have observed from your experiences.

  47.  

    walks bikes drives

    Honestly, as a cyclist and pedestrian, I don’t care about the pedestrian crossing mid block when the case was a salmoning cyclist. If he were hit by a right way cyclist, that would be different. I also don’t care that the rider was in a bike lane. If he was traveling in the right direction, that would be different. There are three behaviors that I can’t stand of other cyclists, and obviously I am not labeling all or even most cyclists as doing any of these: failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, salmoning, and pedalling on sidewalks.

  48.  

    Susie

    I have small business tightly connected with having many vehicles and although it’s not in the USA, I have to say this report gives something to think about! Thanks a lot for sharing the information, it’s been very interesting to read it! Cheers, my website

  49.  

    Andrew

    How about just having flyovers to get cyclists who are still carrying momentum from the descent safely past busy crossings?

    Just having flyovers? Just having flyovers?

  50.  

    chekpeds

    The system is so broken that for areas that truly do not have enough parking, putting extreme premium on curbside parking, the formulas says the special permit should not be granted!
    Because of Parking being so scarce in these neighborhoods, it is very difficult to install life saving features like bike lanes, neck downs , or to improve mass transit with SBS.