I think green22's point is that the widely spaced stops are due to no separate express/local tracks. If the cars are going to fill up anyway, what is needed is maximum passenger movement, and the fewer stations, the more trains you can run.
Ironic, since one of the NYC subway innovations was four track routes.
It sounds reasonable, practical, to keep this line simple. However the fact remains if they are going to go to the trouble of making that line - they should do it right. Why spend nearly 1 billion burying West Street for a few blocks? With that cash they could upgrade this project, or even provide the JFK rail link from the new main terminal downtown.
They could dig an express tunnel on a lower level, I would think. Plus the line branches in two at 63rd Street.
It would cost a LOT more than $1 billion to make any significant upgrades to the current 2nd Ave subway plans or to bring a JFK link to Downtown.Originally Posted by tonyo
no offence, but I'm also not sure that it's useful to pit one community project against another. Granted there are limited munciple funds to finance them. But if you ask upper east side residents what's more important 2nd ave. subway or tunneling the west side highway? I'm sure you'd get a different answer than you'd get from Lower Manhattan residents.It would cost a LOT more than $1 billion to make any significant upgrades to the current 2nd Ave subway plans or to bring a JFK link to Downtown.
It's the big picture that counts, and both projects have their merits as they relate to the evolution of New york City and they can be financed from different budgets.
[quote="Clarknt67"]I agree with the "big picture" concept. However, I feel that the enhancement of public transit in NYC with a Second Avenue Subway, Extension of the 7 Train, Downtown and Midtown Access for the LIRR, and Direct Rail links to JFK and LaGuardia weakens an argument for a West Street Tunnel. We need to discourage and diminish car traffic in the city, not hide it. The best way to do it is to build effective public transit that counters the argument that "it is easier to drive there".
[quote="BrooklynRider"]Agreed, but new york will always have car traffic. No amount of public transportation will convince some suburbanites to give up the car keys. Driving their own car is a lifestyle to these people just as taking the subway is for City folk. There will always be heavy traffic on the west side highway with people coming and going from monteclair, fort lee CT or wherever. It's just a fact of life. the tunnel would minimize their impact on the city.I agree with the "big picture" concept. However, I feel that the enhancement of public transit in NYC with a Second Avenue Subway, Extension of the 7 Train, Downtown and Midtown Access for the LIRR, and Direct Rail links to JFK and LaGuardia weakens an argument for a West Street Tunnel. We need to discourage and diminish car traffic in the city, not hide it. The best way to do it is to build effective public transit that counters the argument that "it is easier to drive there".
One thing I have noticed, though, about the whole commuting thing that has me all pissed off.
There seems to be a hell of a lot of places where you can pick up a subway into the city. It is the biggest system in the WORLD for that. But a lot of the areas out in Brooklyn and Queens are not exactly right on top of these areas.
Agreed there are busses to take you over to the station, but that is a PITA and a waste of time.
What would be nice would be some way to drive to the nearest station (from a suburb in Queens or LI) and park there for less than it costs to adopt an ethiopian family of 12. If you want people to leave their cars OUT of the city, you have to make it easier for them to do so.
Build big state parking facilities at the express stops and try to re-engineer the schedules to get the people from where they are to where they want to be as fast as possible.
The quicker you get them there, the less people will be ON the system at one time, reducing congestion....
How to do this, i do not know, but there has to be a better way than this.
Here's an idea to get cars out of the city
It would be a really good idea to build massive parking lots (at least partially underground) in the outskirts of Queens and Brooklyn near major subway stops. commuters could pay a nominal fee for parking or I have an even better plan. If your metrocard shows you road the subway or bus in the city by the time you pick up your car in the evening, that would make your parking fee gratis. I bet we'd see a lot less cars in manhattan. Similar lots could be built in Bronx and near Jersey path trains.
You mean like park and ride facilities?
Exactly like Park and Ride.
Hoboken has the same parking problem. But Hoboken is not the best place to ride in from anyway, being so close to both tunnels (the traffic gets really bad).
Jersey city is not much better.
I think an extension to the path system may be in order to try to get the people coming into the city focused in areas that have the capacity to get them in and out. Having a park and ride on the Parkway (Ironically enough) is probably better than having it right by the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel...
December 20, 2003
New Report Advocates Subway Line for East Side
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
An influential regional planning group issued a study yesterday that focused on the economic benefits of building a Second Avenue subway line while criticizing another study, released last month, that played down the relative worth of building it.
Standing in front of City Hall yesterday morning, several prominent city, state and Congressional Democrats made it clear that they trusted the new study, by the Regional Plan Association, more than last month's more critical report by the Partnership for New York City, a group representing some of the city's largest employers.
"The partnership is a partnership with the wrong people if they're not with us," said Representative Charles B. Rangel of Harlem, long an advocate for a subway line that would connect part of his district with Chinatown. "I can't wait to have them at the next press conference to explain this misunderstanding."
Beside Representative Rangel were Sheldon Silver, the State Assembly speaker; Gifford Miller, the City Council speaker; and Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, whose district includes the Upper East Side.
In its November study, the partnership said a Second Avenue subway would take 17 years to build and cost nearly $2.7 billion more than the economic development benefits it would create. The study, completed for the partnership by independent consultants, advocated focusing on other large projects, like building a transit hub in Lower Manhattan, extending the No. 7 subway line or relocating Pennsylvania Station.
The Regional Plan Association's study disputed those findings. It said the subway project could be completed in 12 years, not 17, and would create 7 million square feet of commercial development, not the 3.5 million the partnership's study forecast. The association also calculated nearly $1.3 billion in saved time and productivity resulting from a less crowded Lexington Avenue subway line; the partnership estimated a $971 million savings.
"No other project will bring more people to the Lower East Side than the Second Avenue subway," Mr. Silver said yesterday, referring to his own Assembly district. "It's time to get on with it."
Kathryn S. Wylde, the partnership's president, acknowledged in an interview that it might make economic sense to build a part of the proposed subway line, but that other projects would create more development and help more people.
"It's great to advocate for these improvements," she said. "Somebody's got to figure out how to pay for them."
Referring to Mr. Rangel, Mr. Silver and the other Democrats who are against her group's recommendations, Ms. Wylde added: "They're making a political case for the Second Avenue subway. We're looking at the ridership of the future, which doesn't have a voice to speak for it."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
MTA To Build Second Avenue Subway In Stages, Rather Than All At Once
JANUARY 20TH, 2004
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority now says it could have part of the long-awaited Second Avenue subway up and running much earlier than expected.
MTA officials said Tuesday they have decided to build the line segment by segment, rather than building the entire line all at once.
The whole 8.5-mile line would ultimately run from 125th Street in East Harlem down to Hanover Square in Lower Manhattan. However, after meeting today with federal officials expected to provide much of the funding, MTA officials now say they'll start small.
They haven't decided yet which section will be built first.
“There may be at least two or three of them that can be done by 2012, so we don’t know which one of them is going to be the first one,” said Mysore Nagaraja of MTA Capital Construction.
An environmental impact study on the project is due by April, with construction set to begin before the end of the year.
The entire line is expected to cost $17 billion, and won't be complete until the year 2020.
http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/Sub...ntintid=36588#
There already is a park n ride on the Parkway, it's called Metro Park and it hosts Amtrak and NJ Transit trains.Having a park and ride on the Parkway (Ironically enough)
Park n Rides are mainly for Commuter rail lines, rather than transit systems because transit systems are "too" close to the region's core.
I know, but where is there one in Forest Hills?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks