Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


P3F last won the day on February 24

P3F had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

720 Excellent


About P3F

  • Rank
    Hardcore Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    Broken Land

Recent Profile Visitors

2,302 profile views
  1. Well, clearly. Unlike the BQE reconstruction, which is part of required maintenance, the addition of HOV lanes to the Van Wyck expressway isn't really necessary, and the $2 billion would certainly be better spent on transit. It seems to be consistent with Cuomo's modus operandi, since the expansion is part of his JFK reconstruction plan, one of his pet projects.
  2. Could somebody please summarize what was said?
  3. Adding lanes to freeways isn't a blanket solution to congestion. LA has some freeways where each direction has as many lanes as one of our parkways, and they still get stuffed. In fact, poorly placed extra lanes can actually increase congestion by creating bottlenecks. HOV lanes, on the other hand, are usually beneficial. They encourage carpooling (meaning three car trips become just one), and provide a way for buses to get through congested areas of freeways relatively quickly. If HOV lanes can be added without removing regular lanes (such as on the SI, Gowanus, and Van Wyck expressways), I'm all for them.
  4. Sure, I'll do a bit of digging when I have the time. I haven't looked into the Seattle project, but if it had "redundant alternatives", that already sets it apart. As I said earlier, the BQE is the only north-south freeway in Brooklyn. If you think free flowing traffic is unnecessary and leads to pollution, I have a google search for you. Try "City MPG vs. Highway MPG". This point of yours also makes me slightly less interested in your arguments, as we have a fundamental difference in that I don't want people to suffer for no reason. I'm all for investment in transit, but I don't think it should come at the cost of road maintenance. The way it stands, you don't have the option of repurposing that money for the MTA. And even if that was possible, construction costs would first need to be addressed. Regarding the NYC Ferry point: if it were to come to a shutdown, I would make sure that adequate capacity were present on other forms of transit to make life a bit easier for the people relying on the boats. On the other hand you know what isn't a very enticing alternative to the mode of transportation being discussed? Taking the polluted to stand on a for 40 minutes.
  5. Anyone with a brain would look at a map, see the two disconnected segments of the highway, and simply choose the best-looking route to bridge them. Maybe Smith Street or 3rd Avenue, or they could go all the way to Columbia/Furman. Removing such a small section of the highway isn't enough for the drive to be inconvenient enough not to drive. You understand subway operations relatively well, so it's weird that you don't see the obvious when it comes to road design. The bridge over the Gowanus has five lanes - four normal, one HOV. If you get rid of the Cobble Hill section, you'll have five lanes going into three (two normal and one HOV). This is known as a "bottleneck", where traffic volumes fit for a road with a large capacity have to fit into a road with less capacity. This results in very slow moving traffic before the bottleneck, and more than likely the Tunnel will also be stuffed due to the traffic light at its northern end. I'm sure the residents of northwestern Red Hook and southern Cobble Hill will be very grateful for all the extra exhaust you're sending their way. A "global precedent" is nice, but most of these "global precedents" aren't in Brooklyn. The transit in NYC is comprehensive to the point that the majority for whom a transit trip is feasible, are already taking transit. Removing the highway would therefore have a significant negative impact on travel times (try getting from Sheepshead Bay to Williamsburg in 30 minutes on public transit). This rehab is funded by the city, which as I'm sure you know isn't exactly willing to pony over extra money to the MTA. So all of your "real, beneficial improvements" such as "high frequency off peak bus service, or better subway service, or new routes, or accessibility treatments" are, as usual, relying on unrealistic optimism that the money would be diverted in a way that it never has been. Finally, you have been consistently acting as if the $4 billion price tag is supposed to be some kind of deterrent. Let's look at what we're getting: a rebuild of a section of the only north-south freeway in Brooklyn, with complex engineering required. And at the end, the Promenade will be twice as wide. If this rebuild lasts longer than all of us will be alive, I have no problem with the money being invested now.
  6. I guess here's one more individual who is unqualified to be Mayor. Good to keep track. "I cannot recall a time that two political candidates tried to outdo each other over improving transit." Where in any of this do you see that transit is going to be improved? Since you are so excited about demolishing transportation infrastructure, why don't you show me exactly how the transit situation in Red Hook and Cobble Hill would improve with this "plan"? FYI, the highway can be decked over without screwing over drivers for no reason.
  7. I'd like to ask a question about timers. Before a station there is a sign saying ST 15, and then a bit closer to the station there is another sign (on the same track) saying 35 Miles, shortly before a signal. I presume the second sign means that the signal should be passed at no more than 35 mph, but how does the ST 15 sign affect operations?
  8. If you have any specific routes in mind, just look at their schedules. http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/bus/mhtnsch.htm
  9. In general your theory isn't too off, but the issues lie within the details. I'll write a more detailed response later today.
  10. It's interesting to see that back then, they would actually propose route extensions with the goal of attracting ridership, like the B61 to Queens Plaza from LIC. These days? Apparently extending the B67 several blocks to connect with the routes at Williamsburg Bridge Plaza is not feasible, because it would require a single extra bus.
  11. Lmao. Right, let's remove one of the most important truck routes in the city, so that all that truck exhaust can go right into people's front yards. Have you even looked at the way the highway is designed? Even if it was shoddily built, the one thing they got right is that the pollution is directed towards the west, instead of the residences in Brooklyn Heights. Reducing pollution is a good goal, but accomplishing it by removing a freeway here in NYC would do nearly nothing to achieve that. You'll simply displace the road's users to other roads which are less equipped to handle the traffic, and generally operate at lower speeds. The additional car and truck traffic could also have a negative impact on pedestrian safety. Did you ever notice that you can't walk on a freeway? Well, I'd say it's therefore unlikely that you'd get hit by a car on it. I read "The destruction of the city by the automobile" and thought, ok maybe you've just been taking Streetsblog a little bit too seriously. Then I read "Also [remove], the GCP between Kew Gardens and Northern Boulevard, the Clearview, the Bruckner, ...Mosholu, and the Prospect Expressway." All I can say is... Well, thanks. I'm glad you want to make getting around the city much worse than it is today. I'm also glad that your opinions have very minimal practical use.
  12. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure it out from the schedule. All trains are 4 cars long. Peak headways have the equivalent of 8 TPH (4 TPH local + 4 TPH express) while all off peak service is 2 TPH. The only thing I don't really know, is how the reverse peak express service runs.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.