Roadcruiser1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #126 Posted February 24, 2011 About the map I posted above. I kind of still find it kind of Manhattan centric. It focuses too much on Manhattan not solving the problems of the people that work outside of Manhattan. I want to see the come up with more crosstown BRT's then just one. I still see places that aren't served by subway service not served by BRT's on that map. With no subway service, and no BRT's they still don't have a easy commute. We need to focus on improving, and increasing the capacity of the buses to ease crowding. If we can't build subway lines we must do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted February 24, 2011 Share #127 Posted February 24, 2011 Manhattan-centric still makes boatloads of sense. Most people go there... Why do we need to change that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #128 Posted February 24, 2011 We need to change that, because we need to find faster ways to get to relatives that live in other boroughs without going through Manhattan. There are jobs also that aren't in Manhattan, and the other boroughs need to develop too. If you looked at the pdf I posted on page 7 or 8 it will explain more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 24, 2011 Share #129 Posted February 24, 2011 How about a regular articulate or a light rail. The M15 uses articulates. I think it would work, but double articulates have the capacity of carrying more passengers. The regular articulates, and the regular buses carry less passengers then the double articulates. I want to create something that would provide a lot of relief. I know double articulates aren't as long as a subway train. I am talking about passenger capacity. It carries roughly the same amount of passengers as a 3 car subway train. Don't get me wrong, I think double-articulated buses and especially light rail are great for their passenger capacity. But they really need to have their own lanes, free of cars, trucks, bikes, taxis and other buses in order to operate safely and successfully. Bus stops should have an extended curb, so the bus doesn't have to pull over to make the stop then force its way back into traffic when it's time to go. Same goes for light rail, except for the part about pulling to the curb. That's why I think double-articulateds would work on wide streets with multiple traffic lanes in each direction, where it would be possible to give the buses their own lanes. But Utica Ave isn't wide enough for that. Single-articulateds, like the ones on the M15 and Bx12, can and should be used there. But not as a permanent solution. That's what a Utica Ave Subway is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #130 Posted February 24, 2011 You are correct that BRT can be used as a temporarily situation, but it could be used for a long term solution too. Many cities in South America have been using BRT successfully for 20 years, and it is a pernament solution. It would work in places where subway lines would take a long time to build. NYC is a good place for light rail, and BRT, because subway lines take a long time to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 24, 2011 Share #131 Posted February 24, 2011 Wirelessly posted via (BlackBerry8520/5.0.0.900 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100) For the last time, double artics will NOT on Utica Av north of ENY Av/Empire Blvd for the simple fact that the street isn't wide enough. Standard artics, I highly doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #132 Posted February 25, 2011 Alright what about the regular buses, but with a high frequency rate. With a high frequency rate you can have less complaints, and have a fast service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #133 Posted February 25, 2011 Alright what about the regular buses, but with a high frequency rate. With a high frequency rate you can have less complaints, and have a fast service. Not necessarily. If traffic is already at a crawl (I'll be honest, I don't know. I suggest asking someone who travels down Utica often) then you'll just have a line of buses sitting there inching forwards. Plus by adding more buses you actually add to the traffic by putting more vehicles on the streets. It's not like buses can magically bypass cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #134 Posted February 25, 2011 How about light rail. Cars have to usually avoid the light rail car. This would be a bit faster, and might work better on Utica Avenue. Just in case I am going to see if I can see this avenue for a day myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #135 Posted February 25, 2011 How about light rail. Cars have to usually avoid the light rail car. This would be a bit faster, and might work better on Utica Avenue. Just in case I am going to see if I can see this avenue for a day myself. I took a look at one intersection (Utica and Beverley Rd) and immediately thought no. The avenue is narrow enough as it is. You would be reducing Utica to one lane in each direction, and if it is as congested as ENY says it is, then that would spell disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #136 Posted February 25, 2011 That's why for a short while the SBS bus would use Ralph Avenue which is 1 kilometer away from Utica Avenue. 1 Kilometer is around 10 city blocks. I am still wondering who the hell design the street like this. Why didn't they just made Utica Avenue a 6 lane avenue, and Ralph Avenue the 2 lane avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #137 Posted February 25, 2011 That's why for a short while the SBS bus would use Ralph Avenue which is 1 kilometer away from Utica Avenue. 1 Kilometer is around 10 city blocks. No way in hell people will walk ten blocks to take a special bus, when there are buses that run on Utica. Hell, ten blocks is the distance between stations of the SAS above 72nd St! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #138 Posted February 25, 2011 No way in hell people will walk ten blocks to take a special bus, when there are buses that run on Utica. Hell, ten blocks is the distance between stations of the SAS above 72nd St! Some people are doing it on 2nd Avenue because there aren't enough locals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #139 Posted February 25, 2011 What are you going to do then. The only other avenue is Flatbush Avenue, and that is around 1 kilometer away from Utica too. Those two avenues are the only two avenues that can handle the bus. Utica can't. The only other thing I can percieve is a subway line, and if we want to do it quick it would have to be an El. The original Utica Avenue Line proposed in 1939 was an El. So it won't be a bad idea if we build the Utica Avenue Elevated. You could make the El beautiful, and make it a beautiful structure thus it would stop complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #140 Posted February 25, 2011 What are you going to do then. The only other avenue is Flatbush Avenue, and that is around 1 kilometer away from Utica too. Those two avenues are the only two avenues that can handle the bus. Utica can't. The only other thing I can percieve is a subway line, and if we want to do it quick it would have to be an El. The original Utica Avenue Line proposed in 1939 was an El. Flatbush is too narrow for SBS. Also I'm sure the MTA would have a jolly time locating the millions it'd take to make an El. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #141 Posted February 25, 2011 I highly doubt an El would be built in the first place. Two reasons which are lack of money, and NIMBY's opposing a rail line especially an El. I don't see anything wrong with El's. People say they cast a big ugly shadow on the ground, but you do the same thing. People say they are loud, but their clamor is just as loud. Plus Honolulu is building an El, and the Dubai Metro is completely elevated. Chicago had lived with El's for decades with no problems. Vancouver has their Skytrain. I just don't see why people in this city are so light headed. El's are the cheapest in rail construction, and the fastest in rail construction even faster then a subway. Even a mass transit Robert Moses would love El's. You know why? Robert Moses loved to build elevated structures as a permanent structure man can see, and marvel. A mass transit Robert Moses would see it in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #142 Posted February 25, 2011 Besides my idea for an elevated Utica Avenue Line would actually call for a beautiful structure not an eyesore. I would have it built in a style of a Roman Aqueduct with artwork, and beautiful Greek, and Roman columns with modern day elevated stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #143 Posted February 25, 2011 Besides my idea for an elevated Utica Avenue Line would actually call for a beautiful structure not an eyesore. I would have it built in a style of a Roman Aqueduct with artwork, and beautiful Greek, and Roman columns with modern day elevated stations. Too bad the El will pass by some bad neighboorhoods and probably get vandalized Solid idea though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #144 Posted February 25, 2011 Some people are doing it on 2nd Avenue because there aren't enough locals. There's a big difference, though. Once you get to Second Avenue you walk at most five blocks in either direction to get to the SBS (assuming you go to Second Av first, although this being New York the distance you would walk if you go directly to the SBS stop is the same). Roadcruiser wants to make them walk ten blocks to a line that runs parallel to Utica -- walking away from the street to get to the bus rather than along the street to get to the bus. And I'd love to see the find the hundreds of millions -- heck, billions since this is transit we're talking about -- it would take to build a project like your el, Roadcruiser. Things that look elegant like that don't come cheap you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 25, 2011 Share #145 Posted February 25, 2011 Extra buses is not gonna work SBS/BRT is not gonna work Light rail is not gonna work Why? The streets are too narrow above Empire Bl/ENY Av (like I said for the millionth time), plus it will just add to the problem (which defeats the whole purpose of it) An El is not gonna work Why? Utica Av is not strong enough to support it (like ENY said) An underground subway is the only logical answer (although there will be some drawbacks) No one is gonna walk half a mile to Ralph Av for service on Utica Av. For all that, they can just take the (less frequent) B47 which runs on Ralph Av Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #146 Posted February 25, 2011 This subway would take so long we won't see relief in our lifetime. My El uses regular concrete not heavy limestone. If you do it right you can shape concrete into anything you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 25, 2011 Share #147 Posted February 25, 2011 Wirelessly posted via (BlackBerry8520/5.0.0.900 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100) Its still too much weight for Utica Av Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #148 Posted February 25, 2011 This subway would take so long we won't see relief in our lifetime. My El uses regular concrete not heavy limestone. If you do it right you can shape concrete into anything you want. That doesn't stop it from weighing a ton and costing a pretty penny for a project of that scale. And most concrete structures today actually have a metal frame in the middle of each post, as metal is actually sturdier than concrete IIRC, not to mention more flexible. That said, I definitely do not see a concrete el going up on a street that narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share #149 Posted February 25, 2011 Listen if the 1939 plan calls for an El then it might work. I am not trying to bash or hurt feelings I am saying if we want to do things quick, and get things done we would have to do some El's. I also got an extra fact for you guys I also found out the section of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line south of Brooklyn College was suppose to be an El too in the 1939 plan. If a concrete El doesn't work then we can make a beautiful stainless steel El. Who said you can't make an El beautiful. If I were to built it I would try my best to make it fit, and look as beautiful as possible so future generations could look up, and marvel at how you can build beautiful elevated structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #150 Posted February 25, 2011 Listen if the 1939 plan calls for an El then it might work. I am not trying to bash or hurt feelings I am saying if we want to do things quick, and get things done we would have to do some El's. I also got an extra fact for you guys I also found out the section of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line south of Brooklyn College was suppose to be an El too in the 1939 plan. Things change in 70 years. It's called progress. The question that has to be answered is, how dense was the neighborhood around Utica in 1939? If the el came before (most of) the people, fine. But the people before the el? That's where you run into nimbyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.