W train coming back this fall

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Have you tried actually buying property near a subway stop? It's usually very expensive to outright buy property near a subway stop. Even in a neighborhood like Jamaica, which is not particularly good, it's expensive. Housing in the subway-less outskirts, particularly in Queens or in Staten Island, tends to be cheaper either outright or per sq ft, if it's not McMansions.

I wouldn't want to.  Your statement is true only for some areas, but it doesn't hold water for a lot of other areas of the city.  Neponsit, Little Neck, Douglaston, Howard Beach, Beechhurst... All in Queens... All don't have subways and are quite expensive.

[Around the Horn]

If ridership increases on the through the Montague Street Tubes and the Fourth Avenue Local both peak and off-peak, then fine. Otherwise, I don't see why they should.

 

Around the Horn and T to Dyre Avenue have stated otherwise (in the past and/or just recently on this site in some other related threads), though, since I don't live on the and only use it occasionally. So of course, I probably don't know much about how ridership during the peak and off-peak or whatever goes on the through the Montague Tubes as they do. But I am certain that the number of people traveling on the between Manhattan and Brooklyn via the Montague Tubes is the lowest than all other East River crossings in the subway system for obvious reasons.

I will second that. A lot of riders switch to the and visa versa because we don't want to deal with the longer trip and the inevitable delays. Most riders from Bay Ridge have switched to another train by Atlantic.

[RollOver]

I will second that. A lot of riders switch to the and visa versa because we don't want to deal with the longer trip and the inevitable delays. Most riders from Bay Ridge have switched to another train by Atlantic.

I know...Anyone left on the are only going towards a local stop, while everyone else are going towards Chinatown/Midtown Manhattan via the express at 59th or the at 36th. That's why I, personally, would never agree on bringing any Lower Manhattan local line onto Fourth Avenue and West End respectively.

[richardye1]

I agree with whatever that was said. Honestly if 4th Av wants better service, can't they just raise the tph of the ? (without stressing the )

[NewFlyer 230]

Listen buddy... For the most part, people move to isolated areas of the city without subways because they want a more suburban lifestyle. What you're asking is like asking if people in Long Island want subways. The answer is yeah some probably do, but the majority don't. It isn't exactly rocket science. Most isolated areas in the city are not poor. They were built as more exclusive areas and have generally remained that way, so most of the people living there moved there for that reason. I mean seriously, someone that wants subway access is likely not going to move to a suburban area of the city like Douglaston and then complain about there being no subway. The only people really living far out either live in isolated upper class areas or mainly poor areas or solid middle class areas where the residents like the small town feel. Go ask the folks in Woodlawn if they would want the train extended there and see what they say. lol

Did you ask everyone who doesn't live near the subway why they moved there? You just make it seem like everyone who lives away from the subway lives there just for the sole reason of getting away from the subway. I live in a part of Queens where you need to take the bus to get to either Forest Hills or Flushing for subway service. Yeah we have the QM4 but it all boils down to the fact that not everyone can afford to pay premium prices for travel. Now that doesn't mean that my area is necessarily poor or a dangerous one. The local routes (Q25/Q34 and Q64) are just more convenient for us and they run very frequently. I'm sure some wouldn't want a subway to be built in our area but I'm sure many wouldn't mind because the Q64 which runs on Jewel Ave to Forest Hills is mainly a feeder route and 90% of the people who use that route transfer to the subway. So you really can't speak for everyone only for yourself.

[BronxBombers]

Listen buddy... For the most part, people move to isolated areas of the city without subways because they want a more suburban lifestyle. What you're asking is like asking if people in Long Island want subways. The answer is yeah some probably do, but the majority don't. It isn't exactly rocket science. Most isolated areas in the city are not poor. They were built as more exclusive areas and have generally remained that way, so most of the people living there moved there for that reason. I mean seriously, someone that wants subway access is likely not going to move to a suburban area of the city like Douglaston and then complain about there being no subway.  The only people really living far out either live in isolated upper class areas or mainly poor areas or solid middle class areas where the residents like the small town feel. Go ask the folks in Woodlawn if they would want the train extended there and see what they say. lol

 

I get that they move out there for a suburban feel, but your reason as to they move out there because they don't want subway doesn't make sense. I'm not saying lets add subway service to all suburban neighborhoods. All I'm saying is not everyone shares the same opinion as you.

[Around the Horn]

I know...Anyone left on the are only going towards a local stop, while everyone else are going towards Chinatown/Midtown Manhattan via the express at 59th or the at 36th. That's why I, personally, would never agree on bringing any Lower Manhattan local line onto Fourth Avenue and West End respectively.

Although I will say this, if I knew that either an or a could get me to Bay Ridge Avenue, I'd be more likely to wait for said train than just hop an . Its the fact that we have to wait 10 minutes for an that discourages Broadway riders from just taking one train to Bay Ridge.

 

I'd be very surprised if I was the only person who thought this way.

[checkmatechamp13]

I disagree.  Harlem is seeing quite a bit of gentrification, which I expect to continue to increase.  The East Bronx is already getting ferry service, and the areas that don't have readily access to the subway like it just the way that it is (i.e. Throggs Neck, Country Club, etc.).  Throggs Neck would much rather ferry service than subway service.  Parts of Throggs Neck is already going to crap because of the insane amount of over building as it is and Section 8 housing.  You put a subway there and that neighborhood is done.  All of the good areas of the Bronx DON'T have a subway or have one outside of the main area.

 

Gentrification isn't causing that much of a population increase that there's tons more demand to travel across 125th Street. It was always a busy corridor (the MTA didn't run 4 bus lines across the corridor for shits and giggles)

 

Gentrification means that those residents can afford to take other options.

 

I guess that means there's no point in building the Second Avenue Subway, since all those people on the UES can "afford other options".

 

First of all, gentrification doesn't just mean rich people. Sometimes, it's poor neighborhoods becoming more middle-class. 

 

Second of all, do you really want thousands of extra taxis, Ubers, and private automobiles clogging up the roads in Harlem, even if the people could afford it?

 

 

Harlem has magnificent transportation taking them downtown and they don't need more aside from a possible new west side line in the distant future.

 

How about we cut the S48, since there's already "magnificent transportation" along Richmond Avenue? Direct east-west service? Nah, just take the S44 and loop around if you need to get anywhere.

 

Well both areas are VERY poor and would require a massive amount of money to get a subway in there.  I think most of the people that will be using the ferry will be the folks down in Shorehaven anyway which is more suburban and solid middle class.

 

Unionport isn't a poor neighborhood. Not that it makes a difference, because if anything, the ridership would be that much higher because of the amount of transit-dependent people living in the neighborhood. 

 

3.  lol... You don't think Staten Island is overbuilt... Please... The infrastructure has not kept up with the amount of building that has gone on there and no matter how wide they make the SIE it'll never be enough. 

 

If you knew anything about traffic engineering, you'd know that a lot of problems are caused by the poor street grid. You can move a lot of vehicles when they're spread out over a bunch of small streets, and not all forced to come out of their cul-de-sac onto one main road. 

 

And you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, our infrastructure hasn't kept up with the amount of building, but on the other hand, we'll never be able to build enough infrastructure to accommodate our population? By that logic, any place denser than Staten Island is overdeveloped.

 

My neighborhood is bisected by an expressway. We easily have the population density to justify one local route on the north side, and one local route on the south side. Thanks to developers who don't know how to plan their street grid, we're forced to fight for one route that's going to attempt to cover both sides. Aside from causing half-assed routings in the bus service, the street grid also forces cars to pass through that same limited number of streets, as opposed to spreading them out. The volume/capacity ratio is actually very low on most streets. The problem is that there's certain chokepoints in the street network which mess everything up.

 

Listen buddy... For the most part, people move to isolated areas of the city without subways because they want a more suburban lifestyle. What you're asking is like asking if people in Long Island want subways. The answer is yeah some probably do, but the majority don't. It isn't exactly rocket science. Most isolated areas in the city are not poor. They were built as more exclusive areas and have generally remained that way, so most of the people living there moved there for that reason. I mean seriously, someone that wants subway access is likely not going to move to a suburban area of the city like Douglaston and then complain about there being no subway.  The only people really living far out either live in isolated upper class areas or mainly poor areas or solid middle class areas where the residents like the small town feel. Go ask the folks in Woodlawn if they would want the train extended there and see what they say. lol

 

OK, so you've admitted that isolated areas can have a similar income distribution as more centralized areas, and you're absolutely right. Hunts Point & Soundview? Isolated and poor. Third Avenue corridor in The Bronx? Isolated and poor. Parts of the North Shore? Isolated and poor. 

 

Have you tried actually buying property near a subway stop? It's usually very expensive to outright buy property near a subway stop. Even in a neighborhood like Jamaica, which is not particularly good, it's expensive. Housing in the subway-less outskirts, particularly in Queens or in Staten Island, tends to be cheaper either outright or per sq ft, if it's not McMansions.

 

This.

 

I wouldn't want to.  Your statement is true only for some areas, but it doesn't hold water for a lot of other areas of the city.  Neponsit, Little Neck, Douglaston, Howard Beach, Beechhurst... All in Queens... All don't have subways and are quite expensive.

 

On a per square foot basis, they're usually comparable to areas closer to the subway. Howard Beach & Neponsit are comparable to a lot of Queens neighborhoods on a per square foot basis. Beechhurst, Little Neck and Douglaston have some properties that are expensive on a per square foot basis, but there's also properties in Astoria right near the subway with similar prices per square foot.

 

http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/ny/New-York-City/Maps/Property-Price-Sqft-Map

 

https://medium.com/re-form/nycs-housing-cost-myth-9dce6052c139#.foc3eh59x(Woodlawn is actually the most affordable neighborhood in The Bronx on a per square foot basis)

[Around the Horn]

^i need a laughing my ass off emoji...

[bobtehpanda]

I wouldn't want to.  Your statement is true only for some areas, but it doesn't hold water for a lot of other areas of the city.  Neponsit, Little Neck, Douglaston, Howard Beach, Beechhurst... All in Queens... All don't have subways and are quite expensive.

 

This is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one. Just because cheaper areas tend to be farther away from the city doesn't mean that all areas farther from the city are cheaper. That's like saying that since cabs tend to be yellow, all yellow cars are cabs.

 

Also, I specifically noted anything that wasn't McMansions. Little Neck and Douglaston have their fair share of those, and judging from pictures so does Beechhurst. Howard Beach and Neponsit are expensive because they have beach access, and I imagine taking out the FEMA-required flood insurance would also be a factor.

[Fresh Pond]

But Howard Beach does have subway access. Granted its only stop, but still access nonetheless.

[checkmatechamp13]

But Howard Beach does have subway access. Granted its only stop, but still access nonetheless.

 

The train stops in Hamilton Beach, which is more run-down than Howard Beach proper (which is on the other side of Cross Bay Blvd)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

To get back on topic... Why haven't they considered ever extending the to Brooklyn? Not enough trains.

Unfortunately, yes, that's the reason. Maybe once we have enough R179s, they could consider extending the into Brooklyn - on an official, regularly scheduled basis. But even so, where in Brooklyn would they extend the where it wouldn't duplicate one of the other Broadway lines? The West End Line is the only place I can think of (which doesn't require building any expensive track connections), but does it really need the extra service?

I agree with whatever that was said. Honestly if 4th Av wants better service, can't they just raise the tph of the ? (without stressing the )

The issues with the include the length of the whole line, the multiple merges with other lines and the relaying after 71st Ave in Queens. At least one of those issues has to be addressed and dealt with before we can just add more trains per hour.

[NewFlyer 230]

The train stops in Hamilton Beach, which is more run-down than Howard Beach proper (which is on the other side of Cross Bay Blvd)

The general area is Howard Beach. Lindenwood, Old Howard Beach and Hamilton Beach are just sections within Howard Beach. It is not really that run down.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one. Just because cheaper areas tend to be farther away from the city doesn't mean that all areas farther from the city are cheaper. That's like saying that since cabs tend to be yellow, all yellow cars are cabs.

 

Also, I specifically noted anything that wasn't McMansions. Little Neck and Douglaston have their fair share of those, and judging from pictures so does Beechhurst. Howard Beach and Neponsit are expensive because they have beach access, and I imagine taking out the FEMA-required flood insurance would also be a factor.

You're the one that threw out the whole bit about how areas closer to the subway are more expensive, and all I said was that's true in some cases, but that there are plenty of cases where your logic doesn't hold water.  Are we clear now, or do I need to repeat that again? 

 

 

 

1. Gentrification isn't causing that much of a population increase that there's tons more demand to travel across 125th Street. It was always a busy corridor (the MTA didn't run 4 bus lines across the corridor for shits and giggles)

 

 

2. Unionport isn't a poor neighborhood. Not that it makes a difference, because if anything, the ridership would be that much higher because of the amount of transit-dependent people living in the neighborhood. 

 

 

3. If you knew anything about traffic engineering, you'd know that a lot of problems are caused by the poor street grid. You can move a lot of vehicles when they're spread out over a bunch of small streets, and not all forced to come out of their cul-de-sac onto one main road. 

 

a. And you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, our infrastructure hasn't kept up with the amount of building, but on the other hand, we'll never be able to build enough infrastructure to accommodate our population? By that logic, any place denser than Staten Island is overdeveloped.

 

b. My neighborhood is bisected by an expressway. We easily have the population density to justify one local route on the north side, and one local route on the south side. Thanks to developers who don't know how to plan their street grid, we're forced to fight for one route that's going to attempt to cover both sides. Aside from causing half-assed routings in the bus service, the street grid also forces cars to pass through that same limited number of streets, as opposed to spreading them out. The volume/capacity ratio is actually very low on most streets. The problem is that there's certain chokepoints in the street network which mess everything up.

1.  It isn't, but it also isn't helping either now is it?

 

2.  Oh please.  Just because someone can afford to drive a car doesn't mean anything.  It's working class at best if that makes you feel any better.  Plenty of upper class people choose to take the subway, just like I choose not to drive and take the MNRR or express bus.

 

3. Oh yes, I was living on Staten Island ALL of years and worked in construction and NEVER knew that... 

 

a. No you won't be able to not if every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( )has a car and fewer people use mass transit.  Staten Island (IIRC) likely has a low amount of people living in each residence in comparison to other boroughs, yet you can walk by numerous houses and see at least two to three cars PER HOUSE.  Absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous. 

 

b. No s**** Sherlock.  Really? Ya think so? 

 

 

 

I get that they move out there for a suburban feel, but your reason as to they move out there because they don't want subway doesn't make sense. I'm not saying lets add subway service to all suburban neighborhoods. All I'm saying is not everyone shares the same opinion as you.

Why wouldn't it make sense?  I don't know of too many suburban areas that have subways.  Do you? lol

  I already noted that some people move further out because they don't have a choice, but there are plenty of people that move further out because they prefer a more suburban lifestyle, which doesn't include subways.

 

Did you ask everyone who doesn't live near the subway why they moved there? You just make it seem like everyone who lives away from the subway lives there just for the sole reason of getting away from the subway. I live in a part of Queens where you need to take the bus to get to either Forest Hills or Flushing for subway service. Yeah we have the QM4 but it all boils down to the fact that not everyone can afford to pay premium prices for travel. Now that doesn't mean that my area is necessarily poor or a dangerous one. The local routes (Q25/Q34 and Q64) are just more convenient for us and they run very frequently. I'm sure some wouldn't want a subway to be built in our area but I'm sure many wouldn't mind because the Q64 which runs on Jewel Ave to Forest Hills is mainly a feeder route and 90% of the people who use that route transfer to the subway. So you really can't speak for everyone only for yourself.

I don't need to.  All you need to do is look at most suburban areas of the city and see how people operate.  Now areas where you have large immigrant populations tend to be more transit dependent, so areas like Flushing don't fit the typical mold.  Those people are going to use the local bus to the subway moreso vs. driving or taking the LIRR or express bus.  

[Javier]

Just to recap what is going to happen in November:

 

will temp be cut back to 57th St - 7th Av at all times until the Second Av Subway is opened, which it will then be rerouted to it's new terminus 96th St - 2nd Av. The new stops and service pattern the line will serve are this:

 

--^Towards Coney Island - Stillwell Av: (Normal Service Pattern)^--

 

57th St - 7th Av ( trains stop on the express track in both directions.)

 

Lexington Av - 63rd St ---- ( by walking to the Lex - 59th St station and using your metrocard.)

( trains now stop across the platform on both levels.)

 

72nd St - 2nd Av (M15 SBS)

 

86th St - 2nd Av (M15 SBS)

 

96th St - 2nd Av (M15 SBS) (Terminus for all trains.)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Service in Brooklyn and Queens will remain the same, but will become express in Manhattan only stopping at these stops:

 

Canal Street

 

34th St - Herald Square

 

Times Square - 42nd St

 

49th St

 

57th St - 7th Av

 

Lexington Av - 59 St

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

service remains unchanged.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

will be brought back to it's pre-2010 status to replace the in Queens and the local in Manhattan. It's terminus in Queens will be Astoria - Ditmars and it's terminus in Manhattan will be Whitehall St.

[Around the Horn]

You're the one that threw out the whole bit about how areas closer to the subway are more expensive, and all I said was that's true in some cases, but that there are plenty of cases where your logic doesn't hold water.  Are we clear now, or do I need to repeat that again? 

 

 

1.  It isn't, but it also isn't helping either now is it?

 

2.  Oh please.  Just because someone can afford to drive a car doesn't mean anything.  It's working class at best if that makes you feel any better.  Plenty of upper class people choose to take the subway, just like I choose not to drive and take the MNRR or express bus.

 

3. Oh yes, I was living on Staten Island ALL of years and worked in construction and NEVER knew that... 

 

a. No you won't be able to not if every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( )has a car and fewer people use mass transit.  Staten Island (IIRC) likely has a low amount of people living in each residence in comparison to other boroughs, yet you can walk by numerous houses and see at least two to three cars PER HOUSE.  Absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous. 

 

b. No s**** Sherlock.  Really? Ya think so? 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't it make sense?  I don't know of too many suburban areas that have subways.  Do you? lol

  I already noted that some people move further out because they don't have a choice, but there are plenty of people that move further out because they prefer a more suburban lifestyle, which doesn't include subways.

 

I don't need to.  All you need to do is look at most suburban areas of the city and see how people operate.  Now areas where you have large immigrant populations tend to be more transit dependent, so areas like Flushing don't fit the typical mold.  Those people are going to use the local bus to the subway moreso vs. driving or taking the LIRR or express bus.  

Please stop Blanche-ing.

 

(If you don't get that reference you must have never been to high school...)

"that rattletrap streetcar that bangs through the Quarter up one old narrow street and down another"

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Please stop Blanche-ing.

 

(If you don't get that reference you must have never been to high school...)

"that rattletrap streetcar that bangs through the Quarter up one old narrow street and down another"

(I have and I still don't know what you're talking about...)   

[LTA1992]

 

Gentrification isn't causing that much of a population increase that there's tons more demand to travel across 125th Street. It was always a busy corridor (the MTA didn't run 4 bus lines across the corridor for shits and giggles)

 

 

I guess that means there's no point in building the Second Avenue Subway, since all those people on the UES can "afford other options".

 

First of all, gentrification doesn't just mean rich people. Sometimes, it's poor neighborhoods becoming more middle-class. 

 

Second of all, do you really want thousands of extra taxis, Ubers, and private automobiles clogging up the roads in Harlem, even if the people could afford it?

 

 

 

How about we cut the S48, since there's already "magnificent transportation" along Richmond Avenue? Direct east-west service? Nah, just take the S44 and loop around if you need to get anywhere.

 

 

 

First off, 1225th Street, as a street, feeds directly to the Triborough Bridge and the FDR. OF COURSE it's going to be congested and of course there are going to be 4 bus routes. Two of those routes are inter-borough. . It's also a major commercial district and a lot of the people shopping along that street come from the north and south. People travel fro mall over the city to shop there but the major commercial sections from from St. Nicholas Avenue to Lexington Avenue. People can walk that distance with ease. There are more important priorities than a 125th Street Crosstown subway.

 

The Second Avenue Subway is a TRUNK LINE. It is fed from other lines across the city and therefore is already 20 times more important than a 125th Street Crosstown. This is a streat nowhere near the CBD and will only benefit those too lazy to walk on the street, or for whatever reason, would need to get from the Broadway-7th Avenue Line to the Lex or something. Stop trying to devalue my statements with these weak arguments. It's unintelligent.

 

Either way, these people could afford the other options. 125th Street, the commercial parts of it, is not a big area. Only half of the total street distance is the "crowded area with tons of demand for better crosstown travel" you speak of. That's only about one mile. How many people are or need to go that entire distance before reaching a subway? Not many. You act like this is a large area nd the risk of all these extra vehicles is high. It's really not. If you focused on a north-south line bringing people to the area from outlying areas currently without service and providing transfers where possible, then you've already taken vehicles and cabs off the road. The needed effects have occurred.

 

Lastly, another unintelligent argument. First off, you pick the most used of the North Shore routes to axe to weakly try to counter my argument about Harlem having magnificent service? You CANNOT compare an area that is has four subway lines served by ten services to an area with only buses running at the same frequencies as the ferry one needs to connect with the rest of the city. On nowhere on Staten Island can you even apply the term "magnificent service". If you are going to argue with me, at least use better material. Because frankly, a person can get from Harlem to their jobs in the CBD 8 times quicker than a person travelling using the same means from Mariners Harbor. But I seem to be one of the few that sees value in a Forest Avenue subway.

 

Also, by any chance, was that A Streetcar Named Desire?

[Around the Horn]

 

(I have and I still don't know what you're talking about...)   

 

 

Also, by any chance, was that A Streetcar Named Desire?

Yes. Yes it was. His attitude in this thread is identical to the way Blanche feels about New Orleans.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

First off, 1225th Street, as a street, feeds directly to the Triborough Bridge and the FDR. OF COURSE it's going to be congested and of course there are going to be 4 bus routes. Two of those routes are inter-borough. . It's also a major commercial district and a lot of the people shopping along that street come from the north and south. People travel fro mall over the city to shop there but the major commercial sections from from St. Nicholas Avenue to Lexington Avenue. People can walk that distance with ease. There are more important priorities than a 125th Street Crosstown subway.

 

LOL... The problem is you make it sound like 125th shouldn't be a priority because of what already exists.  Sure, there are four buses, but what good are they if they're all sitting in traffic? I was up there last night for a tutoring session south of 125th street, and I just about always take Metro-North now because of the amount of congestion on the subway and buses.  As I walking down from the platform to head towards 5th Avenue, I saw tons of buses just sitting in traffic, including two M60SBS buses.  They are supposedly putting up a Whole Foods somewhere in the area, which will surely bring even more congestion to the area. Considering how run down parts of 125th street currently are in comparison to how crowded it already is, it's safe to say that as the area gentrifies that will certainly worsen.  All of those cops all about a clear sign that developers are coming in and buying up properties even in East Harlem and where possible, building, even where there are endless amounts of housing projects.  I mean plenty of people (myself included) just run to and from Metro-North in that area and don't think twice about patronizing any stores along the way, but for those people moving there and gentrifying the area, they will want and demand amenities, so it's only a matter of time before more changes happen.

[checkmatechamp13]

2.  Oh please.  Just because someone can afford to drive a car doesn't mean anything.  It's working class at best if that makes you feel any better.  Plenty of upper class people choose to take the subway, just like I choose not to drive and take the MNRR or express bus.

 

Which is only proving my point. There are a significant amount of people in that area who would benefit from having direct subway service. Now would the benefit be worth the cost? The answer is.....possibly.

 

Oh yes, I was living on Staten Island ALL of years and worked in construction and NEVER knew that...  

 

Based on your comments, clearly you don't. You think the average Staten Islander or the average construction worker sits around and talks about volume/capacity ratios all day?

 

a. No you won't be able to not if every Tom, Dick, and Harry (  )has a car and fewer people use mass transit.  Staten Island (IIRC) likely has a low amount of people living in each residence in comparison to other boroughs, yet you can walk by numerous houses and see at least two to three cars PER HOUSE.  Absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous. 

 

Not too much lower: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSD310214/36047,36061,36005,36081,36085,00

 

Average household size:

 

Staten Island: 2.81

Queens: 2.89

Bronx: 2.85

Manhattan: 2.09

Brooklyn: 2.74

 

As for having all those vehicles, that's to be expected considering we're the lowest-density borough, and considering the lack of other transportation options we have. Higher density and better transportation tend to correlate with lower rates of auto ownership. Staten Island's rate of autoless households (taken from Table B08201 of the 2009-2014 American Community survey) is roughly 16.50%, compared to roughly 10.65% for Rockland County, 14.51% for Westchester County, 7.87% for Nassau County and 5.41% for Suffolk County. Given the weighted densities of those counties, it makes sense.

 

That table also lists the number of households with 1, 2, 3, or 4+ vehicles, but you can get those numbers for yourself by going to "Add/Remove Geographies", and adding whichever counties you want.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1. Which is only proving my point. There are a significant amount of people in that area who would benefit from having direct subway service. Now would the benefit be worth the cost? The answer is.....possibly.

 

 

2. Based on your comments, clearly you don't. You think the average Staten Islander or the average construction worker sits around and talks about volume/capacity ratios all day?

 

 

3. Not too much lower: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSD310214/36047,36061,36005,36081,36085,00

 

Average household size:

 

Staten Island: 2.81

Queens: 2.89

Bronx: 2.85

Manhattan: 2.09

Brooklyn: 2.74

 

As for having all those vehicles, that's to be expected considering we're the lowest-density borough, and considering the lack of other transportation options we have. Higher density and better transportation tend to correlate with lower rates of auto ownership. Staten Island's rate of autoless households (taken from Table B08201 of the 2009-2014 American Community survey) is roughly 16.50%, compared to roughly 10.65% for Rockland County, 14.51% for Westchester County, 7.87% for Nassau County and 5.41% for Suffolk County. Given the weighted densities of those counties, it makes sense.

 

That table also lists the number of households with 1, 2, 3, or 4+ vehicles, but you can get those numbers for yourself by going to "Add/Remove Geographies", and adding whichever counties you want.

1. And you know that because why?  

 

2. No because the infrastructure of Staten Island has been well documented for years.  The only person that wouldn't know is someone that either never reads a newspaper or is just completely stupid.  Stop acting as if this is so complicated to understand.  It's pretty simple.  You create an area that is built to deal with a certain amount of people and then suddenly add more people and don't improve the infrastructure and you get what you have in Staten Island.  Duh... 

 

3. Please.  So you're telling me that if there's two people in a household, each person needs a car? lol

[checkmatechamp13]

Lastly, another unintelligent argument. First off, you pick the most used of the North Shore routes to axe to weakly try to counter my argument about Harlem having magnificent service? You CANNOT compare an area that is has four subway lines served by ten services to an area with only buses running at the same frequencies as the ferry one needs to connect with the rest of the city. On nowhere on Staten Island can you even apply the term "magnificent service". If you are going to argue with me, at least use better material. Because frankly, a person can get from Harlem to their jobs in the CBD 8 times quicker than a person travelling using the same means from Mariners Harbor. But I seem to be one of the few that sees value in a Forest Avenue subway.

 

Oh, sorry I should've used the term "beautifully served", like you did. And if it makes you feel better, I'll use my portion of the neighborhood then. I've been trying to get a bus route running along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue. The MTA's original response was that the S44 & S46 serve the needs of local bus riders, because they go east-west eventually, even though it is effectively a detour that takes us miles out of our way. Now it appears that they're giving in after years of fighting from the community. 

 

Obviously, 125th Street is on a much larger scale, but my point is that having wonderful service in one direction is great, but it doesn't compensate for a lack of service in the perpendicular direction. Aside from people using the line for intra-125th Street travel, it also serves those looking to travel from West Harlem (and Washington Heights/Inwood by a transfer to the or train) to the East Side of Manhattan and vice versa (e.g. Columbia University students and staff). There's a lot of jobs in the hospitals along York Avenue. 

 

And you know that because why?  

 

You're really going to make me break out the population density stats, and the on/off data for the bus routes that feed into the train? 

 

No because the infrastructure of Staten Island has been well documented for years.  The only person that wouldn't know is someone that either never reads a newspaper or is just completely stupid.  Stop acting as if this is so complicated to understand.  It's pretty simple.  You create an area that is built to deal with a certain amount of people and then suddenly add more people and don't improve the infrastructure and you get what you have in Staten Island.  Duh...  

 

Volume/capacity ratios are pretty simple to understand, actually. But in any case, it's not about the amount of infrastructure being built. It's about building it efficiently in the first place.

 

For example, let's look at the traffic study for Hylan Blvd as part of the S79 SBS project.

 

"Traffic volumes in the peak direction/peak hour along Hylan Boulevard vary along the length of the corridor, peaking in the 1,000-2,100 vehicles per hour (vph) range, with the highest volumes of nearly 2,500 northbound vehicles in the AM peak and 2,100 southbound vehicles in the PM peak at Bryant Avenue"

 

Hmmm....Bryant Avenue. Funny how that's smack dab in between New Dorp Lane and Midland Avenue. People have called for the gate at the Miller Field to be open full-time and allow general traffic to pass through, effectively providing an additional lane in each direction, while using infrastructure that's already there. 

 

Please.  So you're telling me that if there's two people in a household, each person needs a car? lol

 

Apparently some people think so. If the husband works in some isolated part of Brooklyn, and the wife works in some hard-to-reach part of NJ (like the areas just on the other side of the Goethals & Outerbridge, thanks to the MTA), and there's no way for them to share the car (e.g. One of them works an overnight shift), then yes, two cars would be needed in practice.

 

Yes, in many cases, those people are spoiled and could very well use the transit system for their trips. But there's a significant amount of people who would be willing to switch to transit if it were of higher quality, and on top of that, the new people that would be moving to Staten Island would be more likely to use transit as well. (If the developer is marketing the development as being close to a subway line, then it will draw a lot of people who will use said subway line). 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You're really going to make me break out the population density stats, and the on/off data for the bus routes that feed into the train? 

 

Even if you did that, what does that have to do with where people are going and whether or not a subway actually works best for their trips?  You would better off not breaking it out.