NYCDOT: What if we saved the subway by getting folks to use the other trains we have here???

[itmaybeokay]

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Sure, we can discuss a lot of pipe dreams.  In my case though, I actually go to board meetings, speak with elected officials about improving transportation and so on, so I don't just spew out ideas for the hell of it.  I speak about these things because some of them I actually want to see implemented, and have fought to do just that.  Transportation is a lot more of a serious issue in my mind than a lot of people realize, so I'm sure we're looking at things from a different perspective... Either a foamer or an engineer, etc.  I'm essentially an advocate for better transportation, but with realistic expectations.

We get it. You're better than us. You can't see me genuflecting but I promise I'm totally honored to be graced by your digital countenance right now. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

We get it. You're better than us. You can't see me genuflecting but I promise I'm totally honored to be graced by your digital countenance right now. 

Speak for yourself. No, you don't get it... That's the problem.

[RR503]

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Sure, we can discuss a lot of pipe dreams.  In my case though, I actually go to board meetings, speak with elected officials about improving transportation and so on, so I don't just spew out ideas for the hell of it.  I speak about these things because some of them I actually want to see implemented, and have fought to do just that.  Transportation is a lot more of a serious issue in my mind than a lot of people realize, so I'm sure we're looking at things from a different perspective... Either a foamer or an engineer, etc.  I'm essentially an advocate for better transportation, but with realistic expectations.

Alright, so you can add frequencies to your express buses. I respect that. At work, I deal with doing the same for the subway, so I understand that sort of thing -- 'realistic change.' But realism is a relative term. We have myriad issues of transport in our city, a major one being transit deserts. What we've presented here is the simplest, most cost effective way of providing significant irrigation to these areas. You say pipe dream. I say the most pragmatic reality. So sure, it may not be attainable in three weeks, but there needs to be more to transport planning than the slog. There is a region with issues greater than the frequency of the BxM_____ here, and those issues are gonna need some 'pipe dream' type thinking to get solved. And yes, incrementalism will probably be the path there, but we damn well need some direction. Given that implementing such a regional rail network as I and others have laid out would probably set the agency back only a few billion, I really don't see this as some impossibility on fiscal grounds, rather one limited by the agency's and population's narrow mindsets on infrastructure usage. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

Alright, so you can add frequencies to your express buses. I respect that. At work, I deal with doing the same for the subway, so I understand that sort of thing -- 'realistic change.' But realism is a relative term. We have myriad issues of transport in our city, a major one being transit deserts. What we've presented here is the simplest, most cost effective way of providing significant irrigation to these areas. You say pipe dream. I say the most pragmatic reality. So sure, it may not be attainable in three weeks, but there needs to be more to transport planning than the slog. There is a region with issues greater than the frequency of the BxM_____ here, and those issues are gonna need some 'pipe dream' type thinking to get solved. And yes, incrementalism will probably be the path there, but we damn well need some direction. Given that implementing such a regional rail network as I and others have laid out would probably set the agency back only a few billion, I really don't see this as some impossibility on fiscal grounds, rather one limited by the agency's and population's narrow mindsets on infrastructure usage. 

I completely get the need for improving transportation in transit deserts.  Where I don't agree at is the following:

-Lowering the fare to $2.75 is just absurd, and subsidizing such a fare.... It has to be paid for.  $6.50 is more reasonable.  You're giving people a much faster ride and telling them it should only cost $2.75. We have tiers in just about all other services.  What you're proposing is giving passengers Saks quality of clothing at H & M prices, or for another comparison, Per Se quality at McDonald's prices. 

-At $6.50, the City wouldn't have to subsidize the fare as much and you'd need fewer infrastructure improvements. You've been arguing that there are empty seats that can be filled.  That can be done cheaply at $6.50. At $2.75, it's a completely different ballgame.

 

 

[RR503]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I completely get the need for improving transportation in transit deserts.  Where I don't agree at is the following:

 -Lowering the fare to $2.75 is just absurd, and subsidizing such a fare.... It has to be paid for.  $6.50 is more reasonable.  You're giving people a much faster ride and telling them it should only cost $2.75. We have tiers in just about all other services.  What you're proposing is giving passengers Saks quality of clothing at H & M prices, or for another comparison, Per Se quality at McDonald's prices. 

 -At $6.50, the City wouldn't have to subsidize the fare as much and you'd need fewer infrastructure improvements. You've been arguing that there are empty seats that can be filled.  That can be done cheaply at $6.50. At $2.75, it's a completely different ballgame.

....which is why we're starting out with $6.50. See my comments about incrementalism. Long term, my whole argument is centered around re-imagining that capacity. Higher density train configurations with more doors on intracity services and the like. As you say, you can't have sh*t for free, but compared to expanding subways into those areas, building a regional rail system is a giveaway. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, RR503 said:

....which is why we're starting out with $6.50. See my comments about incrementalism. Long term, my whole argument is centered around re-imagining that capacity. Higher density train configurations with more doors on intracity services and the like. As you say, you can't have sh*t for free, but compared to expanding subways into those areas, building a regional rail system is a giveaway. 

Well long-term is one thing. I suppose I was thinking about the here and now and what's more reasonable to implement quickly.  I guess I was skeptical of your proposal given how delayed the current pilot program is, but long-term, anything is possible.