Jump to content

Five Years and $19 Billion - Byford to Unveil Massive Plan to Fix Ailing Subway


Lance

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

If we had a legitimate federal government, imagine how much better shape our cities (economic engine of the country) would be in. You look at this for $19 bil, the Gateway tunnel for ~$15bil, no federal help, and doomed without it. Yet we spend $500bil on the new F35 contract. Remind me why again?

You mean if we had a legitimate monetary system, right?

Because our government hasn't been "legitimate" since 1913.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 5/24/2018 at 8:25 AM, RR503 said:

Have you ever considered that cars may be part of the problem? Not with the subway, sure, but definitely with buses. They’re the most spatially inefficient mode of transport known to man. In the densest area of the city, I see no reason to discourage their use — especially in this day and age when so many of their numbers are roving Uber drivers. 

And as for whether this’d generate revenue, a little math is necessary. Byford’s plan is projected to cost 19 billion. Over ten years, that’s approximately 1.9 bil per year. Congestion pricing was projected to create somewhere between $810 million and 1.1 billion in annual revenue, thus allowing such a device to fund half of this plan. Not the prettiest solution, sure, but better than more debt. 

I agree that cars with only a driver, or 1 passenger, are highly inefficient. BUT, if you are going to use a "stick" in the form of high tolls, etc to reduce drivers and ubers, you have to have a better mass-transit option for them to turn to. So implementing Congestion Pricing while the subways are at reduced capacity due to construction means there is no where for all these extra passengers to realistically turn. There are only so many more buses that can go on the road and only so much more LIRR/MNRR capacity for these people to use. 

 

So I would certainly support "carrots" like increased use of HOV lanes, ride-share programs, etc., but any kind of congestion pricing does not make sense to me until AFTER the CBTC upgrades are completed. And if the congestion pricing is meant to be a revenue generator, well, that is not something I support as I believe there are better places that money can come from.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I agree that cars with only a driver, or 1 passenger, are highly inefficient. BUT, if you are going to use a "stick" in the form of high tolls, etc to reduce drivers and ubers, you have to have a better mass-transit option for them to turn to. So implementing Congestion Pricing while the subways are at reduced capacity due to construction means there is no where for all these extra passengers to realistically turn. There are only so many more buses that can go on the road and only so much more LIRR/MNRR capacity for these people to use. 

 

So I would certainly support "carrots" like increased use of HOV lanes, ride-share programs, etc., but any kind of congestion pricing does not make sense to me until AFTER the CBTC upgrades are completed. And if the congestion pricing is meant to be a revenue generator, well, that is not something I support as I believe there are better places that money can come from.  

Congestion pricing largely would apply during the peak hours when no CBTC work is being done. This, of course, depends on the specifics of the plan, but such is the general idea. 

Now, many would still argue that the subway is out of capacity, thus charging people with no alternative is unfair, etc etc etc, but that line of reasoning is simply untrue. A good percentage of the lines into the core actually have plenty of spare capacity — it just isn’t harnessed because the MTA is too myopic to do so. Indeed, there was a time when — with less infrastructure than we have today — we ran a hundred more core-bound peak hour tph than today. Operational restrictions aside, really the only reason we don’t have that same level of service today is just the deeply reactive brand of service planning the agency pursues — something that also plays into the rampant overcrowding on some lines. 

Basically the issue is that we measure the necessity of service increases by measuring existing ridership. Sure, that may seem logical on a superficial level, but what this does is create a vicious cycle of ridership increases which lead to service increases, changes which makes the service in question more attractive, thus increasing ridership and so on. This is why Jerome has significantly higher ridership than Concourse even though (during peak hours, when the (D) is express, at least) Concourse is a significantly faster route to most of Midtown. This is also why the IRT West Side stations are studies in overcrowding while CPW lies empty.

Aside from the concentration of demand this reactivity brings, it simply makes the subway a less versatile, flexible and competitive means of transport. The Jamaica line is a great example of this system’s failings. On Friday and Saturday nights beyond, say, 8 PM, a veritable sea of Ubers enters Williamsburg. This takes place against a backdrop of 4tph (J) service with the reliability of a magician and a 4tph (M) train that takes you...nowhere. Sure, there may not be enough demonstrated demand on either of those services to justify a frequency increase/service change (in the case of the (M)), but there sure as hell is corridor demand. If the MTA considered the larger context of the transport market and looked for areas of servable but as of yet untapped demand — going to the people instead of waiting for the people to come to them — we’d have a vastly improved transit system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hate to be that guy, but I'm a little skeptical here. A lot of it seems to be potentially meaningless buzzwords. I mean it's nice that they're actually admitting management is a problem, but what's the plan to fix it? Something vague and undefined. A lot of it seems to be bottom of the barrel stuff that should've been done a long time ago. Things like competent management, working on multiple lines, etc, that every other transit agency seemed to figure out a long time ago.

Having said all that, actually shutting down lines consistently is a great move. The big issues with line shutdowns and service changes isn't that they happen, it's that they're so inconsistent and you actually have to look them up each time you go out. I imagine it's going to be a lot easier for tourists now too since they can just look at a map and see whatever line isn't running on weekends.

On 5/23/2018 at 9:33 AM, Lance said:

Eric Phillips, a spokesman for Mr. de Blasio, said the city was not willing to help pay for Mr. Byford’s plan. He said the authority should use its existing resources and the state should approve a new revenue source, like the millionaire’s tax that Mr. de Blasio has proposed.

Oh my God.

It's really, REALLY hard to look like an unlikable person next to Cuomo. I have such a strong, palpable dislike for Cuomo, and yet every time De Blaiso opens his mouth I find myself running back into Cuomo's arms. Here's an idea Mr. Mayor. You like the millionare's tax so much? Think it's such a good idea? Implement it in the city YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. This guy acts like he's the minority leader of the senate or something. It seems like all he does is complain about how woe is him and he can't do anything because he's just a little tiny mayor. Glad to know the mayoral office is such a weak position, can't believe he spent $13 Million on a campaign for a position that allows him to do nothing whatsoever! Grow the f**k up. Implement this plan that you think can raise so much money and use that to fund your portion of the plan instead of preemptively whining like a child that big ol mean Cuomo won't let you do anything. Run for f**king governor if you're such a genius and know how to solve all of the state's problems. I can't wait for Cuomo to come out and say he doesn't like the plan so that DeBlasio starts running around going on about how it's the best plan ever and he's doing his part and funding it but the state is bullying poor old DeBlasio and won't put up their share. Screw DeBlasio and screw the NYCGOP for putting in the one person who'd do a worse job than him as their candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CDTA said:

Having said all that, actually shutting down lines consistently is a great move. The big issues with line shutdowns and service changes isn't that they happen, it's that they're so inconsistent and you actually have to look them up each time you go out. I imagine it's going to be a lot easier for tourists now too since they can just look at a map and see whatever line isn't running on weekends.

Not like it'd even be that hard - in Manhattan and the Bronx, at least, since there are redundancies.

Close Broadway-7th between South Ferry and 207th? Run (A)(C)(D) at midday service levels, and keep (4)(5) running like is currently being done with (2)(3) being shutdown now.

Need to close Lex? You got (N)(Q)(R) right there between 96th and Whitehall to pick up slack, AND you can run all (4)(5)(6) on local or express between GCT or 59th to 125th and git er dun, or run a CityTicket on MNRR with more trains from the Bronx stations and GCT.

In Bk, close Eastern? Run more service on Fulton and West End with shuttles from Fulton to Eastern stations and from Brighton to Nostrand stations.

Why it took this long to contemplate this, I dunno. But it wasn't that hard a problem to solve. Queens is the only place where you'd have any real difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CDTA said:

I'd hate to be that guy, but I'm a little skeptical here. A lot of it seems to be potentially meaningless buzzwords. I mean it's nice that they're actually admitting management is a problem, but what's the plan to fix it? Something vague and undefined. A lot of it seems to be bottom of the barrel stuff that should've been done a long time ago. Things like competent management, working on multiple lines, etc, that every other transit agency seemed to figure out a long time ago.

Having said all that, actually shutting down lines consistently is a great move. The big issues with line shutdowns and service changes isn't that they happen, it's that they're so inconsistent and you actually have to look them up each time you go out. I imagine it's going to be a lot easier for tourists now too since they can just look at a map and see whatever line isn't running on weekends.

Oh my God.

It's really, REALLY hard to look like an unlikable person next to Cuomo. I have such a strong, palpable dislike for Cuomo, and yet every time De Blaiso opens his mouth I find myself running back into Cuomo's arms. Here's an idea Mr. Mayor. You like the millionare's tax so much? Think it's such a good idea? Implement it in the city YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. This guy acts like he's the minority leader of the senate or something. It seems like all he does is complain about how woe is him and he can't do anything because he's just a little tiny mayor. Glad to know the mayoral office is such a weak position, can't believe he spent $13 Million on a campaign for a position that allows him to do nothing whatsoever! Grow the f**k up. Implement this plan that you think can raise so much money and use that to fund your portion of the plan instead of preemptively whining like a child that big ol mean Cuomo won't let you do anything. Run for f**king governor if you're such a genius and know how to solve all of the state's problems. I can't wait for Cuomo to come out and say he doesn't like the plan so that DeBlasio starts running around going on about how it's the best plan ever and he's doing his part and funding it but the state is bullying poor old DeBlasio and won't put up their share. Screw DeBlasio and screw the NYCGOP for putting in the one person who'd do a worse job than him as their candidate.

I really despise deBlasio and anyone remote related to him. He is one of the most narcisistic, arrogant, unprogressive, piece of sh*t that I have ever seen in NYC History. I hope he understands NYCT is owned by the city and leased to the (MTA) , because if he doesn't want to hassle then WHY NOT SELL NYCT TO THE (MTA) Instead of crying like a toddler. Its your f*cking city, if you feel that the Millionares tax is the solution, then why wait? That guy is all talk no action. He does not care because he is not the one riding the subway, he wants to act like he cares, but doesn't give 2 flipping f*cks about New Yorkers. He changed his name to become someone that he isn't, and is skyrocketing homeless on the subways with his Sub Par, Deplorable, Criminal policies, and cutting back on laws to have more f*cking criminals on the street each day, and wanting to close rikers island to instead build "Small Jails" to endanger and ruin communities with crooks and people high on drugs. He is nothing but a pu$$y who rather see everyone die than lend a helping hand. He doesn't even care about kids, not closing schools and risking their lives, I wonder if these people were overdosed with cocaine on election day, but he is really ineffective and a complete @$$hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WestFarms36 said:

wonder if these people were overdosed with cocaine on election day, but he is really ineffective and a complete @$$hole.

When your electoral choices are akin to choosing which gangrenous arm to cut off, you usually pick the one you don’t have to learn to write with.

Hope that metaphor makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

Question. Who was the name of that woman that decided to run for Mayor against DeBlasio? I would much prefer to have her as mayor than DeBlasio

Nicole Malliotakis. 

14 hours ago, WestFarms36 said:

I really despise deBlasio and anyone remote related to him. He is one of the most narcisistic, arrogant, unprogressive, piece of sh*t that I have ever seen in NYC History. I hope he understands NYCT is owned by the city and leased to the (MTA) , because if he doesn't want to hassle then WHY NOT SELL NYCT TO THE (MTA) Instead of crying like a toddler. Its your f*cking city, if you feel that the Millionares tax is the solution, then why wait? That guy is all talk no action. He does not care because he is not the one riding the subway, he wants to act like he cares, but doesn't give 2 flipping f*cks about New Yorkers. He changed his name to become someone that he isn't, and is skyrocketing homeless on the subways with his Sub Par, Deplorable, Criminal policies, and cutting back on laws to have more f*cking criminals on the street each day, and wanting to close rikers island to instead build "Small Jails" to endanger and ruin communities with crooks and people high on drugs. He is nothing but a pu$$y who rather see everyone die than lend a helping hand. He doesn't even care about kids, not closing schools and risking their lives, I wonder if these people were overdosed with cocaine on election day, but he is really ineffective and a complete @$$hole.

Some folks whose names shall remain anonymous kiss the ground that this guy walks on. I agree with you 1000% and worst of all is his so-called "affordable housing" initiatives that's doing nothing but destroying middle class neighborhoods.  The units also are far from affordable.  They are overpriced and geared towards either the very poor or those earning over six figures, so most units are off-limits to the truly middle class.  In one lottery, one bedrooms were going for almost $2400 a month.  If you're single, you need to make $96,000 to afford it.  Mind you, the median income for a household is $62,000, far from $96,000 for one person. Most New Yorkers are lucky if they earn $40,000, let alone $96,000, but that's apparently what NYC is deeming to be "affordable". lol

But listen, he ran on a campaign to create affordable housing and people bought it up like gold.  Mallotakis is no saint by any means, but at least she has commonsense enough to not allow some of the nonsense that's been going on with the subways.  All sorts of quality of life issues since this guy has been in office. How do you spend hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money housing homeless in expensive hotels and yet we still have a homeless crisis with homeless people all over the subways and sleeping in the stations?  It's crazy. 

15 hours ago, CDTA said:

I'd hate to be that guy, but I'm a little skeptical here. A lot of it seems to be potentially meaningless buzzwords. I mean it's nice that they're actually admitting management is a problem, but what's the plan to fix it? Something vague and undefined. A lot of it seems to be bottom of the barrel stuff that should've been done a long time ago. Things like competent management, working on multiple lines, etc, that every other transit agency seemed to figure out a long time ago.

Having said all that, actually shutting down lines consistently is a great move. The big issues with line shutdowns and service changes isn't that they happen, it's that they're so inconsistent and you actually have to look them up each time you go out. I imagine it's going to be a lot easier for tourists now too since they can just look at a map and see whatever line isn't running on weekends.

Oh my God.

It's really, REALLY hard to look like an unlikable person next to Cuomo. I have such a strong, palpable dislike for Cuomo, and yet every time De Blaiso opens his mouth I find myself running back into Cuomo's arms. Here's an idea Mr. Mayor. You like the millionare's tax so much? Think it's such a good idea? Implement it in the city YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. This guy acts like he's the minority leader of the senate or something. It seems like all he does is complain about how woe is him and he can't do anything because he's just a little tiny mayor. Glad to know the mayoral office is such a weak position, can't believe he spent $13 Million on a campaign for a position that allows him to do nothing whatsoever! Grow the f**k up. Implement this plan that you think can raise so much money and use that to fund your portion of the plan instead of preemptively whining like a child that big ol mean Cuomo won't let you do anything. Run for f**king governor if you're such a genius and know how to solve all of the state's problems. I can't wait for Cuomo to come out and say he doesn't like the plan so that DeBlasio starts running around going on about how it's the best plan ever and he's doing his part and funding it but the state is bullying poor old DeBlasio and won't put up their share. Screw DeBlasio and screw the NYCGOP for putting in the one person who'd do a worse job than him as their candidate.

He's such an idiot.  He wants to implement a millionaire's tax... And just who does he think is paying for all of his social welfare programs?  It sure as hell isn't the poor, but yes, let's tax the rich, which solves nothing.  The one thing this mayor has shown is no matter how big your budget is, it can't overcome incompetence.  This administration thinks that spending solves issues. It clearly doesn't, especially when you don't spend money on the right things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Some folks whose names shall remain anonymous kiss the ground that this guy walks on. I agree with you 1000% and worst of all is his so-called "affordable housing" initiatives that's doing nothing but destroying middle class neighborhoods.  The units also are far from affordable.  They are overpriced and geared towards either the very poor or those earning over six figures, so most units are off-limits to the truly middle class.  In one lottery, one bedrooms were going for almost $2400 a month.  If you're single, you need to make $96,000 to afford it.  Mind you, the median income for a household is $62,000, far from $96,000 for one person. Most New Yorkers are lucky if they earn $40,000, let alone $96,000, but that's apparently what NYC is deeming to be "affordable". lol

 But listen, he ran on a campaign to create affordable housing and people bought it up like gold.  Mallotakis is no saint by any means, but at least she has commonsense enough to not allow some of the nonsense that's been going on with the subways.  All sorts of quality of life issues since this guy has been in office. How do you spend hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money housing homeless in expensive hotels and yet we still have a homeless crisis with homeless people all over the subways and sleeping in the stations?  It's crazy. 

I agree that he hasn't done much for 'affordable housing,' but that isn't just his fault. Ever since Moses, NYC has had a bit of a 'no' problem -- we deify opposition to public projects. I don't know exactly when, but it seems that somewhere along the way, we stopped seeing the city as a city, and instead a summation of disaggregated interest groups (neighborhoods) whose desires and wishes for stasis must be paramount. From a civic unit that constructed subways, hospitals, true affordable housing, etc, NYC has become something akin to Long Island -- a bunch of tiny geographic subdivisions bickering while their entirety burns. As a result, we have nonsense like this and this and this instead of affordable housing. Same is true for homeless shelters -- people all agree that we need them, but there's a total lack of civic sentiment and willingness to sacrifice, thus making more space extremely hard to obtain -- causing the hotel problem. 

I understand the want to preserve and maintain scale, but on some level, there has to be an understanding that cities are dynamic. The first skyscrapers disrupted the scale of the townhouses around them; the first townhouses disrupted the scale of the shacks around them; the first shacks disrupted the forest etc etc etc. I also object to the notion that this generation gets to choose what is and what isn't worth saving. Sure, what we have now is nice, but I'm sure that a hundred years ago someone was bemoaning the erection of these neighborhoods, and I'm sure that a century from now someone will be orgasming over those glassy boxes in DUMBO. Point being, if we truly want to fix the housing crisis, we need to build out of scale, because 'to scale' is by definition the present, and what we have now is quite clearly not working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I agree that he hasn't done much for 'affordable housing,' but that isn't just his fault. Ever since Moses, NYC has had a bit of a 'no' problem -- we deify opposition to public projects. I don't know exactly when, but it seems that somewhere along the way, we stopped seeing the city as a city, and instead a summation of disaggregated interest groups (neighborhoods) whose desires and wishes for stasis must be paramount. As a result, we have nonsense like this and this and this instead of affordable housing. Same is true for homeless shelters -- people all agree that we need them, but there's a total lack of civic sentiment and willingness to sacrifice, thus making more space extremely hard to obtain -- causing the hotel problem. 

I understand the want to preserve and maintain scale, but on some level, there has to be an understanding that cities are dynamic. The first skyscrapers disrupted the scale of the townhouses around them; the first townhouses disrupted the scale of the shacks around them; the first shacks disrupted the forest etc etc etc. NYC is rapidly becoming like Long Island -- a bunch of tiny geographic subdivisions bickering while their entirety burns -- and that disturbs me. 

Oh please with the scale nonsense.  The City has been having its way rezoning entire neighborhoods and they've been allowed to do so with the promise of more affordable housing, so the scale has nothing to do with the housing problem.  You should focus on the so-called "affordable housing" that the City is spending millions on in subsides that isn't affordable. Hundreds of thousands of units coming online.  That's the problem.  If "affordable housing" is for someone making $80,000 - 90,000 and up, then that means a good segment of New Yorkers are still left out in the cold (literally), and worst of all, someone making that... Why bother with affordable housing?  I pay $1600 a month for my studio in Riverdale (gut renovated), and under de Blasio, for a similar place, I'd probably be paying $300-400 a month more... Why would I do that when I can pay less with market rent?  The City has all of these sweetheart deals for the developers that really aren't benefiting those are truly need the housing. You either have to be dirt poor or making $80,000 - 100,000+.  The guy making $40,000 - 50,000 is screwed, which used to be a respectable salary in this city.  

You can build affordable housing with it being inline with the community's needs.  No community should be forced to take on such monstrosities in the name of "affordable housing".  Even in the poorest areas, the City is rezoning neighborhoods under the guise of affordable housing, and the residents can't afford the proposed rents.  That's absurd. If people in areas like East Harlem are making $30,000 or less, who can afford rents where studios are $2,000, almost three times their annual income?  Crazy.  The question then becomes who is the housing being built for, and why are communities sacrificing the size of these buildings, when what is being built clearly isn't for them since they can't afford it?

This whole housing crisis is also affecting our subways in that we have more homeless people riding the trains, many of which are mentally ill and they are a menace to the riding public and themselves, which leads to more delays due to these people being hit by trains, etc.  Years ago there was an affordable housing building that opened in the South Bronx.  The rent guidelines were more expensive than what I was paying at market rate rent in Riverdale. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the prices.  For the people that took it, most are being forced to pay well over a third of their salary in rent, making them rent burdened.  Certainly not affordable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please with the scale nonsense.  The city has been having its way rezoning entire neighborhoods and they've been allowed to do so with the promise of more affordable housing, so the scale has nothing to do with the housing problem.  You should focus on the so-called "affordable housing" that the City is spending millions on in subsides that isn't affordable. Hundreds of thousands of units coming online.  That's the problem.  If "affordable housing" is for someone making $80,000 - 90,000 and up, then that means a good segment of New Yorkers are still left out in the cold (literally), and worst of all, someone making that... Why bother with affordable housing?  I pay $1600 a month for my studio in Riverdale (gut renovated), and under de Blasio, for a similar place, I'd probably be paying $300-400 a month more... Why would I do that when I can pay less with market rent?  The City has all of these sweetheart deals for the developers that really aren't benefiting those are truly need the housing. You either have to be dirt poor or making $80,000 - 100,000+.  The guy making $40,000 - 50,000 is screwed, which used to be a respectable salary in this city.  

We're mostly upzoning old manufacturing and commercial areas -- it rarely touches residential neighborhoods, and when it does, it does not bring the sort of drastic change that is necessary.

I agree that our definition of affordable is ludicrous. That said, it all ties back to scale. Buildings incur high fixed costs and relatively small variable costs. If landlords have more rentable space with which they can offset those fixed costs, they'll be able to rent cheaper without endangering their profits. The fact that so much of NYC's rent stock is in small, dilapidated buildings is the reason why we can't have cheap housing -- that's why we need to end this "scale nonsense." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RR503 said:

We're mostly upzoning old manufacturing and commercial areas -- it rarely touches residential neighborhoods, and when it does, it does not bring the sort of drastic change that is necessary.

I agree that our definition of affordable is ludicrous. That said, it all ties back to scale. Buildings incur high fixed costs and relatively small variable costs. If landlords have more rentable space with which they can offset those fixed costs, they'll be able to rent cheaper without endangering their profits. The fact that so much of NYC's rent stock is in small, dilapidated buildings is the reason why we can't have cheap housing -- that's why we need to end this "scale nonsense." 

I'd argue that the real reason is because there's too much rent stabilization in this city, which has exacerbated market rate rents.  When the market rate floor is $1400 and up even in the worst neighborhoods, there's a huge problem. It shuts out a lot of young, first-time renters who simply won't be making $50,000+.  The whole upzoning thing comes back to land and how expensive land has become across the five boroughs, which then forces developers to build and market everything as "luxury" which often times sits or is bought up by some rich foreigner who wants property as an investment.  What should be happening is the City should go after landlords who sit on their properties and wait for some big name to come so that they can cash in on a nice deal.

What is happening to renters across the City happened to several of my old neighbors, some of whom had been there before I had come.  They were called and told by the new owners that they would be increasing their rents and either they paid or they had to leave, so many were forced out and the ones that could stay are paying almost $2,000 a month. It's a serious jolt when your rent goes up almost 50% in less than a year. I feel for them, as many of them were young (late 20s or early 30s at best).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of flashy presentations of elaborate plans that will eventually go nowhere, here's a simple idea to improve the subway system:

 

Just. Move. The. Trains. Stop creating fake "signal problems" to generate overtime for train crews. Stop the policy of not maintaining old signals (because the new signals "only a year away"). Stop requiring trains to wait for green signals. Stop holding full trains outside of empty terminals. Just. Move. The. Trains.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Instead of flashy presentations of elaborate plans that will eventually go nowhere, here's a simple idea to improve the subway system:

 

Just. Move. The. Trains. Stop creating fake "signal problems" to generate overtime for train crews. Stop the policy of not maintaining old signals (because the new signals "only a year away"). Stop requiring trains to wait for green signals. Stop holding full trains outside of empty terminals. Just. Move. The. Trains.

 

 

Is that a complaint I hear?? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much do you want to bet that they're only implementing CBTC on the (G) because of the recent influx of "young professionals" aka rich people on that line. If the hoods along the (G) were like they were in the 90s no one would bat an eye. It baffles me that the (MTA) would implement CBTC on the (G) before CPW, Fourth Ave or even IND Culver. Why is no one questioning the (MTA) on that decision? 

In contrast this is similar to the exaggerated HUGE deal that their making over the (L) train shut down. The (MTA) has shut down lines before like the (R) and portions of other lines, yes people complained but no one made as HUGE of a deal like they're making on the (L). Only because of the so called influx of "young professionals" living in Williamsburg is why they're making such a big deal. 

Ridiculous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

How much do you want to bet that they're only implementing CBTC on the (G) because of the recent influx of "young professionals" aka rich people on that line. If the hoods along the (G) were like they were in the 90s no one would bat an eye. It baffles me that the (MTA) would implement CBTC on the (G) before CPW, Fourth Ave or even IND Culver. Why is no one questioning the (MTA) on that decision? 

In contrast this is similar to the exaggerated HUGE deal that their making over the (L) train shut down. The (MTA) has shut down lines before like the (R) and portions of other lines, yes people complained but no one made as HUGE of a deal like they're making on the (L). Only because of the so called influx of "young professionals" living in Williamsburg is why they're making such a big deal. 

Ridiculous...

Are you really trying to compare the (L) train with the (R) ? That's not even a far comparison and since the (MTA) hasn't come up with a real plan, I don't blame them for questioning them. It's very involved that the (MTA) has a capacity issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please with the scale nonsense.  The City has been having its way rezoning entire neighborhoods and they've been allowed to do so with the promise of more affordable housing, so the scale has nothing to do with the housing problem.  You should focus on the so-called "affordable housing" that the City is spending millions on in subsides that isn't affordable. Hundreds of thousands of units coming online.

Quote

IT’S DIFFICULT TO PINPOINT THE NET EFFECTS OF THE BLOOMBERG ADMINISTRATION’S rezoning. The city planning department doesn’t track, for instance, how much potential space was gained or lost, or how much value it’s created by enabling development.

But what evidence there is shows how even a mayor known for upzoning faced plenty of pressure to put limits on development.

There’s some indication that downzoning more or less kept pace with upzoning. In 2010, N.Y.U.’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy found that, of the 188,000 lots that had been rezoned between 2003 and 2007, 14 percent had been upzoned, 23 percent downzoned, and 63 percent had not had their development capacity changed by more than 10 percent—only the type of building allowed on the lot changed. All those ups and down didn’t change the city’s “on paper” capacity for residential housing all that much—the net effect, the Furman Center found, was to increase capacity by just 1.7 percent. (The center’s director, Vicki Been, is now head of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development.)

The Furman Center also looked at what types of neighborhoods were upzoned and downzoned. Upzoned lots tended to be in areas that were less white and less wealthy, with fewer homeowners. Downzoned lots tended to be areas that were more white and had both higher incomes and higher rates of homeownership than upzoned areas. Areas with contextual rezoning were even whiter and richer (with median incomes “much higher than that of the city”), and had “very high rates of homeownership.” In other words, more privileged people were more likely to have the city change the zoning of their neighborhoods to preserve them exactly as they were.

Quote

But, in practice, just saying “we should build more” is not enough, especially if the goal is to make cities affordable. More than 180,000 new units of housing were built from 2002 to 2011—the vacancy rate has actually inched up—and the city has not gotten cheaper.

The push for density runs up against not just empowered neighborhood groups, but developers, who have plenty of incentive to build less. It’s simple math: If they build too much, prices will go down. That would happen in a frictionless economic system, but in reality, they can stop well short of that point. Developers will even admit this out loud, sometimes: “Downzoning is actually in our best interest because it limits competition,” one luxury developer told theReal Deal in 2007.

If Bloomberg didn’t build enough, it’s unlikely that building more will ever translate to building enough, without some other policy intervention.

“Density is important. It’s one component of the puzzle,” says the Association of Neighborhood and Housing Development’s Moses Gates. “You’re not going to ease affordable pressure if you can’t build. But it’s not the be all and end all. Without affordability restrictions tied to increased density, you’ll solve nothing.”

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2014/02/the-quiet-massive-rezoning-of-new-york-078398

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Are you really trying to compare the (L) train with the (R) ? That's not even a far comparison and since the (MTA) hasn't come up with a real plan, I don't blame them for questioning them. It's very involved that the (MTA) has a capacity issue.

That's not my point. The (MTA) has shut down other lines in portions that have many riders but there is not so much of a huge controversy as their is with the (L) and my reasons for why there is so much controversy is stated in my previous comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2018 at 8:34 PM, CDTA said:

I'd hate to be that guy, but I'm a little skeptical here. A lot of it seems to be potentially meaningless buzzwords. I mean it's nice that they're actually admitting management is a problem, but what's the plan to fix it? Something vague and undefined. A lot of it seems to be bottom of the barrel stuff that should've been done a long time ago. Things like competent management, working on multiple lines, etc, that every other transit agency seemed to figure out a long time ago.

Having said all that, actually shutting down lines consistently is a great move. The big issues with line shutdowns and service changes isn't that they happen, it's that they're so inconsistent and you actually have to look them up each time you go out. I imagine it's going to be a lot easier for tourists now too since they can just look at a map and see whatever line isn't running on weekends.

Oh my God.

It's really, REALLY hard to look like an unlikable person next to Cuomo. I have such a strong, palpable dislike for Cuomo, and yet every time De Blaiso opens his mouth I find myself running back into Cuomo's arms. Here's an idea Mr. Mayor. You like the millionare's tax so much? Think it's such a good idea? Implement it in the city YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. This guy acts like he's the minority leader of the senate or something. It seems like all he does is complain about how woe is him and he can't do anything because he's just a little tiny mayor. Glad to know the mayoral office is such a weak position, can't believe he spent $13 Million on a campaign for a position that allows him to do nothing whatsoever! Grow the f**k up. Implement this plan that you think can raise so much money and use that to fund your portion of the plan instead of preemptively whining like a child that big ol mean Cuomo won't let you do anything. Run for f**king governor if you're such a genius and know how to solve all of the state's problems. I can't wait for Cuomo to come out and say he doesn't like the plan so that DeBlasio starts running around going on about how it's the best plan ever and he's doing his part and funding it but the state is bullying poor old DeBlasio and won't put up their share. Screw DeBlasio and screw the NYCGOP for putting in the one person who'd do a worse job than him as their candidate.

And there are people I know who already think that Cynthia Nixon's run for Governor this year is really to set up a run for Mayor in 2021 when she likely could easily beat DeBlasio. She had already done some creative tweets on the subways and the problems they have had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

In contrast this is similar to the exaggerated HUGE deal that their making over the (L) train shut down. The (MTA) has shut down lines before like the (R) and portions of other lines, yes people complained but no one made as HUGE of a deal like they're making on the (L). Only because of the so called influx of "young professionals" living in Williamsburg is why they're making such a big deal. 

Ridiculous...

Uh no...

Montague: 65,000 daily customers, ten alternate subway lines

Canarsie: 225,000 daily customers, five alternate subway lines 

It's blatantly obvious that Canarsie is a larger disruption just purely based on numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Uh no...

Montague: 65,000 daily customers, ten alternate subway lines

Canarsie: 225,000 daily customers, five alternate subway lines 

It's blatantly obvious that Canarsie is a larger disruption just purely based on numbers.

It would be nice if people understood the full situation before commenting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Are you really trying to compare the (L) train with the (R) ? That's not even a far comparison and since the (MTA) hasn't come up with a real plan, I don't blame them for questioning them. It's very involved that the (MTA) has a capacity issue.

I meant to write "fair comparison" and very "obvious"... Stupid autocorrect... <_<

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

There are many neighborhoods like my own that are protected from such over development and we're fighting a project now. The developer claims that seniors in our neighborhood need "affordable housing", yet the prices are sky high, certainly not reasonably priced, with units going into the millions.  We think this is a way for the developer to come in through the back door and build something that is not in line with Riverdale and could spiral into something much worse.  This is precisely why the "build" mentality doesn't work.  Build smart is a better way to do it.

The other thing that the City has continued to do in a very sneaky and insulting manner, is use spaces that are not homeless shelters as such. They've been busted now in several neighborhoods doing this. They don't inform any elected officials and then when they're busted, they use the excuse that they're overcapacity and just need the space temporarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Uh no...

Montague: 65,000 daily customers, ten alternate subway lines

Canarsie: 225,000 daily customers, five alternate subway lines 

It's blatantly obvious that Canarsie is a larger disruption just purely based on numbers.

You still don't get my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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