Corey Johnson proposes breaking up the MTA

[RR503]

15 minutes ago, P3F said:

Anyone with a brain would look at a map, see the two disconnected segments of the highway, and simply choose the best-looking route to bridge them. Maybe Smith Street or 3rd Avenue, or they could go all the way to Columbia/Furman. Removing such a small section of the highway isn't enough for the drive to be inconvenient enough not to drive.

...And yet the removal of a shorter segment of road in Seattle (one with redundant alternatives) led to the loss of nearly all that traffic. Please provide evidence if you want us to believe otherwise.

15 minutes ago, P3F said:

 You understand subway operations relatively well, so it's weird that you don't see the obvious when it comes to road design. The bridge over the Gowanus has five lanes - four normal, one HOV. If you get rid of the Cobble Hill section, you'll have five lanes going into three (two normal and one HOV). This is known as a "bottleneck", where traffic volumes fit for a road with a large capacity have to fit into a road with less capacity. This results in very slow moving traffic before the bottleneck, and more than likely the Tunnel will also be stuffed due to the traffic light at its northern end. I'm sure the residents of northwestern Red Hook and southern Cobble Hill will be very grateful for all the extra exhaust you're sending their way.

Cool. Unlike with subways, I don't believe preserving road capacity is some be all end all need. Free-flowing traffic isn't some god given right, despite what everyone may think. It's a privilege, and it's one that, for the safety and productivity of the city and the good of the planet, needs to be reevaluated. This isn't to say we should Delete All Freeways, but when given the option of spending 4B on a low-capacity transportation facility or doing some good with that cash, I'll take the latter. I also feel like your argument here is circumnavigating the evidence about induced demand...but hey that's me, right?

15 minutes ago, P3F said:

 A "global precedent" is nice, but most of these "global precedents" aren't in Brooklyn. The transit in NYC is comprehensive to the point that the majority for whom a transit trip is feasible, are already taking transit. Removing the highway would therefore have a significant negative impact on travel times (try getting from Sheepshead Bay to Williamsburg in 30 minutes on public transit).

Paris, Seoul and Madrid have bad public transit? Good to know. 

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that there are a LOT of people going from, say, Sheepshead Bay to W'burg on public transit right now. Instead of spending this money on a facility only a relatively privileged few can use, why don't we spend that same amount on making intra-borough transit options functional (in this case, FAS- comes to mind)? I'd bet all the money in my wallet right now that that this same 4 billion spent on transit would yield significantly more saved rider-minutes than a BQE rebuild. 

15 minutes ago, P3F said:

 This rehab is funded by the city, which as I'm sure you know isn't exactly willing to pony over extra money to the MTA. So all of your "real, beneficial improvements" such as "high frequency off peak bus service, or better subway service, or new routes, or accessibility treatments" are, as usual, relying on unrealistic optimism that the money would be diverted in a way that it never has been.

 Finally, you have been consistently acting as if the $4 billion price tag is supposed to be some kind of deterrent. Let's look at what we're getting: a rebuild of a section of the only north-south freeway in Brooklyn, with complex engineering required. And at the end, the Promenade will be twice as wide. If this rebuild lasts longer than all of us will be alive, I have no problem with the money being invested now.

Yes, the City under DeBlasio is not willing to fund transit. Unless Scott Stringer is not Scott Stringer, and the language in his proposal about increasing frequencies is fake, I don't see why a transfer of funds using an extant mechanism is at all unprecedented. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to hold politicians accountable to transit improvements if this is done, but conveniently choosing this moment for fatalism is disingenuous. 

For 4 billion dollars, we are preserving an inefficient piece of infrastructure while its effective counterpart lies underfunded. A wider Promenade is nice and all, but real intraboro transit sounds...better. 

Think about this this way: would you, in 30 years, advocate for keeping NYC Ferry if it needs some massive investment? It's faster than other modes for waterfront trips, and hey, it's an option, but does that justify spending untold billions on it when ridership is low, inefficiency is high, and the need on the majority mode is great?

[P3F]

28 minutes ago, RR503 said:

...And yet the removal of a shorter segment of road in Seattle (one with redundant alternatives) led to the loss of nearly all that traffic. Please provide evidence if you want us to believe otherwise.

Cool. Unlike with subways, I don't believe preserving road capacity is some be all end all need. Free-flowing traffic isn't some god given right, despite what everyone may think. It's a privilege, and it's one that, for the safety and productivity of the city and the good of the planet, needs to be reevaluated. This isn't to say we should Delete All Freeways, but when given the option of spending 4B on a low-capacity transportation facility or doing some good with that cash, I'll take the latter. I also feel like your argument here is circumnavigating the evidence about induced demand...but hey that's me, right?

Paris, Seoul and Madrid have bad public transit? Good to know. 

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that there are a LOT of people going from, say, Sheepshead Bay to W'burg on public transit right now. Instead of spending this money on a facility only a relatively privileged few can use, why don't we spend that same amount on making intra-borough transit options functional (in this case, FAS- comes to mind)? I'd bet all the money in my wallet right now that that this same 4 billion spent on transit would yield significantly more saved rider-minutes than a BQE rebuild. 

Yes, the City under DeBlasio is not willing to fund transit. Unless Scott Stringer is not Scott Stringer, and the language in his proposal about increasing frequencies is fake, I don't see why a transfer of funds using an extant mechanism is at all unprecedented. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to hold politicians accountable to transit improvements if this is done, but conveniently choosing this moment for fatalism is disingenuous. 

For 4 billion dollars, we are preserving an inefficient piece of infrastructure while its effective counterpart lies underfunded. A wider Promenade is nice and all, but real intraboro transit sounds...better. 

Think about this this way: would you, in 30 years, advocate for keeping NYC Ferry if it needs some massive investment? It's faster than other modes for waterfront trips, and hey, it's an option, but does that justify spending untold billions on it when ridership is low, inefficiency is high, and the need on the majority mode is great?

Sure, I'll do a bit of digging when I have the time. I haven't looked into the Seattle project, but if it had "redundant alternatives", that already sets it apart. As I said earlier, the BQE is the only north-south freeway in Brooklyn.

If you think free flowing traffic is unnecessary and leads to pollution, I have a google search for you. Try "City MPG vs. Highway MPG". This point of yours also makes me slightly less interested in your arguments, as we have a fundamental difference in that I don't want people to suffer for no reason.

I'm all for investment in transit, but I don't think it should come at the cost of road maintenance. The way it stands, you don't have the option of repurposing that money for the MTA. And even if that was possible, construction costs would first need to be addressed.

Regarding the NYC Ferry point: if it were to come to a shutdown, I would make sure that adequate capacity were present on other forms of transit to make life a bit easier for the people relying on the boats. On the other hand you know what isn't a very enticing alternative to the mode of transportation being discussed? Taking the polluted to stand on a for 40 minutes.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

My thoughts on this 

Here is the link to my letter which maybe easier to read. It's about City take over of the buses and subways.

http://www.qchron.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/should-city-run-transit/article_ac060675-2617-5cf9-92c8-3e998504ecaf.html

I didn't realize this discussion turned into one about the BQE. I have my own thoughts on that one. Looks like another letter is coming. 

[RR503]

21 minutes ago, P3F said:

Sure, I'll do a bit of digging when I have the time. I haven't looked into the Seattle project, but if it had "redundant alternatives", that already sets it apart. As I said earlier, the BQE is the only north-south freeway in Brooklyn.

If you think free flowing traffic is unnecessary and leads to pollution, I have a google search for you. Try "City MPG vs. Highway MPG". This point of yours also makes me slightly less interested in your arguments, as we have a fundamental difference in that I don't want people to suffer for no reason.

I'm all for investment in transit, but I don't think it should come at the cost of road maintenance. The way it stands, you don't have the option of repurposing that money for the MTA. And even if that was possible, construction costs would first need to be addressed.

Regarding the NYC Ferry point: if it were to come to a shutdown, I would make sure that adequate capacity were present on other forms of transit to make life a bit easier for the people relying on the boats. On the other hand you know what isn't a very enticing alternative to the mode of transportation being discussed? Taking the polluted to stand on a for 40 minutes.

You missed the key point in the Seattle example lol — despite it having redundant alts, total traffic decreased significantly. The same is true for the other examples. 

The development patterns that highway dependence encourage cost the US economy on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, to say nothing of the fact that they reinforce inequalities and seriously damage our environment — the latter being something to consider with special regard given that we’re a coastal city. I equally take issue with your city/highway MPG comparisons not just because I’ve yet to experience a free flowing BQE, but also because you continue to resist the notion that the displaced cars will simply disappear... 

That money comes from the DOT; it can be repurposed so long as our legislators remember how to write legislation. The “preserving everything” argument is nice and all, but it is fundamentally disconnected from reality insofar as money isn’t unlimited and that one mode is objectively inferior to the other. 

Sure,  to  isn’t a great alt...but that’s my point here, no? Imagine what those 4 billion could do to that trip. 

And FWIW, while certainly not efficient, there is already enough capacity on Brooklyn’s subways/buses to absorb the BQE traffic...so there’s that, too. 

[bobtehpanda]

IIRC Triboro RX has been costed by RPA as $1-2B, less than half of BQE reconstruction. Even if you were to just build the segment from Sunset Park to Jackson Heights it would be well worth the value.

That being said I don't think the truck only plan will prevent the need for rebuilding the cantilever because it's structurally compromised, IIRC.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

That being said I don't think the truck only plan will prevent the need for rebuilding the cantilever because it's structurally compromised, IIRC.

Yes, but you've just cut a bunch of mitigation costs and the cost of redoing the other half of the viaduct. 

[CenSin]

I think the BQE should be turned into a park with trains running along the center. That’ll be sure to raise property values, and repurpose the right-of-way to get some form of transportation that’s more efficient.

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

I think the BQE should be turned into a park with trains running along the center. That’ll be sure to raise property values, and repurpose the right-of-way to get some form of transportation that’s more efficient.

By trains, do you mean some type of LightRail Service or A repurposed BQX? Either one seems good to me. 

[bobtehpanda]

23 hours ago, CenSin said:

I think the BQE should be turned into a park with trains running along the center. That’ll be sure to raise property values, and repurpose the right-of-way to get some form of transportation that’s more efficient.

The problem is that the highway is rarely where you want rail service to go. A BQE line would miss a lot of connections.

[RR503]

9 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that the highway is rarely where you want rail service to go. A BQE line would miss a lot of connections.

The only useful segment I can see is Red Hook-Atlantic Ave -- would be great for BRT. 

[CenSin]

23 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that the highway is rarely where you want rail service to go. A BQE line would miss a lot of connections.

The connections aren’t great (most definitely inferior to the Triboro RX), but it’s comparable to the number of options that 2 Avenue will possess.

• MISSES (Clark Street tunnel, Joralemon Street tunnel, Cranberry Street tunnel, Montague Street tunnel, and Manhattan Bridge)
• CONNECTS

That said, it does serve Red Hook and some other areas not served by subway, and it is nonetheless valuable right-of-way that will be very difficult return to mass transportation if repurposed for non-transportation uses or torn down. It would be better to keep it as a highway otherwise, if only to preserve the options for a subway expansion. I only see costs staying high and the city never having money to build new right-of-ways.

[bobtehpanda]

27 minutes ago, CenSin said:

The connections aren’t great (most definitely inferior to the Triboro RX), but it’s comparable to the number of options that 2 Avenue will possess.

• MISSES (Clark Street tunnel, Joralemon Street tunnel, Cranberry Street tunnel, Montague Street tunnel, and Manhattan Bridge)
• CONNECTS

That said, it does serve Red Hook and some other areas not served by subway, and it is nonetheless valuable right-of-way that will be very difficult return to mass transportation if repurposed for non-transportation uses or torn down. It would be better to keep it as a highway otherwise, if only to preserve the options for a subway expansion. I only see costs staying high and the city never having money to build new right-of-ways.

With rail costing what it does, even repurposing rights of way would be really expensive.

The BQX was repurposing city streets, and even then the subtext that it was trying really hard to cover up, was that SBS would probably be just as effective and cost a lot less. And a full subway would be massive overkill since it's too far west to save any time as a real crosstown.