Transportation in Co-op City

[B35 via Church]

First, it's this history lesson about Co-op City to make the point that no subway exists out there, now it's this bit about highway alterations to make Baychester  more useful to Co-op patrons.....

Ambition & fanaticism aren't necessarily automatically bad traits to have, but sometimes you have to know when to fold 'em....

[Deucey]

17 hours ago, P3F said:

Fun fact: The Hutchinson Parkway has a functioning drawbridge over the Hutchinson River, which I suspect is at least slightly not in adherence with Interstate standards. By the time you're done replacing that bridge, and upgrading the rest of everything to the standards (which would be quite a lot of work), you'll wish you had just built the two bridges for I-95 just north of Exit 12 instead.

And yet 95/495 by National Harbor uses a new drawbridge to cross the Potomac, as it did on the predecessor bridge.

Also, let’s not forget that the bulk of Interstates in NYC aren’t up to interstate standards yet still get that FHWA Trust Fund and ISTEA money.

Point being, still, that removing a highway (along with using grandfathered roads as interstates) is not an insurmountable goal.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Point being, still, that removing a highway (along with using grandfathered roads as interstates) is not an insurmountable goal.

Also happens to be a goal whose accomplishment brings a shitton of positive externalities with it. Would love to better understand traffic breakdowns on 95 in that stretch -- with so much travel being solely local, I'm always a bit skeptical of the sorts of arguments that predict armageddon because trucks and through-city commuters...

Edited October 10, 2019 by RR503

[Lex]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Also happens to be a goal whose accomplishment brings a shitton of positive externalities with it.

Perhaps you would be fortunate enough to see some traffic reductions, but beyond that, who honestly benefits? Unlike Williamsburg, you're not making it easier to traverse a single neighborhood with quite a bit of stuff going on. Instead, you have Co-op City (under Riverbay) on one side and, with the exceptions of Secor Houses and a few car/truck-related businesses, nothing but low-residential land on the other. To make matters worse, only a small portion of those living in Co-op City are remotely in walking distance now, and a Baychester Avenue bus will need to be anchored to something else of substance (the subway is not enough) to be remotely worth the expense of running. Sure, you could maybe put something in to try to offset the problems, but that would be quite the gamble, as it not only involves taking businesses/houses to really make it remotely serviceable, but there's also the radically different character of Co-op City and the areas across the highway.

[ThatGuy]

You know in the Draft Bronx Bus Redesign Plan, the MTA wants to eliminate all the buses that travel through Co-op City either fully or partially and force everyone to take the Bx23 as the only bus service for the residents there. Anyone who wants to actually get out of Co-op city will have to transfer at Asch Loop or Dreiser Loop to transfer to another bus and making Co-op city a two fare zone. Yes while the increase of frequency from 30 minutes to 8 minutes (3 during rush hours) is an improvement, the MTA does not need to eliminate everything else. Also, with the expansion of Bay Plaza, traffic has gotten even worse than before. On top of that, should there be ANY traffic on I-95, you're guaranteed to that frequency to drop from 3 or 8 to 20 to 30 minutes with 5 to 6 Bx23s bunching up at Pelham Bay Park station.

This idea from the MTA is possibly the worst idea from them in a series of terrible ideas coming from their route redesigns.

[Deucey]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:52 PM, RR503 said:

Also happens to be a goal whose accomplishment brings a shitton of positive externalities with it. Would love to better understand traffic breakdowns on 95 in that stretch -- with so much travel being solely local, I'm always a bit skeptical of the sorts of arguments that predict armageddon because trucks and through-city commuters...

The interesting anecdotal thing I’ve realized about interstates is that you don’t see very many plates from other states on them doing interstate travel.

Even when I’d do the NY/CT border jump regularly, I didn’t see very many non-NY plates on the Co-Op city section of 95, and didn’t see many NY plates on the CT side after exit 1.

It’s almost like out of towners figured out ways to avoid 95 in the Bx to get back to New England. Or there aren’t high numbers of NEers driving to or thru NY.

Truck you’ll see bc for some reason all these Northeastern states decided to not make every highway accessible to them. But I don’t think truck traffic justifies keeping the Co-Op city segment of 95 vs upgrading the Hutch - if a modification were actually being considered. It’s not like the BQE in Bk where eliminating it changes traffic patterns negatively because there’s no alternative route.

[RR503]

On 10/10/2019 at 12:10 AM, Lex said:

Perhaps you would be fortunate enough to see some traffic reductions, but beyond that, who honestly benefits? Unlike Williamsburg, you're not making it easier to traverse a single neighborhood with quite a bit of stuff going on. Instead, you have Co-op City (under Riverbay) on one side and, with the exceptions of Secor Houses and a few car/truck-related businesses, nothing but low-residential land on the other. To make matters worse, only a small portion of those living in Co-op City are remotely in walking distance now, and a Baychester Avenue bus will need to be anchored to something else of substance (the subway is not enough) to be remotely worth the expense of running. Sure, you could maybe put something in to try to offset the problems, but that would be quite the gamble, as it not only involves taking businesses/houses to really make it remotely serviceable, but there's also the radically different character of Co-op City and the areas across the highway.

Setting aside all the good this'd do for various sorts of pollution, integrating Co-Op city into the urban fabric of the Bronx would be good, no? Imagine converting that ROW into housing, or small-scale commerce -- you could extend the  much more simply, too, with the traffic gone. I agree with you this is certainly not the most tantalizing highway removal ever, but I do think it's always worth challenging the "we must preserve this infrastructure because it exists" line of reasoning, especially in cases w/ this many external complications. 

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Setting aside all the good this'd do for various sorts of pollution, integrating Co-Op city into the urban fabric of the Bronx would be good, no? Imagine converting that ROW into housing, or small-scale commerce -- you could extend the  much more simply, too, with the traffic gone. I agree with you this is certainly not the most tantalizing highway removal ever, but I do think it's always worth challenging the "we must preserve this infrastructure because it exists" line of reasoning, especially in cases w/ this many external complications. 

Add to it, doing that would make it easier to create a Cross-Bx East-West rail line - whether LRT or HRT - since it eliminates that nonsensical junction between Pelham Pkwy and the Thruway.

 

[Lex]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Setting aside all the good this'd do for various sorts of pollution, integrating Co-Op city into the urban fabric of the Bronx would be good, no?

No. Even taking Riverbay out of the equation and replacing the highway with other buildings (not getting into the pollution issue, as pollution is indisputable), the benefit is extremely limited.

 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Imagine converting that ROW into housing, or small-scale commerce -- you could extend the  much more simply, too, with the traffic gone.

1. Oh, joy, a ham-fisted attempt to integrate by adding more residences in an area that will probably be subjected to similar requirements as the existing residences in the area.
2. Oh, joy, a ham-fisted attempt to integrate by adding a bunch of businesses that will struggle due to the ones that already exist east of 95 (with Bay Plaza being the biggest offender)...
3. That traffic has zilch to do with any  extension.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I agree with you this is certainly not the most tantalizing highway removal ever, but I do think it's always worth challenging the "we must preserve this infrastructure because it exists" line of reasoning, especially in cases w/ this many external complications. 

And those would be?

[Lex]

57 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Add to it, doing that would make it easier to create a Cross-Bx East-West rail line - whether LRT or HRT - since it eliminates that nonsensical junction between Pelham Pkwy and the Thruway.

 

Yeah, that's the problem. 🤦‍♀️

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

No. Even taking Riverbay out of the equation and replacing the highway with other buildings (not getting into the pollution issue, as pollution is indisputable), the benefit is extremely limited.

Couldn’t disagree more. Infilling the grid to attach that complex to the rest of the city would do a lotta good. It’s pretty basic urban theory that walkability and integration create all sorts of goods for urban environments—surprised this is a point of contention on a forum such as this. 

3 hours ago, Lex said:

• Oh, joy, a ham-fisted attempt to integrate by adding more residences in an area that will probably be subjected to similar requirements as the existing residences in the area.
• Oh, joy, a ham-fisted attempt to integrate by adding a bunch of businesses that will struggle due to the ones that already exist east of 95 (with Bay Plaza being the biggest offender)...

Yes, let’s totally blow by the city’s housing crisis, the potential for decent zoned densities in the area, and the fact that urban grid integration literally means creating a continuous built environment. 

3 hours ago, Lex said:

That traffic has zilch to do with any  extension.

Transitforums: this bushy, overgrown, encroached-upon, demand-peripheral ROW that was once called the RBB is the greatest transportation opportunity in this city.

Also transitforums: what does a wide, clear, grade separated ROW to one of the densest areas of the city have to do with transit expansion? 

3 hours ago, Lex said:

And those would be?

Nothing big, just pollution, traffic, urban sprawl, all sorts of inequity and the future of sea levels. 

[Lex]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Couldn’t disagree more. Infilling the grid to attach that complex to the rest of the city would do a lotta good. It’s pretty basic urban theory that walkability and integration create all sorts of goods for urban environments—surprised this is a point of contention on a forum such as this.

Who benefits? You keep talking as if there actually is some substantial benefit (there isn't). All it would do is make it slightly easier for those living close to Bay Plaza (on the existing highway's west flank) to access it, as well as those living closest to the Baychester Avenue station (on said highway's eastern flank, which is also close to a full 1/2 mile away, rapidly eating any potential time saved) to access it. That's an extremely small selection of people, meaning the effort is nowhere near worth it. (It doesn't help that the only portion that remotely meshes well with the grid in that part of the borough is the one that's actually separated by a different highway.)

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yes, let’s totally blow by the city’s housing crisis, the potential for decent zoned densities in the area, and the fact that urban grid integration literally means creating a continuous built environment. 

Oh, that? You mean the thing brought on by a combination of demand outpacing supply, limited use of housing units that leads to unnecessary vacancies, and pricing that is well out of much of the demand's range, thereby making the situation far worse than it is? By the way, merely adding housing will repeat this cycle, much like merely adding lanes to a congested highway.

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Transitforums: this bushy, overgrown, encroached-upon, demand-peripheral ROW that was once called the RBB is the greatest transportation opportunity in this city.

Also transitforums: what does a wide, clear, grade separated ROW to one of the densest areas of the city have to do with transit expansion? 

Absolutely nothing. You would know this if you actually bothered to look.

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Nothing big, just pollution, traffic, urban sprawl, all sorts of inequity and the future of sea levels. 

We're already becoming more conscious of air, water, and land pollution (in spite of Trump), and noise will also become less of an issue. In other words, the only form of pollution that area will face is visual, which won't really be helped by building a bunch of housing units in the freeway's stead.

Traffic over there isn't great, but is far less offensive than for most highways in this city (hell, even the Bruckner Expressway -- the road the New England Thruway becomes -- is far worse, and that's before the Bruckner Interchange). Unlike in most places, that highway is only slightly more intrusive than when it was first built.

Urban sprawl? I didn't realize we were still in the 1960s. I could've sworn you said we have a housing crisis.

Exactly what inequity are you talking about?

Okay, sure, let's replace the highway with more housing. That'll totally have a substantial impact on sea levels.

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Who benefits? You keep talking as if there actually is some substantial benefit (there isn't). All it would do is make it slightly easier for those living close to Bay Plaza (on the existing highway's west flank) to access it, as well as those living closest to the Baychester Avenue station (on said highway's eastern flank, which is also close to a full 1/2 mile away, rapidly eating any potential time saved) to access it. That's an extremely small selection of people, meaning the effort is nowhere near worth it. (It doesn't help that the only portion that remotely meshes well with the grid in that part of the borough is the one that's actually separated by a different highway.)

Being tied into the grid has a shitton of benefits, whether it be creating more foot traffic (good for street safety and business), allowing easier access to other people/places, or simply creating easy entrance/egress points for residents. It's worth remembering that, despite all appearances, people don't just want to go to the train -- access to local businesses, other residents, etc, is likely more important on the whole, and it's the destruction of those sorts of links that ravaged urban neighborhoods when highways were rammed through them. 

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Oh, that? You mean the thing brought on by a combination of demand outpacing supply, limited use of housing units that leads to unnecessary vacancies, and pricing that is well out of much of the demand's range, thereby making the situation far worse than it is? By the way, merely adding housing will repeat this cycle, much like merely adding lanes to a congested highway.

NYC's housing growth is all but a statistical error on a city scale, a reality largely driven by the fact that we are among the most NIMBY cities in the country. New units are expensive because a) they're largely being built in taller (=higher price/sq foot) buildings, b) the ridiculously complex permitting and construction process in NYC massively inflates costs and c) developers know that, in a market as constrained as that of NYC, they can charge high prices. 

The arguments about vacant units and induced demand are BS. A few thousand vacancies among luxury condo rentals is nothing on the city scale, and research has repeatedly shown that new construction lowers prices and reduces gentrification. 

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Absolutely nothing. You would know this if you actually bothered to look.

Gonna wait to respond until you make a legitimate argument. 

7 hours ago, Lex said:

We're already becoming more conscious of air, water, and land pollution (in spite of Trump), and noise will also become less of an issue. In other words, the only form of pollution that area will face is visual, which won't really be helped by building a bunch of housing units in the freeway's stead.

Traffic over there isn't great, but is far less offensive than for most highways in this city (hell, even the Bruckner Expressway -- the road the New England Thruway becomes -- is far worse, and that's before the Bruckner Interchange). Unlike in most places, that highway is only slightly more intrusive than when it was first built.

Urban sprawl? I didn't realize we were still in the 1960s. I could've sworn you said we have a housing crisis.

Exactly what inequity are you talking about?

Okay, sure, let's replace the highway with more housing. That'll totally have a substantial impact on sea levels.

Being conscious of and acting upon pollution issues are quite different things. Transportation emissions -- which really means car/truck emissions -- are the largest share of US GHG emissions; this is a massive problem, and our reliance on cars and the development patterns they encourage will only increase those emissions with time (no, EVs don't solve everything, because cars' environmental impact isn't limited to the tailpipe). 

The issue with sprawl (which, contrary to your estimation, is very much still an issue) is that it locks people into extremely inefficient lifestyles. In a city, we can walk a few blocks to get a carton of milk. In a suburb? Get in your car, drive five miles. This VMT-intensive lifestyle cranks emissions into the stratosphere, contributing massively to our environmental issues, and also creates very legitimate issues of street safety. Discouraging it -- which essentially means building enough housing in dense areas like the Bronx to provide a viable alternative -- has to be a priority for any set of environmental policies to work. In one sentence, building housing in dense, transit rich areas reduces emissions. A fun visual of the emissions divide.

As for the equity issue, consider the costs of imposing car ownership on households, of systematically excluding communities of color from suburban housing, of designing transportation systems to serve suburbanites at the expense of city dwellers, etc. 

[Lex]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Being tied into the grid has a shitton of benefits, whether it be creating more foot traffic (good for street safety and business), allowing easier access to other people/places, or simply creating easy entrance/egress points for residents. It's worth remembering that, despite all appearances, people don't just want to go to the train -- access to local businesses, other residents, etc, is likely more important on the whole, and it's the destruction of those sorts of links that ravaged urban neighborhoods when highways were rammed through them.

None of which apply here, as the highway predates the amusement park that predates the development, and said development already has local businesses. It was a load of nothing before even the amusement park existed. (Technically, it was mostly marsh/swamp, but as far as human land use goes, it was of no value.)

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

NYC's housing growth is all but a statistical error on a city scale, a reality largely driven by the fact that we are among the most NIMBY cities in the country. New units are expensive because a) they're largely being built in taller (=higher price/sq foot) buildings, b) the ridiculously complex permitting and construction process in NYC massively inflates costs and c) developers know that, in a market as constrained as that of NYC, they can charge high prices. 

The arguments about vacant units and induced demand are BS. A few thousand vacancies among luxury condo rentals is nothing on the city scale, and research has repeatedly shown that new construction lowers prices and reduces gentrification. 

Hence why merely adding housing won't address the problem. Instead, we need a targeted, multi-pronged approach. Even then, so long as we have high numbers of people who wish to come live in this city (in addition to those already here), we'll continue to have this issue.

I wish the issue could be limited to the condos, but when around 100,000 apartments are vacant because they're only rarely used (by wealthy people) or have no given reason for being vacant and off the market (assumed to be for the Airbnb-type crap), it's of significant concern, which is only exacerbated by another 150,000 that are vacant for other reasons (thankfully, mostly renovations).

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

Gonna wait to respond until you make a legitimate argument.

I'm not the one who implied that a highway that doesn't remotely interfere with the subway is a barrier to extending it.

[GojiMet86]

Bro, writing your text bigger isn't going to make it any righter.

[bobtehpanda]

I'm just going to put my two cents in the general thread here.

• Making your font size bigger doesn't make anything else you have bigger, and it's super obnoxious.
• I don't think that easier access to Baychester , however you slice it, would actually "solve" the problem of Co-op City's transit. The main issue today is that you can 
  • serve the subway via PBP
  • serve Co-op City in a direct, non-loopy way
• but never both. Substituting Baychester for PBP doesn't really "solve" anything, given that it's also not next to Co-op City, so you basically just exchanged PBP in the bullet point list.

Today, the MTA tries to fit the square peg in the circle by having buses split in all manner of patterns to get buses that solve all the problems at every stop, but this is meh for frequency.

The redesign plan was another solution that would've upped frequency massively in exchange for adding a transfer to a lot of trips, which didn't fly.

In my ideal world, we'd extend the to Baychester/Bartow or Co-op City/Bartow, which would actually let you rationalize bus services in the area given that now there's a stop in Co-op City itself. It's also, politically speaking, a very easy el extension, given that its neighbors would be a bunch of parking lots and big box stores, and no one is going there for the ambiance.

Edited October 13, 2019 by bobtehpanda

[P3F]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Inmy ideal world, we'd extend the to Baychester/Bartow or Co-op City/Bartow, which would actually let you rationalize bus services in the area given that now there's a stop in Co-op City itself. It's also, politically speaking, a very easy el extension, given that its neighbors would be a bunch of parking lots and big box stores, and no one is going there for the ambiance.

I've always thought that an AirTrain-style el could reasonably be built over that part of I-95, extending the to a new elevated terminal (with tail tracks for higher terminal capacity). The only major issue is that the station house at Pelham Bay Park would need to be modified, but the same would apply to any other extension proposal.

Edited October 14, 2019 by P3F

[Lex]

1 hour ago, P3F said:

I've always thought that an AirTrain-style el could reasonably be built over that part of I-95, extending the to a new elevated terminal (with tail tracks for higher terminal capacity). The only major issue is that the station house at Pelham Bay Park would need to be modified, but the same would apply to any other extension proposal.

Personally, I'd prefer sending it to Section 5, then in front of Bay Plaza (along Bartow Avenue). The reason? Section 5 is the most difficult part of the development to reach (albeit only to a degree, as the decision to can the peak Bx23 patterns meant the only time reaching it would really be of any concern is when both it and the Bx29 stop running).

[RR503]

16 hours ago, Lex said:

None of which apply here, as the highway predates the amusement park that predates the development, and said development already has local businesses. It was a load of nothing before even the amusement park existed.

Yeah, because you totally can’t suffer the effects of highway separation if the highway is older than the housing.

16 hours ago, Lex said:

Hence why merely adding housing won't address the problem. Instead, we need a targeted, multi-pronged approach. Even then, so long as we have high numbers of people who wish to come live in this city (in addition to those already here), we'll continue to have this issue.

I wish the issue could be limited to the condos, but when around 100,000 apartments are vacant because they're only rarely used (by wealthy people) or have no given reason for being vacant and off the market (assumed to be for the Airbnb-type crap), it's of significant concern, which is only exacerbated by another 150,000 that are vacant for other reasons (thankfully, mostly renovations).

Many (most) world class cities have people buying or renting apartments to use as second homes. It’s only in NYC that it’s become a major supply issue, and that’s because we just don’t build enough housing — less of our housing stock was built after 2010 that friggin Rochester. I say fix that before foisting pieds a terre.

16 hours ago, Lex said:

I'm not the one who implied that a highway that doesn't remotely interfere with the subway is a barrier to extending it.

Did I ever say that it interfered with it? Or did I say that allowing the 6 to use a ground level ROW would make the thing a hell of a lot cheaper to build...

[NY1635]

Would it really be possible to just build a White Plains Transit Center, or Mineola Intermodal Center style transit hub for Co Op City by the Pelham Bay  Park  station?

Edited October 14, 2019 by NY1635

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

Would it really be possible to just build a White Plains Transit Center, or Mineola Intermodal Center style transit hub for Co Op City by the Pelham Bay  Park  station?

I'd argue you already have a "Mineola Intermodal Center style hub" - the.... nly differences being that the buses:

• don't pull into the stops on an angle, and...
• only have 2 bays (instead of 6) to pull in to, with...
  1. the Bx12 taking up a "lane 1" (Amendola pl.)
  2. the Bx5, Bx23, Bx29, Q50, and the BL-45 all taking up a "lane 2" (Bruckner blvd.)

Edited October 14, 2019 by B35 via Church
the ninja MF-er's intentional !

[Lex]

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah, because you totally can’t suffer the effects of highway separation if the highway is older than the housing.

The only part that's even remotely affected in this manner is Section 5. Even then, the damage is limited to being slightly harder to reach Bay Plaza, as everything else is like trying to reach Baychester Avenue  on foot at best. (This is mitigated by the fact that bus routes and sidewalks exist to bridge the gap to the point of being moot.)

The fact of the matter is, much of no one within the confines of the entire development can even be bothered to give a shit about what's immediately outside, and those immediately outside have very little to care about within aside from Bay Plaza. (The major outside destinations are either within the Bronx well away from there or Manhattan.)

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

Many (most) world class cities have people buying or renting apartments to use as second homes. It’s only in NYC that it’s become a major supply issue, and that’s because we just don’t build enough housing — less of our housing stock was built after 2010 that friggin Rochester. I say fix that before foisting pieds a terre.

In other words, don't bother to address one market failure because of a different market failure that is in no small part affected by it.

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

Did I ever say that it interfered with it? Or did I say that allowing the 6 to use a ground level ROW would make the thing a hell of a lot cheaper to build...

You said neither. You strongly implied the former. As far as I'm concerned, you made the latter up just to cover your ass, and that's not something that I'll let fly, especially since doing that will effectively defeat the purpose of even getting rid of the highway (south of Bartow Avenue, anyway, as everything north of there will fall to what I mentioned several times).

[bobtehpanda]

On 10/13/2019 at 7:57 PM, P3F said:

I've always thought that an AirTrain-style el could reasonably be built over that part of I-95, extending the to a new elevated terminal (with tail tracks for higher terminal capacity). The only major issue is that the station house at Pelham Bay Park would need to be modified, but the same would apply to any other extension proposal.

I don't even think you need an el over I-95; there's a lot of space in between I-95 and Baychester that would be more than wide enough for an elevated terminus.

[paulrivera]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't even think you need an el over I-95; there's a lot of space in between I-95 and Baychester that would be more than wide enough for an elevated terminus.

That’s the easy part.

The tricky part would actually be first 500 feet of the extension on the Pelham Bay end. The el would need to take a left curve to hook up with I-95 where the roadway is in an embankment. A conservative curve to avoid the highway to the East would take up park land, a sharp curve to avoid the highway to the west would slow the line down too much, and a “just right” curve would need either an extra y’all series of support beams or maybe even an overbuild of the highway.

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, paulrivera said:

That’s the easy part.

The tricky part would actually be first 500 feet of the extension on the Pelham Bay end. The el would need to take a left curve to hook up with I-95 where the roadway is in an embankment. A conservative curve to avoid the highway to the East would take up park land, a sharp curve to avoid the highway to the west would slow the line down too much, and a “just right” curve would need either an extra y’all series of support beams or maybe even an overbuild of the highway.

I don't think that's true. We're building a subway extension, not HSR, and it'll be to the new last stop, so speed isn't the largest priority.

In fact, if you were to take the curve just before Pelham Bay Park and just used the same curve radius, you'd end up well within the footprint of the highway interchange.