Today’s Headlines

  • Rosa Ramirez, Struck by Bronx Motorcyclist Who Left Scene, Declared Brain Dead (DNA)
  • Public, Officials Still Largely in the Dark Regarding Penn Station Work (NYT, PoliticoAMNYNews)
  • General Contractors Association of New York: Let’s Privatize Penn (Post)
  • Cuomo Spent a Day Glorifying a Bridge — And How Was Your Commute? (WNYC, PoliticoNews)
  • The Post Editorial Board Might Have Spiked Bo Dietl’s Mayoral Ambitions; More: NYT
  • Correction Staff Caught Using City Vehicles for Vacations; De Blasio: And? (NYT)
  • State Legislators Get a Textalyzer Demonstration; NYCLU Objects (NPR)
  • MTA to Buy 200 Buses for Use During L Train Shutdown (DNA)
  • Wall Street-Rockaway Ferry Service Starts Monday (Post, AMNY); East River Fares Will Drop (DNA)
  • High-Speed UWS Crash Involving Motorist and Motorcyclist Seriously Injures 1 (Rag)
  • Big Shoes to Fill: TSTC Executive Director Veronica Vanterpool Is Moving On (MTR)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Larry Littlefield

    Was it the corrections employees or the buildings at Rikers that were using city cars for vacations?

    Meanwhile, with regard to the ferries, I’m used to the idea of cross-subsidy, but only in a “progressive” political environment can the cross subsidy run the other way. From steerage to first class.

    But to really evaluate things, one must also take into account all the property taxes those new luxury waterfront developments pay. Oh, that’s right, they are tax exempt for 35 years, because 25 years wasn’t enough, so everyone else can pay for their services.

  • HamTech87

    “”Distracted driving is a serious concern, but this bill gives police power to take and search our phones after almost every fender-bender,” says Rashida Richardson, legislative counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union.”

    Fender-bender? Pedestrians and bicyclists hit by distracted drivers don’t have fenders. I don’t think she understands the chilling effect on bicycling and walking that distracted driving has created. Lots of parents in the suburbs are refusing to let their kids walk or bike because they know how difficult not looking at their phone is. (One local cop told me that the police are acquiring binoculars to look at motorists faces to see if they are looking up or down; of course these cops can’t enforce everywhere at all times of the day, and they know that this is hard to prove in court.)

    Motorists in the suburbs don’t have as many lights to look for, and look at their phones much more. Of course they’re not expecting anyone to be walking or bicycling in the street — until it is too late.

  • Vooch

    200 buses ?

    Instead of 200 buses, they could have bought 190, and used the money saved to create 5 miles of feeder PBLs and thousands of bike racks to solve the last mile challenge

    5 miles of PBLs plus a few thousand bike racks installed at subway stations would solve 50% of the L train shutdown challenge at 1% the cost.

  • Geck

    Also the ACLU’s concern seems to be about accessing private content on the phone, while the description of how the”Textalyzer” device function seems to suggests it does not access content just the apps used, the time and the clicks and swipes.

  • HamTech87

    Agreed. It is not surprising that Westchester legislators from both parties make up the majority of co-sponsors to date.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Buses are replaced all the time, so the extent to which this is an added expense is limited.
    I think what is happening is that they will get new buses before the shutdown but only retire them after the shutdown.

  • Guest

    Better question might be where they are getting the bus drivers…

  • Larry Littlefield

    I just hope it isn’t pensionable overtime.

    They can do the same thing. Alter the timing of hiring relative to retirements, to create a temporary increase in staffing.

  • mfs

    there has to be a middle ground between being able to execute the Textalyzer search without consent and saying “a warrant is hard”. NYCLU has legit objections both on merit and what this opens the door to, and NYPD’s current practice is morally objectionable. Both can be true.

  • Joe R.

    The difference here is that driving is a privilege subject to whatever conditions the state wishes to impose on it. Those conditions could include doing a Textalyzer search without a warrant if you have a collision. I see where the NYCLU is coming from here but I think they’re off-base. Their objections might have merit if police could search your phone any time they stopped you for any reason. Here we’re only allowing a search during a very specific set of circumstances, and only while doing an activity which by definition is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

  • Vooch

    likely some double dipping

  • sbauman

    The Achilles Heel of any bus proposal for crossing the East River is the ability of the remaining L train service to get them to/from the buses.

    The L train will be limited to 8 minute headways or 7.5 trains per hour, as per the MTA’s proposals. They currently operate 20 trains per hour for a 3 minute headway during rush hour.

    The trains handle approximately 24,000 passengers during the peak hour. Servicing the same number of passengers, with 7.5 trains per hour would increase the number of passengers per train from approximately 1200 to 3200. That’s 60% more than even the RPA’s overly optimistic capacity figure of 2000 passengers per train.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Most people won’t take the L train to the bus. They’ll walk farther or take a bus to the J/Z/M, A/C or G. Or shift to bikes or Uber.

  • ahwr

    Fender-bender

    Yes.

    EVERY PERSON OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT OR COLLISION INVOLVING DAMAGE TO REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH

    You could restrict the bill to when there is injury or death, or any crash involving a person not in a car/truck to balance privacy concerns.

  • ahwr

    execute the Textalyzer search without consent

    Act of driving in the state is deemed implied consent under the bill.

  • HamTech87

    So we have to wait for a distracted driver to kill or maim before we penalize them? If someone is caught driving drunk, they are arrested whether they have crashed or not. They are then subjected to an unbelievably invasive test — blowing their lung contents into a machine. This should be the same.

  • bolwerk

    I really think people worry too much about this. There are probably three things that will account for the vast majority of what happens to L riders to Manhattan:

    (1) change subway line, travel at usual time
    (2) change subway line, travel at a different time
    (3) don’t bother traveling

    Buses, bikes, Uber, carpools, insanely long walks, etc. are all of negligible import, on the Brooklyn side at least.

  • sbauman

    (1) change subway line, travel at usual time
    (2) change subway line, travel at a different time
    (3) don’t bother traveling

    Here’s the problem with (1): NYCT’s policy has been to equalize train load levels throughout the system. This meant that all lines were maxed out during the rush hour, in terms of carrying capacity. They then reduced the number of spare cars, so that peak hour service could not be increased. Therefore, changing subway line at the usual time isn’t a viable option because the other lines don’t have the capacity to absorb L Train passengers and NYCT does not have the equipment to increase the capacity on the other lines.

    Here’s the problem with (2): Subway demand used to be concentrated at the peak hour. That changed in the 1990’s and NYCT has not adopted to the change in riding habits. That’s why shoulder, midday and evening trains are likely to be as or more crowded than rush hour trains. The L Train is a poster child for this trend. Peak hour demand is 24,000 riders, however the previous, and next hour demands are 13,000 and 17,000 respectively.

    Most train routes are fairly long, their trains can make only a single run during the combined peak hour and shoulder period. It will take more trainsets to substantially increase shoulder service levels. NYCT does not have extra trainsets or the personnel to operate them.

    Here’s the problem with (3). Job and population growth has been concentrated in the outer boroughs, since the 2008 meltdown. That growth has expanded eastward as land prices soared in the areas closest to the East River. This marked the first time that developers recognized the benefits of outer borough locations vs. suburban office space. Convenient, frequent subway service was the driving factor for this trend. A prolonged gap in such service will kill the trend.

  • bolwerk

    I don’t know that I disagree, but I don’t see much avoiding those problems unless we can build another tunnel before the closing.

  • bolwerk

    Yes! Being coerced into giving evidence against yourself on the spot, without so much as the flimsy procedural protections offered by a warrant, is so flagrantly unconstitutional that you have to think whoever thought of it was kidding. That SCOTUS ruled that it is allowable just shows how lawless and corrupt they have become since the Rehnquist court.

    It’s displacement. You aren’t allowed to admit that cars have problems, that they fundamentally aren’t safe, that the level of training needed to operate one exceeds what most human beings are capable of dedicating to the task. If you do, you have to admit that last 70 years of utopian social engineering was built on a delusion. So other things need to be blamed or rationalized away: drugs, drinking, “the authors of the U.S. constitution couldn’t possibly have intended for due process in this case,” texting, and now normal(ly indulgent) human behavior.

  • kevd

    I believe they are going to increase M Train frequency.

  • sbauman

    Thus far, the MTA’s plans have been opaque. They claim to release the details some time this spring. I prefer to adopt a wait and see attitude until then.

    However, what they propose should be addressed to the L Train. For example, it’s easy to speculate that people would switch to another line. Which line? How many for each line?

    I’ve attempted to quantify the problem, with the aid of census block and the station location data. I’ve identified the closest station for each census block. I then took those which were closest to an L Train station and determined the next closest. The results indicate that only 27% of those living closest to an L Train station have an M Train station as their next closest stop. That leaves 73% for whom increased M Train service would be of little or no benefit.

    The next question is where will the extra M Trains materialize to produce the increased frequency. The L Train currently requires 24 trainsets to operate 20 crowded trains per hour over its entire length. I estimate that 7 trainsets would be required to operate over a truncated line at 7.5 trains per hour. That leaves 14 extra trainsets. The MTA has promised to operate full length trains on the G Line. The G Line currently requires 13 half length trainsets. Without increasing its frequency, increasing train length will consume 7 full length trainsets. That leaves a total of 7 extra trainsets to be borrowed due to decreased L Train operations.

    Can the Williamsburg Bridge handle extra live load?

    Remember, one of the MTA’s official excuses for not operating more frequent L Train service is lack of power. Does the MTA have enough power to power the extra trains on both the Williamsburg Bridge and the Broadway El? It would be prudent to find out before several feeder cables burn out and passengers have to be rescued from trains stuck the Williamsburg Bridge.

  • kevd

    You’re nothing if not thorough!

  • Larry Littlefield

    There is track capacity on the J/MZ, and C trains can get longer. Hey plan on keeping the R32s for a while after new cars arrive, to add service in the overlap.

    As for the G, the only question is whether they will eliminate service at local F stations inbound of Church to free up cars for more G service.

  • sbauman

    18 trainsets are required to provide existing C service. Adding an extra two cars to each would require the equivalent of 4 1/2 trainsets. This would reduce the number of excess L Trains to 3, for adding additional J/M/Z service.

    It might be instructive to look at the next closest line for those whose closest line is the L before proposing service enhancements.

    For 55%, this would be the #2 Line; for 27% it would be the M (as previously mentioned); for 13% it’s the G; for 4% it’s the J and for 2% it’s the A (Fulton St Line). Therefore, increasing C Train length would be of negligible value.

    What’s indicated is increasing service between Utica and New Lots Aves. The R179’s, should the arrive by then, won’t help because they are too big for IRT lines.

  • kevd

    “For 55%, this would be the #2 Line.”
    Interesting, and rarely part of the discussion. The 2 is very slow making its way through brooklyn. I wouldn’t be surprised if many L train riders whose closest other line is the 2 take the reduced L to Broadway junction for an express A.

    There will be a Livonia Junius out of system transfer when the L goes down. Why there isn’t an in system transfer now, I have no idea….. The stations are literally on top of one another.
    Oh wait, it’s a mostly Black neighborhood. I’m sure the MTA’s lack of investment there is completely unrelated to that….

  • Andrew

    You’re assuming all of those people will be on the train at the same time, if at all. They won’t be. Some will transfer to the 3 at Livonia, opening up space for more people to board; some will transfer to the A/C/J/Z at Broadway Junction, opening up space for more people to board; some will transfer to the M at Myrtle, opening up space for more people to board; the remainder will transfer to the G at Lorimer – and many won’t even board the L in the first place, instead walking or taking buses directly to other options.

    If you expect everybody to simply board the L and stay on the train to Bedford and then transfer to the bus, then of course you find the plan puzzling – but, with faster and more reliable options available elsewhere, few people will actually do that. The buses between Brooklyn and Manhattan will primarily serve people in walking distance of the bus stops, not people who start off on the L train, since most people who start off on the L train will find that it makes more sense to transfer to other subway lines instead.

  • Andrew

    NYCT’s policy has been to equalize train load levels throughout the system.

    That is not NYCT policy at all.

    This meant that all lines were maxed out during the rush hour, in terms of carrying capacity.

    I see quite a bit of variation here, including many lines that are nowhere near maxed out: http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

    They then reduced the number of spare cars, so that peak hour service could not be increased.

    The number of spare cars was reduced because peak hour service was increased.

    Therefore, changing subway line at the usual time isn’t a viable option because the other lines don’t have the capacity to absorb L Train passengers and NYCT does not have the equipment to increase the capacity on the other lines.

    The MTA has announced plans to increase service on the J, M, and G, to accommodate displaced L riders. Some of the cars for those increases will come from the L itself, which will need fewer trains. Others will come from the R179 order, unless Bombardier manages to delay that process another two years.

    Subway demand used to be concentrated at the peak hour. That changed in the 1990’s and NYCT has not adopted to the change in riding habits. That’s why shoulder, midday and evening trains are likely to be as or more crowded than rush hour trains.

    That’s plain and utter nonsense. Off-peak trains are certainly a lot more crowded than they were in the 1990’s, but they’re typically nowhere near as crowded as peak hour trains.

    The L Train is a poster child for this trend. Peak hour demand is 24,000 riders, however the previous, and next hour demands are 13,000 and 17,000 respectively.

    And 24,000 is considerably higher than either 13,000 or 17,000.

    Most train routes are fairly long, their trains can make only a single run during the combined peak hour and shoulder period. It will take more trainsets to substantially increase shoulder service levels. NYCT does not have extra trainsets or the personnel to operate them.

    In the very short term, that’s a big problem. But it will be relieved in the medium term (on the B Division, which is pretty much all that’s relevant to the specific topic at hand) by the R179 order and, perhaps, in the long term by the R211 order.

    Job and population growth has been concentrated in the outer boroughs, since the 2008 meltdown. That growth has expanded eastward as land prices soared in the areas closest to the East River. This marked the first time that developers recognized the benefits of outer borough locations vs. suburban office space. Convenient, frequent subway service was the driving factor for this trend. A prolonged gap in such service will kill the trend.

    A 15-month outage of one portion of one subway line will not permanently reverse a general trend of outer borough growth.

  • Andrew

    And J frequency, and G frequency and train length.

  • Andrew

    You’re making some awfully simplistic assumptions there: in particular, you seem to be assuming that L riders will simply walk to the nearest station on another line, regardless of distance and regardless of where that line will take them.

    Certainly, some will do that. But others will start off on one line (such as the L) and transfer, and some will walk or take a bus a little bit further to reach a line that takes them closer to their destination. Your claim that “That leaves 73% for whom increased M Train service would be of little or no benefit” presumes that nobody will transfer from the L at Myrtle/Wyckoff, which is of course an absurd presumption. You also seem to be assuming that anybody for whom the L is the closest subway line is just as likely to commute into Manhattan via the Canarsie Tube as anybody else for whom the L is the closest subway line – when, in fact, different neighborhoods have different employment location patterns and, even among those commuting to Manhattan, those boarding in Canarsie are far less likely to remain on the L all the way into Manhattan than those boarding in Williamsburg and Bushwick.

    Sorry, but I’ll take this diagram rather than your conjectures.

    Most of the extra trains will “materialize” out of the R179 order, with at least some of the R32’s retained until the Canarsie Tube project is finished.

  • Andrew

    As for the G, the only question is whether they will eliminate service at local F stations inbound of Church to free up cars for more G service.

    Certainly, it’s the only question on your mind, given how many times you’ve asked it. But it’s hardly the most important question about the plans overall. F trains in South Brooklyn are far less crowded than J or M or G trains would be with no increases once the Canarsie Tube is closed. If the only way to increase G service enough to handle the crowds in northern Brooklyn is to run a few F’s express, then a few F’s should run express. You’ll still be able to fit onto the other F’s (or you can take a G to 7th Avenue and transfer there to an express, if you prefer), and the inconvenience you’ll face for 15 months will be far less than the inconvenience that Manhattan L riders will face.

  • Andrew

    It might be instructive to look at the next closest line for those whose closest line is the L before proposing service enhancements.

    Only marginally instructive. I’d rather look at where current Canarsie Tube riders would reroute themselves without the Canarsie Tube. For instance, most of those boarding between Rockaway Parkway and Atlantic will transfer at Broadway Junction, and many of those transferring at Broadway Junction will go downstairs to the A/C.

    For 55%, this would be the #2 Line; for 27% it would be the M (as previously mentioned); for 13% it’s the G; for 4% it’s the J and for 2% it’s the A (Fulton St Line). Therefore, increasing C Train length would be of negligible value.

    Pardon? Did you really just say that 55% of people who live closest to the L live second-closest to the 2? Have you looked at a subway map? The 2 runs nowhere near the L in Brooklyn.

    What’s indicated is increasing service between Utica and New Lots Aves. The R179’s, should the arrive by then, won’t help because they are too big for IRT lines.

    The 3 out of Brooklyn was at 63% of maximum peak guideline capacity in 2015 at its Atlantic Avenue peak load location. There is plenty of spare capacity on existing 3 service for many many diverted L riders.

  • Andrew

    There will be a Livonia Junius out of system transfer when the L goes down. Why there isn’t an in system transfer now, I have no idea….. The stations are literally on top of one another.

    No, they are not literally on top of one another – the L runs along the eastern edge of the freight railroad and the Junius Street 3 station is entirely on the west side of the railroad. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6635839,-73.9016753,143m/data=!3m1!1e3

    There is a pedestrian bridge across the railroad, but it’s narrow, and if it were repurposed as a transfer passageway then it wouldn’t be available to neighborhood residents who aren’t riding the subway. Building an in-system transfer would require providing a second passage across the railroad.

    Oh wait, it’s a mostly Black neighborhood. I’m sure the MTA’s lack of investment there is comple tely unrelated to that….

    $45 million in the 2015-19 Capital Plan for building a physical connection plus ADA is a lack of investment?

  • kevd

    you’re right.
    there is about 150″ freight rail and storage separating them.

    “$45 million in the 2015-19 Capital Plan for building a physical connection plus ADA is a lack of investment?”
    Its certainly a lack of investment prior to 2015!
    What the MTA pays for ADA compliance is absurd. Not because elevators cost that much, but because the MTA seems to pay a minimum of 5times what things cost anywhere else.
    Even if elevators are 2 million a piece (they aren’t). Even if you needed 8 or them (you don’t) – $45 is a stupid amount of money to create a physical and ADA compliant connection between two stations, that while not literally on top of each other, are only separated by 150″ of freight rail and freight rail storage areas.

  • sbauman

    Here’s a link to an explanation of NYCT’s frequency guidelines.

    http://secondavenuesagas.com/2015/12/15/guest-post-transits-subway-frequency-guidelines-are-the-wrong-approach/

    That’s an interesting chart. It differs from NYMTC’s 2015 Hub Bound Survey.

    https://www.nymtc.org/Portals/0/Pdf/Hub%20Bound/2015%20Hub%20Bound/DM_TDS_Hub_Bound_Travel_2015.pdf?ver=2017-01-11-123902-670#page=67

    It differs considerably in load levels from that chart, even though the readings were taken at the station closest to the CBD cordon.

    The number of spare cars was reduced because peak hour service was increased.

    A comparison with the Hub Bound Surveys from the 1970’s refutes this.

    https://www.nymtc.org/Portals/0/Pdf/Archives/Hub%20Bound%20archive/1970s%20Hub-Bound%20Report.zip?ver=2016-04-20-121510-223

    A comparison of the 1975 peak hour (8-9am) hourly data shows the following:

    Downtown
    1: 1975 – 21 trains; 2015 – 17 trains
    2,3: 1975 – 24 trains; 2015 – 21 trains
    4,5: 1975 – 26 trains; 2015 – 21 trains
    6: 1975 – 24 trains; 2015 – 21 trains
    7: 1975 – 31 trains; 2015 – 25 trains
    A,D: 1975 – 24 trains; 2015 – 13 trains
    B,C: 1975 – 25 trains; 2015 – 19 trains
    63rd St Tunnel: 1975 – 0 trains; 2015 – 14 trains
    60th St Tunnel: 1975 – 25 trains; 2015 – 24 trains
    53rd St Tunnel: 1975 – 26 trains; 2015 – 23 trains
    Uptown
    2,3: 1975 – 20 trains; 2015 – 19 trains
    3,4: 1975 – 17 trains; 2015 – 19 trains
    A,C: 1975 – 25 trains; 2015 – 25 trains
    B,D,N,Q: 1975 – 38 trains; 38 trains
    F: 1975 – 1975 – 14 trains; 2015 – 11 trains
    J,M,Z: – 1975 – 26 trains; 2015 – 20 trains
    L – 1975 – 13 trains; 2015 – 19 trains
    R – 1975 – 23 trains; 2015 – 10 trains

    The L Train is the only line with substantially more service. Most lines have substantially less peak hour service. However, the 1975 peak hour service levels pale with what the Transit Authority reported for 1954:

    http://www.thejoekorner.com/lines/1954.gif

  • sbauman

    You’re assuming all of those people will be on the train at the same time,

    I’m sorry, if I wasn’t clear. That 24,000 figure is the number passengers who currently go from Bedford and First Aves between 8 and 9am. I’m sure more people use the L during that hour but they transfer at the points you mentioned or have a Brooklyn destination. Another 3500 go in the opposite direction under the river during the same hour.

    The buses between Brooklyn and Manhattan will primarily serve people in walking distance of the bus stops,

    At present the only local bus between Brooklyn and Manhattan is the B39. Its sole Brooklyn stop is Washington Plaza, which isn’t within walking distance of very much. I assume the 200 buses will have some role between Brooklyn and Manhattan. I’m waiting for the MTA’s plan.

    BTW, these 200 buses may not be new buses. The rumor is they are over age buses that the MTA will purchase from Toronto.

  • sbauman

    You’re making some awfully simplistic assumptions there: in particular, you seem to be assuming that L riders will simply walk to the nearest station on another line, regardless of distance and regardless of where that line will take them.

    The first/last mile takes the most time for people who don’t live and work on top of a subway stop. Moreover, the combination of bus waiting time and slow speed makes walking to the subway the quickest option for distances up to 1/2 mile. 36% of L Train riders live within 1/2 mile of the next closest stop. 88% live within 2 miles of the next closest stop. It’s only when the distance exceeds 2 miles that an alternate station might provide a quicker overall trip.

  • Andrew

    Here’s a link to an explanation of NYCT’s frequency guidelines.

    Or at least to one blogger’s explanation of NYCT’s frequency guidelines, an explanation which is completely wrong. In particuarly, read the comments by “mister” (in which he is clearly going out of his way to be overly polite).

    That’s an interesting chart. It differs from NYMTC’s 2015 Hub Bound Survey.

    Well, yes, because it’s measuring something different. The Hub Bound Survey measures the load by clockface hour at the entry point to the Manhattan CBD. That chart measures the load in the busiest hour (not necessarily clockface) at the most crowded point on the line (not necessarily the entry point to the Manhattan CBD).

    The URL has changed, incidentally, since I made my earlier comment, so the old link is broken. The new URL wasn’t hard to find: http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

    It differs considerably in load levels from that chart, even though the readings were taken at the station closest to the CBD cordon.

    The readings are not necessarily taken at the station closest to the CBD cordon. They’re also not taken in the same time period.

    A comparison with the Hub Bound Surveys from the 1970’s refutes this.

    I’m sorry, I thought you were referring to service changes in recent years, not over decades.

    A comparison of the 1975 peak hour (8-9am) hourly data shows the following: (snipped)

    Seeing as I have no way of gauging the reliability of those numbers, especially the earlier ones, I’m not going to try to read too much into them. Sorry.

    The L Train is the only line with substantially more service. Most lines have substantially less peak hour service. However, the 1975 peak hour service levels pale with what the Transit Authority reported for 1954:

    Again, I have no way of gauging the reliability of these numbers. I suspect that the newly formed Transit Authority scheduled a lot more service than it could actually operate in practice.

  • Andrew

    I’m sorry, if I wasn’t clear. That 24,000 figure is the number passengers who currently go from Bedford and First Aves between 8 and 9am. I’m sure more people use the L during that hour but they transfer at the points you mentioned or have a Brooklyn destination. Another 3500 go in the opposite direction under the river during the same hour.

    You were quite clear. There are currently 24,000 riders on the L from Bedford to First between 8 and 9. But once the tube is shut down, there will be zero. Your math assumes that there will still be 24,000 riders on the L at one specific location. What location is that? (Answer: There is none. The current 24,000 will disperse among many alternative routes; some won’t ride the L at all and others will transfer off of the L at a variety of transfer points. At no point will 24,000 riders be trying to fit onto 7.5 trains per hour.)

    At present the only local bus between Brooklyn and Manhattan is the B39. Its sole Brooklyn stop is Washington Plaza, which isn’t within walking distance of very much. I assume the 200 buses will have some role between Brooklyn and Manhattan. I’m waiting for the MTA’s plan.

    I’m also waiting to see the details of the MTA’s plan, but the MTA has repeatedly stated that there will be shuttle buses, so I’m not sure why you bring up the infrequent and largely irrelevant B39.

    BTW, these 200 buses may not be new buses. The rumor is they are over age buses that the MTA will purchase from Toronto.

    As long as they operate reliably, it doesn’t much matter whether they’re old or new. And, even if the MTA is purchasing used buses from the TTC (I’ve heard the rumor, too, but I’ve heard plenty of rumors that haven’t been based in fact), why the assumption that they’ll run specifically on the shuttle buses? They might run on existing bus routes, displacing other buses for the shuttles.

  • Andrew

    Are you seriously suggesting here that riders will typically walk two miles for a one-seat ride rather than take a much shorter walk to a closer station and transfer?

    I’m sure there are narrow circumstances in which that might make sense, but in most cases the time penalty to make a transfer during rush hours is considerably less than 10 minutes, which is about the time it takes to walk half a mile.

    Did you look at the model output that I pointed you to? Even in summary graphical form it’s a bit more sophisticated than your simplistic assumption that everybody would walk (up to two miles) to the nearest non-L stop.

    Incidentally, this claim of yours is the polar opposite of your claim that 24,000 riders will be riding the L at one point. Neither claim holds water.

  • Andrew

    you’re right.
    there is about 150″ freight rail and storage separating them.

    Which is a pretty big deal.

    Its certainly a lack of investment prior to 2015-2019!

    Not every desirable project can be funded in every capital program.

    And for a second footbridge, with ramps, and I guess 4 elevators, $45 million seems a bit steep.

    Plus a connection to the 3 station itself, which no longer has a mezzanine at the Livonia Avenue end.

    *** Head smack!
    it is, of course, the 3 not the 2.

    It was sbauman, not you, who claimed that 55% of people who live closest to the L live second-closest to the 2. I’m still waiting to learn how he came up with that.

    As for the 3, there are certainly some L riders for whom the 3 is second-closest, but only at five stops on the L. Many of those riders either don’t work in Manhattan at all or already transfer to the A/C or J/Z at Broadway Junction – current Canarsie Tube ridership comes mostly from people living north/west of Broadway Junction. The 3 wouldn’t be a useful option for anywhere near 55% of current riders through the Canarsie Tube – I’d guess that the figure is closer to 5% than to 55%.

  • sbauman

    It was sbauman, not you, who claimed that 55% of people who live closest to the L live second-closest to the 2. I’m still waiting to learn how he came up with that.

    It’s really quite simple.

    The task is to find out what’s the closest subway station to each block in NYC. There are census block data that give the location and population for every block in NYC. There are 39,148 such blocks with a total population of 8,175,133 people living within them, according to the last (2010) census. The MTA provides the location of each station in its static GTFS data. There are 499 stations listed in their latest release.

    Simply calculate the distance from each census block to every subway station. This results in 19,534,852 different distance calculations. The minimum distance for each census block is then determined. This minimum distance is matched against the distances for each census block/subway stop combination. This gives the closest subway stop for each census block in NYC.

    The result is there are 1661 census blocks whose closest subway stop is on the L line. These census blocks have a total population of 348,204. Some of these census blocks are in Manhattan. I’m not considering them because they are not part of the East River crossing problem. This leaves 1472 census blocks with a population of 264,972.

    The next question is to determine the next closest stop for these 1661 or 1472 census blocks. The procedure is virtually the same. The exception is that the L train stations are removed from the 499 subway stops (leaving 475) and only the 1661 census blocks need be considered. There are 788,795 different distance calculations. The minimum distance for each of the 1661 census blocks is determined and matched against the 788,795 combinations.

    The MTA stop id assignment makes it easy to determine the line. Summing the population for the census blocks of the last results by the line and including only Brooklyn, one finds that 144,063 of the 264,972 Brooklyn residents where were formerly closest to an L train stop are no closest to a Livonia Ave El stop. That comes to 54.4% of the Brooklyn residents where were formerly closest to an L train stop.

    Obviously, these are laborious calculations. However, it’s easy to import the data into a geographic database. I used postgresql with its postgis extension. All the software is open source – meaning it can be downloaded for free.

  • Andrew

    If you are under the impression that the 2 is the primary line to serve the New Lots branch, your subway may is at least 34 years out of date. I suggest you pick up a new one at your convenience.

    In the lower right-hand corner is an illustration of the origins of Canarsie Tube riders in the AM peak hour. The number closest to the 3 is tiny in comparison to the number closest to other lines – which explains in large part why this map shows only a slight diversion of Canarsie Tube riders onto the 3.

    Your math is charming but irrelevant.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today’s Headlines

|
Hit-and-Run Driver Kills Cyclist Can Reng Ma in Sheepshead Bay (AMNY, WNBC, News, Post) More Coverage of de Blasio’s Vision Zero Presser (Politico; WNYC; Advance; Gothamist; DNA 1, 2) Daily News “Celebrates” Lives Saved by Taking Another Swipe at the Right of Way Law Where Is Cuomo’s Penn Station RFP? (Politico) World’s Priciest Train Station to Open in March, Says Port Authority (Gothamist) De […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Jeff Klein Expected to Sponsor Speed Camera Expansion Bill (News) Joe Ponte Will Reportedly Resign (NYT); De Blasio Still Doesn’t See a Problem (News, Politico) Amtrak Offers Scant Details on Pending Penn Station Work (NYT, News, DNA, Post) Moorman Proposes Joint Penn Control (Politico); Cuomo, Christie Want Private Firm (WNYC, Politico) Cuomo Spox Dismisses Protest Over Terrible Subway Conditions as “Performance Art” (News) De […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Truck Driver Kills Teenage Cyclist in Hell’s Kitchen; NYPD Blames Victim (AMNY, News, DNA) Politico: State Lawmakers Prioritize TZB Over MTA; No Speed Cams Yet (@carolinesampo) MTA Suspends Track Workers for Derailment — What Now? (NYT, News, AMNY) De Blasio Holds Fire (News, NY1); Straphangers Rally at Cuomo’s Office (AMNY) Cuomo’s MTA Is Literally Putting Lives at Risk (WNYC); Stories […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Penn Station Wasn’t Fixed in Time for This Morning’s Commute (AMNY, Post, NY1, AP) Derailment Caused by Known Track Flaw Amtrak Failed to Fix (NYT, Politico) Penn Dysfunction Has Transit Experts Pining for Gateway (Politico, WNYC, MTR) Astoria Ferry Launch Date Pegged for August (DNA) Advance Maps Thousands of Staten Island “Accidents” CB 3 Begs DOT for Relief […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Gothamist: Dan Hanegby Crash Video Contradicts NYPD Victim-Blaming What Happens While the 10th Precinct Tickets People on Bikes: DNA, CBS, ABC, AMNY Related: Ydanis Bill Would Require More Sidewalk Bollards (AMNY); And: ABC; Advance 1, 2 Cuomo and de Blasio Fight Over Who Cares More About the MTA (Politico; News; Post 1, 2) State Senate Passes Bill to Kill the Payroll Mobility […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Kaminsky Officially Wins Skelos’s Old Seat, Giving Democrats Majority in State Senate (AP, Politico) Not Your Imagination: The Subway Is Bursting at the Seams (NYT) To Get Vendors Off Sidewalks, Ydanis Rodriguez Wants More Upper Manhattan Plazas (DNA) Car Thieves Still at Large After Killing Chooi Tan on Canarsie Sidewalk; Daily News: “Accident” Cops Crash […]