I think only one fundamental thing is really necessary: focusing on the efficiency of streets. Measure the success of our transportation and transit system in terms of people moved – that simple. Not vehicles moved, people moved. When we do that we will see what the most efficient outcomes really are – and the answers will follow. My bet is that they would include 1) light rail on highest-demand corridors; 2) physically separated bus/bike lanes on next-highest demand corridors, and 3) some kind of road pricing, whether a CBD cordon or just HOT lanes on highways, bridges & tunnels within the city.

(Glenn – I think you meant “decrease travel times”, not increase)

light rail is great for distance, but what the city really needs is to get rid of at least one north south avenue and make it pedestrian/slow bicycle only except perhaps for emergencies, 4th ave or 5th would be excellent for this. combined that with some east west walking, and a congestion charge for entering the city. the secret is to get cars off the streets, and that can only be done by giving people better options. similarly raising the parking fees at meters would be good, it’s a vice tax.

Glenn said that this hearing focuses on “adding more transit capacity.” Here are my top three ways to do it.

1. More subways. The #7 extension is not aimed at improving travel times, except to the Javits Center. The Second Avenue Subway is, but we should look past that and think about other worthy transit projects we’d like to see built by 2030, like the South Fourth Street Tunnel, and the lines that would extend from it. CBTC will help improve travel times, but it seems to be currently seen by NYC Transit as a way to stop paying for conductors.

2. Bring back trolleys. I don’t know why Jeremy thinks light rail is more appropriate for distance, but maybe he’s thinking of grade-separated light rail like most of the Hudson-Bergen line. Streetcar-type trolleys used to provide a way of getting around the city that was faster than buses, but didn’t require going up or down flights of stairs. Bus rapid transit is too often a red herring to get people away from thinking about streetcars, and is probably best presented as individual improvements such as signal priority or dedicated right-of-way.

3. Commuter rail linkage. The three commuter rail systems in the region (four if you count Shore Line East) have three different fare systems (all incompatible with Metrocard), three different schedules, and four different propulsion systems (catenary, diesel and two incompatible third-rail systems). Both the THE tunnel and the LIRR/Grand Central link started with ambitious goals of linking the three networks, but then scaled back. If we spend the next ten years converting some of the LIRR and Metro-North lines to catenary and integrating fare and schedule systems, then in the following thirteen years it will be easier to work on connecting the tunnels and providing through-running trains.

I hope this helps.

Angus: you make good points. I propose that an integrated fare system be the first step, with some kind of common fare media and more stations with subway-style faregates, rather than large fleets of assistant conductors on the trains.

Oh and thanks for the link to the CBTC site: you’ll notice that the NYCT project hasn’t been updated since 2005 and the BART one since 2003. This isn’t because of a lazy webmaster, but rather because the projects were basically abandoned after they failed to work. And yet dozens of systems around the world, including all three NYC-area commuter railroads, operate just fine with fixed block coded track circuit speed control. I guess there isn’t enough fancy technology in it, and no cushy consulting jobs for transit agency officials.

From a real estate value perspective, you could never it sell it, but if an argument could be made (and I’m not sure one can) for a non-car avenue (not because I don’t like the idea, but in the context of the hearing, how would you quantify improved transit times without any real data) it would be Broadway.

I think the best points have been made. Some addtions/qualifications:

1. Trolleys for east/west thoroughfares (travel times are worse for the transverse bus routes)

2. Reverse the toll structure on the Verrazano Narrows

Focus on policy adjustments for cycling, not street modifications (keeps the car lobby at bay, increases safety — if more people rode to work, it would inevtiably change the nature of car use).

A. Introduce indoor bicycle parking incentives or zoning regulations for new commerical construction, similar to parking space requirements for residential.

B. Create specialized enforcement units (similar to the seat belt nannies that stand at dense inflow/outflow intersections) for bike lane and pedestrian infractions (failure to yield). If people are educated via tickets about the importance of bike lanes, they will respect cyclists more.

Oh, and if legislative redress come up:

Wrest control of surface street management from the state DOT. New York should be allowed to manage it’s own streets. I’m not convinced that maximizing surface street speeds reduces congestion, since all the trasfer nodes (bridges, tunnels, etc.) aren’t going to be relieved any time soon. Levelling (even if it means lowering) surface street speed will be safer and reduce congestion.

This is fun.
1) Free, no fare subway/ bus service for NYC residents.
2) Parking infrastructure overhaul incuding:
– market rate street parking
– elimination of several parking spaces on most blocks to be converted to bike parking, delivery truck parking, and taxi pick up.
3) Road infrastructure overhaul incuding:
– general traffic calming iniative
– red light cameras at all dangerous, chronically gridlocked intersections
– elimination of vehicle lanes to be converted to bicylce lanes and sidewalk widening.

Lots of good ideas, but large expansion of bicycle lanes isn’t one of them. In a perfect world it’s nice to think that people would abandon their cars and whatever to ride a bike to work. It certainly would provide a lot of benefits. But in reality very few people would do that on a regular basis.

For the average person (which probably rules out anyone reading this site), the climate in NYC simply is not conducive to bicycling for most of the year. Cold, snow, rain, darkness, wind, heat waves…people aren’t going to do it. It might be effective in good weather for younger people with short commutes (who would in many cases have to be willing to pack their work clothes along for the ride). But for most of the year those bike lanes would sit virtually unused taking up valuable street space that might be more effectively utilized for trolleys, bus routes, etc.

Disagree Spud. If biking was safer and more convenient it would be a major boon to the city. New York is one few places in America where many people live reasonably close to their jobs, shopping, and activities. The comfortable climate IS conductive for most of the year- last week was one of the few times when I personally couldn’t battle the weather. Other regions with more soggy or damp weather pull it off just fine- ie Northern Europe. I where my business casual attire during my commute in most case without any problem. If we can’t get a significant number of people biking here, it can’t happen anywhere.

Brent, if last week was one of the few times when you couldn’t battle the weather then it’s probably true that you are much more hearty most NYers (probably younger too). Bless you for it, but it’s true. I still believe that that street space could be put to better use for a form of transportation available to everyone year-round. People won’t bike in the winter, won’t bike in the dark, and would leave their bikes home if there was even the slightest chance of rain — and there’s no amount of engineering that can change that unless we cover, light and heat bike lanes. If the street space wasn’t so valuable I might think diffently.

Spud- Perhaps it would be futile to suggest cycling to people who have an aversion. Right now, however, there isn’t any infrastructure in place for those of us who would at least like the option. By the way- I would highly recommend biking in the rain over any of New York’s great bridges for a great aesthetic experience. Wear a poncho- you’ll stay pretty dry.

Incidentally, I attended the PlaNYC2030 forum for Manhattan downtown community leaders last month. We broke into discussion groups that brainstormed lists of suggestions for each of the 10 focus points of PlaNYC2030.

Regarding this point, and several of the environmental points, EVERY sub-group included congestion pricing and a new emphasis on support for bicycling. Repeated frequently were light rail/streetcars, BRT, integrated regional rail, pedestrian and cycling boulevards, and free/very inexpensive public transit options.

While these people were downtowners, so perhaps less apt to be car-centric, these weren’t really people who eat-and-sleep-StreetsBlog. The ideas that we rant about here ARE filtering down to the general public, and that public is looking for change.

That message is going into the Mayor’s Office – it remains to be seen what comes out. But don’t be worried about sounding like you’re “out there” when advocating for any of these suggestions.

I’ve kept hearing about secure bike parking at Penn Station, and somehow it keeps not happening. It could be a very successful facility.

And those trains of thought folks are definitely on to something with their regional rail ideas, and I especially like the idea of a single unified fare system. Actually unifying all the systems will be a much bigger challenge, and require either re-electifying some of the lines, or running dual mode trains. Another huge obstacle is ridiculous FRA collision-strength regulations which make it practically impossible to build a normal MU train. Systems like LIRR and Metro North, should have an exemption, on account of their cab signal systems, which can be very effective in preventing collisions in the first place, and thus greatly reducing the importance of having very heavy but indestructible trains.

I keep hearing people complain about the FRA collision-strength requirements, but there doesn’t seem to be any move to do anything about it. Is it based in law, or just executive orders? Is there any organization that could lead such a campaign – NARP? APTA? STPP?

Has anyone looked at the MTA budget projections for 2008 and beyond? The alarm bells are ringing. A fare hike is for sure, plus it’s going to be tough to complete 2nd Ave and the East Side Connector, let alone dig new subways on 125 St. or light rail lines. In the unlikely event Manhattan CBD congestion pricing is approved soon, much of the money would have to go for the existing MTA capital plan.(Assume a chunk would go for things other than public transit.)This is why people stuck in the real world have focused so much on BRT — which can actually be done and requires more political will than scarce capital dollars. The MTA is not going to build light rail, nor is City Hall. Who is left?

But hey, don’t let reality intrude on the reverie.

Buzzkill Spud:

As a regular bike commuter, I have to weigh in on your “the average person would never bike” arguments. A big reason people don’t think of biking around New York is that cycling is marginalized, unsafe, and not perceived as a viable means of transportation, not because of the weather. I avoid rain and snow and still ride to work (from Harlem to Wall Street) 3-4 days a week. And except for February, the last six months have been pretty nice riding weather. Even if you have people riding only on nice days, but not in their cars, NYC would be a MUCH more pleasant city.

The street space is valuable – too valuable to be used solely for automobiles, which have obviously proven to be an ineffective mode of transportation in dense urban areas. Taking two lanes out of each major avenue and one out of each cross-town artery for BRT and bikes would be a much more effective use for such valuable space, even if the bike lanes are underutilized. Build it and the cars will come…restrict it and they will leave. And when people see such lanes and recognize that cycling is safer, more accepted, and more common, then we will have more riders.

Sure, you may get tired of us StreetsBlog whackos going on and on about how cycling is an urban panacea, but it’s hard to completely deny the benefits of having a commuter on a bike rather than in a car or even on the subway. More people on bikes means improved travel times (both because cycling is usually faster than either the subway or driving and fewer cars mean less traffic) and increased transit capacity (fewer subway riders mean faster rides).

Glenn, improved bike infrastructure has to be on your list.