Today’s Headlines

  • Know Where NYC’s Next Bus Terminal Should Go? Port Authority Wants Your Ideas! (PoliticoWNYC)
  • MTA Adding Service to 13 Subway Lines Next June (AMNYGothamist, 2nd Ave Sagas)
  • Dollar Van Plan: Legalize Street Pick-Ups, Step Up Enforcement of Unlicensed Operators (News, Politico)
  • The Queens Community Board Establishment Insists on Parking Mandates for Everything (QChron)
  • Driving a Cab Without a License Now Carries Criminal Penalties in NYC (Post)
  • 24th Precinct Takes Credit for Absence of Traffic Deaths on Upper West Side This Year (DNA)
  • The Zillionth Story About a Community Board Scared to Trade Parking Spots for a Bikeway (BK Paper)
  • PS 166 in Astoria Wants Car-Free Hours on 34th Street for Kids to Play (DNA)
  • Driver Strikes Pedestrian on Hylan Boulevard in Great Hills (Advance)
  • 37 Apartments to Replace Parking Lot By Metropolitan Ave G Station (YIMBY)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Larry Littlefield

    The problem is that while there is an express bus lane in the tunnel, it is only in the AM, and not on Route 3-I-495. The delays there are terrible, and offset the advantage of a one-seat ride.

  • bolwerk

    Even ignoring that the guideline loads seem artificially low, I don’t see why you’d need to move every single bus rider to rail. Move 25% of them off buses and the capacity problem is basically solved.

  • bolwerk

    No, it doesn’t. I don’t see a viable route to replacing 100% of bus traffic with rail. That shouldn’t be the goal. The goal should be to reduce the load on PABT and the Lincoln by routing people by other means to other parts of Manhattan, something the 7 Train is fairly good for.

    Is it theoretically possible to move that many people by rail? Sure, but I don’t see why it’s desirable. I also don’t see why it’s desirable to take away options that people have worked their lives around for decades.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    Agreed, keep PABT at 250,000 capacity and use the $10 billion to expand capacity of other systems.

    … and divert 1% ($100 million) to build 100 miles of protected bikes lanes in NYC: adding protected bikes lanes in each of the 4 boros ( 25 miles each boro ) would do more to reduce congestion than any other action.

    For example, 25 additional miles in Manhattan would create protected bikes lanes of 100 block length on 4 avenues, plus 2 crosstown routes from river to river.

    Currently, about 10% of CBD roadway traffic is cyclists with a reduction in congestion equal to the 1/8 space reduction cyclists use vs. cars. Adding 25 miles of protected bikes in Manhattan might easily double cycylist count to 20% with a dramatic reduction in congestion.

  • sbauman

    “But IIRC the equipment is rated for carrying more people than guidelines anyway. For instance a 10-car R160 train should be able to carry around 2400 people, so 16 of these fully loaded should be able to carry ~36k people. But going by loading guidelines that allows only ~22,650.

    Guidelines are probably about keeping crowding down, not maximizing equipment loads.”

    There’s a difference between service guidelines and load capacity. Load capacity refers to how much weight the motors will still propel or the frame can support. Service guidelines are the loading level at which the maximum number of passengers per hour can be carried on a line with multiple stops. Once the service guidelines, carrying capacity is reduced because dwell times increase faster than the increase in passengers per car.

    The service guidelines for the R160’s and all other 60 ft long NYCT trains is 145 passengers. This is 4.1 sq ft (0.38 sq m) per passenger. TCRP Report #13 gives the following description: Acceptable – 0.5 sq m – provides comfortable capacity per passenger space; Tolerable With Difficulty – 0.35 sq m – lower limit in North America with some touching; Totally Intolerable – 0.2 sq m – least amount of space that is occasionally accepted.

    Your suggestion for 240 passengers per R160 car works out to 2.5 sq ft (0.23 sq m) per passenger.

  • bolwerk

    Believe me, I’m not suggesting it! It was just an illustration. That is just the rated capacity for the R160 equipment (actually, bigger by a few people in a 10-car configuration because cab cars are a little smaller, but I ignored that).

    It makes sense why you don’t want to maximize loads on trains – or buses. That’s why complementing the Lincoln Tunnel with rail to reduce loads on PABT makes sense, whether or not practical concerns dictate trains don’t haul 36k people/hour.

  • bolwerk

    Keep it? It’d probably be better to reduce it to the 100k range. :-p

  • sbauman

    “The local trains are not crowded. Basically people get off the 7 local for the E,F express at 74th and Roosevelt, the 7 express at Woodside, and the N at Queensboro. I’ve gone up the G to Court Square a few times, and was surprised how not crowded it was there.”

    Your excursion on the Flushing Line was incomplete. As others have pointed out, the existing loading patterns peak before Queensboro Plaza. You missed the maximum loading by examining only Court Square (the stop after Queensboro Plaza).

    “They run 26 trains per hour due to the level of demand. The could run 30 now, ran 36 in the past, could run 40 with CBTC”

    If your projected service levels are accurate, they should be applied to other lines.

    Applying these service levels to the Lex would mean that the Second Avenue Subway is not needed. Peak loading levels on the Lex would be reduced to tolerable levels with these increased service levels. Not building the Second Avenue Subway would eliminate much of the capital construction dollar gap.

    Unfortunately, CBTC, as implemented by the MTA, has come in over budget and has under performed. They are currently operating only 20 tph on the 14th St Line. They used to operate 24 tph on that line with the old signal system.

    “The project may have to add a turnaround immediately east of Queensboro, if the need from NJ is greater than the need from NY.”

    If excess capacity exists west of Queensboro Plaza, it would have been better used by enlarging the Hunters Point LIRR station with a more convenient transfer to the #7 Line. That extra capacity would have made the LIRR East Side Access project unnecessary.

    LIC is undergoing a transformation from industrial to high density residential. Expect Vernon-Jackson to be a major source of passengers going to Manhattan by the time this transformation will be completed.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    how much would it cost to extend PATH north from Hoboken along the Bergen line to Fort Lee/GW Bridge (9 miles) ? I am guessing it could be done for $500 million a mile or $5 billion. could a such a PATH extension along Bergenline divert 50k -100k daily riders from PABT 15 years from now ?

    I am guessing that $5 billion would pay for much of the 7 line to Secacus. That would likely support 70k -120k daily riders dieverted from PABT 15 years from now.

    what do you think Larry ?

  • Alexander Vucelic

    even better

  • bolwerk

    Doesn’t that line have a bunch of grade crossings? It’s probably very impractical for PATH, both because of the frequency of PATH and third rails.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    oops meant JFK avenue, the shopping street connecting Weehawken, union city, gutenberg,mcliffsidenpark, and fortmlee