Today’s Headlines

re: Streetcar. It was hard to read the graphics in the Daily News article, and nothing came up in a Google search.

Does this proposal have the streetcar/tram in a dedicated right-of-way? The picture makes it not seem so, unless cars will be restricted from the streetcars street network. If not, let’s not bother blowing $2B on something that will be a painfully slow ride.

Could restrictions on motor vehicles, coupled with more frequent bus service, do the trick here? Or perhaps if demand is expected to be huge, we should just put TZ Bridge cost restrictions on it and build a subway.

Whatever happens, please don’t let the proponents trot out the argument that this investment is needed to attract development, since the only thing stopping thousands more apartments from being built in these neighborhoods is the zoning.

Proponents seem to be arguing that it is because of development that the investment is needed. This is a dumb place for development anyway, but the crop of New Yorkers who actually remember the ancient history that is Hurricane Sandy must have been decimated by now. When this was last hashed, the proposal was for a largely mixed traffic tram.

If you’re gonna do waterfront trams, why not use the bridges and bring people to Manhattan from near the waterfronts? Don’t run along the waterfront, take people from the waterfront to places. It still meets this group’s goals, most of them anyway, but does something that buses and subways can’t really do. This would be especially useful across the QB, which actually has some of the busiest East River crossings and little prospect for relief.

Aw, well, they could start with the second busiest route in the city and still ignore the needs of the maximum number of poor/brown people. The M15 hardly runs predominantly through skid row.

However, light rail arguably doesn’t make much sense there unless the SAS is not expected to poach much of its ridership.

Maybe. They probably think the Calatrava organic turd is pretty.

And compared to the 1950s modernist aesthetic many government planners favor, it probably is.

$2 billion would pay for 2,000 miles of protected bike lanes in NYC. Two Thousand Miles. what would have greater benefit: 2,000 miles of protected bike lanes or a few miles of trolley ?

Wouldn’t that depend on the lanes, the user profiles, and the “trolley” service? Railstitute the
Bx12, per kevd’s suggestion, and you give a lot of people a better ride and probably cut MTA costs in the long run too.

The options aren’t mutually exclusive anyway. We should have both, though I don’t think this waterfront proposal is the right place to start introducing trams to NYC.

“I don’t think this waterfront proposal is the right place to start introducing trams to NYC.”
Because the commutation patterns envisioned by the project do not currently exist and won’t instantly materialize – which is a great way to ensure that ridership is below projections and no future light rail is ever built in NYC…. Better to simply invest those $$ where existing ridership is currently underserved.

Definitely that too, but I don’t think I even believe the projections to begin with. It’s a largely residential area with little need I can discern for commuting. I sort of see a logic in circulating from the waterfront, but less in just running transit along the waterfront.

A corridor that long in mixed use traffic seems potentially troublesome.

Bol,

just trying to illuminate the bargain basement costs of cycling infrastructure. 2,000 miles of protected bike lanes for NYC would utterly transform the mobility patterns of the city – reducing traffic congestion, improving safety, and increased property values most of all in transit deserts. It would also pump a few billion annually into the economy because people would save thousands annually in transport costs which they’d spend locally.

The pathetic 80 miles of protected bike lanes currently in NYC have led to a sea change in behaviour. 10% of roadway traffic in CBD is now bikes. This suggests latent demand for cycling is huge.

Protected bike lanes are dirt cheap

I’m the last person to argue against more bike lanes, but I don’t really see transit and bike lanes as having much more than incidental overlap in purpose. Trams would have more of a commuter orientation and would largely be about improving and relieving already strained transit. Bikes have much more localized and recreational focuses.

At least larger modern trams complement bikes better than buses or subways too. Buses aren’t spacious enough for bikes, and subways, while better, are grade-separated.

I agree bike commuting could be expanded a lot, but it’s not for everyone. I’m a fair weather (spring/summer/fall really) cyclist myself.

Plus the recreation thing was not a dig. That’s at least as important as getting to work, maybe more important unless you’re a fun-hating fascist.

I’d say that the sweet spot for a bikable commute is about 10 miles, or whatever distance the rider can cover in an hour.

A bike commute of an hour would tend to compare pretty well to many people’s subway commutes, when these commutes are figured from door to door, including the waits for the trains and the walks to and from the stations. And a travel time of one hour compares favourably to many rush-hour driving commutes.

It is obvious that a bike commute that is far in excess of an hour can be impractical due to the time it takes out of one’s day. (My own vommute is a few minutes longer than an hour, though not so much more as to be unacceptable.)

But I think that a commute that is extremely short can, somewhat counter-intuitively, present a lesser inducement to ride. To go through the effort of getting dressed for riding might not be worth it if you’re going to go only a few miles.

When I left home this morning in 25-degree weather, I had on seven layers of shirts, three pairs of socks, three pairs of gloves, and three scarves. (And shorts! My legs are the last things that get cold.) Once I get to work, I have to change into a shirt and pants; and then I have to change back when it is time to go home.

Getting dressed and undressed takes time. Doing this a total of four times in a day would be a lot of hassle to go through for a ride that would last for mere minutes.

So I think I’d actually be less likely to ride to work every day if my trip were three or four miles as opposed to the 11 miles that it actually is.

This is why I believe that the ideal bike-commute distance is that distance which you can cover in an hour.

Perhaps but Ferdinand makes a good point about the time preparing for a ride working against shorter rides. I’m personally like that also. I can’t see the bother of bringing my bike out, dressing appropriately to ride, finding a place to chain it at the destination, and so forth if I’m only going 1 or 2 miles. Easier to just walk and avoid that hassle. I think the sweet spot for utility cycling tends to be in the 5 to 20 mile each way range. The shorter end of that is feasible for almost anyone in 30 minutes or less. The higher end is where even regular riders might start to consider the ride too long.

A lot of this also has to do with the type of equipment and infrastructure available. In general terms, cycling is attractive to a lot of people if the trip takes 30 minutes or less each way. 30 minutes with a Citibike and present bike infrastructure in midtown might only get you 3 to 5 miles. The same 30 minutes with a velomobile on mostly non-stop bike infrastructure could get you 10 miles or more. So what Ferdinand mentioned about a 10 mile each way commute is certainly something which might work for the majority with better infrastructure plus a move towards more streamlined equipment. Even with “regular” bikes, 30 minutes non-stop is enough for an average rider to go 7 to 10 miles, depending upon their fitness level.

BQE & FDR baby 🙂

Basically anything that makes it moronic to drive in the city.

Nitpick: those things would make it less moronic to drive in the city by reducing traffic. I’d rather pay something to get where I’m going than to sit in traffic for free.