Today’s Headlines

  • “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes” Drops Suit to Rip Out PPW Bikeway (DNA, GothamistPost)
  • Brooklyn Paper Responds With Another Bikelash Double Feature (1, 2)
  • Voice Has the Play-by-Play on What’s Happening With the Port Authority Bus Terminal
  • The W Train Returns in November (NY1)
  • After Allegedly Drunk Off-Duty Cop Killed Andrew Esquivel, DMV Kept Him on the Road (News, Post)
  • NYPD Misconduct Cost Every New Yorker $27 in FY 16 (Gothamist)
  • Woodside Church on Roosevelt Avenue Wants to Add 100 Parking Spots (QNS)
  • DOT Refuses Tony Avella’s Request for Changes to Two Bayside Intersections (QNS)
  • Off-Duty DSNY Worker Arrested for Drunk Driving Near Union Square (DNA)
  • Crashing Your Car Through a Storefront No Big Whoop in the Vision Zero Era (Advance)
  • Daily News Op-Ed Writers Think a Subsidized Autonomous Car Experiment Would Help L Train Commuters
  • The Ferries Are Coming (AMNY)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Mike

    NBBL is dead. Long may it stay that way.

  • GorgonBiker

    Aren’t we gonna have a rally or party to celebrate PPW Bike Lane Lawsuit drop?

  • Joe R.

    I think the suit was dropped because most of the members of NBBL are dead. In fact, it’s worth remembering most of the bike lane opponents in this city are from my mom’s generation. The opposition is dying off or moving to Florida a bit at a time.

    I’m glad this sad saga is finally over. Maybe now the city will be emboldened to start adding more improvements which benefit cyclists and pedestrians.

  • Joe R.

    Maybe Tony Avella should take a few courses in traffic engineering. He might finally realize stop signs and traffic signals aren’t the solution to every safety problem. I’m glad DOT refused his requests. It’s a pity they don’t have the backbone to refuse a lot more such requests.

    BTW, those streets look ridiculously wide. That’s the problem. Narrow them, perhaps use the new land for much needed housing.

  • ohnonononono
  • snobum
  • ohnonononono

    Good thing our shipbuilding industry is getting a boost from the ferry production! Oh, wait, no, that’s Louisiana and Alabama, where labor costs are low.

  • JudenChino

    Ok, but I don’t see the harm in an all-way stop sign there.

  • JudenChino

    Do you know if they have to be built in the US because of the Jones Act? Or does that not apply since these ferries won’t carry freight?

  • Joe R.

    This issue isn’t that it causes harm in that one location but rather that excessive use of stop signs tends to make drivers take them more causally. In places where stop signs are rarely used, when drivers see them they do exactly that—they stop. Here in NYC I’ve seen my share of drivers who don’t even slow down at stop signs, never mind actually stop. Most of the time this isn’t harmful because these intersections could technically have yields, or even be uncontrolled. It becomes harmful when they encounter one of those rare times where a stop sign is properly used. Here if they don’t actually stop, harmful consequences can result.

  • ohnonononono

    Probably, and/or “Buy America” provisions since it’s public transportation.

  • JudenChino

    That’s a good point. But the DoT could at least humor with some speed bumps. I agree though that design is more important. You can have all the physical signs in the world, but the layout of the road itself, ” is a sign, a signal” to the driver as well. We forget that by thinking, oh, a sign, that’ll do it. Like cutting the speed limit to 25 mph isn’t going to be effective if all the arterial avenues in Manhattan still look like 4 lane highways,

  • Tyler

    On the sidewalk directly in front of 9 Prospect Park West…

  • Larry Littlefield

    I think pro-bicycle seniors will live to see themselves the majority of their generation.

  • ddartley

    AMNY says the ferries will be “fuel efficient,” but I’m worried that they’ll still nevertheless spew large black clouds every thirty seconds, like most of the other ferries operating here. I can’t believe that that can’t be environmentally insignificant.

  • Fool

    I cannot understand for the life of me why the new bus terminal has to be in NYC. $10 billion is maybe enough to fund a 7 train extension and swampland bus terminal.

    But seeing as how Metro North and LORR could not coopoerate, why would Port Authority give up land in NYC and admit the MTA can operate across state boarders.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “$10 billion is maybe enough to fund a 7 train extension and swampland bus terminal.”

    It probably isn’t but $10 billion SHOULD BE enough to fund a 7 train extension on a lower level of Gateway a-la the 63rd St tunnel to a new station at Secaucus Transfer, and a bus station there. FOLLOWED BY the replacement of the existing terminal where it is, with an office building on part of the site.

  • ahwr

    I cannot understand for the life of me why the new bus terminal has to be in NYC.

    Because that’s where people are trying to go. Half of riders walk from the PABT.

  • ahwr

    Does the Hudson Yards station alignment/depth facilitate a connection to a Gateway tunnel?

  • Fool

    Even though in all likely hood a transfer to the 7 would still get you to your destination faster?

  • bolwerk

    Too many bus routes feed it now, and that’s what users have expected for generations now.

    But there is no reason many transfers can’t be captured in New Jersey, relieving pressure on the TQ complex. It looks like the PA has even admitted that could possibly allow the terminal to be scaled back.

  • bolwerk

    The 7 already extends to 23rd Street, so there may be a complex way to thread it to Gateway. It would probably need to happen at 30th Street or south because of foundation work already completed at Hudson Yards. Or maybe this could still include an accommodation if they hurry?

  • Joe R.

    Looking at Google Earth, there’s a nice plot of empty land right off I-95 where you could put a train station and bus terminal:,-74.0471922,3326m/data=!3m1!1e3

    You could probably have the buses all deboard in an area in fairly close proximity to the train station. They would then go to parking elsewhere in the terminal where they would wait for passengers on the outbound run.

    If we assume it takes roughly the same amount of time to leave your bus and get to street or train level, or do the reverse, as it does now at the PABT then you’re not adding anything to the trip time there. The key factor is how long will the train ride be to Times Square compared to the bus ride off I-95, through the Lincoln Tunnel, and up the ramps into the PABT? I recall that was typically somewhere on the order of ten minutes.

    So we extend the #7 train to this area. Times Square to Hudson Yards takes about two minutes. Now we’re going about 3.5 miles nonstop from Hudson Yards to the new bus terminal. No reason the trains can’t get up to their top speed of 55 mph and stay there. It’s a straight run with no curves. That would put the travel time at maybe 4.5 minutes allowing for acceleration and deceleration. Add 30 seconds of dwell time at Hudson Yards. Total time to go from Times Square to the bus terminal is about 7 minutes. If the average waiting time is 3 minutes during peak hours, then the travel times are pretty much a wash. They might actually be better much of the time given that there’s often congestion before the bus reaches the bus lanes in the Lincoln Tunnel.

    Bottom line is I think this concept has merit. It just needs to be fleshed out a bit.

  • Komanoff

    So long as you pair that pic w/ this one of yours truly, kissing the just-installed bike share station at Watts Street in Tribeca, in April 2013.

  • ahwr

    travel times are pretty much a wash

    50% walk to/from PABT. Of the other 50% how many use the 7 train? If you need to transfer again, is it still the same time? And even if it is a bit faster, is making a one leg trip a two leg trip, or a two leg trip a three leg trip really worth saving a minute or two? Most people make an additional transfer with the NJ bus station idea. And can a 7 train to NJ bus station accommodate projected growth?

    Bottom line is I think this concept has merit.

    Combined with a bus station in Manhattan it could make sense. But not on its own.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Right, but half of them transfer. So if the NJT fare (bus or rail) was higher to travel all the way across the country that to transfer in NJ by a subway or PATH fare, those transferring would do so there.

    And the bus station in Manhattan could be smaller than is now proposed, and built in place because people could transfer at the additional bus station off the 7 in NJ for a while.

  • Flakker

    Yes they must be built in the US because of what is commonly referred to as the “Jones Act” but is actually a different law: The Passenger Vessel Services Act.

  • sbauman

    According to the 2014 Hub Bound Travel Report, approximately 20K passengers travel on the #7 from Queens on 27 trains between 8 and 9 am. During the same hour, approximately 32K passengers enter the PABT. If the same load levels are used (67 pass/railcar), the Secaucus service would require 43 trains per hour.

    If the TA could operate 43 tph or cram 110 passengers into every railcar on 27 tph, there’s still the question of getting these passengers out of the 34th St, Times Sq, 5th Ave and Grand Central stations. The platforms on these stations barely clear of passengers before the next train arrives. They would now have to clear 160% more passengers in the same amount of time.

    All these stations have center island platforms. Simply adding more stairways on these platforms is a non-starter. The existing platforms do not have the space to accommodate the extra passengers. A new platform, such as what was done at Bowling Green, would be required. Unlike Bowling Green, Times Square, 5th Ave and Grand Central share their streets with other subway lines that run above them. These lines would have to be shored up during construction. Their presence would also present design constraints on how well these new platforms could function.

    When design complications increase, it’s usually a hint to step back and consider other approaches. One such approach would be to build a completely separate line from Secaucus. This would also permit using bigger railcars, so that fewer railcars and trains would be required for the service. It would also solve the jurisdictional problem; it would be a Port Authority project.

    The cost for a completely new line would be high. It would probably not be much more than what retrofitting the #7 line would be, when all the complications are considered. Whether the cost would exceed the bloated figures for the PABT replacement is problematic.

    One thing is clear, expanding the #7 into New Jersey, isn’t the low cost solution its proponents claim.

  • Fool

    While some may consider it low cost, I do not. I do consider it the BETTER use of funds.

  • neroden

    (In re the killing of Andrew Esquivel)

    Thank you Ken Thompson.

    DA Ken Thompson seems to finally have recognized the importance of getting reckless drivers off the road. He’s acting like an ally. This is good and we should thank him.

  • neroden

    I believe that the Port Authority should convert the center tube in the Lincoln Tunnel to a rail line and continue the line straight down 42nd St. It would work. Bus terminal at the Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel where there already *is* a giant bus layover… and a connection to HBLR.

  • Vooch

    my division of the $10 billion

    $2 billion rehab existing PABT
    $2 billion extend PATH lines into NJ by approx. 10 miles
    $6 billion devote to 7 line Secacus