Today’s Headlines

  • Death-By-Speeding in NYC Is Now on John Flanagan (Politico; News 1, 2Post; NY1)
  • Driver Critically Injures Astoria Cyclist — NYPD Blames Victim (PIX)
  • Voice: Cuomo’s Subway Action Plan Was Designed to Provide Political Cover; Related: Post
  • A Bus Revival That Depends on NYPD Is Doomed (MetroAMNY)
  • Citi Bike Will Replace Ofo in Bronx Dockless Bike-Share Pilot (Crain’s)
  • The Times Approves of Dockless Bike-Share
  • Staten Island Wheel and Strip Mall Could Muck Up Bus Improvements (AMNY)
  • The Genius of DOT’s Plaza Program: Quick, Low-Cost Construction + Local Partnerships (PS)
  • Will DOT Ever Step Up to Fix Curb Dysfunction in Inwood? (Post)
  • People You Share the Streets With (Post, AMNY)

More headlines Streetsblog USA

  • Larry Littlefield

    The reality is they were never going to turn around 25 years of financial malfeasance at the MTA in a year. A decade is more like it, with more effort than is being put in.

    More than political cover would be letting people know they are screwed, and who benefitted by the decisions that left us in this situation. But that’ isn’t in the interest of those seeking to sell their metro NY real estate at high prices and move to Florida.

    Why was a “subway action plan” needed to begin with? What happened? Where is the investigation, the commission, the finding of facts?

  • Danny G

    Re: Staten Island’s North Shore Rail
    Why would the city build a transit line alongside a waterfront (Richmond Terrace), rather than further inland on a street like Forest Avenue? If you think about the “walkshed” of areas within walking distance of a station, running transit along a waterfront means that even if you upzone the entire waterfront, half of the walkshed area will never generate any ridership – since fish can’t walk, and don’t ride trains. Can somebody point me to an explanation of why a north shore transit line is a good idea?

  • Larry Littlefield

    Because it’s already there?

    That’s why I suggested BRT for that ROW. Buses could be re-routed to run north-south picking up and dropping off passengers, then go straight to the ferry express on the ROW, in addition to those serving stations along it.

  • Eli

    I think Aaron Gordon (who wrote the Village Voice piece) is such a gift.

    If you haven’t subscribed to his weekly subway newsletter, I highly recommend it:

  • kevd

    existing ROW. might need tons of repair, but the land doesn’t need to be pieced together. if it costs less than 1/2 as much but has 1/2 the walk shed, it is still a good deal.

  • running_bond

    The shutdown of La Marina’s illegal and massive valet parking and outdoor concerts is a big deal uptown — and it will have an impact on improving conditions along all of Dyckman. The valet, and the associated 1,500+ person concerts (also not allowed in their contract), induced hundreds and hundreds of additional car trips. Now both are gone.

    It took six years, but that’s how long Fernando Mateo’s political shield apparently lasted. I would not be surprised if there are some criminal charges that eventually come out of this for the officials at Parks who allowed city land to be used for revenue purposes without a concession agreement (the valet was outside the La Marina concession premises) while severely impacting an entire neighborhood of 40,000 people in the process.

    For more context, see:

  • redbike

    Echoing / agreeing with other comments about why to use this right-of-way: BECAUSE IT’S THERE.

    Your question about the ROW immediately west of the St George ferry terminal being on the waterfront makes sense, but continuing west from where Jewett Av ends at Richmond Terr, the rail ROW heads inland. A good resource is OasisNYC It’s a bit obscure and not always 100% up-to-date, but if you’re looking for information about land use and who owns it, OasisNYC is a good starting point.

  • Flakker

    that’s not really necessary, just put traffic signal priority on and remove half the stops from Richmond Terrace, which is never too congested anyway

  • bolwerk

    The problem with BRT there is it wrecks the ROW for a considerably more useful LRT link from HBLR. (Well, if NY pols could ever play well enough with NJ pols to do it.)

  • Larry Littlefield

    The picture in the article shows the ROW partially in the Arthur Kill. So I’m not sure what you mean “wreck.”

    If it were rebuilt with “stations” and later demand and development patterns were to emerge to warrant it, tracks could be laid later to make it possible to MU.

  • bolwerk

    But why? When you’re building an entire ROW, any cost advantage BRT maybe has is just gone. BRT either destroys the opportunity for North Shore rail entirely, or it makes it considerably more expensive. It’s urban mutilation. It’s much cheaper to just restore the rail ROW than it is to implement BRT and then rebuild with rail on an operational corridor.

    As Flakker points out, BRT already makes more sense on Richmond Terrace than it does on the North Shore ROW.

  • bolwerk

    Given climate change, it really might not be a good idea, and the rush to do it so stupidly probably means some contractor is in line for a payout.

    That said, “walksheds” are almost irrelevant. All things being equal, what matters is having riders, and if you have ridership on 50% of the “walkshed” it’s as good as having the same ridership on 100% of the “walkshed.”

  • Larry Littlefield

    Buses on a variety of routes could use that ROW, and pass buses stopped at “stations.” That doesn’t work with tracks, unless you have four of them connected with street running rails.

  • bolwerk

    Buses could do pretty much the same thing on Richmond Terrace without investing money to destroy the possibility of a useful rail connection.

    I’m also not sure I buy the desirability of that under any circumstance. Putting several routes on that ROW means several buses skipping several streets with potential customers, not to mention destinations for people who might not be headed for the ferry terminal.