HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2281  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2019, 3:07 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 5,788
For the record, if a cross-Sound tunnel ever occurs, pretty much all regional planning bodies would insist it carry MTA/Amtrak HSR rail as well.
__________________
There is no bigger a**hole than a MAGA a**hole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2282  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2019, 3:28 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 17,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Passing through Manhattan notwithstanding, any route that funnels auto traffic from the mainland to LI and vice-versa through the city limits is a distinction in search of a difference in my opinion. It's still in many cases a sandwich being shoved through a straw. Depending on where it's placed, a cross-Sound tunnel could pull hundreds of thousands of vehicles headed to Conn and northward off of highways within the city.
There will never be a cross-sound bridge or tunnel.

There's no real constituency that supports it. You're talking about some of the wealthiest, most NIMBY communities on the planet (Gold Coast of LI and Coastal CT). It's a non-starter.

And, again, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Congestion pricing isn't about Long Islanders headed to the mainland. The main connecting bridges are all on the fringes of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2283  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 7:50 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
What improvements would you make in the example I gave? Add more lights? Take Beijing for instance. With a population of nearly 20 million. The gas tax is extremely high and the roads are very well-maintained. You are only allowed to drive your car 4/5 days per workweek, non-Beijing cars are banned or have to pay a high toll, and you need to enter a lottery just to get the right to buy a car, requiring a waiting period of around 5 years. They have already double-decked the major expressways. The roads are still extremely congested. Congestion pricing probably can solve the congestion problem, getting rid of traffic and increasing the average speeds on the road. How would you spend the congestion pricing revenue, and why? What improvements would you make to the roads if congestion pricing has solved the congestion and average speed problem, and the gas tax and other revenue has already kept the roads well-maintained?
My improvements are to maintain a simple system that keeps monies paid by the users of a system in that system. So any money that drivers pay goes towards roads and freeways. I'm not against money from sales and property taxes being shared between mass transit and freeways, nor do I believe that any such system should be designed to post a profit. If there is a way to make it profitable without imposing and unreasonable burden on its users, than I'm all for it.

If we implement congestion pricing, then these things need to happen; gas tax removed. No fees for a drivers license or registration and no taxes on vehicles. Furthermore, 100 percent of any collected revenue from congestion pricing should go to roads and freeways adding however many lanes are needed to ensure traffic moves at a reasonable targeted speed at any given time. This would be coordinated in a cap of how high tolls could go. Pricing out traffic on a road that is only 4 lanes allowing tolls to climb with no limits is not reasonable. Very small chance that, that happens even if congestion pricing is implemented.

Some capital projects I'd like to see is a re-imagined Midtown Expressway built similar to the elevated tollways in Tokyo. I would not be opposed to toll lanes so as long as 2 GP free lanes are built for any proposed HO/T lane along an interstate corridor. Bring back many canceled freeway routes like 101 tunnel under SF, building out the proposed LA freeway network as tunnels(which would include moving the Santa Monica pier as part of my plans to extend I-10 to Ventura), etc... Too many projects to list.

For anyone's heads(not naming names, BusyBee) who about to explode, trust me, I am not naive. In this current political climate(too many variables working against my freeway expansion desires to list) there is zero change this happens. Unless things change, I'd be surprised if Metro's(Los Angeles) freeway expansions funded by Measure M happen as proposed. I do believe the tide will favor freeways and cars again. The question is when.

This all can be done in conjunction with mass transit expansion and if the pro mass transit crowd were smart, they'd support expanding freeways as well to keep the pro car crowd happy that accounts for the majority of commuters.

The myths that induced demand should be reason not to expand freeways and that mass transit solves congestion need to be put to rest. It's disingenuous and leaves many variables unaccounted for.

I'm all for mass transit expansion as a daily cyclist and transit user myself. That's a personal decision I make.

Beijing is a great city and China's investment of freeways should be noted. China is also not a comparable model for the US to use. Completely different lifestyle.

Of course congestion pricing could solve traffic congestion. No one is debating that. That is like the same sort of logic as saying we could end man made climate change if we eliminated humans. Extremities in anything can be used as examples. Critical thinking is something that should trump idealistic thinking. Congestion will move to the street unless a major shift in demand or lifestyle changes are imposed on the country. Charging congestion pricing will only price out the poor and/or burden the middle class(usually in cities that suffer from the amount of congestion where congestion pricing is being considered the middle class is already on the brink of poverty) and not change demand. A person needing to go from point a to point b will still exist. You aren't considering the fact most people still live in the suburbs and serving low density housing with mass transit is a non starter.

Again, this is much more than just congestion pricing reducing congestion and the crowd that supports this needs to admit it. For anyone that wants to bring the induced demand argument trying to say the success of freeways is the reason they are a failure(as absurd as that is to begin with)-- I can easily argue that the real issue is latent demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2284  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 7:58 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
How is the issue excessive density? Beijing’s issue probably is the relatively low population density of 1300 people per square km versus New York City’s 7000 people per square mile. Even Los Angeles city is more dense. Increased density is in Beijing’s future. I don’t see where you would build these hypothetical highways, and why you would build them if congestion pricing made the roads uncongested and fast. When do planners decide to build new highways when the existing roads will be consistently free flowing?
I am not aware of any examples of city planners building a freeway to create demand. Building freeways is a result of demand that already exists. A rebuttal that freeways cause sprawl is a real life example of what has happened along the Illinois 53 freeway extension corridor that has been delayed due to NIMBY's in the area whining about the sprawl it will cause. Funny as the sprawl happened anyways and no one is mentioning that nor are they wanting to limit themselves with zoning changes. If that is proposed, the politicians already know what is in store. Fortunately, this freeway will likely be built and be a great asset for the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2285  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 7:59 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
If you want to make arguments based on market efficiencies and rational actors, there is not much reason why a rational entity that collects tolls for vehicles coming into Manhattan would turn around and fund projects to send vehicles on routing away from Manhattan to avoid the tolls. And taking the same argument by its own logic, there should be no reason why the majority of drivers that will not use such routes should subsidize those routes. If there is a market for such a bridge or tunnel, a rational entity could build it and charge the necessary tolls to recoup the cost it would take to build it.
Apply that logic to the Second Ave. subway tunnel extension without a single subsidy from drivers who pay tolls on the entries to Manhattan. What would you get?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2286  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 8:00 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by browntown View Post
sure there is. The lack of access to long island means people have to drive through nyc just to get there. This is horribly inefficient as you're sending traffic through incredibly dense areas when it would save loads of time if they could simply avoid the city. Step 1 is to triple the federal gas tax though. Its almost pointless to discuss this issue until that is done.
+1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2287  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 8:18 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
It would just induce demand. As soon as, say, 10% of New England-bound traffic is pulled off the Throgs Neck Bridge, people who currently hesitate to use that route for non-critical local travel will start using it. It'll go right back to how it was.
I would like to see a study figure out exactly how much traffic was induced that created demand that never existed prior to the freeway being widened. I suspect such a study would reveal that the numbers are insignificant. If someone wanted to eat and chose to travel somewhere because that freeway was recently widened, is that induced demand or latent demand? The demand already existed as the person needed to eat. That person is now given more options and the business that saw his money now profits from it as a result of a widened freeway. Convince me and many others as to why that is a bad thing.

Almost every study I've seen that screams "induce demand" only looks at the exact project area where the freeway was widened, doesn't take into account traffic that shifted from surface streets to the freeway, doesn't take into account commuters that shifted from other corridors that were longer and indirect to the newly widened corridor, and doesn't take into account latent demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2288  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2019, 8:22 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Cars need somewhere to park. Buses and trains don't. The cost of building a car-only crossing across a major body of water only tells part of the story. Old buildings must be torn down if cars are to park in large numbers in cities.

The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges induced tons of automobile commuting into San Francisco. If each had instead been built as transit-only crossings, there would be far fewer parking garages and lots in San Francisco.

Building a vehicular crossing between Long Island and Connecticut would free some capacity between Queen and The Bronx and thus make it easier for people to drive into Manhattan.

Where are those people going to park?
There are many solutions to this. Adaptive reuse and adding parking that can later be converted to housing or office should demand shift is a possibility. That density that is removed as a result of any demolished building won't disappear. It will simply shift elsewhere making other areas denser or expand the city outward creating a better quality of life which sprawl provides cheaper than urban areas can offer.

I also don't see anyone against a mass transit component being added to a vehicular crossing.

Of course forcing a lifestyle on people will affect their decisions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2289  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2019, 3:14 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There will never be a cross-sound bridge or tunnel.
On an unrelated note North Carolina just approved a bridge of similar length and the estimated cost is $440,000,000. Obviously the bridge from LI to CT would be 6 lanes + transit as opposed to 2 lanes so it's nowhere close to an apples to oranges comparison, but I'm just trying to point out that bridges of this length aren't some unheard of thing and are indeed built all the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2290  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 11:14 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
On an unrelated note North Carolina just approved a bridge of similar length and the estimated cost is $440,000,000. Obviously the bridge from LI to CT would be 6 lanes + transit as opposed to 2 lanes so it's nowhere close to an apples to oranges comparison, but I'm just trying to point out that bridges of this length aren't some unheard of thing and are indeed built all the time.
something like that for l.i. to conn. would be so far down the priority list it would never happen even if somebody actually wanted it to. fixing the hudson tunnels are the top tunnel priority. the nj to brooklyn freight tunnel would be next in line. tunneling to staten is pretty much a fantasy plan, be it via manhattan or brooklyn, but it has been discussed a bit. so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2291  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2019, 11:45 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,193
hay ny

i really don't care, do you?




Trump budget doesn't include Gateway tunnel funding, U.S. DOT says

The Gateway Program would bring critical repairs to the damaged Hudson River tunnels that serve Amtrak and New Jersey Transit.



By Vincent Barone
Updated March 11, 2019 9:31 PM




President Donald Trump continued to spurn the Hudson River’s failing commuter rail tunnels, as elected officials stared down a “doomsday scenario” for the region.

The White House’s proposed 2020 budget does not include any new funding for the stalled Gateway Program, which in part would replace the two 110-year-old, Sandy-damaged Hudson River tunnels — a vital, 2.5-mile link for hundreds of thousands of daily commuters who take the rails between New York and New Jersey.

“Those transit projects are local responsibilities, and elected officials from New York and New Jersey are the ones accountable for them,” said U.S. Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary Jeffrey Rosen on Monday, during a budget briefing call with reporters.


more:
https://www.amny.com/transit/trump-b...nel-1.28393510
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:37 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.