SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   New York City - Transit News (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154524)

BrownTown May 21, 2015 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7029567)
The comptroller, charged with overseeing the city’s finances, blamed Albany and Washington for not providing adequate funding to the train system and attacked Mr. Prendergast’s request as “last minute.”

LOL, I love that argument from the City. He just takes it for granted that the State and Federal governments should pay for THEIR subway system? 100 million dollars from the city is a total joke. It just blew my mind when I hard that's all the city contributes to it's own transportation network and expects other people to subsidize the rest.

Nexis4Jersey May 21, 2015 12:09 PM

Quote:

Port Authority won't say when PATH auto braking system will be operational

http://imgick.nj.com/home/njo-media/...ce51b70651.jpg
So-called positive train control technology that automatically applies the breaks when trains are travelling at excessive speeds will be implemented on the PATH system's Newark-WTC line by "the end of 2016," the Port Authority told NJ Advance Media. (Spencer Platt | Getty Images) (ges)

By Steve Strunsky | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on May 19, 2015 at 8:00 AM, updated May 19, 2015 at 6:10 PM

JERSEY CITY — The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey says only that it "has made progress" over the past 15 months equipping PATH trains and track with the kind of automated breaking system that might have prevented the deadly Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia last week.

The Port Authority said the so-called positive train control technology is not operational on any part of the PATH system. But it would not say how much of the system had been installed so far, or whether the agency would meet a federally-mandated Dec. 31 deadline for the system to be in place and working.
Read More Here : http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...l_on_path.html

THE BIG APPLE May 25, 2015 1:11 AM

Should New York Rebuild the Subways?

Antiplanner

Quote:

After Hurricane Katrina, some people argued that we shouldn’t rebuild New Orleans, not simply because it was below sea level but because the city was economically and politically dysfunctional. The same argument could be made for the New York City subway system, which was so heavily damaged by Sandy that repairing it could cost “tens of billions of dollars.”

http://ti.org/SandySubway.jpg

You could always swim to work.

It’s not just the subways, of course: the entire transit system has been damaged. But in the suburbs, at least, buses on streets can easily substitute for rail.


The issue with the subways is not that the cost of repairing the system is so high but that maybe it doesn’t make sense anyway. New York is the only city in the country that truly depends on rail transit. More than 60 percent of commuters in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Manhattan, and 51 percent of those in Queens, get to work on transit. This transit, and particularly the subways, supports ridiculously high population and job densities: Manhattan is about 20 times denser, and Brooklyn and the Bronx 10 times denser, than they would be if we built them today.

Transit, particularly subways, is vital to those densities because the city’s street network–particularly in Manhattan–simply cannot support all the density by itself. New York subways are the only rail lines in America that move more people per rail mile than urban freeways move per lane mile. Having them thus significantly increases the ability to move people into, around, and out of Manhattan and the other boroughs.

As long as New York already had a subway, it probably made sense to maintain it. But building new subways, such as the Second Avenue subway which is costing more than $2 billion a mile, makes no sense. Will it make sense to perform costly repairs of the subways heavily damaged by Sandy?

There are those who argue that density has a great economic value and that all cities would be denser if it weren’t for barriers put in the way of density. On the other hand, if densities were lower, the damage from storms such as Sandy or other events such as earthquakes would be a lot lower.

Operating and maintaining New York’s transit system costs $10 billion a year more than fare collections. While increasing fares by an average of $2.50 per ride could cover those costs, this wouldn’t be enough as the system isn’t being maintained to a state of good repair. Most of the subsidies come from auto users, out of either federal gas taxes or bridge tolls that are diverted to transit.

There are two alternatives to rebuilding the subways. The drastic alternative is to simply let the city fend for itself without subways. A more realistic alternative would be to convert the subways into underground busways. Electric buses could move just about as many people as the subways do with far less infrastructure.

Battery-powered buses in particular would require almost no infrastructure other than rechargers (and the tunnels themselves, of course, which as far as I know weren’t damaged by the storm). At eighteen feet in height, the tunnels are tall enough for double-decker buses, which should be able to move about as many people per hour as the subway trains. With minimal added infrastructure, the buses could even be driverless, making them far less expensive to operate and maintain than rails.

It may turn out that only a few of New York’s 400-plus route miles of subways were harmed by the storm. But if it was significantly more, the city should seriously consider beginning a transition from rail subways to bus subways.

CCs77 May 25, 2015 3:41 AM

:previous:

That proposal is as stupid as it could possible be, it is so dumb that makes me wanna cry. As if the problem with the NYC Subway were the trains. Will the buses still run in flooded tunnels? Who will pay for retrofiting hundred of kilometers of tunnels and elevated viaducts for being able for buses to circulate? Who will pay for throwing away hundreds of subway cars and replacing them with thousands of buses? Even supposing that the same capacity could be achieved using buses instead of trains, you will spend billions of dollars in that to basically left the system just as it is. Yes, brilliant.
The problem with the NY subway are not the trains, that can be replaced regularly, it is the century-old infraestructure, which is not that easily replaceable. The same aging infraestructure use by the trains, would be used by those hypotetical buses, still having the same problems.

Randomguy34 May 25, 2015 3:58 AM

With a blog name like The Antiplanner, did you really expect anything more logical?

THE BIG APPLE May 25, 2015 3:59 AM

Yes. NYC is an ever changing city, the city evolves and transforms. Perhaps the only relic of 1900's NYC other than than skyscrapers, that is actually left intact are the tunnels belong to the subway system. These tunnels are really in essence 19th Century infrastructure serving a 21st Century populous.

The rails need servicing every other day in NYC. Trains are delayed every week, as portions of the rail bed are cut off every week for servicing and repairing in a phase called the weekender.

But it's all the city has. NYC is one of those places that can get away with a bad subway system, merely because of the fact that NYC is NYC, and people in NYC are content with a hole in the ground and a train that takes them home in 50 minutes as opposed to 15 minutes. Whilst highspeed rail in not feasible in NYC, there can be better efforts made to use the express tracks and use them to their fullest potential. If express stops were introduced in Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx, then travel times for people travelling to Manhattan could be reduced from 80 minutes to as little as 27 minutes. This requires no change to infrastructure.

What they can do with infrastructure however is introduce quality track bed, faster trains with quicker brakes, and if possible enlarge the busiest train stations (Times Sq./Herald Sq./Union Sq./Grand Central/Penn Station).

In Dubai if infrastructure is 5 years old, they just demolish it and build better infrastructure. That's not possible in NYC, but the city can make strides in caring and enhancing the system to 22nd Century standards. Think ahead.

mrsmartman May 25, 2015 10:13 AM

^^ The basal metabolic rate of the infrastructure in Dubai is rather high.

Qubert May 25, 2015 7:34 PM

New York made a mistake by demolishing the El system that once went throughout Manhattan. NY could of had the SAS done twice as fast and probably twice (maybe many multiples more than that) as cheap had they have gone with an elevated railway. At some point the city needs to step up and realize they have a choice to either do what needs to be done or choose to wait until mass transit develops into the inevitable existential crisis it's surely going to become as the 21st century moves forward. In many ways this is like what the issue of street crime was to NY in the 20th Century. Once it got to a point where it [crime] began to seriously threaten the fundamental status of NYC as a global hub, Guliani was elected and we all know the rest...

I just hope mass transit doesn't get to that point.

lrt's friend May 25, 2015 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qubert (Post 7038724)
New York made a mistake by demolishing the El system that once went throughout Manhattan. NY could of had the SAS done twice as fast and probably twice (maybe many multiples more than that) as cheap had they have gone with an elevated railway. At some point the city needs to step up and realize they have a choice to either do what needs to be done or choose to wait until mass transit develops into the inevitable existential crisis it's surely going to become as the 21st century moves forward. In many ways this is like what the issue of street crime was to NY in the 20th Century. Once it got to a point where it [crime] began to seriously threaten the fundamental status of NYC as a global hub, Guliani was elected and we all know the rest...

I just hope mass transit doesn't get to that point.

Elevated railways in dense urban environments are far more antiquated than subways. They are an eyesore and noisy. There was a reason why they were demolished years ago.

Qubert May 25, 2015 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend (Post 7038769)
Elevated railways in dense urban environments are far more antiquated than subways. They are an eyesore and noisy. There was a reason why they were demolished years ago.

Old =! Antiquated. Noise abatement technology has advanced as well as structural design. Sometimes it's back-to-the-future when solving large scale problems.

BrownTown May 25, 2015 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qubert (Post 7038820)
Old =! Antiquated. Noise abatement technology has advanced as well as structural design. Sometimes it's back-to-the-future when solving large scale problems.

The problem with elevated trains and noise is a technology issue, not a fact of life. The old elevated lines are metal frames, metal rails and metal wheels all rubbing against each other. Using concrete guideways, wheels with rubber pads and sound deflecting barriers along the track can cut a lot of the noise. A lot of people still think it looks ugly, but that's a matter of opinion. It's not like the road that it's running over is so pretty and quiet either.

Qubert May 26, 2015 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 7038929)
The problem with elevated trains and news is a technology issue, not a fact of life. The old elevated lines are metal frames, metal rails and metal wheels all rubbing against each other. Using concrete guideways, wheels with rubber pads and sound deflecting barriers along the track can cut a lot of the noise. A lot of people still think it looks ugly, but that's a matter of opinion. It's not like the road that it's running over is so pretty and quiet either.

I agree. Washington Metrorail just built a new Elevated railway as part of it's Silver Line extension thru Tysons Corner, and having ridden on it it's quite quiet and unobtrusive. Los Angeles has also utilized elevated rail as a part of it's Metro extensions, so it's not like you can't get it done in the US.

THE BIG APPLE May 26, 2015 2:00 AM

People really dislike the noisy, dirty, and vibratory steel elevated portions (in Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx).

http://m3.i.pbase.com/o6/55/435155/1...0g65XLZ.70.jpg

People however love the portion of the 7 train elevated where it is a viaduct, and the structure is covered in stone cladding. This prevents noise, and keeps train dirt, oils, and leakages above the elevated. People love this portion of Sunnyside, Queens.

http://www.subwaynut.com/flushing_li...0_lowery15.jpg

scalziand May 26, 2015 2:22 AM

Re on how running buses in subway tunnels is idiotic, we have the Boston Silver Line as an example of how bad it is. Since the underground transit way to the Seaport is so narrow, buses have to crawl through it so they don't hit the walls or opposing buses without a fixed guideway. In addition, surprise, pavement doesn't last as long under heavy bus traffic as steel rails do.

Even though buses will physically fit in the tunnels doesn't mean that they will run effectively.

TexasPlaya May 26, 2015 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qubert (Post 7038724)
New York made a mistake by demolishing the El system that once went throughout Manhattan. NY could of had the SAS done twice as fast and probably twice (maybe many multiples more than that) as cheap had they have gone with an elevated railway. At some point the city needs to step up and realize they have a choice to either do what needs to be done or choose to wait until mass transit develops into the inevitable existential crisis it's surely going to become as the 21st century moves forward. In many ways this is like what the issue of street crime was to NY in the 20th Century. Once it got to a point where it [crime] began to seriously threaten the fundamental status of NYC as a global hub, Guliani was elected and we all know the rest...

I just hope mass transit doesn't get to that point.

Good point, I wonder the cost difference between elevated vs subway in NYC.

antinimby May 26, 2015 11:24 AM

I don't know why NY doesn't build an elevated (either light or heavy rail) line on the West Side Highway. You'd have a line running pretty much the length of Manhattan on the mass transit-starved west side and it's all right-of-way.

The roadway and center median is wide and all that space seem so wasted by not putting an elevated line on it.

Randomguy34 May 26, 2015 12:33 PM

Same exact reason why there isn't El rail service to LaGuardia yet. It's because of NIMBYs.

mrnyc May 26, 2015 1:26 PM

the least mta could do is have brt extensions at the outer borough ends of many of the subway lines.

mrsmartman May 26, 2015 2:28 PM

The IND 6th and 8th Avenue 4-track trunk routes replaced 6th and 9th Avenue el. SAS was supposed to be built in the 50s to replace 2nd and 3rd Avenue el. However, my impression is that the south portion of Myrtle Avenue el to downtown Brooklyn should not be demolished. I wonder why the Inner Loop of Chicago L is still preserved.

Randomguy34 May 26, 2015 3:17 PM

There are two reasons why the Loop in Chicago still exist. The first is to preserve a part of Chicago history, even though many of the city's jobs are in other parts of downtown. The second, more important reason is that even though Chicago had dozens of plans to build multiple downtown subways, we didn't have enough money to build them so we were stuck with what we had.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.