SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 52 of 228
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

chris08876 Mar 6, 2015 10:40 PM
Transit Zones with respect to Affordable Housing:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Parking Reform Gains New Future Enemies: Affordable Housing Advocates

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...t-zone_dcp.png
Where in the city parking requirements would be dropped (but only for subsidized units). Map by the Department of City Planning.

Quote:
A few weeks ago, the Department of City Planning announced its intention to tweak the city’s zoning rules to encourage the production of affordable housing. The most important change is a reduction in the city’s parking requirements, which up until now have required off-street parking throughout virtually all of the outer boroughs and Upper Manhattan – generally around one space for every two units, with exemptions for small buildings.

The requirement for developers in dense, transit-oriented neighborhoods to provide expensive parking spaces will, however, only be waived for those building subsidized housing units. All market-rate apartments – the vast majority of new construction in the city – will still need parking, with a discretionary exemption for the unsubsidized units in buildings that have set aside some units to be rented at below-market rates.

In isolation, this is a good thing – parking is an unnecessary luxury in a city as dense and costly as New York, and the requirements are especially absurd when taxpayers are footing the bill and the tenants are relatively poor.
But given the politics of affordable housing in New York City, the move also has the unfortunate side effect of ensuring a fight down the road between affordable housing advocates and those supporting more general parking reform.

Assuming City Council approves the measures, it would add parking relief to the list of benefits that developers get in exchange for building affordable housing (a tax abatement and sometimes a meager density boost are the others). But just like the tax abatement doesn’t incentivize 80/20 buildings beyond the gentrifying fringe, where all new buildings get a tax break, so too would the parking benefit disappear if reform was passed more broadly.
This would make private developers building on land already entitled for development marginally less likely to include below-market units. It’s therefore logical to assume that affordable housing interests – politicians and advocates whose sole goal is the production of subsidized units, and who are indifferent to New Yorkers who rent and buy on the market – might oppose reform for purely market-rate projects.

The de Blasio administration essentially denied the dynamic to Streetsblog:
This provision is designed not to offer the carrot of lower parking minimums in exchange for adding affordable units to a market-rate development, but to simply improve the balance sheet for mixed-income projects. “It’s not bargaining for affordable units,” said Eric Kober, director of housing, economic and infrastructure planning at DCP. “It’s really a matter of enabling the city to use its affordable housing resources as efficiently as we possibly can.”

[...]
===============================
http://www.yimbynews.com/2015/03/par...advocates.html

chris08876 Mar 12, 2015 3:15 PM
East Side Access Update:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8567/...f0e60fa0_z.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8627/...86b75b8f_z.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8583/...15c86a6e_z.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8645/...3ea97265_z.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8606/...2cffa151_z.jpg
================================
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtapho...57651156138202

chris08876 Mar 18, 2015 10:23 PM
Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0316184507.jpg

Quote:
When the Port Authority Bus Terminal opened in 1950, it helped New York City funnel a growing number of buses carrying commuters into Manhattan’s West Side.

Today, the terminal west of Times Square is a major chokepoint for bus traffic from New Jersey suburbs. Commuters complain of delays, crowding and a dreary environment.

Like Penn Station about 10 blocks to the south, the terminal is also the butt of jokes. Last summer, the comedian John Oliver declared it “the single worst place on Planet Earth” and joked that even cockroaches are trying to escape.

Now the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has preliminary estimates for how much it could cost to replace its eponymous terminal: $8 billion to $11 billion, a potential price tag rivaling that of a project to dig new passenger rail tunnels under the Hudson River.

The terminal is expected to take the spotlight at the Port Authority’s board meeting on Thursday, highlighting how the agency is trying to refocus on regional transportation in the wake of the September 2013 scandal involving lane-closures at the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee, N.J.

“It is an existential mission,” said Kenneth Lipper, a Port Authority commissioner from New York who has pushed for replacing the terminal. “We must do it.”

Talk of replacing the terminal comes as the Port Authority also seeks to play a starring role in jump-starting a project to build two rail tunnels under the Hudson River.

But the push to replace or overhaul the terminal comes as the timing of the Hudson River tunnel project and another major Port Authority construction project—an overhaul of the maligned Central Terminal Building building at La Guardia Airport in Queens—remain uncertain.

Amtrak, the national passenger railroad, now estimates its plan to build two tunnels as part of a set of upgrades known as Gateway, could cost from $15 billion to $20 billion.

Last year, Amtrak said it might need to close its two existing tunnels between New York and New Jersey for major repairs in coming years. A closure of those tunnels, which opened in 1910, threatens to snarl traffic on the East Coast amid growing ridership for Amtrak and NJ Transit commuter train riders.

Replacing the Port Authority Bus Terminal could take a decade a longer. But more daunting would be to work on both the depot and tunnel project simultaneously, while also finding enough capacity in the transportation network to keep people moving between both states.

“It’s like a big puzzle,” said Rich Barone, director of transportation programs at the Regional Plan Association. “We have to look at all the pieces and figure out how we actually put this thing together.”

While both projects are expensive, the terminal handles twice as many riders as Penn Station handles rail passengers from New Jersey during the morning peak.
==================================
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-push...nal-1426547679

chris08876 Mar 19, 2015 10:29 PM
Subway And Bus Fare Hike Goes Into Effect On Sunday – MTA Bridge And Tunnel Tolls To Increase, Too

Quote:
Straphangers are going to be doling out more at the fare box, and motorists more at the toll booths, when the latest MTA hikes go into effect this Sunday.

On mass transit, fares will go up by 4 percent across the board, with the base fare rising from $2.50 to $2.75. Thirty-day Metrocards will increase in cost from $112 to $116.50. It will still cost $1 to purchase a new Metrocard, while single-fare buyers – those using the one-time use paper Metrocards – will see an increase from $2.75 to $3.00 to account for the 25-cent fee for the card.

Those who load up their Metrocards will see the bonus they get more than double, from 5 percent to 11 percent, but now they have to put on a minimum of $5.50 where it was previously $5.00.

Here’s a handy chart of all the changes on mass transit that take effect Sunday:
Code:
Fare Type       

Current /        New
Base MetroCard Fare/Local Bus Cash Fare       
$2.50

$2.75

Bonus       
5% with $5 purchase

11% with $5.50 purchase

Effective Fare with Bonus       
$2.38

$2.48

Single Ride Ticket (base MetroCard/Cash Fare plus 25 cents)       
$2.75

$3.00

Express Bus FareCash
Effective MetroCard Fare with Bonus

$6.00

$5.71

$6.50

$5.86

30-Day MetroCard       
$112

$116.50

7-Day MetroCard       
$30.00

$31.00

7-Day Express Bus Plus MetroCard       
$55.00

$57.25

Access-a-Ride Fare       
$2.50

$2.75
Quote:
Tolls on MTA bridges and tunnels are also jumping 4 percent at most crossings. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge will increase to $16 from $15 for those using cash, and to $11.08 from $10.66 for E-ZPass users. The Marine Parkway – Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge is going up 25 cents for cash paying drivers, from $3.75 to $4.00, while E-ZPass users will dole out just 8 cents more than the $2 fee they’ve been paying.

Most bridges and tunnels in the city, including the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel, will pay $8 for cash motorists, up 50 cents, while E-ZPass users see an increase to $5.54 from $5.33.

Here’s a chart with the costs for all MTA crossings:
http://www.mta.info/sites/default/fi...?itok=0h1bFidy

http://www.mta.info/sites/default/fi...?itok=flZL-_Ft

================================
http://www.bensonhurstbean.com/2015/...olls-increase/

chris08876 Mar 20, 2015 9:30 PM
Officials reject $9B plan to revamp Port Authority Bus Terminal

Quote:
A plan to transform the Port Authority Bus Terminal from a downtrodden hub in Times Square into a gleaming transit palace stalled on Thursday as officials rejected a $9 billion price tag and demanded cheaper options.

Commissioners of the Port Authority revolted against the terminal proposal presented by transit officials, saying they need to go back to the drawing board and consider other options, including building in New Jersey and creating a rail link to Manhattan or finding a cheaper locale for construction.

The hub, long considered an embarrassing stain on the city’s mass transit system, is the busiest bus terminal in the nation. It suffers from cracked floors, crumbling ceiling tiles and severe overcrowding during rush hour.

Commissioners have acknowledged for years the terminal needs to be replaced, but the project has never taken off amid Port Authority political scandals and financial burdens.
===================================
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2156533

SpawnOfVulcan Mar 21, 2015 2:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6958844)
Officials reject $9B plan to revamp Port Authority Bus Terminal


===================================
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2156533
F***... I remember having to take a simple trip from the Terminal to the Willowbrook Mall and having no effing clue what to do about what to do after buying my ticket... If it wasn't for someone 'hanging around', I never would have figured out the rest.... I don't know what it was, but I found that bus system much, much more confusing than the subway system.

ardecila Mar 21, 2015 6:47 PM
Seriously... maybe extending the 7 to Secaucus is needed after all, not as a replacement for Amtrak Gateway but as a replacement for rebuilding Port Authority.

The staging is easy, too - if you finish the subway line, then you can continue to use half of the current Port Authority while the other half remains in use.

At the end of it, you wind up with 10 tracks across the Hudson instead of the current 6, plus the XBL.

All of this together would cost about $20bn at New York prices, though.

Nexis4Jersey Mar 21, 2015 7:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6959596)
Seriously... maybe extending the 7 to Secaucus is needed after all, not as a replacement for Amtrak Gateway but as a replacement for rebuilding Port Authority.

The staging is easy, too - if you finish the subway line, then you can continue to use half of the current Port Authority while the other half remains in use.

At the end of it, you wind up with 10 tracks across the Hudson instead of the current 6, plus the XBL.

All of this together would cost about $20bn at New York prices, though.
The 7 should go to Hoboken Terminal where just about NJT line feeds into. Most of the Bus lines in North & Central Jersey are in place of Rail networks that were supposed to be up and running but are not due to New York. Sending the 7 to Hoboken Terminal which is underused and restoring the Rail network in NJ is the best way to go. The line that runs between Hoboken and 42nd Street is overcapacity aswell... You could expand the Bus Terminal at Hoboken and feed some of the Buses from Western Jersey and PA into the Hub. Its only a few blocks from the Turnpike...

k1052 Mar 21, 2015 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6959596)
Seriously... maybe extending the 7 to Secaucus is needed after all, not as a replacement for Amtrak Gateway but as a replacement for rebuilding Port Authority.

The staging is easy, too - if you finish the subway line, then you can continue to use half of the current Port Authority while the other half remains in use.

At the end of it, you wind up with 10 tracks across the Hudson instead of the current 6, plus the XBL.

All of this together would cost about $20bn at New York prices, though.
The NYEDC feasibility study for the 7 extension to Secaucus included a decent sized bus terminal, mindful of the burdens the PABT has long been under. As proposed the extension could comfortably absorb half the current peak hour PABT passenger load so that terminal could be made much larger if desired. Major platform and vertical circulation upgrades (in addtion to the 10th ave station) would however have to be done to the Manhattan stations on the Flushing Line to handle the load.

I half wonder if it would be possible to build a single large bore quad track (2 subway, 2 NEC in a 2x2 stack) tunnel to accomplish both projects more cost effectively. Penn won't be ready to receive more riders probably for decades because of MSG and the physical limitations but ridership can spill onto NYCT at Secaucus in the interim and the North River Tubes can be shut down for rebuilds without causing all NEC services to implode/world come to an end.

chris08876 Mar 22, 2015 1:26 AM
The Move NY Fair Plan (PDF)

1) http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/...n-150217v1.pdf

Its a pretty good read. Lots about the costs of transportation, solutions, tolls, buses, taxis, and so on for 2015 and beyond.

chris08876 Mar 25, 2015 12:25 AM
7-train extension opening delayed again

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pb...20150324065133

Quote:
Photographs of a long-awaited new subway station on Manhattan's far West Side reveal an airy, modern terminal surrounded by greenery with a beautiful blue mosaic on the ceiling. But commuters probably won't see it in person until July at the earliest—and possibly even later than that.

The extension of the No. 7 train to a new station at 34th street and 11th Avenue, which will serve a new cluster of skyscrapers rising along the Hudson River, was originally supposed to open in December 2013.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said recently that the station would open sometime between April and June. And now the opening of the $2.4 billion project, which has been delayed several times since construction began in 2007, has been pushed back yet again.

Workers are still testing fire alarms, third rail power, escalators and other station components, a time-consuming process that means the station probably won't open until sometime in July, MTA official Anthony D'Amico told a transit committee on Monday.

All major construction work is complete at the terminal, which boasts four high-rise escalators with a vertical 84-foot drop, the steepest in the subway system, and two uniquely inclined elevators, Mr. D'Amico said.
"If you walk through the station today, you will encounter a massive, three-level structure beautifully done, with the utmost quality and attention to detail," Mr. D'Amico said.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg celebrated the near-completion of the project in his final days in office by riding a special train from Times Square into the unfinished station. The city paid for much of the project.
========================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...-delayed-again

Nexis4Jersey Mar 27, 2015 4:41 AM
• Video Link

mrnyc Mar 27, 2015 1:48 PM
the pabt cost someone their life yesterday:


67-year-old man struck, killed by bus at Port Authority Bus Terminal

(PIX11/AP) – Extensive delays are being reported at Port Authority Bus Terminal after a pedestrian was killed at the facility Thursday afternoon.

Port Authority Police spokesman Joe Pentangelo says it happened around 5 p.m. at the bus depot near Times Square. It’s the nation’s busiest bus station, with more than 58 million commuters passing through it last year.

The 67-year-old man, from Garrison, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police aren’t releasing his name while working to notify his family.

Bus Terminal staff are working to set up alternate operations, but urge customers to seek other modes of transportation if possible during this evening’s rush hour. NJ Transit is cross honoring this evening for bus passengers that are able to take the train to get home.

http://pix11.com/2015/03/26/accident...-bus-terminal/

BrownTown Mar 27, 2015 4:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 6959806)
I half wonder if it would be possible to build a single large bore quad track (2 subway, 2 NEC in a 2x2 stack) tunnel to accomplish both projects more cost effectively.
From studies I've seen for other projects it isn't really the tunneling itself that costs a lot it's the stations. I don't think you would really save much having a single large bore tunnel instead of 4 small bore tunnels. Especially since they would have to diverge at the ends anyways which would mean you would still need the smaller TBMs.

k1052 Mar 27, 2015 8:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6967410)
From studies I've seen for other projects it isn't really the tunneling itself that costs a lot it's the stations. I don't think you would really save much having a single large bore tunnel instead of 4 small bore tunnels. Especially since they would have to diverge at the ends anyways which would mean you would still need the smaller TBMs.
But having only one project to get money for instead of two would help the odds.

BrownTown Mar 27, 2015 9:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 6967844)
But having only one project to get money for instead of two would help the odds.
I don't know what the regulations are like in NYC so maybe it's just impossible for them to ever get something done quickly, but IMO the biggest problems with all these MTA projects is how LONG they take. Keep in mind that you don't start paying off a project until it's operational, but you are paying interest on the bonds from the moment they are issued. In long projects this can mean that the delays themselves add billions to the cost (in capitalized interest) in addition to being annoying for everyone who wishes the project was done earlier. Having a project run for 10-15 years because you don't have a revenue stream to finish it in 5 years makes the final cost FAR higher. They need to find a way to get this money up front and tighten the schedules up a lot. If the oil industry can build a 15 Billion dollar facility in 3-4 years why does it take the government 10-15 years? I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the regulations in Texas verse New York, but come on, you can't tell me there is any real engineering reason why these projects can't get done far quicker and the interest payments reduced by billions as a result.

electricron Mar 28, 2015 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6967926)
I don't know what the regulations are like in NYC so maybe it's just impossible for them to ever get something done quickly, but IMO the biggest problems with all these MTA projects is how LONG they take. Keep in mind that you don't start paying off a project until it's operational, but you are paying interest on the bonds from the moment they are issued. In long projects this can mean that the delays themselves add billions to the cost (in capitalized interest) in addition to being annoying for everyone who wishes the project was done earlier. Having a project run for 10-15 years because you don't have a revenue stream to finish it in 5 years makes the final cost FAR higher. They need to find a way to get this money up front and tighten the schedules up a lot. If the oil industry can build a 15 Billion dollar facility in 3-4 years why does it take the government 10-15 years? I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the regulations in Texas verse New York, but come on, you can't tell me there is any real engineering reason why these projects can't get done far quicker and the interest payments reduced by billions as a result.
Interesting and valid points, I think. Texas is not the financial center of America or maybe the world, New York City is. Higher interest costs feeds the New York City economy better than it would in Texas. ;)

Which might explain why New York politicians like deficit spending far more than rural politicians in the fly over states.

k1052 Mar 28, 2015 1:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown (Post 6967926)
I don't know what the regulations are like in NYC so maybe it's just impossible for them to ever get something done quickly, but IMO the biggest problems with all these MTA projects is how LONG they take. Keep in mind that you don't start paying off a project until it's operational, but you are paying interest on the bonds from the moment they are issued. In long projects this can mean that the delays themselves add billions to the cost (in capitalized interest) in addition to being annoying for everyone who wishes the project was done earlier. Having a project run for 10-15 years because you don't have a revenue stream to finish it in 5 years makes the final cost FAR higher. They need to find a way to get this money up front and tighten the schedules up a lot. If the oil industry can build a 15 Billion dollar facility in 3-4 years why does it take the government 10-15 years? I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the regulations in Texas verse New York, but come on, you can't tell me there is any real engineering reason why these projects can't get done far quicker and the interest payments reduced by billions as a result.
Presumably the Port Authority would handle the construction of such a project and build out the MTA's portion (except for the 10th ave station) to their spec and turn it over to them when complete. Not that the PA has a particularly good record on this sort of project either. Though it should be much more straightforward since it's all just tunnel building and an above ground terminal station for the 7 at Secaucus (plus a small yard) and bus facility. I still have to believe it would be better to physically combine the projects from a funding perspective even though it increases the overall cost.

I do not have a single pet theory why it's so expensive to build transit in the NYC area other than it's a combination of factors (battling political/regulatory fiefdoms, labor, lack of qualified contractors bidding, recalcitrant partners dragging feet, funding rules, lack of reasonable estimating/oversight) all playing a role.

BrownTown Mar 28, 2015 3:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron (Post 6968136)
Which might explain why New York politicians like deficit spending far more than rural politicians in the fly over states.
Not to start a whole shit-slinging competition, but Texas has a larger GDP than New York so calling it a "fly-over" state is a little silly. It's not just a Republican vs. Democrat thing though since even other liberal places like Seattle seem to be able to build rail projects much quicker and more cost effectively. And if we're talking the 7 train to Secaucus that's not tunneling under Manhattan either. The land costs and station in New Jersey shouldn't be any more difficult than Seattle would be.

C. Mar 28, 2015 3:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6959596)
Seriously... maybe extending the 7 to Secaucus is needed after all, not as a replacement for Amtrak Gateway but as a replacement for rebuilding Port Authority.

The staging is easy, too - if you finish the subway line, then you can continue to use half of the current Port Authority while the other half remains in use.

At the end of it, you wind up with 10 tracks across the Hudson instead of the current 6, plus the XBL.

All of this together would cost about $20bn at New York prices, though.

Yes!! I view this as great news! (Obviously the Port Authority needs replacement but the rejection forces the 7 line extension to Secaucus junction back on the table).

Read the plan developed by Parsons Brinckerhoff here: http://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/...April_2013.pdf

The plan also calls for construction of a new bus terminal to handle the NJ Transit buses along with any private competitors. That will reduce bus congestion at the Lincoln tunnel and the PABT. A new PABT will eventually be built, but the 7 line extension needs all the help it can get and I'd rate it as a higher priority project.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:46 PM.
Viewing Page 52 of 228
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.