Re: Rye-Oyster Bay Br--sister Bridge?

Rothman wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:00 pm, hanco...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, "Rothman" <dnro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I suppose transit-freaks will pop up now claiming that we need to get
more people on a form of transportation that doesn't run on their
schedule or carry their groceries for them...Transit is a supplement
to pavement, not a replacement...
Within NYC the buses and subways run so frequently and with such
density that no schedule is needed in most cases. That is, they do
run on your schedule. Getting groceries home from the supermarket (or
other large items) remains a challenge. Travel outside NYC where
buses run much less often and much more dispersed also remains a
challenge.

Bull. I was just in NYC and had to wait far too long for a subway
than I cared for. Wish I could have driven everywhere that I needed
to go.

So why didn't you? NYC has roads too.

Many of us /prefer/ to use the transit system because it is faster and/or more reliable and/or less expensive.

I have a pretty long and inconvenient commute by transit: two trains followed by a bus. On a good day, driving takes half the time. So why do I almost never drive? Because on a bad day, driving takes twice the time, while travel times by transit are a lot more predictable. Since it's important that I get to work on time, predictability is very important. Also, if I drive home, it can take a /very/ long time to find parking (I live in a very dense neighborhood in Manhattan). And if I get a seat on the train (which I always do for the longest of the three legs of the trip), I get a lot of work done while traveling, while I lose that productive time if I drive.

Yes, that's right. I have /options/. And I choose the option that best suits my needs. (Isn't that terrible! Wouldn't it be much better if I /had/ to drive!)

Unfortunately, when everybody says nothing can be built anymore then
there is a problem. The big advtg of transit is a much smaller and
less invasive footprint. Light rail lines are very quiet, commuter
trains nearly so. (I live next to a train, no problem. The highways
far away I can still hear.) You can bury or trench a trolley much
more easily than a highway. You can squeeze a trolley through a
narrow single track cut; you can't narrow a highway passage.

Rails are very expensive to lay.

As are roads. But one track can carry a heck of a lot more people per hour than one highway lane.

Take a look at http://www.nymtc.org/files/hub_bound/HB2004_part2.pdf - page 22 (Table 14). On a fall business day in 2004, the two southbound subway tracks underneath Lexington Avenue carried 28,940 + 25,305 = 54,245 passengers across the 60th Street cordon line between 8 and 9 in the morning, while the three(?) lanes on the street above carried only 1,807 in that same time period (not including the 1,161 on the bus). In other words, 93% of the people entering the Manhattan CBD on Lexington Avenue in the peak hour of the AM rush did so on the subway.

Imagine how many lanes would be needed to simulate the functionality of those two tracks alone! Consider that the /total/ number of people entering the Manhattan CBD by private automobile (from the north, east, and west) is merely 76,048. Of course, the Lexington Avenue line isn't the only subway line to enter the Manhattan CBD -- if my count is correct, there are 32 subway tracks penetrating the CBD cordon (16 northbound and 16 southbound), and that doesn't include commuter rail, Amtrak, PATH, ferries, or exclusive bus lanes.

And, except for the three that cross bridges over the East River, those subway tracks, carrying 369,043 people into the CBD between 8 and 9, are all underground, where they don't take up valuable space or keep the neighbors awake.

If our goal is to move people, then why would we even /dream/ of

As others mentioned, traffic jams eliminate convenience. I can't go
to the mall when I want because of jams, I must plan my trips around
them. Likewise for other places as well.

No big deal. Transit still takes more time to get to the places I
want to go.

Good for you. Do you want a cookie?

One would the wealthy would be for such new roads since they would
greatly benefit from them. They do a lot of travel and have more
diverse needs; as does their businesses. Most people won't be in the
path or affected by some new road, tough-*#%@ for those who are. Of
course we know now that even Moses couldn't build around most of the
rich and had to bend for them.

I see more than the wealthy driving around on pavement.

Compare the average income of a subway rider with the average income of a motorist in NYC. (And in NYC, the wealthy don't hesitate to ride transit, unlike in most other U.S. cities.)
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY
.