|
|
| Re: oddball rail transit observations (1510503) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: oddball rail transit observations |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sat Apr 20 20:30:21 2019, in response to oddball rail transit observations, posted by ntrainride on Sat Apr 20 07:46:12 2019. The pre-WWII vision of rapid transit is very depressing when compared to modern visions. There was big-concept thinking (the entire IND Second System, if built, would have put the entire inhabited portion of the city at that time within 1/2 mile of subway service) without forgetting the little guy (the Atlantic Branch being put underground came in 1939 as a result of realizing that it was important to eliminate grade crossings in Richmond Hill - though the lower level of ENY station was actually built circa 1915, with the earlier Brooklyn Grade Crossing Elimination Commission!)I don't think we have that sort of big conceptual planning any more. Sure, there's noise about a Utica Ave subway every few years. And we might, eventually, finish the Second Ave subway sometime this century (it'll be 90 years this year since the first plan was published!). But nobody looks at the earlier plans and asks if there is anything that doesn't currently exist which could be incorporated into a master plan or capital program. Nobody wonders if there is an underserved commuting pattern, it's all about giving extra bandwidth to the existing ones. Even truly new ideas are difficult to advocate for. Triboro RX is a great example. Rapid transit along the Bay Ridge line is a fantastic idea - the crosstown bus options in those areas are slow and crowded, and trying to get from, say, Flatbush to Hunts Point is a long trek through Manhattan with the likely Lexington crowding and delays, or a slightly more direct trip but significantly more expensive via taxi. But, whenever it's proposed every 18 months or so, someone tries to shoot it down with the argument that it doesn't work for their very specific commute, or it doesn't offer a one-seat ride to Stamford, or not everyone will ride it from end to end. And once again the enthusiasm deflates because of the incredibly stupid idea that we must serve all people in all ways, instead of building multiple overlapping and intersecting solutions that enable even more types of travel patterns than what a single line or service can provide. A related problem is that as a society, we prefer short-term buzzword-heavy projects over long-term durable infrastructure. This is why a city councilmember's eyes light up at the phrase "light rail" which is nothing more a new incarnation what every town of moderate size had before 1950; why Elon Musk is invited to build car-size tunnels under Los Angeles just because he's Elon Musk; and why after 87 years we have three two-track subway stations under Second Avenue. Even worse, we get dumbass ideas like the BQX trolley, which serves areas which already have great rapid transit coverage. What happened to the idea of serving transit deserts first? It's well-understood in traffic engineering that expanding capacity on existing corridors will not resolve traffic jams in the long run, because drivers will instead take advantage of the new space and simply cause more traffic. After a while, the traffic jams return. Instead, we're better off trying to cover or even invent different travel patterns. Why can't we try that for public transit? Build more, and expect people to come? It's because of the immensely stupid car-centric culture we constructed after World War II. For 70 years we've labored under the idea that everyone must own their own vehicle. Are personal vehicles useful? Sure! But why are we deluding ourselves that everyone must have one? We got along just fine for thousands of years without them. But we insisted on having everything to ourselves and sprawling out further and further and now nobody can imagine a world where people walk on foot to destinations even 10 minutes away. Thinking big isn't even in our vocabulary any more when it comes to transit. It's seen as an expense, an afterthought, a supplemental service. (If anyone wants to call tolls or congestion pricing a "tax on working-class people", they should learn about bus fare!) Yet nobody thinks twice of approving a major highway project. Nobody thinks better transit solutions are possible. And we all suffer for it, and will continue to suffer until we can finally swing the conversation to not only pro-transit, but pro-moving-people-around instead of pro-flashy-things. |
|
|
|