|
|
| Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX (1645026) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1645026) | |
Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025 IBX: Queens meeting hears some residents say ‘we don’t want’ the new light rail commuter line in their neighborhoods. |
|
|
| (1645027) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Nov 10 15:41:04 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. At the top of the list of concerns was upzoning, which would likely attract more people to the relatively quiet parts of northern Queens.I wonder if these are the same people who gleefully point out decreases in NYC's population when those happen. The neighborhoods surrounding these stops, including Maspeth and Middle Village, have thrived for generations as quiet, small towns within the bustling metropolis of New York. The areas are comprised mostly of one- and two-family homes, many of which have been passed on within families over the course of generations. Translation: Every house in these areas should be a landmark. The areas should have been developed so that I can live there, and now that I live there, development must stop. As an aside, they keep saying this trip would take less than 40 minutes. (This article says 32). I just don't see that. Less than 2 minutes a stop? These stops aren't close - they're spaced significantly further apart than regular subway stops on average. |
|
|
| (1645028) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Nov 10 17:44:47 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. Is anybody really surprised?? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1645029) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Allen45 on Mon Nov 10 19:48:38 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Nov 10 15:41:04 2025. So middle village can’t have what the upper west side has with the notion that most development must stop? |
|
|
| (1645030) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Nov 10 20:45:50 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. I keep thinking that's a drug to treat Irritable Bowel Syndrome. |
|
|
| (1645031) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Mon Nov 10 21:39:04 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Nov 10 20:45:50 2025. 😆😆 |
|
|
| (1645032) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Nov 10 22:35:35 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. I can appreciate their very legitimate concerns. I have no personal connection to Maspeth and Middle Village but I hope there is no rezoning in their communities. |
|
|
| (1645033) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Nov 11 00:13:49 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Nov 10 22:35:35 2025. I agree |
|
|
| (1645036) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Nov 11 03:46:28 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. If there were active NIMBYs 100 years ago, moist of the NYC transit ,system might never have been built. |
|
|
| (1645038) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Nov 11 06:51:12 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Nov 10 15:41:04 2025. These stops aren't close - they're spaced significantly further apart than regular subway stops on average.Yeah, there seem to be obvious gaps where infill stations could be added, especially seeing as this is meant to be light rail: Brooklyn Army Terminal [Ferries] 4 Av [(R) B9 B37] 8 Av [(N) B70] → Ft Hamilton Pkwy [(N) B16] New Utrecht Av [(D)(N)] → 18 Av [B8] McDonald Av [(F) B11] E16 St [(Q)] Flatbush/Nostrand Avs [(2)(5) B6 B11 B41 B44 B44SBS B103 Q35] → Albany Av [B6] Utica Av [B7 B46 B46SBS] → Ralph Av [B47] Remsen Av [B17] → Rockaway Av [B60] Linden Blvd [(L) B15] Livonia Av [(3)(L)] Sutter Av [B14] Atlantic Av [(A)(C)(J)(Z)(L) B12 B20 B25 Q24 Q56 LIRR] Wilson Av [(L) B60] → Cooper Av [transit desert] Myrtle Av [B13 B20 Q55] Metropolitan Av [(M) Q38 Q54 Q67] → Juniper Blvd S [Q38 Q67] Eliot Av [Q14] Grand Av [Q47 Q58 Q59 Q98] → Queens Blvd [Q60] Roosevelt Av [(7)(E)(F)(M)(R) Q32 Q33 Q47 Q49 Q53 Q70] And maybe continue: → Northern Blvd [Q63 Q66] → Astoria Blvd [M60 Q19 Q47 Q69] → LGA |
|
|
| (1645039) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 07:57:05 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. The proposed IBX is a $5 billion waste of money that will provide very little benefit.83% of the buildings within a 1/2 mile walking distance of a proposed IBX station are already within a 1/2 mile walking distance of an existing subway. The figure for all of NYC is 43%; the figure for Brooklyn is 64%; the figure for Queens is 45%. It essentially duplicates existing walk to subway service. Its proponents have inflated the population it would serve to 900K. The population that would gain walk-to-subway access is 62K. 47K could gain walk-to-subway access by more modest expansion of existing subway lines. According to the 2023 National Transportation Database, IBX's operating cost would be approximately $165 million per year. The additional annual operating cost for expanding two existing subway lines would be $74 million. The alternative, that was not considered in the MTA's Scoping Document, would provide 77% of proposed new walk-to-subway access for 44% of the proposed IBX's operating cost. |
|
|
| (1645040) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Nov 11 08:52:58 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 07:57:05 2025. I know we've been through this before, and of course I'd like to see existing lines extended, but I'll just repeat that walking distance to a station is far from the only metric that should be considered, and the roles of circumferential lines are being minimized here.Think of how many existing bus and subway lines should hypothetically be removed because most of their stops are within walking distance of other stops. |
|
|
| (1645043) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Tue Nov 11 09:48:26 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 07:57:05 2025. What is the alternative that was not considered in the MTA’s Scoping Document? |
|
|
| (1645044) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 10:13:27 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Nov 10 22:35:35 2025. Build the IBX and don't rezone: Problem solved. |
|
|
| (1645046) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Nov 11 10:26:01 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Nov 11 06:51:12 2025. Even if you added all those stops you mention, if you can reliably do about 2.5 minutes per stop, you would still only be talking 75 minutes, which is not bad at all for how much is being covered. |
|
|
| (1645047) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Tue Nov 11 10:51:26 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. Robert Moses was right about one thing - sometimes the public has too much to say about public improvements. |
|
|
| (1645049) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 10:54:12 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Q4 on Tue Nov 11 09:48:26 2025. 47K out of the 62K IBX transit desert population are concentrated around 4 stations: Utica Ave - Farragut Rd (13K); Remsen Ave (10K); Eliot Ave (10K); and Grand Ave (13K).The Brooklyn stations could be served by a branch off the L train from the existing New Lots Station. The length of that branch would be 2.5 miles. The Queens stations could be served by extending the M train from a relocated Metropolitan Ave station. The length of extension would be 1.4 miles. The total construction would involve 3.9 miles vs. 14.5 miles for the IBX. It would involve building 5 stations vs. 19 for the IBX. No repair facilities would be required. Despite heavy rail's higher construction costs, the reduction in route miles, stations and no need for a separate repair facility should make this heavy rail alternative equal to or less than the IBX construction cost. |
|
|
| (1645050) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Tue Nov 11 11:19:05 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 07:57:05 2025. "The proposed IBX is a $5 billion waste of money that will provide very little benefit."If TBTB see that it will put the final nail into the situation. Nailing down funding for a graftapalooza, that is. |
|
|
| (1645051) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 11:33:16 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Nov 11 08:52:58 2025. the roles of circumferential lines are being minimized here.I have quantified them by looking at 3 different open data sources to estimate latent IBX demand. This is something neither the MTA nor IBX proponents have done. The open data sources are: the MTA's own subway trip origin-destination passenger data for 2023 and 2024 which quantifies travel by subway station; the census bureau's LEHD census for 2019 and 2023 which quantifies journey to work travel by census block; the MTA's 2018 travel survey which quantifies all trips by census block group. There have been numerous anecdotal stories of how the IBX would save time for cherry picked individuals. Brooklyn Borough President Reynoso cited a Bay Ridge resident who started a new job in Jackson Heights. Such trips constitute 0.6% of all trips originating in Bay Ridge, according to these data sources. The demand for travel between all the IBX stations constitute 10% of trips that originate at a proposed IBX station. The figure isn't much better for the IBX's role as a connector for existing lines at Roosevelt Ave. The percentage is 13% of all trips originating at the IBX and those existing lines. how many existing bus and subway lines should hypothetically be removed because most of their stops are within walking distance of other stops. Let's look at one recent expansion, with stops within walking distance of existing stations. That's the SAS between 57th and 96th Streets. 87% of all Manhattan buildings are within 1/2 mile walking distance of an existing subway entrance. The SAS opened on 1 Jan 2017. The number of passengers crossing the CBD boundary have been compiled by NYMTC since the 1960's. This provides a measure of total subway use, which isn't available for most trips. Let's look at the data. Here's the 2016 before data: https://www.nymtc.org/Portals/0/Pdf/Hub%20Bound/2016%20Hub%20Bound/DM_TDS_Hub_Bound_Travel_2016-FINAL.pdf#page=43 It shows the number of passengers using the downtown Lex local and express between 8-9am as: 49,263 Here's the 2017 after data: https://www.nymtc.org/Portals/0/Pdf/Hub%20Bound/2017%20Hub%20Bound/2017_Hub-Bound-August_15_2019.pdf#page=50 It shows the number of passengers using the downtown Lex local, express and the Second Ave local between 8-9am as: 47,693. Essentially there is no change in the number of passengers due to subway expansion for an expenditure of $4.5 billion. |
|
|
| (1645053) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 14:48:22 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by randyo on Tue Nov 11 03:46:28 2025. got that right. same story in most cities. |
|
|
| (1645054) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 15:25:38 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 07:57:05 2025. Wrong. the issue is not merely access to a Manhattan bound subway station, but entirely new travel patterns without first heading to downtown Brooklyn to change radial route. |
|
|
| (1645055) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 15:28:25 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Mitch45 on Tue Nov 11 10:51:26 2025. So much for democracy. Of course the "expert" of one's choice knows best. |
|
|
| (1645057) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 16:34:25 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 15:25:38 2025. but entirely new travel patterns without first heading to downtown Brooklyn to change radial route.Please back that hypothesis up with actual data. Quantify the latent demand for such travel based on publicly available data and compare it with current travel demand. I have - the numbers don't show such demand. Suggested databases to consult. First, there are subway trip origins and destinations for 2023 and 2024. Here are links to that data. https://data.ny.gov/Transportation/MTA-Subway-Origin-Destination-Ridership-Estimate-2/uhf3-t34z/about_data https://data.ny.gov/Transportation/MTA-Subway-Origin-Destination-Ridership-Estimate-2/jsu2-fbtj/about_data Try to find unusually high demand for travel between existing subway stations that would transfer to a proposed IBX station. Second, travel between two points has to have a purpose other than rail fanning. The most important purpose is the journey to work. The census bureau has been tabulating employee household and workplace location combinations since 2002 by census block. Here's the link to the LEHD Census data website. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/ Third, many agencies take travel surveys, where families are asked to record all their trips for a certain length of time. The MTA has taken such surveys to determine travel patterns. Their latest survey was taken in 2018. It involved 42K unlinked trips that were recorded between census block groups. The survey then used the demographic data given by the participants and compared it to the census bureau's census block group demographic data. This provided multipliers for the individual trips to provide a valid stratified sample. Here's a link to the MTA's surveys webpage. https://www.mta.info/transparency/surveys Please share any publicly available source data that shows a level of latent demand that justifies building the IBX. The 3 data sources that I cited don't. I believe the IBX is a solution in search of a problem to solve. Its proponents are hard at work trying to manufacture such a problem. |
|
|
| (1645058) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 16:34:31 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 15:28:25 2025. Yes, of course they know best, that's why we call them an "expert." |
|
|
| (1645059) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 16:35:50 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 10:54:12 2025. Peripheral transit also has value; not everyone needs to go to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1645060) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Nov 11 16:36:07 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 10:13:27 2025. Is that possible? |
|
|
| (1645061) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 17:26:12 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Nov 11 16:36:07 2025. They don't have to rezone to build the IBX. |
|
|
| (1645062) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by ro_jo on Tue Nov 11 17:28:50 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 10:54:12 2025. I agree - and they need not be mutually exclusive in the long run.Build the L and M extension sections first (Phase 1 and 2) - then finish by stitching them together (phase 3). I know there are some clearance issues, but surely this is workable in the long run. |
|
|
| (1645063) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 17:50:50 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 16:34:25 2025. i believe that if Triboro Rx as originally proposed were built or at least as far as a good transfer point to Penn Station Access,there will be users who either drive now or simply don't make trips that are too inconvenient. The basic principle of building transit services is not just to service existing patterns, but to invent new ones. |
|
|
| (1645066) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Nov 11 20:28:09 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 17:26:12 2025. Right. But will they rezone as a result of this in the future. That’s probably the major concern that the areas are now attractive to ‘development’Yes or no? |
|
|
| (1645068) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 22:54:20 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 17:50:50 2025. The basic principle of building transit services is not just to service existing patterns, but to invent new ones.Building transit services should result in increasing total ridership. Providing alternate service to areas that are already saturated with transit does not increase total ridership. It merely re-arranges the deck chairs on the Titanic. There are two ways by which building transit services can increase total ridership. The first is to build it to an area where it does not exist. The walking distance service for the proposed IBX stations is nearly twice as well served by transit than the City. The second way is to provide service between areas where there's a latent demand, as documented by travel between these areas by modes other than transit. The publicly available trip datasets don't show such a latent demand exists. |
|
|
| (1645069) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 22:57:29 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Nov 11 17:26:12 2025. They don't have to rezone to build the IBX.I'm on the AIA's mailing list. They have scheduled meetings about rebuilding and rezoning areas around IBX stations. |
|
|
| (1645070) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 23:11:56 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 22:57:29 2025. if IBX increases travel options in a given area, that would, all other things remaining equal, tend to increase the value of housing or commercial property adjacent the new transit stations. Upzoning to increase potential building would be expected. Given that NYC has been a very strong magnet for bright young immigrants both american and foreign for multiple decades,very little of the city has remained affordable to low wage workers or sparsely populated. |
|
|
| (1645072) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Nov 12 02:28:47 2025, in response to Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Nov 10 15:25:14 2025. Claudine.Anyway, this project would increase use of Juniper Valley Park tremendously. |
|
|
| (1645077) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 12 07:03:33 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 11:33:16 2025. The demand for travel between all the IBX stations constitute 10% of trips that originate at a proposed IBX station. The figure isn't much better for the IBX's role as a connector for existing lines at Roosevelt Ave. The percentage is 13% of all trips originating at the IBX and those existing lines.I actually didn't realize it already reached the double-digits. Those are high numbers when dealing with a population like NYC's and when we already have most of the proposed line "carved" out. If that's only latent demand, I wonder what the induced demand may be. So long as areas in Northeastern Queens and similar places will fight against a subway line extension, and so long as a system should be expanding anyway, IBX seems like the thing to do. Even if we did outer extensions instead and drawing lots of brand new riders, you would need the core of the system to be ready to receive them. Without circumferential projects, it would basically be hub-and-spoke. People come from the outside and all have to change in Manhattan and the system would need to accommodate that. Regarding the SAS, there's an element too there of thinking ahead. The Lexington Ave line was highly congested. You needed SAS just to help out with that, regardless of whether new ridership was found. And we're a bit better set up for the future now with SAS, as I think we would be with IBX. I appreciate your research and data. I'm just noting other things. |
|
|
| (1645078) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 12 07:22:28 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 22:54:20 2025. Building transit services should result in increasing total ridership.I don't know if this is consensus. If something reduces overall travel time per passenger, reduces congestion, and serves as a new way to help people avoid obstacles (like when other parts of the system are undergoing maintenance), is it bad just because it didn't increase total ridership? In Paris (besides the circumferential Tram T3a/b which serves a whole bunch of existing Metro stations but yet is quite crowded), they are putting in both Metro to CDG airport and an expensive (premium fare) express line to the same airport even though that airport already has regional rail (that integrates to the Metro). I don't know how many people they will attract out of car-based services with all that, but I don't think that's the whole story. They want people having multiple routes into the city even by train, perhaps so that they don't all change at the same overcrowded station. Granted however, Paris is building outward too. |
|
|
| (1645079) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 11:19:07 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Nov 11 22:57:29 2025. SHHHH! NIMBYs need their ignorance. |
|
|
| (1645080) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 11:20:35 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Nov 11 17:50:50 2025. It should run to Astoria and the Bronx. |
|
|
| (1645081) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 11:23:44 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 12 07:22:28 2025. It also promotes economic development. I like to think of the concept of the geographic reservation wage: People are unwilling to take jobs that are too inconvenient to commute to. Make more possible commutes more convenient and people take those jobs.There's also economic activity generated from discretionary trips. Additionally, there's also a delay between travel options becoming available and people making use of those travel options. So UES ridership in 2017 is not a meaningful metric. |
|
|
| (1645082) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 11:24:50 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Nov 11 20:28:09 2025. They likely will. |
|
|
| (1645084) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Nov 12 12:58:22 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 11:20:35 2025. How do you serve IBX, Amtrak, MNRR, and freight all on 4 tracks over the Hellgate Bridge? |
|
|
| (1645085) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 13:21:13 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by AlM on Wed Nov 12 12:58:22 2025. I don't know. It's a "put that in your pipe dream and smoke it" post. |
|
|
| (1645086) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Nov 12 13:37:30 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 13:21:13 2025. Yep. I would be very disturbed if they put IBX over the Hellgate Bridge and as a result permanently dramatically reduced the ability to provide rail freight services to the island of Long Island. |
|
|
| (1645087) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 12 13:40:05 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by AlM on Wed Nov 12 12:58:22 2025. Actually theres only 3 tracks in service over the Hell Gate. The 4th NY Connecting RR track was ripped up decades ago. |
|
|
| (1645088) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Nov 12 14:12:01 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 12 13:40:05 2025. As were third and 4th mains to New Rochelle.All need to be replaced. Freight can be limited to late night. |
|
|
| (1645089) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Nov 12 15:29:10 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Nov 12 14:12:01 2025. I don't agree. There are lots of places that can support round-the-clock rail freight service. I don't know if the Hell Gate Bridge is it, but it could, and I don't think we should doom Greater Long Island to more trucks. |
|
|
| (1645090) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Wed Nov 12 15:32:00 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by AlM on Wed Nov 12 12:58:22 2025. Freight is a couple of trains a day, probably mostly at night. It can share 2 tracks with MNRR and Amtrak. |
|
|
| (1645091) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Wed Nov 12 15:32:54 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Nov 12 13:40:05 2025. The trackway is still there and the rails can be replaced. |
|
|
| (1645092) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Nov 12 15:54:47 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 12 07:03:33 2025. I actually didn't realize it already reached the double-digits.Not all the datasets reported 13%. I chose the largest percentage. The 13% was recorded by LEHD census from IBX stations to Eastern Queens. The reverse commute for those living along the 7, E, F, M and R was only 5%. The actual subway origin-destination numbers were less. 8% going from IBX stops to Eastern Queens and 1% in the reverse direction. The MTA trip survey showed a more balanced directional preference at 10%. It's bad policy to spend 100% of expansion dollars to serve only 10% of the demand. So long as areas in Northeastern Queens and similar places will fight against a subway line extension, That's always the excuse to divert funds away from where it will have the greatest impact. The big problem is that the current bus-to-subway service is both costly and not sustainable. The intersections in downtown Flushing and Jamaica see more than 200 bus crossings per hour. These are the busiest such intersections in the City. One back burner project is to verify that these are the busiest intersections in the US. The shape file is missing from the GTFS data for most foreign operators. It's likely a world record but I won't have the data to prove or disprove this hypothesis. There are some quick, dirty and inexpensive solutions but inexpensive isn't in a transit planner's vocabulary. the SAS, there's an element too there of thinking ahead. The Lexington Ave line was highly congested. You needed SAS just to help out with that, A frequent misconception among those who rely on the MTA to do their research. One major change in travel patterns over the last 100 years has been the decrease in peak hour demand. NYMTC has zipped many older Hub Bound Reports, so it's not possible to supply a direct link. Here's the link to their web page: https://www.nymtc.org/en-us/Data-and-Modeling/Transportation-Data-and-Statistics/Publications/Hub-Bound-Travel If you pull up the 2016 (year before SAS) report and look at the table on page III-13, you will note that between 8 and 9am there were 240+210=450 subway cars on the Lex exp and local and they carried 49K passengers. If you go to the archive and pull up the 1971 report and look at the table on page 20 (next to last page), you will note that between 8 and 9am there were 547 subway cars on the Lex and they carried 62K passengers. They carried 25% more passengers on 22% more subway cars. N.B. 1971 was before the federal government dangled a wad of capital funding dollars. Had the MTA continued operating 547 subway cars for the decreasing peak hour demand, the Lex would not have been over-crowded by the time the feds starting funding capital expansions. Overcrowding and congestion require an insufficient number of rail cars to meet the passenger demand. The MTA has a Service Guidelines Manual. Should passengers find seats during the peak hour, the guidelines suggest that service levels be decreased to maintain the guidelines discomfort index. |
|
|
| (1645093) | |
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Nov 12 16:31:49 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 12 07:22:28 2025. I don't know if this is consensus.Basic economics 101. A capital expenditure is supposed to pay for itself either by increasing income (more passengers) or by decreasing expenditures. That way a company can go into debt. The completed project will pay off the debt and generate increased profit after the debt is paid off. In Paris 97% of all buildings within the city of Paris (20 arr.) are within 800 meters (1/2 mile) of a Metro entrance. The figure for Greater Paris is only 27%. The current Grand Express expansion is designed to increase rail access outside of Paris. Most of the people live and work outside of Paris. The NIMBY's won in Paris. The Montparnasse Tower was enough. Skyscrapers were relegated to La Defense. Let's compare Paris with the IBX. First Paris is saturated with subway access. NYC isn't. Only 43% of the buildings in NYC are within 800m of a subway entrance. The Grand Express construction is concentrated in regions were only 27% of the buildings are within walking distance of rail. 83% of the buildings within 800m of an IBX station are already within 800m of an existing subway station. The Grand Express is providing walk to rail access areas that are ill served; the IBX is doing the opposite. There are already well established travel patterns that the Grand Express connecting. The IBX hope is that such patterns might come into being, in the future. Both projects avoid the center city. That's where the similarity ends. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
