Hamilton Ave in Red Hook, before and after the construction of the Gowanus Expressway and BQE in the 1940s-50sHEIMDVLLR t1_j654whf wrote
What stops the city from expanding mass transit today? Why can’t they bring back the tram network, add a direct subway connection between The Bronx and Queens / Brooklyn and Staten Island.
The excuse can’t ways be NIMBYism, when eminent domain exist.
treesareweirdos t1_j656376 wrote
The answer can still be NIMBYism, because a politician using eminent domain is political suicide with NIMBY’s around. Also, eminent domain is generally too expensive to pull off in a major city like NYC, because you to pay “just compensation” to those evicted (which is generally fair market value).
The answer is also that it’s too expensive, involves too much red tape (in both the executive gov’t and the courts), and therefore takes too long to sustain the political will needed to make it happen.
nychuman t1_j658l2r wrote
When a single city councilman/woman could stop development in its tracks, NIMBYism is still alive and well.
We need to pass laws at the state level which may override the ability for local lawmakers to have a defacto veto on any new projects in their district. It’s absolutely absurd and should not be possible.
The market desperately wants to build more housing and businesses, but politicians and stakeholders to the Ponzi scheme that is residential real estate won’t let them.
And yes, NYC DOB has too much power and the codes/regulations are choking us to death. Do away with stringent building standards and zoning laws as well as rent stabilization/control (in addition to the above neutering of NIMBYism) and there’s your solution.
Getting there is the hard part.
I realized I went off on a tangent about the housing shortage, but the lack of mass transit development has a lot of similarities.
payeco t1_j65qmte wrote
> When a single city councilman/woman could stop development in its tracks, NIMBYism is still alive and well.
> We need to pass laws at the state level which may override the ability for local lawmakers to have a defacto veto on any new projects in their district. It’s absolutely absurd and should not be possible.
No law is needed. The council member veto over projects in their district is a gentleman’s agreement, not something based in law. It’s how the city council overrode the veto for the new blood center on the UES.
Which building codes and regulations do you want to do away with?
Burner_I_Barely_Even t1_j67z4b8 wrote
Not that dude, but getting rid of height restrictions would work wonders
payeco t1_j68bxd3 wrote
I think even just a compromise like we have on the UES. High rises on avenues only, nothing over 7 stories on the cross streets. It allows for plenty of tall building while preventing the neighborhood from ending up feeling like you’re living in Midtown.
Freddy-Sez t1_j65gzoq wrote
I agree but there’s still a political calculation being made when city council members block projects. Yes they only have to worry about one re-election but it isn’t the end of the line. They’re all gunning for higher office.
I think we’re going to see member deference begin to erode in the coming years. We saw it happen once already with the UES blood center last year. KRJ is facing a primary challenge over the Harlem thing and Tiffany Caban approved Hallets North in what seemed like an acknowledgement that the rest of the council may not have backed her opposition to it
GoHuskies1984 t1_j65bong wrote
I'd also add using tried and true methods like cut and cover could easily expand subway access in Brooklyn, Queens, etc. Relatively cheap too at least compared to 2nd Ave and the LIRR access projects.
But the powers that make these decisions seem laser focused on prioritizing Manhattan centric projects. They would rather spend $10 billion on another 2nd Ave phase than extend any outer borough subway lines.
If there really is a permanent shift to WFH culture it may be time to reprioritize how much we focus on Manhattan.
theshruj t1_j65xl7t wrote
NIMBYism is partly why we still have cast iron buildings and a well preserved cultural and architectural history in nyc … it’s not always bad.
I’d imagine in a few years some developer would knock down the Woolworth building if no one stopped them… would definitely spin opponents as antiquated anti developmental
Historical_Pair3057 t1_j688cox wrote
Well, not exactly true. They used Eminent Domain to build the Brooklyn Nets stadium and to grab the neighborhood around it. Existing tenets sued and the law said that the city could use eminent domain even if the stadium wasn't going to replace those houses in that exact footprint because the stadium was "packaged" with hosing and the proposed housing would be worth more, which would generate more taxes which is a benefit for the city.
treesareweirdos t1_j68mome wrote
Which part of the post isn’t true based on that?
Pool_Shark t1_j68zdyv wrote
But if you build trams over existing roads nothing needs to be eminent domain’d
HEIMDVLLR t1_j65bkoo wrote
“Too expensive” is exactly why I don’t see cars going anywhere. The city generates a lot of money on the backs of car owners.
Straphangers already upset with fare increases and bad service. Cyclist are totally against paying for anything, but wants the city to get rid of the only commuters that actually contribute financially.
chasepsu t1_j65h6dd wrote
What, pray tell, are you asking cyclists to pay for that our city taxes don’t cover?
HEIMDVLLR t1_j65jw7p wrote
Cyclist will have to step up financially if they think the city will prioritize them over car ownership.
chasepsu t1_j65ric2 wrote
Okay, let’s interrogate this line of thinking a little further. What do you want cyclists to pay for and how would you collect those fees? Are you suggesting tolling bike lanes? Taxes for bicycle purchases? Bike registration? Higher taxes for people who identify as cyclists? Let’s hear some ideas.
HEIMDVLLR t1_j65sm71 wrote
Yes!
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Mention any of those suggestions to cyclist and they get mad. Failing to understand if everyone stopped driving in NYC, the city will look to get the money from somewhere and it’s going to be strap-hangers and cyclist.
chasepsu t1_j65u1ag wrote
All of those ideas are insane and completely ridiculous, and were proposed in jest. You can’t tax someone based on them “identifying as a cyclist” nor would tolling bike lanes work. At the end of the day, a bicycle trip taken in NYC nets the city money (it costs essentially nothing and cyclists end up spending money on those trips), car trips cost the city money. Bicycle infrastructure is astonishing cheap, bicycles are space efficient compared to cars, and bicycles don’t shed rubber dust or emissions the way cars do. Prioritizing cycling (and mass transit, can’t forget that) is a net benefit to the city. Every dollar the city spends to get people out of their cars is a benefit to the city.
HEIMDVLLR t1_j66qvb5 wrote
Here’s just one example of how Amsterdam taxes it’s cyclist…
> Park it right: make sure to park your bike in a designated bike parking section, rack or indoor parking facility as bikes that are not parked in the right areas may be removed and stored in the Bicycle Depot. And to avoid theft, lock your bike to something secure and immovable. > If you have lost your (engraved) bike, you can contact the Fietsdepot to check if it has been recovered by calling 14020 during office hours.
> If they have it, you need to pay a fee of €22.50 to reclaim your bike, or approximately €35 to have it delivered to your home. You will need to show identification and have the key to the bike lock in your possession. Check the Fietsdepot website for more information.
firstWWfantasyleague t1_j6750mv wrote
What? That's if you lose your bike and need to reclaim it, not taxes/fees for normal use.
HEIMDVLLR t1_j675yoz wrote
No! It’s actually for cyclist who illegally park their bikes in undesignated areas. Here’s a little more context from the same link.
> To avoid having your bicycle removed in the city, it is advisable to only park your bike at designated racks or a dedicated parking garage (stalling). Some locations allow you to leave your bike for up to two weeks, and some for up to six weeks. Read the City of Amsterdam's bicycle parking guidelines for further information or view the parking locations on a map.
> If a bike is found or removed due to illegal parking, it will be delivered to the Fietsdepot who can then use the engraving to inform legal owners that their bike has been found or recovered.
This is an example of what is to come, if the city prioritizes bikes over cars. Like I said, the city will start taxing cyclist to recoup the lost income it’s used to receiving from from drivers.
mike_pants t1_j6bga9w wrote
"If the city prioritizes bikes over cars, the infrastructure will start to serve BIKES and not CARS!"
Well... yeah. I think you've finally got it.
chasepsu t1_j678w1w wrote
You do realize that not a single bridge/tunnel that is tolled in NYC sends those funds to the city itself, right? The NYC-NJ crossings (GWB, Lincoln, Holland, Goethals, Bayonne, Outerbridge) are owned by the Port Authority; the Verrazzano, Battery Tunnel, Henry Hudson Bridge, Throgs Neck, Triborough, Midtown Tunnel, Whitestone, Crossbay, and Marine Parkway crossings are owned by the MTA. Neither of those organizations are city-run. We haven’t discussed it directly but I’m positive you’re tacitly referencing Congestion Pricing, which again will be run by the MTA and funds gained from that will fund transit projects.
The city gets essentially zero money from car drivers directly. The city gets the sales tax on gasoline sales in the city, but that’s no different from me buying a Coke at Duane Reade. Registration fees and licensing fees go to the State. There is literally ONE (1) city-applied tax for car owners and it’s only for people who pay for a garage in Manhattan. If you don’t do that, the city gets $0.00 from you per year for having a car in the city outside of tickets, which are, of course, your own damn fault.
(As a final aside, I own a car in Manhattan, and in fact got an ASP ticket today.)
HEIMDVLLR t1_j687tls wrote
> You do realize that not a single bridge/tunnel that is tolled in NYC sends those funds to the city itself, right? The NYC-NJ crossings (GWB, Lincoln, Holland, Goethals, Bayonne, Outerbridge) are owned by the Port Authority; the Verrazzano, Battery Tunnel, Henry Hudson Bridge, Throgs Neck, Triborough, Midtown Tunnel, Whitestone, Crossbay, and Marine Parkway crossings are owned by the MTA. Neither of those organizations are city-run. We haven’t discussed it directly but I’m positive you’re tacitly referencing Congestion Pricing, which again will be run by the MTA and funds gained from that will fund transit projects.
NYC may not receive any funds directly from the tolls. That doesn’t change the fact that the Port Authority and MTA will offload that missing income onto straphangers and cyclist who will be using all bridges. Parking lots will be converted into bike parking lots.
Congestion tolls, is another issue. The MTA is depending on that extra income. Another tax offloaded onto strap hangers, because cyclist will protest if they’re forced to pay the toll.
> The city gets essentially zero money from car drivers directly. The city gets the sales tax on gasoline sales in the city, but that’s no different from me buying a Coke at Duane Reade. Registration fees and licensing fees go to the State. There is literally ONE (1) city-applied tax for car owners and it’s only for people who pay for a garage in Manhattan. If you don’t do that, the city gets $0.00 from you per year for having a car in the city outside of tickets, which are, of course, your own damn fault.
City wide Metered Public Parking connected to the ParkNYC app?
The city would begin to designate when and where cyclist can park and store their bikes. Parking and moving violations will go into affect, which means a way to track cyclist will have to happen. Which will mean state registration.
> (As a final aside, I own a car in Manhattan, and in fact got an ASP ticket today.)
You need to create custom alarms on your phone to remind you when to move your car back and forth. ASP is needed in areas with a lot of foot traffic.
mike_pants t1_j6baa8d wrote
This is quite an impressive tantrum for a trigger as innocuous as "maybe don't drive everywhere."
payeco t1_j66ll6d wrote
The windshield perspective coming from this guy is absolutely bonkers.
payeco t1_j65r1pu wrote
You didn’t answer the question.
mike_pants t1_j6bfsss wrote
Oh, so you're a bigot! Okay, now all this "Cyclists BAD!!" shit makes a lot more sense. Bigots gotta bigot.
bobbyQuick t1_j65xzh2 wrote
I’m all for more subways, however trams are worse than busses in almost every way other than aesthetics. Spending probably trillions of dollars to make public transportation worse would not make sense. Really we should work on improving the existing infrastructure and reducing traffic.
Edit: I’m probably over stating how great buses are here, trams are cool too, I just don’t see it being worth it.
pk10534 t1_j66ggio wrote
No you’re 100% right. There is literally no reason for trams to replace buses outside of liking train aesthetics. They’re vastly more expensive and completely inflexible in their service routes, and suffer from the same issues buses do with getting stuck in traffic. Reddit has convinced itself that the disappearance of trams was some vast conspiracy by Big Auto, but the truth is that most tram companies were already financially struggling or entering bankruptcy and companies like GM only slightly sped up the inevitable. New Yorkers hated how loud and uncomfortable they were, so much so that Fiorello LaGuardia promised to get rid of trams during his mayoral campaign.
We should focus on heavy rail, light rail and BRT/protected bus lanes if we want to improve public transit, not spending 20x the money for a service that reduces the comprehensiveness of NYC’s transportation needs
Key-Recognition-7190 t1_j65b4wk wrote
Way too expensive in both money and political capital. I remember the guy holding out at the old Barclay's center construction site for years until the group just paid him an insane amount of money.
If you try to claim any land as a governing body you'd get protested by any number of "Historical conservationists" groups on top of your political opponents taking the opportunity to call you. Capitalist monster who hates the working class.
On the money side absolutely none of those residents will move out unless the city pays them an unholy amount of money. They know this and the city knows this.
Darrkman t1_j682wvd wrote
Oh it's completely NIMBYism. You have to understand how fanatical white New yorkers are about what they think is the wrong element (Black and Hispanic people). The area of Bellrose, next to Queens Village in Queens petitioned to change the name of the street running through it from Jamaica Ave to Jericho Turnpike because it sounded "too ethnic".
HEIMDVLLR t1_j68h4cc wrote
I never knew the story behind the sudden name change from Jamaica Avenue to Jericho Turnpike. Never made sense to me.
Because Hillside Avenue remains the same until it’s deep in Nassau county. Just like Merrick Blvd becomes a road once you cross over Hook Creek Blvd and travels deep into Suffolk County.
I agree, a lot of the NIMBYism is cloaked in racism. Which is one of the reasons I mentioned eminent domain. How many times have we heard it being used in our communities to build or expand, like Seneca Village.
Darrkman t1_j68u6xe wrote
There's two things going on. When it goes from Queens to Nassau the name changes. But Bellerose is in Queens and they wanted to change the name to look like they're Long Island.
trainmaster611 t1_j65jfx3 wrote
Because construction costs are out of control. And also because NIMBYs can still stop projects via elected officials.
George4Mayor86 t1_j65medz wrote
NIMBY + zoning + union sweetheart deals. It’s insanely difficult, slow, and expensive to build anything when everyone gets a day and everyone gets to wet their beak.
[deleted] t1_j65awp9 wrote
[deleted]
Lovat69 t1_j68q1yj wrote
Mostly because it would cost a shit ton.
TeamMisha t1_j6a6s6o wrote
> The excuse can’t ways be NIMBYism, when eminent domain exist.
We can also look to how eminent domain worked for the Texas HSR project, eminent domain isn't quite the magic wand like it used to be. UK has had the same issues with HSR2. Costs and lawsuits balloon the project budget massively for land acquisition. Funnily enough for the Texas HSR, did you know that the project was sued to stop eminent domain cause they argued it wasn't "actually" a rail road? No project is safe lmao
> He argued that the company did not meet the statutory definition of a “railroad company” or an “interurban electric railway.”
The case STARTED in 2015 and was JUST finally settled after a state SC ruling. folks come up with all sorts of impediments to transit progress
[deleted] t1_j65fod2 wrote
[deleted]
fuchsdh t1_j65obhb wrote
There's the entire north side of Staten Island that doesn't have rail transit. It's going to stay red and underdeveloped without mass transit.
It's still an issue that extending the train would only get you to south Brooklyn, so you still would realistically need to focus on connecting to the ferry, but there's absolutely an opportunity for transit in Staten Island. You only break the stranglehold of cars being the only option by providing other options.
HEIMDVLLR t1_j65r8hi wrote
> You only break the stranglehold of cars being the only option by providing other options.
This!!!
A lot of New Yorkers own cars because the city’s mass transit system failed them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments