Comments on: Could BRT replace the Second Ave. Subway?

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:26:34 +0000

The only problem I have with any on-street transportation solution is that it will still be subject to the traffic on the street. How many times do you see intersections jammed with traffic? Is that really going to change with more mass transit, I doubt it. Taxis and trucks aren’t going to be going away anytime soon and I think that traffic alone is enough to easily jam up critical intersections. That traffic is going to block, buses or trollies or light rail. The won’t block the subway… well, unless the tunnel collapses and the cars fall into the hole, which given the aging infrastructure it becoming more of a likelihood.

Ultimately, you need a system for cars and trucks, and one, separate for mass transit. Whatever form that mass transit is in.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:05:01 +0000

How about this alternative? Cheaper than a subway and can be built faster, and provides better service than bus rapid transit. Also doesn't usurp any more road space.

By: ardecila

ardecila — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:23:18 +0000

While I don’t think BRT is a permanent solution for the UES, it does seem like MTA is managing the street surface of 2nd Avenue terribly. In building the launch box, contractors are pussy-footing around traffic, using complicated staging that is sharply raising the cost that all US taxpayers will be responsible for.

I want MTA to take two lanes of 2nd Ave and restripe them for buses as a temporary express-bus system. This will help to relieve the Lexington and to increase the throughput of 2nd Ave. Then, in the launch box zone, SHUT DOWN 2nd Ave to all but those buses, leaving only two lanes open and the remainder of the street dedicated to excavation. Or, even better yet, put the bus lanes on 1st Ave and close 2nd completely.

Local businesses will complain. Buy them out. It’s only a few blocks’ worth, and it’s got to be cheaper than this incredibly complex and weak traffic staging. Hell, if they can close Broadway through Times Square, they can narrow 2nd Ave to 2 bus-only lanes for a short segment.

New York traffic is some of the worst on the planet, but if this subway line is so important, Manhattan should be willing to pay the price of a multi-year street closure to get it.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:33:21 +0000

On the contrary: the operating costs of buses are higher than those of subways. Rubber tires need replacement more often than steel wheels; one driver per 100 riders costs more than an engineer and conductor per 1,000 riders; buses have a shorter shelf life than trains. The reason buses are used at all is that they have lower capital costs, and on low-ridership lines the extra capital costs of building a subway are much higher than the savings in operating costs.

By: herenthere

herenthere — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:17:58 +0000

Hmm…I had a feeling that it was a little lacking…so much for my tirade at SkyscraperCity past few days. But still – BRT does save a lot of electricity + maintenance costs.

OR HOW ABOUT THE 2ND AVE. LIGHT RAIL?!?!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:14:05 +0000

The reason a subway line is so expensive is that it’s shoved underground so that it doesn’t disrupt stuff at street level (aside from construction, of course). If we’re willing to allow a street-level barrier, the “subway” line can run at street level.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:11:16 +0000

BRT from the Upper East Side to Wall Street would take far longer than the Lex. Nobody would ride it for such a distance.

Forget all four phases of SAS. Phase 1 connects the core of the eastern Upper East Side to West Midtown. That alone will take a huge load off the Lex. Wall Streeters will transfer or continue to walk to the Lex.

There’s your alternative.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:06:47 +0000

East End and York don’t run through to Midtown. First and Third are northbound. Second is southbound. Those are your options.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:37:24 +0000

Have one track on Second Avenue and one track on First; it casts less of a shadow.

By: AW

AW — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:56:56 +0000

Or, the idea is not to think about BRT as a replacement for a subway, but as a cost effective public transport mode that works, is cheaper, and can be done faster. SAS to Wall Street aint happening – not even close – so why not consider an alternative?