But how will people from NJ reach the multitude of deeply mid (at best) and overpriced Manhattan diners?
At its height Manhattan had a population nearly 50% larger than it has today. San Francisco's population density is about 20% lower than that of Queens, commonly thought of as a pretty suburban borough. Both areas could easily accommodate far more density.
As far as parking goes, lol. The best thing NYC could do with its land area is eliminate free street parking entirely. What a waste of space and money.
I've seen quite a few articles about removing street parking for a busway or whatever where small business owners in places like Manhattan or like Church Ave. in Brooklyn would say things like 'we will go out of business because most of our customers arrive here by car!'.But how will people from NJ reach the multitude of deeply mid (at best) and overpriced Manhattan diners?
I've seen quite a few articles about removing street parking for a busway or whatever where small business owners in places like Manhattan or like Church Ave. in Brooklyn would say things like 'we will go out of business because most of our customers arrive here by car!'.
lol. No they fucking don't. It's incredible that someone could be that ignorant/delusional about their own business.
There are people who seem to think bike lanes are the devil's work. I've had that happen around me, there is always the contingent of unevolved, unable to critically think or respond to any data or evidence that less cars and other modes of transport like bikes can help alleviate traffic and pollution. I mean they get vicious too.Yeah I remember biz owners on 14th St. saying this stuff when they were going to make the street bus only and it was bullshit. The truth usually is that the owners drive to their business and that's the lens they view everything through. They have no fucking idea how their customers actually arrive at their place. You are a block from a giant subway hub idiots.
There are people who seem to think bike lanes are the devil's work. I've had that happen around me, there is always the contingent of unevolved, unable to critically think or respond to any data or evidence that less cars and other modes of transport like bikes can help alleviate traffic and pollution. I mean they get vicious too.
Yeah I remember biz owners on 14th St. saying this stuff when they were going to make the street bus only and it was bullshit. The truth usually is that the owners drive to their business and that's the lens they view everything through. They have no fucking idea how their customers actually arrive at their place. You are a block from a giant subway hub idiots.
I think after COVID we've gone from having just a few whackos on the subway to quite a few more whackos that people have made adjustments in their commutes.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone lives in Manhattan if they actually use bike lanes now to get there or an Uber vs riding on the subway.
Hell I myself used to take the A line but now I take Q10 to the E as it feels way safer and less crowded even if it's just feelings..
If you wanna do something about safety, perceived or real, on the trains maybe getting all the cops standing around in the subway mezzanines playing candy crush onto the platforms and the actual trains to do their jobs would be a good idea.
Yep. That shit pissed me off. We all wanted them to regulate certain things about the outdoor dining sheds for aesthetics and sanitary reasons but not do it to benefit some parking spots. Totally stupid.Also particularly frustrating how NYC basically crippled their highly successful outdoor dining program to benefit drivers and create yet another costly absurd administrative burden that will only benefit a few people.
That would be a wildly disproportionate response considering the relatively low crime rate on the subway. Not close to worth it. It's more a fundamental thing about resource management. Every cop playing candy crush by the entrance is one that could be on the platform or train OR just be patrolling some other neighborhood or whatever. They are a waste of money currently.While that's all well and true..
In a rush hour situation those cops are powerless because they're packed in as Sardines and unable to move.
Realistically need 2 cops per train car (maybe the auxiliary units could be useful here).
Hardest part is you just don't know when the person next to you is gonna go psycho..
Also I don't know why the hell we don't have subway barriers since that seems like the biggest threat getting on the subway.. people getting pushed to their death!
While that's all well and true..
In a rush hour situation those cops are powerless because they're packed in as Sardines and unable to move.
Also I don't know why the hell we don't have subway barriers since that seems like the biggest threat getting on the subway.. people getting pushed to their death!
Not to mention the MTA estimated installing barriers in every station would cost $7 billion and then would require over $100 million annually to maintain.You decrease crowding by increasing frequency. Congestion pricing was going to pay for this before the governor canned it.
Because the MTA, in their ultimate wisdom, has declared it impossible despite the Europeans doing it on their legacy lines which they also are covering to fully automatic operation. America only adopts stuff that's proven to work abroad after decades of saying that it can't work here.
That would be a wildly disproportionate response considering the relatively low crime rate on the subway. Not close to worth it. It's more a fundamental thing about resource management. Every cop playing candy crush by the entrance is one that could be on the platform or train OR just be patrolling some other neighborhood or whatever. They are a waste of money currently.
As far as barriers go given current MTA construction costs there's no viable way to install them systemwide and honestly it seems like a big waste of money considering how rare those events are.
As far as barriers go given current MTA construction costs there's no viable way to install them systemwide and honestly it seems like a big waste of money considering how rare those events are.
America only adopts stuff that's proven to work abroad after decades of saying that it can't work here.
Not to mention the MTA estimated installing barriers in every station would cost $7 billion and then would require over $100 million annually to maintain.
Nope. The subway is fine from a safety perspective. The problems it has are from egregious mismanagement, union issues, etc.
That's just stupid then!
But you're right.. I saw bidets and mini splits more than 2 decades ago and they're just coming here to the US now.
Somewhere around 15 people get pushed onto the tracks each year, so let's say 8 per year. The question you should be asking yourself is if $7 billion would be better spent and assuming it prevented 100% of pushing deaths (and I'm very confident it wouldn't) you're talking around $12.5 million per year per death.Nah the barriers are worth it..
A subway assault might have a death rate of 0.1% but getting thrown on the tracks has a death rate of about 50%. It has to be addressed.
And as we get older.. we're not as strong and able to fight off physco's. If you've noticed recently it's the 40+ crowd that seems to be getting targeted as they make easy victims. A person who's 40 can still be a productive member of society for another 30 years.. so well worth saving vs just considering it a statistic.
The thing is the barriers under discussion would not stop track intrusion in any way. (they are just periodic barriers with openings where train doors are)Track intrusion events can be super disruptive so I think its definitely a best practice to have barriers. I was in Chicago last weekend and they shut down the Red Line due to a track intrusion during an insanely busy weekend (Air and Water Show, Crosstown Classic, Market Days, and a Metallica concert).
The thing is the barriers under discussion would not stop track intrusion in any way. (they are just periodic barriers with openings where train doors are)
Sorry force the doors? Intrusions usually don’t happen while the train is in the station and if the train is not In the station if someone wants to go on the tracks it is for all intents and purposes just as easy to do it with these barriers than without.If somebody has to try to force the doors and it's not that easy to do so you'll probably end up with fewer. The main motivation is safety (both accidents and pushing) but it should be at least somewhat effective to discourage other intrusions.
Somewhere around 15 people get pushed onto the tracks each year, so let's say 8 per year. The question you should be asking yourself is if $7 billion would be better spent and assuming it prevented 100% of pushing deaths (and I'm very confident it wouldn't) you're talking around $12.5 million per year per death.
You can probably save a lot more lives spending that money on almost anything else.
Sorry force the doors? Intrusions usually don’t happen while the train is in the station and if the train is not In the station if someone wants to go on the tracks it is for all intents and purposes just as easy to do it with these barriers than without.
I agree it would help some with accidental falls on the tracks and some pushing, but for the guy who just wants to jump down there for whatever reason they don’t do anything.
I agree service disruptions are a big problem as well, I just don’t see these barriers doing much. They wouldn’t prevent suicides, they wouldn’t prevent deliberate intrusions or idiots subway surfing, and they would be at best modestly effective at preventing attacks.Total NYCT track deaths average 60-70 per year IIRC. The cost in service disruptions along is probably pretty substantial (not intended as a defense of MTA capital spending practices).
So more like $700 billion, haha.