<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bus Rapid Transit or Second Avenue Subway?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2008/09/25/bus-rapid-transit-or-second-avenue-subway/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2008/09/25/bus-rapid-transit-or-second-avenue-subway/</link>
	<description>Gotham Gazette&#039;s blog about New York policy and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 05:16:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Niccolo Machiavelli</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2008/09/25/bus-rapid-transit-or-second-avenue-subway/comment-page-1/#comment-82839</link>
		<dc:creator>Niccolo Machiavelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=2039#comment-82839</guid>
		<description>Joan Byron&#039;s assumption is correct only in what you mean by &quot;pay for&quot;.  BRT, while a very important addition to the transit mix in NYC, is not necessarily cheaper than a subway.  It is all a question of capital versus operating costs.  The BRT is obviously much cheaper to initiate.  However, it has higher operating costs going forward forever, to eat away at that competitive advantage.  Also, the subway delivers something that BRT can never provide, space, surface space in Manhattan. Space to accommodate all other uses from parklands, to  sidewalks, roads.  Essentially more NYC.  That is very valuable.  Also, her assumption has to assume that cost over-runs that are a function of increasing material costs (steel, concrete, etc.) will not be worse in the future.

BRT is a much more important addition to outer borough, former two fare zone, applications. The efficiencies of all of these systems are a function of the population densities in the neighborhoods they serve.  Mr. Reilly&#039;s position is particularly interesting in this regard as he is an advocate of down-zoning in the same neighborhoods where he advocates all these transportation capital improvements.  That dovetails neatly with his position that the Feds (other people) should pay for it all 100%.  And, your observation is correct, that is out of the City Council jurisdiction.  Which makes his position not only internally contradictory but irrelevant as well.

I guess that means your observation concerning how similar this is to Congressman Oberstar&#039;s consistent and relevant positions could actually still be correct in that they are both &quot;grand&quot;. But one&#039;s position is grandly wrong, inconsistent and irrelevant and the other&#039;s is correct, responsible and important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joan Byron&#8217;s assumption is correct only in what you mean by &#8220;pay for&#8221;.  BRT, while a very important addition to the transit mix in NYC, is not necessarily cheaper than a subway.  It is all a question of capital versus operating costs.  The BRT is obviously much cheaper to initiate.  However, it has higher operating costs going forward forever, to eat away at that competitive advantage.  Also, the subway delivers something that BRT can never provide, space, surface space in Manhattan. Space to accommodate all other uses from parklands, to  sidewalks, roads.  Essentially more NYC.  That is very valuable.  Also, her assumption has to assume that cost over-runs that are a function of increasing material costs (steel, concrete, etc.) will not be worse in the future.</p>
<p>BRT is a much more important addition to outer borough, former two fare zone, applications. The efficiencies of all of these systems are a function of the population densities in the neighborhoods they serve.  Mr. Reilly&#8217;s position is particularly interesting in this regard as he is an advocate of down-zoning in the same neighborhoods where he advocates all these transportation capital improvements.  That dovetails neatly with his position that the Feds (other people) should pay for it all 100%.  And, your observation is correct, that is out of the City Council jurisdiction.  Which makes his position not only internally contradictory but irrelevant as well.</p>
<p>I guess that means your observation concerning how similar this is to Congressman Oberstar&#8217;s consistent and relevant positions could actually still be correct in that they are both &#8220;grand&#8221;. But one&#8217;s position is grandly wrong, inconsistent and irrelevant and the other&#8217;s is correct, responsible and important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2008/09/25/bus-rapid-transit-or-second-avenue-subway/comment-page-1/#comment-82828</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=2039#comment-82828</guid>
		<description>While Bus Rapid Transit does serve as a reasonable compromise in places where rail transit is not viable economically, and, in some cases, it may offer a cheap alternative to light rail, it can NEVER be a replacement to subway, especially in New York City.  The viability of various transit alternatives on Second Avenue (including the possibility light rail, as well as rapid bus) had been studied, and the need of building a subway has prevailed.  Yes, there are economical challenges.  Yes, this project had been frozen and restarted several times already.  Yes, we can only hope that this time is different.  But the bottomline is that we do need a subway line on Second Avenue.
Bus lanes are useful.  The Select Bus Service has started on Bx12 earlier this year and has been successful so far.  But it runs on a route where subway (or any type of rail transit) was never proposed: on Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway.  But it offer connection with virtually all subway lines serving the borough, offering a faster service to people who live far away from subway.
But for Second Avenue, subway is the only realistic option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While Bus Rapid Transit does serve as a reasonable compromise in places where rail transit is not viable economically, and, in some cases, it may offer a cheap alternative to light rail, it can NEVER be a replacement to subway, especially in New York City.  The viability of various transit alternatives on Second Avenue (including the possibility light rail, as well as rapid bus) had been studied, and the need of building a subway has prevailed.  Yes, there are economical challenges.  Yes, this project had been frozen and restarted several times already.  Yes, we can only hope that this time is different.  But the bottomline is that we do need a subway line on Second Avenue.<br />
Bus lanes are useful.  The Select Bus Service has started on Bx12 earlier this year and has been successful so far.  But it runs on a route where subway (or any type of rail transit) was never proposed: on Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway.  But it offer connection with virtually all subway lines serving the borough, offering a faster service to people who live far away from subway.<br />
But for Second Avenue, subway is the only realistic option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JerryD</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2008/09/25/bus-rapid-transit-or-second-avenue-subway/comment-page-1/#comment-82807</link>
		<dc:creator>JerryD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=2039#comment-82807</guid>
		<description>OMG - this has GOT to be one of the DUMBEST IDEAS anyone has come up with for the City in YEARS!

Are you serious?  Do you REALLY THINK a BUS LANE will work?  We&#039;ve had them for years - no DECADES, and they just DO NOT AND CAN NOT WORK!

The people who ran the city over 100 years ago understood the need for RAPID TRANSIT.  The Second Avenue Subway is NOT a Luxury, it is ESSENTIAL - just like the rest of the system is!

The east side has been neglected long enough!  Either do it or get off the pot.  Either have the brass to say it&#039;s not going to be built - period, or do it!  This nonsense of it being on again, off again is ridiculous and makes New Yorkers - and their choices for POLITICAL REPRESENTATION - look like a JOKE!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMG &#8211; this has GOT to be one of the DUMBEST IDEAS anyone has come up with for the City in YEARS!</p>
<p>Are you serious?  Do you REALLY THINK a BUS LANE will work?  We&#8217;ve had them for years &#8211; no DECADES, and they just DO NOT AND CAN NOT WORK!</p>
<p>The people who ran the city over 100 years ago understood the need for RAPID TRANSIT.  The Second Avenue Subway is NOT a Luxury, it is ESSENTIAL &#8211; just like the rest of the system is!</p>
<p>The east side has been neglected long enough!  Either do it or get off the pot.  Either have the brass to say it&#8217;s not going to be built &#8211; period, or do it!  This nonsense of it being on again, off again is ridiculous and makes New Yorkers &#8211; and their choices for POLITICAL REPRESENTATION &#8211; look like a JOKE!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
