Comments on: Off the Road and Into the Skies

By: adam

adam — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:34:31 +0000

I think this idea would be awesome…..Brooklyn is so much closer to Newark than people think, and it would be an amazing connection from Brooklyn to Newark Airport

By: gabe

gabe — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:19:15 +0000

a few things:

No transportation system in New York City is profitable; all get subsidies. This is why we don’t have a larger network of water taxis.

As far as psychology goes, I totally agree but there are very few people who need to go to Governor’s Island, and the alternate transportation is not underground; it’s a boat.

The state took money from the MTA last year, seriously affecting the capital budget. I know no one likes the “money goes to other places” argument, but the budget gap is more than a billion dollars, and it has to be taken into account when approaching new infrastructure projects. For example, three city bridges have been rated “poor” by the DOT, and that doesn’t include those run by the MTA or Port Authority.

I know it seriously limits innovation, which is no good, but we’re still paying for the recession, and that is just how it’s going to be for awhile.

By: Dave Brough

Dave Brough — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:28:23 +0000

Eugen,
“New Light Rail has eleven time the capacity of a lane of motor traffic (7,700 passengers/h against 700 per h)?”
For real? Applying light rail’s logic, my version of a lane of motor road traffic (using articulating bus w/100 pax and 2-second distance) is 100 x 30/min x 60 = 180,000 pph. And since a typical freeway has 4 lanes, x 4 = 720,000 pax/hr. Pretty good, eh?

By: Eugen Schilter

Eugen Schilter — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:06:58 +0000

Another option for ‘highflyers’ is
http://stringtransport.com/
Hop-on hop-off access still is to be on the surface where all the life is. For effective urban planning the issue of access rights to traffic surfaces is fundamental. Pedestrians and bicyclists have a first right. New Light Rail has eleven time the capacity of a lane of motor traffic (7,700 passengers/h against 700 per h) and thus, if allocated properly there is sufficient surface on this earth.
The strength of ‘Urban flying’ is that it can provide a solution without affecting the existing road set-up. Thus convenient where there is no political will to optimise.

By: faslanyc

faslanyc — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:57:56 +0000

One additional point is the way that being underground for significant amounts of time each day affects the psychological state of a community.

Compare riding the 7 train or one of the other elevated lines to being underground for an hour commute. It seems significant to me, though difficult to quantify and therefore make policy decisions based on that fact.

nice argument/article.

By: jam

jam — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:52:02 +0000

I would absolutely love to see that Newark Liberty line built. It would certainly beat the PATH.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:52:46 +0000

I would take a gondola over an unneeded and expensive tram connection to the Oakland, CA International Airport and SF’s local BART Metro (currently connected by a bus).

By: jhunt

jhunt — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:08:36 +0000

Then perhaps whatever security measures currently in place could be implemented on a new CPT system. It’s not paranoia, just a concern.