DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 29: Responses to Comments ...................................................................29-1 A PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED/DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION/ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK .........................................................................29-5 B LAND USE, ZONING, & PUBLIC POLICY ...................................................................29-17 C SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS.................................................................................29-23 1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DISPLACEMENT.......................................................29-23 2. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DISPLACEMENT......................................................29-28 3. SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................29-32 4. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS, COMMENTS ON PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING......................................................................................................................29-34 D. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...............................................................29-37 E. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.....................................................29-41 F. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES................29-46 G. URBAN DESIGN, VISUAL RESOURCES & NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER .......29-49 H. NATURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................29-56 I. INFRASTRUCTURE.........................................................................................................29-64 J. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...........................................................................................29-65 K. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM..........................................................29-68 L. SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES...........................................................29-72 M. ENERGY............................................................................................................................29-72 N. TRAFFIC ...........................................................................................................................29-73 1. MODAL SPLIT .................................................................................................................29-73 2. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY ....................................................................................................29-78 3. TRIP ASSIGNMENTS ........................................................................................................29-78 4. TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION..............................................................................................29-79 5. MITIGATION....................................................................................................................29-80 6. EVENT AND FACILITY SCENARIOS..................................................................................29-83 7. RIVER CROSSINGS ..........................................................................................................29-88 8. EXISTING AND CHANGED CONDITIONS ..........................................................................29-91 9. SAFETY ...........................................................................................................................29-96 10. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................29-96 11. MISCELLANEOUS ..........................................................................................................29-103 O. PARKING ........................................................................................................................29-104 1. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................29-104 2. CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................29-106 3. GROWTH RATE .............................................................................................................29-107 4. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................29-108 5. POLICY..........................................................................................................................29-111 P. TRANSIT .........................................................................................................................29-112 1. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................29-112 2. POLICY..........................................................................................................................29-114 3. SUBWAYS......................................................................................................................29-116 4. BUSES ...........................................................................................................................29-120 5. COMMUTER RAILROADS...............................................................................................29-123 6. FERRIES ........................................................................................................................29-124 7. MULTIPLE MODES ........................................................................................................29-126 29-i No. 7 Subway Extension—Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program FGEIS Q. PEDESTRIANS............................................................................................................... 29-127 1. SAFETY......................................................................................................................... 29-127 2. POLICY ......................................................................................................................... 29-128 3. ROUTE ASSIGNMENTS .................................................................................................. 29-128 4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 29-129 5. RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 29-129 R. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................ 29-130 S. NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................................................................................. 29-143 T. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS........................................................................................ 29-147 U. PUBLIC HEALTH .......................................................................................................... 29-151 D ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................ 29-153 1. ZONING ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................... 29-153 2. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING INITIATIVES ........................................................................ 29-156 3. ALTERNATIVE USE FOR CAEMMERER YARD ............................................................... 29-157 4. TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................ 29-158 5. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT/FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS....................................... 29-160 W. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 29-162 29-ii Chapter 29: Responses to Comments [Entirely New Text] INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and responds to all substantive comments on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) published in June 2004 for the No. 7 Subway Extension - Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program (Proposed Action). Public review for the DGEIS began on June 21, 2004, with the publication and distribution of the DGEIS by the City of New York City Planning Commission (CPC) and the MTA. The CPC and MTA held a duly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the DGEIS on September 23, 2004 at the Fashion Institute of Technology, Haft Auditorium, Building C, on West 27th Street and Seventh Avenue, Manhattan. The public comment period on the DGEIS remained open through October 4, 2004. This chapter of the FGEIS identifies the organizations and individuals who commented on the DGEIS, and summarizes and responds to all comments made at the public hearings or received through the close of the comment period noted above. All agencies, elected officials, organizations and individuals who commented on the DGEIS are listed below. Sections A through W then contain a summary of all comments made and a response to each of those comments. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter and generally parallel the chapter structure of the FGEIS. Where similar views and comments were expressed by more than one commenter, those comments have been grouped and addressed together. Copies of the transcripts of the September 23, 2004 public hearing and written comments are contained in Appendices AA and BB, respectively. LIST OF COMMENTERS PUBLIC AGENCIES 1. Manhattan Community Board No. 4 (CB4), Walter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abstract a Case Study of Cross-Ownership Waivers
    ABSTRACT A CASE STUDY OF CROSS-OWNERSHIP WAIVERS: FRAMING NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF RUPERT MURDOCH’S REQUESTS TO KEEP THE NEW YORK POST by Rachel L. Seeman Media ownership is an important regulatory issue that is enforced by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, Congress, court and public interest groups share varying viewpoints concerning what the ownership limits should be and whether companies should be granted a waiver to be excused from the rules. News Corporation is one media firm that has a history of seeking these waivers, particularly for the New York Post and television stations in same community. This study conducted a qualitative framing analysis of news articles from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to determine if the viewpoints expressed by the editorial boards were reflected in reports on News Corp.’s attempt to receive cross-ownership waivers. The analysis uncovered ten frames the newspapers used to assist in reporting the events and found that 80% of these frames did parallel the positions the paper’s editorial boards took concerning ownership waivers. A CASE STUDY OF CROSS-OWNERSHIP WAIVERS: FRAMING NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF RUPERT MURDOCH’S REQUESTS TO KEEP THE NEW YORK POST A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Communications by Rachel Leianne Seeman Miami University Oxford, OH 2009 Advisor: __________________________________ (Dr. Bruce Drushel) Reader: __________________________________ (Dr. Howard
    [Show full text]
  • When Victims Rule
    1 24 JEWISH INFLUENCE IN THE MASS MEDIA, Part II In 1985 Laurence Tisch, Chairman of the Board of New York University, former President of the Greater New York United Jewish Appeal, an active supporter of Israel, and a man of many other roles, started buying stock in the CBStelevision network through his company, the Loews Corporation. The Tisch family, worth an estimated 4 billion dollars, has major interests in hotels, an insurance company, Bulova, movie theatres, and Loliards, the nation's fourth largest tobacco company (Kent, Newport, True cigarettes). Brother Andrew Tisch has served as a Vice-President for the UJA-Federation, and as a member of the United Jewish Appeal national youth leadership cabinet, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Israel Political Action Committee, among other Jewish organizations. By September of 1986 Tisch's company owned 25% of the stock of CBS and he became the company's president. And Tisch -- now the most powerful man at CBS -- had strong feelings about television, Jews, and Israel. The CBS news department began to live in fear of being compromised by their boss -- overtly, or, more likely, by intimidation towards self-censorship -- concerning these issues. "There have been rumors in New York for years," says J. J. Goldberg, "that Tisch took over CBS in 1986 at least partly out of a desire to do something about media bias against Israel." [GOLDBERG, p. 297] The powerful President of a major American television network dare not publicize his own active bias in favor of another country, of course. That would look bad, going against the grain of the democratic traditions, free speech, and a presumed "fair" mass media.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Bus Service in New York a Thesis Presented to The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Columbia University Academic Commons Improving Bus Service in New York A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment Of the requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning By Charles Romanow May 2018 Abstract New York City’s transportation system is in a state of disarray. City street are clogged with taxi’s and for-hire vehicles, subway platforms are packed with straphangers waiting for delayed trains and buses barely travel faster than pedestrians. The bureaucracy of City and State government in the region causes piecemeal improvements which do not keep up with the state of disrepair. Bus service is particularly poor, moving at rates incomparable with the rest of the country. New York has recently made successful efforts at improving bus speeds, but only so much can be done amidst a city of gridlock. Bus systems around the world faced similar challenges and successfully implemented improvements. A toolbox of near-immediate and long- term options are at New York’s disposal dealing directly with bus service as well indirect causes of poor bus service. The failing subway system has prompted public discussion concerning bus service. A significant cause of poor service in New York is congestion. A number of measures are capable of improving congestion and consequently, bus service. Due to the city’s limited capacity at implementing short-term solutions, the most highly problematic routes should receive priority. Routes with slow speeds, high rates of bunching and high ridership are concentrated in Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn which also cater to the most subway riders.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 23: Response to Comments on the SDEIS1
    Chapter 23: Response to Comments on the SDEIS1 A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and responds to all substantive comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) published in March 2003 for the Second Avenue Subway. Public review for the SDEIS began on March 2003, with publication and distribution of the document. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) held two public hearings to receive comments on the document: on May 12, 2003 in the auditorium of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House at One Bowling Green (Lower Manhattan); and on May 13, 2003, in the Hecksher Auditorium at El Museo del Barrio, 1230 Fifth Avenue (at 104th Street in East Harlem). The public comment period remained open until June 10, 2003. The SDEIS was circulated to involved and interested agencies and other parties and posted on the MTA’s website, and notice of its availability and the public hearing were published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2003. To advertise the public hearing, MTA published notices in the New York Post, Hoy, Amsterdam News, Chinese World Journal, and New York Daily News. In addition, information on the public hearing was posted on the MTA’s website, a notice of public hearing was mailed to all public officials and interested parties in the MTA service area; and a press release announcing the hearing was sent to all media outlets in the area. Bilingual signs announcing the hearing were posted in all MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) subway stations and on some buses. Brochures were handed out in major Manhattan East Side NYCT subway stations.
    [Show full text]
  • At Capacity: the Need for More Rail Access to the Manhattan CBD
    At Capacity: The Need for More Rail Access to the Manhattan CBD Rosemary Scanlon and Edward S. Seeley Jr. Elliot G. Sander, Director Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Co-Director November 2004 Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service 295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10012 www.nyu.edu/wagner/rudincenter This report was made possible with support from the New York State Laborers and the General Contractors Association of New York, Inc. Their generosity is greatly appreciated. ABOUT THE RUDIN CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY & MANAGEMENT Established in 1996 at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and named in September 2000 in recognition of a generous gift to NYU in support of the Center, the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management is currently led by Elliot (Lee) G. Sander, Director, and Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D., Co-Director. The mission of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management is to encourage innovative thinking and action in transportation management and policy. With a team of Visiting Scholars drawn from both the transportation and academic communities, the Rudin Center conducts research and conferences, provides education and training, and promotes and supports key policy networks in the field of transportation policy and management. A number of publications are produced each year, based on the research, conferences, and training carried out by the Rudin Center. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report focuses on the need for new rail access to Manhattan to ensure that the economy of the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD) will retain its critical central function in the national and New York regional economy, and can expand the level of economic activity and jobs in this new century.
    [Show full text]
  • 8-25-20 MTA Transcript
    NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CORPORATIONS, AUTHORITIES & COMMISSIONS ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CORPORATIONS, AUTHORITIES & COMMISSIONS IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY August 25, 2020 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Page 2 Joint Hearing Impact of COVID-19 on MTA, 8-25-20 SENATORS PRESENT: SENATOR LEROY COMRIE, Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions SENATOR TIM KENNEDY, Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Transportation SENATOR TODD KAMINSKY SENATOR GUSTAVO RIVERA SENATOR ANNA KAPLAN SENATOR JESSICA RAMOS SENATOR ANDREW GOUNARDES SENATOR LUIS SEPULVEDA SENATOR THOMAS O’MARA SENATOR JOHN LIU SENATOR BRAD HOYLMAN SENATOR SHELLEY MAYER SENATOR MICHAEL RANZENHOFER SENATOR SUE SERINO Geneva Worldwide, Inc. 256 West 38t h Street, 10t h Floor, New York, NY 10018 Page 3 Joint Hearing Impact of COVID-19 on MTA, 8-25-20 ASSEMBLY MEMBERS PRESENT: ASSEMBLY MEMBER AMY PAULIN, Chair, Assembly Standing Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions ASSEMBLY MEMBER KENNETH BLANKENBUSH ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHARLES FALL ASSEMBLY MEMBER NILY ROZIC ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANDRA GALEF ASSEMBLY MEMBER STEVEN OTIS ASSEMBLY MEMBER RON KIM ASSEMBLY MEMBER STACEY PHEFFER AMATO ASSEMBLY MEMBER VIVIAN COOK ASSEMBLY MEMBER DAVID BUCHWALD ASSEMBLY MEMBER PHILLIP PALMESANO ASSEMBLY MEMBER ROBERT CARROLL ASSEMBLY MEMBER REBECCA SEAWRIGHT ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARMEN DE LA ROSA ASSEMBLY MEMBER YUH-LINE NIOU Geneva Worldwide,
    [Show full text]
  • IRUM's Additional Comments on Revised Supplemental
    INSTITUTE FOR RATIONAL URBAN MOBILITY, INC. George Haikalis One Washington Square Village, Suite 5D President New York, NY 10012 212-475-3394 [email protected] www.irum.org June 5, 2006 Joseph Petrocelli Chief, Finance & Administration MTA Capital Construction 469 7th Avenue New York, NY 10018 Re: Additional Comments on Revised Supplemental Environmental Assessment of Proposed 50th Street Vent Facility for MTA LIRR East Side Access Project Dear Mr. Petrocelli: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and others from MTA and also with Irwin Kessman of FTA on Thursday, June 1, 2006. My associates at the Regional Rail Working Group (RRWG) were especially grateful to be able to share some of their expertise and knowledge at the meeting. The RRWG is an informal coalition of transit advocates from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The RRWG and its advisors represent a broad cross-section of transit experts and advocates with many years of experience in planning, design and public participation. We were especially fortunate to have with us Phil Strong, former LIRR transportation engineer, Herb Landow, a retired railroad and transportation consulting executive, Albert L. Papp, Jr., a Director of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers and Secretary of the Board of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, and William K. Guild, a lawyer with a longstanding interest in rail transit matters. The RRWG is hosted by the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc. (IRUM), a New York City-based not-for-profit corporation concerned with advancing cost-effective measures to reduce motor vehicle congestion in dense urban places.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitcenter Build Trust
    The MTA Can Deliver a Capital Program That Puts Riders First B After a long run of rising usage, unreliable subway service has led to shrinking ridership despite growing population and jobs. Unless New York’s leaders reverse this decline, the continued health and prosperity of the region will be at risk. Cratering subway reliability and a surge in high- profile breakdowns during 2017 and 2018 drew attention to longstanding deficiencies that had previously skirted intense public scrutiny. The signal system is ancient and failure-prone. Hundreds of stations lack access for people with disabilities. Subway cars that should have been retired long ago are still pressed into service. The consequences of unreliable, inaccessible subways are felt most acutely by New Yorkers who do not have the means to live close to the Manhattan core. Riders with low incomes tend to lose more time to delays than more affluent riders,1 and accessible subway stations are scarcer in neighborhoods with more affordable rents.2 The decrepit condition of the subway system became the main rallying point for congestion pricing in 2019. Until that legislative session, congestion pricing and similar traffic reduction policies had failed to clear the necessary political hurdles in Albany, despite impressive policy merits. The dire transit situation helped ensure that this time would be different. Funds generated from tolls on driving in the Manhattan core will now supply at least $15 billion for a new wave of 1 Federal Reserve Bank of New transit investment. York. “Why New York City Leading up to the landmark congestion pricing vote, Subway Delays Don’t Affect opponents attacked the Metropolitan Transportation All Riders Equally,” June 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner
    Manhattan Institute’s Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner 52 Vanderbilt Avenue Thursday Evening New York, NY 10017 April 29, 2004 Phone: (212) 599-7000 Fax: (212) 599-3494 The Pierre Email: [email protected] New York City www.manhattan-institute.org Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner Welcoming Remarks Roger Hertog Master of Ceremony Robert L. Bartley (In Memoriam) Editor Emeritus, The Wall Street Journal Introduction By Paul A. Gigot William F. Buckley Jr. Editor-At-Large, National Review Introduction By David Brooks Peter M. Flanigan Founder, Student Sponsor Partners Director, UBS Securities LLC Introduction By John Stossel Closing Remarks Dietrich Weismann Chairman, The Manhattan Institute Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner Robert L. Bartley (In Memoriam) Editor Emeritus, The Wall Street Journal The Alexander Hamilton Award was created to celebrate New York and honor Wall Street Journal editor emeritus Robert L. Bartley died at the age of 66 on December 10, 2003. Over his remarkable career of 40 years—30 of them heading the most influential those individuals helping to foster the revitalization of our nation’s cities. We chose editorial page in the country—he earned a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas to name the award after Hamilton because, like the Manhattan Institute, he was a Press Club of America, a Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing, and the Presidential Medal of fervent proponent of commerce and civic life, and he believed the health of the Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. nation hinged upon vibrant cities. He was also the quintessential New Yorker. The son of a professor of veterinary medicine, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit for New York City
    Bus Rapid Transit For New York City Prepared for Transportation Alternatives NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign June 2002 Schaller Consulting 94 Windsor Place, Brooklyn, NY (718) 768-3487 [email protected] www.schallerconsult.com Summary New York City has the slowest bus service in America. NYC Transit buses travel at an average speed of 7.5 mph. On bus routes such as the M96, M23, M15, Q32, BX35 and B63, the average speed is 6 mph or less. That buses are traveling in slow motion is obvious to everyone, especially riders, who rank it the most serious problem with bus service. Slow bus service discourages people from taking buses, especially for work trips where travel time is critical. Slow bus service contributes to very long travel times to work in New York City, as shown by the latest census. Bus service is slow for many reasons. Traffic congestion is clearly a major factor. But other problems are just as important: • Buses spend as much as 30% of their time waiting for passengers to board and exit. • Increased crowding on buses due to ridership growth has lengthened delays from boarding and exiting. • Traffic signals are not synchronized with bus speeds, so buses are delayed by red lights between bus stops. • Drivers often have to slow down to stay on schedule even when traffic is light. • Bus field supervisors lack the tools to prevent bus bunching. SCHALLER CONSULTING 1 Summary (cont.) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a promising strategy for improving bus service. By applying features used in rail service to bus service, BRT can make buses faster, more reliable and more attractive.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Outreach Process 4.0 INTRODUCTION 4.1
    Chapter 4: Public Outreach Process 4.0 INTRODUCTION Consistent with Federal Transit Authority (FTA) guidance for the Alternatives Analysis process, public outreach was conducted at key milestones to solicit comments on work completed and to fully vet the alternatives with stakeholders. This chapter describes the public outreach efforts that have been undertaken for the 34th Street Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis. 4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS The public involvement process for the 34th Street Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis was outlined in Attachment A of the Project Initiation Package, which was provided to the FTA in October 2009. As described in the Project Initiation Package, the NYCDOT Project Team held its first Open House in November 2009 to present the proposed alternatives for the 34th Street Corridor. The purpose of the Open House was to provide information about the project, and to allow stakeholders to voice to their concerns, call attention to sensitivities, and explore potential solutions. In addition to the Open House, NYCDOT met with several key stakeholders to present the Alternatives Analysis and receive feedback. Information about the project was also posted on the NYCDOT website, where written feedback was possible through an online submission form. NYCDOT will present the results to the Alternatives Analysis at a second public meeting in January 2010. 4.1.1 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #1—NOVEMBER 19, 2009 The first public Open House was held on November 19, 2009, upon completion of the Project Initiation Package, which included the Statement of Purpose and Need. The meeting reviewed the Project Initiation Package with stakeholders, presented the alternatives, and then solicited input on the alternatives under consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement: MTA, Bus Turnaround Coalition Agree: Key Fixes Can Improve Bus Service
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2017 CONTACT: Tabitha Decker, TransitCenter | 646-706-7545 | [email protected] Nick Sifuentes, Riders Alliance | 646-600-8329 | [email protected] Jaqi Cohen, Straphangers Campaign | 914-393-0755 | [email protected] Statement: MTA, Bus Turnaround Coalition Agree: Key Fixes Can Improve Bus Service NYCT Has Selected the Right Tools, But Needs an Ambitious Plan and Timeline to Turn Around Bus Decline On Monday, March 20th, the MTA New York City Transit Chief of Operations Planning, Peter Cafiero, outlined the agency’s approach to improving bus service in New York City in a presentation to the board. In response, the Bus Turnaround coalition released the following statement: The Bus Turnaround coalition applauds the MTA New York City Transit for its new analysis of New York City’s bus ridership and performance decline and commitment to applying proven tools like bus only lanes, transit signal priority, route and network redesign, and speeding up the boarding process to improve local buses. These are the strategies required to reverse declines in service and attract riders back to the bus with faster, more reliable trips, and they are strategies we call for in our report, “Turnaround: FiXing New York City’s Buses.” As a neXt step, the agency should detail a specific plan and timeline for an ambitious rollout for these urgently needed reforms. Transit signal priority, which can reduce bus trip times by 10-30%, is a tactic that we should eXpedite implementation of systemwide. We look forward to seeing it initiated this summer on the M60 and Q44, and call on the MTA NYCT and NYC DOT to bring this solution to at least 10 routes in 2017 and to complete system-wide implementation by the first quarter of 2018.
    [Show full text]