Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

solo-ran t1_isj6m5a wrote

Wouldn’t subsidized high speed rail to nearby cities (Poughkeepsie, Albany, etc.) be both a boon for upstate cities and a small part of taking the housing pressure off NYC by allowing some people to live further away and still get to the city as needed?

21

lispenard1676 t1_isla33n wrote

The housing pressure in the city exists bc it's made that way.

Consider the amount of abandoned buildings that dot the city, esp in Upper Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. Bringing these buildings back into play would make a major dent in housing demand.

Think about the (utterly ludicrous) 421-a program which requires only 25-30% of a new bldg's units to be affordable. That percentage should be at least 50% if we're serious about cracking this problem.

Think about the housing vouchers that most landlords refuse to accept. That's a program that could be so much more successful if it were exploited more.

Plus, the Adams admin refuses to give firm numbers on how many affordable apartments it will construct or preserve. When apartment affordability has never been more critical, Adams' silence is deafening.

Ultimately, it's up to the government to make housing affordable. This is where City Hall should be leading the charge. But Adams is asleep at the wheel, which is negligent at best or malicious at worst. His inaction on this front (and on other fronts) has the potential to do major damage to the city's fortunes.

6

Pinuzzo t1_iskf1dd wrote

The Metro North and Amtrak owned Hudson River lines are not suitable for higher speed rail. They currently have a max speed of around 80 mph due to how curved the track is

It's also a bit premature considering we don't even have electrified rail service on the LIRR east of Ronkonkoma and Babylon

5

vasjpan02 t1_itb769t wrote

you would have to acquire land for a straight high speed rail, unless you make it slightly out of town

1