We really need to cut all fossil fuel use, not just oil, but I think we should start with coal and move to fuels with less carbon intensity.  If this has all been answered elsewhere, then please give me a link.

I know the concern here is primarily peak oil (duh), but dealing with that problem requires at us to look at the impact of the available alternatives.

Elsewhere, there has been discussion about the efficacy of using plug in hybrids or evs to act as a distributed storage medium for wind.  What role, if any, could rail, play in this game?  

My Phase I for Urban Rail will cost, roughly, $125 billion (could easily be $175 billion) and would start (varies by project) in 1 to 3 years.  On that list 2nd Avenue subway, 3rd tunnel under Hudson Ocean, linking Penn Central & Grand Central stations and light rail for Staten Island & NJ expansion for NYC area.  Also expansion of Buffalo light rail.  NYC are might get 20%-25% of national total.

Phase II could include selected streetcar feeders to LIRR, streetcars in Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn feeding subways and connecting neighborhoods, Light Rail in Albany, Rochester, and ?? upstate, modest subway NYC extensions (add a couple of stops at the end of certain lines), Tappen Zee bridge rail.

Phase III ???  I like the idea of E-W streetcar lines in Manhatten, going like "S"s from one side of the island to the next and connecting E & W subway stations. East-West streets are much less congested than N-S streets.  Manhatten would have to repeal overhead wire ban for electrified transportation.

Phase I includes projects that have preliminary work done (at a minimum route selection and some idea of underground utiltities).  Projects that can start throwing dirt within 1 to 3 years of a financing "Go".

I am an outsider.  Is the above list reasonable ?  Any suggested improvements ?

Best Hopes,

Alan

They just need more subways, that's about it. The 2nd avenue subway will take an entire fleet of busses off the roads, that's a good thing.

Also, NYC (except along 2nd avenue, and a very few other places) doesn't have significant capacity problems with its subways. Large swaths of the outer borroughs have subways underground, and single family residences above ground. A strong push to improve density in these areas would do far more than stretching the subways further out. Keeping them compact discourages this sort of sprawl, and makes it more appealing to build densely in the city itself, rather than sprawling all over long island.

The main thing that would make the city a better place is some rules to help projects that will make new housing avoid legal fights. I'm thinking a rule like this, if you're building something that will have more than 2x as many residential units as the currently existing building (and meets some basic standards for quality, ventilation, etc...), then the project should be all but immune to challenges. Maybe have some sort of limit for extreme departures from guidelines in districts that are actively being preserved, but that's about it. None of this "I don't want you to build over an abandoned rail yard because I don't like the idea of living next to yuppies..." sort of BS that is happening around the Brooklyn arena.

It's just so hard to build anything in the city because even when someone does get the land, design, and financing, it always comes down to some guy living nearby wants to keep his $300/month rent controlled apartment so he doesn't want any new construction in the neighborhood, and pandemonium breaks out. The brooklyn arena is a good example of this.