Editorial: Bus BS on our boulevards

[BrooklynBus]

http://www.qchron.com/opinion/editorial/bus-bs-on-our-boulevards/article_fc670847-d151-5ea7-87c6-da2667d3f021.html

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Maybe they should lose ALL of their bus service. Would that make them happy?

[BrooklynBus]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[bobtehpanda]

Is there a point where excessive linking to your own stuff on forums without any sort of additional information or context becomes blogspam, or do we just not have rules on that?

[Culver]

1) Please stop making these spam posts to promote your writing.

2) What an utter crock of shit. I'm beginning to think auto dealers are sneaking in psychostimulants into the air vents of the cars they sell, because the outrage from batshit insane drivers is ridiculous. It's a crowded city, who gives a f**k about you and your car? You wanna live the life they sell in the car ads? Move to some bumblef**k suburb in Ohio. The city spent decades pandering and serving exclusively drivers and is finally doing a tiny bit to help out those who walk, bike or take public transit. That this has caused drivers to foam at the mouth with anger says a lot.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1) Please stop making these spam posts to promote your writing.

2) What an utter crock of shit. I'm beginning to think auto dealers are sneaking in psychostimulants into the air vents of the cars they sell, because the outrage from batshit insane drivers is ridiculous. It's a crowded city, who gives a f**k about you and your car? You wanna live the life they sell in the car ads? Move to some bumblef**k suburb in Ohio. The city spent decades pandering and serving exclusively drivers and is finally doing a tiny bit to help out those who walk, bike or take public transit. That this has caused drivers to foam at the mouth with anger says a lot.

I don't have a problem with people in this city using their cars. However, there also needs to be an understanding that this city has become more public transit-centric than car-centric. Driving in the city is just a bad choice overall, and at your own risk. In the outerboroughs, I understand there is more of a necessity to have a car in some areas, due to places or location being overall farther, although most place can be completed with a bus or subway trip. There are places in the outerboroughs which have little to no nearby public transit (south shore, Staten Island) available. In such areas, I would understand that car travel is needed. However, in some areas, it's more at your own discretion. 

 

Now, let's take Woodhaven Blvd SBS (which is what the article talks about). I mentioned it before: the concept of SBS on Woodhaven Blvd isn't a bad one, and there is possibility to make it succeed. However, the method they chose was not the best one. There was another concept/method which further reduced bus travel time, and didn't mess up traffic as much. That could've been much better for Woodhaven Blvd, IMO, and there wouldn't be such a big problem as there is right now. There were mentions of left turn bans, however, I don't think that should happen. Bus Lanes can work even without left turn bans. 

 

Generally, from about 9 PM-6 AM (10 AM on Weekends; some areas differ), the bus lanes wouldn't be such a problem, because there's less traffic, and less chance for congestion. Rush hours, and weekends during the most transited periods (PM to Brooklyn/Rockaways), you'll see congestion problems that are being mention, and that's where I understanding. 3 lanes southbound, followed by 2-3 bus lanes, and then 3 car lanes would've made traveling during those times less of a hassle, because there are more cars on the main road. However, with the new concept, there is 2 main road lanes and one service road lane in each direction, and I don't know if the speed limit for the main road will be the same as the main road (this is about the sections from Union Tpke and north). There aren't only cars traveling on those roads either (obviously, but just bringing it out), so those will be the most affected, as well as resident traveling long distances.

 

Is the SBS concept on Woodhaven Blvd good: Yes

Did the MTA take the best concept for SBS: There were better options to select.

Will this affect current traffic flow in areas: Yes, but only during certain points of the day will it be a problem, and location

[BrooklynBus]

I don't have a problem with people in this city using their cars. However, there also needs to be an understanding that this city has become more public transit-centric than car-centric. Driving in the city is just a bad choice overall, and at your own risk. In the outerboroughs, I understand there is more of a necessity to have a car in some areas, due to places or location being overall farther, although most place can be completed with a bus or subway trip. There are places in the outerboroughs which have little to no nearby public transit (south shore, Staten Island) available. In such areas, I would understand that car travel is needed. However, in some areas, it's more at your own discretion. 

 

Now, let's take Woodhaven Blvd SBS (which is what the article talks about). I mentioned it before: the concept of SBS on Woodhaven Blvd isn't a bad one, and there is possibility to make it succeed. However, the method they chose was not the best one. There was another concept/method which further reduced bus travel time, and didn't mess up traffic as much. That could've been much better for Woodhaven Blvd, IMO, and there wouldn't be such a big problem as there is right now. There were mentions of left turn bans, however, I don't think that should happen. Bus Lanes can work even without left turn bans. 

 

Generally, from about 9 PM-6 AM (10 AM on Weekends; some areas differ), the bus lanes wouldn't be such a problem, because there's less traffic, and less chance for congestion. Rush hours, and weekends during the most transited periods (PM to Brooklyn/Rockaways), you'll see congestion problems that are being mention, and that's where I understanding. 3 lanes southbound, followed by 2-3 bus lanes, and then 3 car lanes would've made traveling during those times less of a hassle, because there are more cars on the main road. However, with the new concept, there is 2 main road lanes and one service road lane in each direction, and I don't know if the speed limit for the main road will be the same as the main road (this is about the sections from Union Tpke and north). There aren't only cars traveling on those roads either (obviously, but just bringing it out), so those will be the most affected, as well as resident traveling long distances.

 

Is the SBS concept on Woodhaven Blvd good: Yes

Did the MTA take the best concept for SBS: There were better options to select.

Will this affect current traffic flow in areas: Yes, but only during certain points of the day will it be a problem, and location

You make a lot of good points but car haters like Culver (and there are plenty of them out there (they call themselves Transportation Alternatives) don't care about good points and common sense. They care more about punishing car drivers than helping bus riders. It is impossible to even have an intelligent conversation with them. They think it's car vs transit. That you cannot be pro-car and also pro-transit. They see that as mutually exclusive. But I have one question for you. Does it make sense to spend $200 million on something that "has a chance" to succeed. Shoukdn't we be pretty sure before we begin? All the promises are just that promises. They won't even make a prediction on how much time the average bus rider would save or even tell us how much more $200 million buys that $28 million wouldn't buy, which was their original estimate.

[161 New York]

1) Please stop making these spam posts to promote your writing.

2) What an utter crock of shit. I'm beginning to think auto dealers are sneaking in psychostimulants into the air vents of the cars they sell, because the outrage from batshit insane drivers is ridiculous. It's a crowded city, who gives a f**k about you and your car? You wanna live the life they sell in the car ads? Move to some bumblef**k suburb in Ohio. The city spent decades pandering and serving exclusively drivers and is finally doing a tiny bit to help out those who walk, bike or take public transit. That this has caused drivers to foam at the mouth with anger says a lot.

I enjoy BrooklynBus's posts, his insight and commentary are quite relevant to this community. It would be better if a summary of his writing or perhaps the first paragraph be included in the original post. Not wanting to get into an argument, but just throwing a link does imply laziness and also does appear to be suspicious, though regular users of the site know he isn't trying to sell me a book or a newsletter subscription.

 

Anyways, I remember when the bus lanes for the s79 Select Bus Service lanes came to Staten Island and the hysteria, yes hysteria it brought. Though, the TA and DOT should have better marketed that other bus routes benefit from the bus lane's existence. Look at this from the Staten Island Advance, Skepticism about Staten Island's Select Bus Service brews [link to www.silive.com].:

 

Dee Vandenburg of the Staten Island Taxpayers Association was caught in traffic as the red bus lanes were being painted on Hylan Boulevard at Steuben Street, and deems the plan a bad idea.

 

"There's been so many people killed at that corner, and now it's going to intensify," Ms. Vandenburg said. "I think it's ridiculous and dangerous."

 

As of May 2014, Republican Andrew Lanza attempted through legislation to remove the bus lanes from Staten Island, however and thankfully, his efforts failed (he probably just introduced the bill to quiet some of his constituents). Again, the Staten Island Advance also does a terrible job of not indicating the benefits of the bus lane to other bus passengers SBS a success, though their problem is largely with the bus lane cameras. Do special bus lanes hurt more than they help? (editorial) [link to www.silive.com].

 

Those rust-red Special Bus Service lanes on Hylan Boulevard and Richmond Avenue may become a thing of the past if state Sen. Andrew Lanza has his way.

 

The lawmaker has introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would eliminate the specially designated lane for good.

 

You can read his failed legislation here [link to assembly.state.ny.us]

[MHV9218]

You make a lot of good points but car haters like Culver (and there are plenty of them out there (they call themselves Transportation Alternatives) don't care about good points and common sense. They care more about punishing car drivers than helping bus riders. It is impossible to even have an intelligent conversation with them.

 

Actually, it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you when you make up figures to contradict literally every DOT stat and you refer to legitimate transit advocacy groups like Transportation Alternatives as simple 'car haters.' You act like the MTA, city planning, and every advocate out there has a personal vendetta against you and your car. It simply isn't so.

[BrooklynBus]

Actually, it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you when you make up figures to contradict literally every DOT stat and you refer to legitimate transit advocacy groups like Transportation Alternatives as simple 'car haters.' You act like the MTA, city planning, and every advocate out there has a personal vendetta against you and your car. It simply isn't so.

You will notice that like you, every other attacker of my writings talk in generalities, not specifics. You say I contradict every single DOT stat, assuming theirs are correct and mine are incorrect, so let's just talk about one of them. Did they measure the width of Woodhaven Blvd correctly? Is it 160 feet wide just north of 103 Ave as they claimed or is it 125 feet wide as I claimed?

[bobtehpanda]

You will notice that like you, every other attacker of my writings talk in generalities, not specifics. You say I contradict every single DOT stat, assuming theirs are correct and mine are incorrect, so let's just talk about one of them. Did they measure the width of Woodhaven Blvd correctly? Is it 160 feet wide just north of 103 Ave as they claimed or is it 125 feet wide as I claimed?

 

Street width is from property line to property line, including sidewalks. Is it 125 feet from property line to property line?

[B35 via Church]

Alright, what's goin on here... Lol.....

 

Street Width - it is a bit of a misnomer, but BobPanda is right... Sidewalk width is included in that figure, since it's not private property (although storefront owners/homeowners are responsible for the upkeep of them)..... Sidewalks aid in the flow of pedestrian traffic & paved roadways [in asphalt] aid in the flow of vehicular traffic.....

 

BrooklynBus' figure seems to be referring to the distance between curbsides; which would correspond with that 160ft figure (as the average sidewalk is about 15-18ft wide)... The street width for Woodhaven being 125ft sounds low....

 

As to whether the DOT is right or whether BrooklynBus is right, it depends what we're talking about...

What exactly is the DOT claiming? The street width being 160ft or the distance between curbsides being 160ft?

 

It's not the same thing.

[BrooklynBus]

Street width is from property line to property line, including sidewalks. Is it 125 feet from property line to property line?

No it is from curb to curb, not from property line to property line. All their other measurements were from curb to curb. For example at Metropolitan Avenue, 130 feet curb to curb. So why would this single measurement be from property line to property line? Please answer that one.

 

Why is it so difficult for you to be believe they made an unintentional mistake or even worse, an intentional mistake to mislead?

 

B35 via Church this response also applies to you.

[MHV9218]

Why is it so difficult for you to be believe they made an unintentional mistake or even worse, an intentional mistake to mislead?

 

Because the DOT is not part of some grand conspiracy, and they have professionals who don't make these kind of mistakes.

[BrooklynBus]

Because the DOT is not part of some grand conspiracy, and they have professionals who don't make these kind of mistakes.

How many other mistakes do I have to point out for you to believe they are such professionals who don't make these kind of mistakes? How about the one on Page 24 of the March 26th report where they forgot to show two breaks in the bus lane at the LIRR Main line and at the LIRR Montauk line?

[B35 via Church]

No it is from curb to curb, not from property line to property line. All their other measurements were from curb to curb. For example at Metropolitan Avenue, 130 feet curb to curb. So why would this single measurement be from property line to property line? Please answer that one.

 

Why is it so difficult for you to be believe they made an unintentional mistake or even worse, an intentional mistake to mislead?

 

B35 via Church this response also applies to you.

I specifically asked what the DOT is claiming, so what are you getting on my case about being so difficult to believe that the DOT made an unintentional mistake, or an intentional mistake to mislead for?

 

As to your initial question.... I'm not answering it, as it is leading (speaking of intent)....

On what document is this 160ft the "single measurement" you're claiming there's some mistake on... and again, what is this same 160ft measuring anyway? Context, please....

 

Regardless, I am not about to have some long drawn out argument with you about that facet of this.... The term street width does not solely consist of curb to curb distance....

[LTA1992]

My only say on the subject is this:

 

Drivers need to realize that they only reason they can drive AT ALL is because of how extensive our public transport network is. Had it not existed to this extent, things would be vastly different. Transit improvements mean less cars on the road which opens up more space for you. This has never been a car-centric city and public transit should come first. It's existence makes the environment better for everyone especially the children.

 

One lane lost each direction, so what. Sure, there may be issues from people in the beginning but it will eventually sort itself out. That is one of the best things about our species. We adapt and if people are really worried about how they will get around, they will find a way. There is always another way. But will they search for it?

 

Again. Time will tell. 

[MHV9218]

Theorem Ox, please reread the downvote policy and stop downvoting posts simply because they present information or opinions you do not endorse. That lowers the maturity of discussion for all of us.

[BrooklynBus]

My only say on the subject is this:

 

Drivers need to realize that they only reason they can drive AT ALL is because of how extensive our public transport network is. Had it not existed to this extent, things would be vastly different. Transit improvements mean less cars on the road which opens up more space for you. This has never been a car-centric city and public transit should come first. It's existence makes the environment better for everyone especially the children.

 

One lane lost each direction, so what. Sure, there may be issues from people in the beginning but it will eventually sort itself out. That is one of the best things about our species. We adapt and if people are really worried about how they will get around, they will find a way. There is always another way. But will they search for it?

 

Again. Time will tell.

 

I am all for transit improvements. But all suggestions of improvement are just allegations with no model data revealed to show Wh much improvement there woud actually be . We are asked to believe that fewer lanes will speed up traffic just because DOT says it will be. The MTA won't even tell us how much time the average bus passenger is expected to save. Sure drivers will adapt. They will choose the least objectionable route that will add the least amount of time to their trip, so that they use te least amount of extra gas and cause minimal additional air pollution. Heaven forbid if they did an always is to show that te intended benefits is worth the $200 million which originally only cost $20 million. we don't even know what we are getting extra for the additional $180 million.

[BrooklynBus]

I specifically asked what the DOT is claiming, so what are you getting on my case about being so difficult to believe that the DOT made an unintentional mistake, or an intentional mistake to mislead for?

 

As to your initial question.... I'm not answering it, as it is leading (speaking of intent)....

On what document is this 160ft the "single measurement" you're claiming there's some mistake on... and again, what is this same 160ft measuring anyway? Context, please....

 

Regardless, I am not about to have some long drawn out argument with you about that facet of this.... The term street width does not solely consist of curb to curb distance....

Look at pages 12 and 13 of the January 13th report to CB 9.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/2015-01-brt-woodhaven-cb9-.pdf

 

Both measure curb to curb distances. The 130 feet is correct. But the 160 feet distance should be 125 feet.

[bobtehpanda]

Look at pages 12 and 13 of the January 13th report to CB 9.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/2015-01-brt-woodhaven-cb9-.pdf

 

Both measure curb to curb distances. The 130 feet is correct. But the 160 feet distance should be 125 feet.

 

Why, exactly, should it be 125 feet? Let's look at the two pictures.

 

The one with 130' feet has one parking lane and four moving lanes in each direction, plus a left turn bay and a little curb, making 11 lanes If you divide 130/11, you get around 11 feet, if you account for the curb. This is slightly less than the FHA standard for lane width (12 ft).

 

The one with 160' feet has two service roads, each with one parking lane and two moving lanes, three tiny median curbs, and two service roads with three moving lanes each. That would give us 12 lanes, and 160 / 12 is roughly 13 feet. Judging from the photos, the lanes themselves look wider in the second photo than in the third, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. In fact, if you look at the median between the service road and the main road, it's roughly half the size of a moving lane. So let's add another lane, making 13 total lanes. 160 / 13 makes 12 ft lanes, which are definitely a possibility on a road as highway-like as Woodhaven. So I don't know where you're pulling that 125 feet from.

[Culver]

...car haters like Culver (and there are plenty of them out there (they call themselves Transportation Alternatives) don't care about good points and common sense. They care more about punishing car drivers than helping bus riders.

 

This is genuinely insane. I mean holy crap. It's not hating cars, it's acknowledging the rules of physics, which state that we can fit more people into one bus or train than a lot of cars and thus in a crowded city such as New York should preferably work on improving said more-efficient transit options. Refusing to improve transit and walkability at the behest of deluded people in Hummers is not good policy.

[B35 via Church]

Look at pages 12 and 13 of the January 13th report to CB 9.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/2015-01-brt-woodhaven-cb9-.pdf

 

Both measure curb to curb distances. The 130 feet is correct. But the 160 feet distance should be 125 feet.

Thank you... This is all I was asking for.

 

Why, exactly, should it be 125 feet? Let's look at the two pictures.

 

The one with 130' feet has one parking lane and four moving lanes in each direction, plus a left turn bay and a little curb, making 11 lanes If you divide 130/11, you get around 11 feet, if you account for the curb. This is slightly less than the FHA standard for lane width (12 ft).

 

The one with 160' feet has two service roads, each with one parking lane and two moving lanes, three tiny median curbs, and two service roads with three moving lanes each. That would give us 12 lanes, and 160 / 12 is roughly 13 feet. Judging from the photos, the lanes themselves look wider in the second photo than in the third, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. In fact, if you look at the median between the service road and the main road, it's roughly half the size of a moving lane. So let's add another lane, making 13 total lanes. 160 / 13 makes 12 ft lanes, which are definitely a possibility on a road as highway-like as Woodhaven. So I don't know where you're pulling that 125 feet from.

Thank you (also).... For a much different reason.

It's all basic math here.

 

- At metropolitan there, we can see that there's 5 lanes on each side, plus one turning lane heading SB... given that the standard lane width is 12ft, we get 12ft * 11 lanes = 132ft... the sidewalk on the NB side is wider than that of the SB side, so I can believe there's about a 1-2 ft difference with that... No problem (on his part with that)...

 

- In the supposed "questionable" diagram (whatever cross side street that is), we see that there's the 3 wider centralized/"main" lanes for each direction, so that's 6 lanes right there... even if we take the standard 12ft lane width, that's 6 lanes * 12ft = 72ft (not accounting the little median there)... Then there's the service roads, at 3 lanes wide a pop - so that's 6 lanes * 12 ft = another 72ft...

72 + 72.... MINIMUM.... is more than some 125 feet...

 

Forgetting about the "street width" terminology for a sec, I see these 2 pictures & I'm like, I'm not seeing where he's getting 125 from, either way... This is why I asked for context..... And hell, now that I think about it, Woodhaven where you have those wide service roads like that (I'll use Woodhaven @ Jamaica av for example) is wider than Woodhaven at Metropolitan from (sidewalk) curbside to (sidewalk) curbside... Not a doubt in my mind, and it sure as hell is not less of a distance than at Metropolitan (which is what his 125ft suggests)....

 

...and none of this amounts to any garbage about not believing the DOT can make a mistake, or whatever his exact verbiage in that prior post was.

 

 

* just out of sheer curiosity, I went on google maps.... Distance from one side of Woodhaven @ Met. to the other was 128ft (curb to curb), and the distance from one side of Woodhaven @ 86th rd (2 blocks away from Jamaica av, where the medians aren't as wide as they are at Jamaica av) to the other was 167ft.... Yeah, I'm taking that FWIW.

 

There's nothing more for me to say....

[BrooklynBus]

Why, exactly, should it be 125 feet? Let's look at the two pictures.

 

The one with 130' feet has one parking lane and four moving lanes in each direction, plus a left turn bay and a little curb, making 11 lanes If you divide 130/11, you get around 11 feet, if you account for the curb. This is slightly less than the FHA standard for lane width (12 ft).

 

The one with 160' feet has two service roads, each with one parking lane and two moving lanes, three tiny median curbs, and two service roads with three moving lanes each. That would give us 12 lanes, and 160 / 12 is roughly 13 feet. Judging from the photos, the lanes themselves look wider in the second photo than in the third, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. In fact, if you look at the median between the service road and the main road, it's roughly half the size of a moving lane. So let's add another lane, making 13 total lanes. 160 / 13 makes 12 ft lanes, which are definitely a possibility on a road as highway-like as Woodhaven. So I don't know where you're pulling that 125 feet from.

You and B35 via Church are both making the same mistake. Where the picture was taken, north of 103rd Avenue there aren't two lanes and a parking lane in each of the service roads despite the fact that DOT painted a broken line down the center of the service road to make it appear there are two lanes. If you have have driven there you would no that when cars are parked there is not enough room for two cars to pass side by side at the same time unless one car is completely stopped. That is because the service roads are only 22 to 24 feet wide at that point. You only have two moving lanes if no cars are parked. So the two service roads are a total of 44 to 48 feet wide max. The main road lanes are only 11 feet wide each. Highway lanes are 12 feet wide and no way are these lanes as wide as highway lanes. The space between the main roads and service roads are five feet wide each, that's another 10 feet. So far that is 44 or 48 plus 66 feet (11 times 6) plus 10. So far that is a total of 110 or 114 feet. The only thing we haven't counted is the center divider. From yellow line to yellow line is no more than four feet. That is a maximum of 118 feet. I even added seven feet just to be on the safe side.

 

A car is six feet wide. Does the lane appear to be twice the width of the car? No. It appears to be no more than 11 feet wide or perhaps ony 10 feet wide. Even if we assume twelve feet wide lanes in the main road and in the service roads, there would be only a total of ten lanes occupying 120 feet and another 14 for median and separation between the main and service roads, you still would only get 134 feet, nowhere near 160 feet as DOT claims.

[BrooklynBus]

This is genuinely insane. I mean holy crap. It's not hating cars, it's acknowledging the rules of physics, which state that we can fit more people into one bus or train than a lot of cars and thus in a crowded city such as New York should preferably work on improving said more-efficient transit options. Refusing to improve transit and walkability at the behest of deluded people in Hummers is not good policy.

Theoretically, you are correct. However it has not been proven that this is a better option for Woodhaven Boulevard. No origin destination studies were performed so we have no idea where all this cars are coming from or going to. Yet simple minds like you just assume that everyone in a car could just as easily be in an SBS bus. It just doesn't work that way.