DOT continues to mislead regarding the Woodhaven SBS

[BrooklynBus]

http://rockawaytimes.com/index.php/news/22-we-get-email/918-dot-misleads

 

When I tried to ask them questions at the workshop, they responded that they are not here to debate me. When I asked to see the slides again at the Community Advisory Meeting that I referred to in the article so we coud discuss it, they claimed the "projector jammed". Yeah, digital slides jamming. All they had to do was reboot the computer if it locked up.

 

The truth is they didn't want to discuss those slides because they prove what has thus far been installed is a failure.

 

Now they are also proposing extending the bus lane to operate from the LIE to Queens Blvd. when I told them that only two kept turning lanes would back up traffic, they told me they still haven't collected traffic volume data there.

 

So how do you first make a proposal, then collect data. That is ass- backwards. First you need to see if the data supports your proposal before you present it as a final proposal.

[GojiMet86]

I don't know much about the proposals themselves and whether they are sound or not, but it is very troubling to see a government agency bumble about like that.

[BreeddekalbL]

i knew i was right all along about trying to ram SBS in there and i think the cb's should SUE to stop it 

[pranavbhat924]

In my opinion, SBS would never be a good idea there. It will clog up the traffic so much that the travel time will increase by 40%, not decrease

[BrooklynBus]

In my opinion, SBS would never be a good idea there. It will clog up the traffic so much that the travel time will increase by 40%, not decrease

It's already increased by 38% where there are three contiguous lanes. It will go up much more where there are service roads. When you are rawling at 5 or 10 mph, you will switch to the side residential streets or further overcrowd the BQE or Van Wyck. The benefits to bus riders have also been exaggerated.

[IAlam]

It's already increased by 38% where there are three contiguous lanes. It will go up much more where there are service roads. When you are rawling at 5 or 10 mph, you will switch to the side residential streets or further overcrowd the BQE or Van Wyck. The benefits to bus riders have also been exaggerated.

The problem is the benefits are only to bus riders. I see no real vision zero improvements in these redesign like the claim, no improvements to parking, nor efforts to properly divert traffic when they cut one lane

[T J Trainman]

They need to just stop the nonsense and cancel this SBS nonsense. It is not needed.

[BrooklynBus]

The problem is the benefits are only to bus riders. I see no real vision zero improvements in these redesign like the claim, no improvements to parking, nor efforts to properly divert traffic when they cut one lane

Except according to the preliminary data bus riders aren't being helped either. During the AM peak, northbound buses are also traveling slightly slower. A far cry from the 38 percent decrease in travel times predicted by DOT. During other time periods the increase in bus speeds was minimal like 13 mph to 13.5 mph. Certainly not worth it when you consider a 38 percent increase in auto and truck travel times.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

@BrooklynBus:  While I won't disagree about traffic speeds, the issue you're discussing is a problem citywide.  Another factor that your sources fail to acknowledge is that gas prices are at record lows, which means more motorists on the roads negatively impacting traffic flow and speeds.  What do you propose to deal with that problem?  I'll be the first one to say that the DOT isn't the smartest bunch, but even if we didn't have any changes on Woodhaven Blvd, traffic would be a mess for the reason I mentioned above.  The status quo certainly can't be to have more and more people driving.  There seems to be more outrage over the changes than there is to more and more people using their cars instead of mass transit clogging up the roads.

 

------------

I also believe that there are some issues with SBS along the Woodhaven Blvd corridor, but to say that SBS is totally unwarranted (as some have stated on this topic) is just preposterous.  Anyone who uses the Q52 and Q53 along Woodhaven Blvd can attest to long boarding time and slow bus speeds, so SBS should've been implemented in some form.

[BrooklynBus]

@BrooklynBus:  While I won't disagree about traffic speeds, the issue you're discussing is a problem citywide.  Another factor that your sources fail to acknowledge is that gas prices are at record lows, which means more motorists on the roads negatively impacting traffic flow and speeds.  What do you propose to deal with that problem?  I'll be the first one to say that the DOT isn't the smartest bunch, but even if we didn't have any changes on Woodhaven Blvd, traffic would be a mess for the reason I mentioned above.  The status quo certainly can't be to have more and more people driving.  There seems to be more outrage over the changes than there is to more and more people using their cars instead of mass transit clogging up the roads.

 

------------

I also believe that there are some issues with SBS along the Woodhaven Blvd corridor, but to say that SBS is totally unwarranted (as some have stated on this topic) is just preposterous.  Anyone who uses the Q52 and Q53 along Woodhaven Blvd can attest to long boarding time and slow bus speeds, so SBS should've been implemented in some form.

Here are the problems: Myself and the community are talking specifics while you are talking in general terms.

 

1. Yes traffic speeds are a problem citywide. The way to improve them is not by measures that result in 38 percent slower speeds.

 

2. Lower gas speeds and if they are causing more cars on the roads is irrelevant to thus discussion. First of all lower gas prices increase the amount discretionary driving like more people taking road vacations. They are generally not a factor in determining if you will drive or use mass transit for work, school or shopping purposes which account for the bulk of the trios. So you are doing nothing more than throwing a red herring into this discussion to divert from the real discussion: should DOT's proposals be implemented or not?

 

3. You want to reduce the number of those driving on Woodhaven, yet it is doubtful if SBS will have any affect on that. DOT won't even make a guesstimate as to how many cars will be taken off the road by SBS. Shouldn't their models give them a clue if they were done correctly? Maybe they show no cars would be taken off the road. The number of transfers and fares required which SBS does nothing to reduce, is the main reason people choose to drive. You want to get people out of their cars? Then make mass transit more reliable. I have seen no evidence how current SBS routes have resulted in more reliable service. I still see the B44 SBS operating two or three buses within a minute of each other then a long wait. Ridership on the M15 has declined for like the past three years in a row. The MTA can't keep pointing to seven year old data to hint that future SBS routes will be successful.

 

4. As for the question whether done sort of SBS is warranted, I have already answered that question many times in my article. If you have exclusive bus lanes they must not be in the center roadway and you should not create new islands to create service roads (which is no part of Phase 2). Bus lanes should be in effect from 7AM to 10 AM and from 3 PM to 7 PM in the peak direction only Mon- Fri. 24/7 cannot be justified when you compare the numbers of cars and trucks on the road to the number of buses. Bus lanes should also allow HOV vehicles to encourage carpooling. (That would reduce the numbers of cars on the road.) And there must be enforcement in whatever you do.

 

I am for prepayment of fare sat heavily utilized stops to reduce boarding time. But you don't necessarily need SBS to do that. The biggest problem right now with instituting SBS routes in 2017 is what do you do with the millions of dollars of fare equipment you just purchased when contactless payment goes into effect in 2019? Throw it all away? That is ludicrous. There needs to be a moratorium on new SBS routes until we switch to contactless payment.

 

5. Why are buses now traveling slower or barely faster with the new bus lanes? You don't blindly move ahead until you can solve the many problems you now have on existing SBS routes like why pavement markings are not replenished timely and why some fare machines are not functioning for months at a time?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Here are the problems: Myself and the community are talking specifics while you are talking in general terms.

 

1. Yes traffic speeds are a problem citywide. The way to improve them is not by measures that result in 38 percent slower speeds.

 

2. Lower gas speeds and if they are causing more cars on the roads is irrelevant to thus discussion. First of all lower gas prices increase the amount discretionary driving like more people taking road vacations. They are generally not a factor in determining if you will drive or use mass transit for work, school or shopping purposes which account for the bulk of the trios. So you are doing nothing more than throwing a red herring into this discussion to divert from the real discussion: should DOT's proposals be implemented or not?

 

3. You want to reduce the number of those driving on Woodhaven, yet it is doubtful if SBS will have any affect on that. DOT won't even make a guesstimate as to how many cars will be taken off the road by SBS. Shouldn't their models give them a clue if they were done correctly? Maybe they show no cars would be taken off the road. The number of transfers and fares required which SBS does nothing to reduce, is the main reason people choose to drive. You want to get people out of their cars? Then make mass transit more reliable. I have seen no evidence how current SBS routes have resulted in more reliable service. I still see the B44 SBS operating two or three buses within a minute of each other then a long wait. Ridership on the M15 has declined for like the past three years in a row. The MTA can't keep pointing to seven year old data to hint that future SBS routes will be successful.

 

4. As for the question whether done sort of SBS is warranted, I have already answered that question many times in my article. If you have exclusive bus lanes they must not be in the center roadway and you should not create new islands to create service roads (which is no part of Phase 2). Bus lanes should be in effect from 7AM to 10 AM and from 3 PM to 7 PM in the peak direction only Mon- Fri. 24/7 cannot be justified when you compare the numbers of cars and trucks on the road to the number of buses. Bus lanes should also allow HOV vehicles to encourage carpooling. (That would reduce the numbers of cars on the road.) And there must be enforcement in whatever you do.

 

I am for prepayment of fare sat heavily utilized stops to reduce boarding time. But you don't necessarily need SBS to do that. The biggest problem right now with instituting SBS routes in 2017 is what do you do with the millions of dollars of fare equipment you just purchased when contactless payment goes into effect in 2019? Throw it all away? That is ludicrous. There needs to be a moratorium on new SBS routes until we switch to contactless payment.

 

5. Why are buses now traveling slower or barely faster with the new bus lanes? You don't blindly move ahead until you can solve the many problems you now have on existing SBS routes like why pavement markings are not replenished timely and why some fare machines are not functioning for months at a time?

My point is that you seem to be attributing the slow speeds SOLELY to the new changes and not other factors.  How can you or anyone else for that matter say with certainty that lower gas prices, which facilitate more cars on the road, have not had a negative impact on the speeds along Woodhaven Blvd.?  Additionally there is Vision Zero that surely has negatively impacted Woodhaven Blvd.

 

1. Of course not, but blaming the DOT as if they're the only culprit in this mess isn't the answer either, and I'm sure you know that.  

 

2. Actually it doesn't divert from it at all.  If the DOT decided tomorrow to do away with the changes on Woodhaven Blvd., I don't think traffic would be that much better.  Why?  Vision Zero #1 and more traffic because of low gas prices.  If you expect the situation to actually improve along that corridor, you and those against the DOT's plans will have to do wayyy more than what you've done so far.  In other words, far more radical changes are needed to actually address this problem.

 

3.  It's clear that the city wants to do that and you know that, and despite that, people still drive and sit in traffic anyway, so what does that say to you?  If you truly believe that those people currently driving along Woodhaven Blvd. are doing so solely because of the lack of connections, etc., etc., I have a bridge to sell you.  From my own experience traveling along Woodhaven Blvd with the QM15, those people do NOT like any public transit.  They are very car centric, and this whole bit about the transit options being so pitiful is nothing more than an excuse to cover their disdain for public transit overall.  My question is what would it take for people along that corridor to actually leave their cars at home? That's worth a response from you don't you think?  I don't think SBS is the answer. If anything SBS will benefit those currently using the buses, but I doubt it will attract those currently driving for the reason I mentioned previously.

 

4. So in other words, we should continue to allow cars to be king along Woodhaven Blvd. and worsen congestion along that corridor....

 

5.  Simple.  The is on the B/Os backs about being on time, etc., so now they follow everything to the letter.  Even without the new lanes, buses would still crawl along Woodhaven Blvd as they did before these new measures, so please don't paint this picture that everything is a mess now because of the new lanes, as if Woodhaven Blvd was just perfect before.  Quite frankly, traffic calming measures were needed along that corridor because the drivers were so reckless and rude that many people trying to cross the street couldn't do so.  I would put Woodhaven Blvd. right up there with Queens Blvd. in terms of the dangers involved for pedestrians.

[BrooklynBus]

My point is that you seem to be attributing the slow speeds SOLELY to the new changes and not other factors.  How can you or anyone else for that matter say with certainty that lower gas prices, which facilitate more cars on the road, have not had a negative impact on the speeds along Woodhaven Blvd.?  Additionally there is Vision Zero that surely has negatively impacted Woodhaven Blvd.

 

1. Of course not, but blaming the DOT as if they're the only culprit in this mess isn't the answer either, and I'm sure you know that.  

 

2. Actually it doesn't divert from it at all.  If the DOT decided tomorrow to do away with the changes on Woodhaven Blvd., I don't think traffic would be that much better.  Why?  Vision Zero #1 and more traffic because of low gas prices.  If you expect the situation to actually improve along that corridor, you and those against the DOT's plans will have to do wayyy more than what you've done so far.  In other words, far more radical changes are needed to actually address this problem.

 

3.  It's clear that the city wants to do that and you know that, and despite that, people still drive and sit in traffic anyway, so what does that say to you?  If you truly believe that those people currently driving along Woodhaven Blvd. are doing so solely because of the lack of connections, etc., etc., I have a bridge to sell you.  From my own experience traveling along Woodhaven Blvd with the QM15, those people do NOT like any public transit.  They are very car centric, and this whole bit about the transit options being so pitiful is nothing more than an excuse to cover their disdain for public transit overall.  My question is what would it take for people along that corridor to actually leave their cars at home? That's worth a response from you don't you think?  I don't think SBS is the answer. If anything SBS will benefit those currently using the buses, but I doubt it will attract those currently driving for the reason I mentioned previously.

 

4. So in other words, we should continue to allow cars to be king along Woodhaven Blvd. and worsen congestion along that corridor....

 

5.  Simple.  The is on the B/Os backs about being on time, etc., so now they follow everything to the letter.  Even without the new lanes, buses would still crawl along Woodhaven Blvd as they did before these new measures, so please don't paint this picture that everything is a mess now because of the new lanes, as if Woodhaven Blvd was just perfect before.  Quite frankly, traffic calming measures were needed along that corridor because the drivers were so reckless and rude that many people trying to cross the street couldn't do so.  I would put Woodhaven Blvd. right up there with Queens Blvd. in terms of the dangers involved for pedestrians.

 

Do you really think that lower gas prices was the primary reason for speeds to drop 38 percent during the AM Rush northbound?  If that were the case, there would have been similar declines in speed in all the time periods and on all the roadways in NYC. That is very unlikely. Also, I don't believe lowering the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph because of Vision Zero had any affect, because practically no one has lowered their speeds because of the ridiculous lower speed limit, except perhaps for bus drivers since if they have a accident and they were speeding, they face very serious consequences. There is something unique here and that is the reduction of a travel lane which has to be the prime cause for the lowering of the average speed.

 

DOT is the only culprit. If DOT did a way with the bus lanes, the average speed would increase by 38 percent.

 

I drove to work on Woodhaven Blvd for nine years although I could have used mass transit for free. What does that tell you? Generally I was able to drive in half the time, 45 minutes as opposed to 90 minutes. And that was by taking a train through Manhattan. Using buses on Woodhaven  would have taken me 2 to 2 1/2 hours each way and would have involved at least five different bus routes.  SBS does not reduce that number of buses. So yes I do believe that the number of transfers is a prime reason why people won't use the bus and that does not even get into the extra fare issue.

 

Buses actually generally are not crawling along Woodhaven Blvd outside of rush hours. They move rather quickly. I have chased the Q53 in my car from Atlantic Avenue to Metropolitan before I was able to overtake it and that is without exclusive lanes.

 

In fact, currently outside of rush hours, Woodhaven is faster than the BQE or the Van Wyck which is why cars use it. If travel time along Woodhaven increases by 15 to 30 minutes which will happen if the bus lanes are extended, more traffic will just shift to those other overcrowded roadways with the long term effect of the middle class finding new employment or residences  elsewhere where commuting is less of a headache.

 

Dangers to pedestrians have been exaggerated. No matter how few pedestrian deaths there are, there will always be a "Most dangerous street". Many residents believe that the changes proposed will only increase the dangers to pedestrians with more cars seeking alternative routes and speeding down parallel residential streets and by running across the service roads without looking to board buses in the main roadway.

 

You say SBS is not the answer. So what do you think is the answer? Higher gas taxes?

 

 

(I will not be able to reply for a while.)

[IAlam]

@BrooklynBus:  While I won't disagree about traffic speeds, the issue you're discussing is a problem citywide.  Another factor that your sources fail to acknowledge is that gas prices are at record lows, which means more motorists on the roads negatively impacting traffic flow and speeds.  What do you propose to deal with that problem?  I'll be the first one to say that the DOT isn't the smartest bunch, but even if we didn't have any changes on Woodhaven Blvd, traffic would be a mess for the reason I mentioned above.  The status quo certainly can't be to have more and more people driving.  There seems to be more outrage over the changes than there is to more and more people using their cars instead of mass transit clogging up the roads.

 

------------

I also believe that there are some issues with SBS along the Woodhaven Blvd corridor, but to say that SBS is totally unwarranted (as some have stated on this topic) is just preposterous.  Anyone who uses the Q52 and Q53 along Woodhaven Blvd can attest to long boarding time and slow bus speeds, so SBS should've been implemented in some form.

We've recently been prioritizing mass transit over cars which isn't a bad thing, and with the city growing non stop we can't prevent additional cars. Mass transit is the only way other than bikes really to get cars off the streets. If the buses are slow, then they become unattractive and people don't ride them. Unless you can get the RBL reactivated, there is no point fighting it. When it comes down to a bus with 50 people and a car with 5 the bus will always win. 

 

@BrooklynBus

If you really think SBS is unnecessary, then shift your focus into reactivating the rail line. 

[4P3607]

Perhaps that dormant right of way next to Woodhaven Blvd could be turned into a roadway for buses? A few extra roadways connecting Woodhaven Blvd or surrounding streets to the roadway would cost more but the travel time would be greatly reduced as there's no other traffic to obstruct the roadway. Local buses (Q11 and Q21) can remain on Woodhaven Blvd.

Just a thought.

[BreeddekalbL]

but why is it that the city is treating cars like the devil with this vision zero malarkey

[Via Garibaldi 8]

but why is it that the city is treating cars like the devil with this vision zero malarkey

Because our population is growing and congestion is worsening. There seems to be no escape from it either. Driving in this city is a luxury and it should be treated as such. However, this Woodhaven Blvd. debacle is an example of transit being a mess thereby exacerbating congestion because everyone runs to their cars thinking that they are getting somewhere faster when they aren't. Something needs to be done because the system is broken all around.

[IAlam]

Because our population is growing and congestion is worsening. There seems to be no escape from it either. Driving in this city is a luxury and it should be treated as such. However, this Woodhaven Blvd. debacle is an example of transit being a mess thereby exacerbating congestion because everyone runs to their cars thinking that they are getting somewhere faster when they aren't. Something needs to be done because the system is broken all around.

they only reason a car would be useful is if you are leaving the city. VG8 is right driving a car has always been a luxury in the city and many other cities.  

[BreeddekalbL]

but why is it that i get the sense that if they could make the car illegal they would? and that damn pedestrian plaza has increased congestion and is a crime haven (we'll save that debate for anothertime)

[bobtehpanda]

but why is it that i get the sense that if they could make the car illegal they would? and that damn pedestrian plaza has increased congestion and is a crime haven (we'll save that debate for anothertime)

 

The car has never been prioritized since Robert Moses fell from power. In fact there have already been many cases where it was decided that cars were bad, before Bloomberg. For example, replacing the West Side Highway with West St, because the congestion and environmental harm that would have created it would've been terrible; a parking maximum in Manhattan below 60th St to discourage driving into a dense island with limited access points; the XBL on the Lincoln Tunnel. These have all been in place for decades, but now that these kinds of changes are manifesting itself it's a 'war on cars'.

 

The idea behind pedestrian plazas is that they reduce complexity at intersections. More time can be devoted to signal phases for the rest of the intersection, and you don't have to account for as many turning movements when trying to move through the intersection, ultimately reducing both road accidents and incidents with pedestrians.

[pranavbhat924]

 

WISH WE HAD THIS!!!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

WISH WE HAD THIS!!!

The only problem with that is if something blocks the bus lane it becomes a mess.  

[Eric B]

They actually tested something like that at City Hall in the 90's.

[bobtehpanda]

The only problem with that is if something blocks the bus lane it becomes a mess.  

 

In Paris, they generally do it with curbs low enough that a bus could easily mount them. Any physical separation, no matter how small, is better than paint, just because of psychology.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

In Paris, they generally do it with curbs low enough that a bus could easily mount them. Any physical separation, no matter how small, is better than paint, just because of psychology.

I think we more of them here.  I've been communicating with my elected officials to advocate for having them installed on the Deegan and elsewhere.  Woodhaven Blvd. could benefit from them in some spots as well.  I hope they are going to be repaving the entire stretch.  If they're concerned about pedestrian safety, that would be a step in the right direction in addition to curtailing the mini Rossi's speeding down the road.

[Rafa]

They said the same thing about HOV lanes years ago.