So that DeKalb Ave power outage thing...

[Fresh Pond]

Come to find out it wasn't even an MTA problem. Once again it was a problem with Con Ed (oil leak at a substation) which caused a shutdown, and the MTA was just an unfortunate victim.

 

Cars are only supposed to be in that lane if they have a certain amount of people in their vehicules, and since that is rarely the case, for the most part, the lane is used primarily by express buses. I hope you were in that lane for the aforementioned reasons...

 

It is technically a bus lane though:

 

Source: http://www.transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/magazine/022Spring/16gowanusbus.html

It's an HOV lane, signs all over telling you so. Stretches from the SI Expwy to the VZ bridge, then picks back up on the other side of the bridge.

 

Sucks that it's AM only to Manhattan in Brooklyn, it's pretty fun to drive over the new part they opened at the merge with the Belt where you're all the way in the air.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's an HOV lane, signs all over telling you so. Stretches from the SI Expwy to the VZ bridge, then picks back up on the other side of the bridge.

 

Sucks that it's AM only to Manhattan in Brooklyn, it's pretty fun to drive over the new part they opened at the merge with the Belt where you're all the way in the air.

The lane is shared with cars yes, but unless you meet the criteria to be in that lane, you can be stopped.  Given how few cars actually meet the requirements to use the lane, it's usage is mainly by buses.  In fact at one point there was a push on the SIE to make it for buses only but since there is capacity they've kept it the way it is.  It is viewed as both an HOV lane and a bus lane, especially given how long law makers fought to get that entire stretch made for the express buses to travel on. I was involved in that as well.  A whole bunch of us corresponded with the then Senator Vito Fossella on the transformation of the lane to be used for buses.

[checkmatechamp13]

And this is precisely the kind of thinking that is killing bus service and overburdening the subways... Some people take the bus because.... Gasp... It's more convenient, and they don't care about it being slower than the subway.  The is discouraging those types of riders from using the service by literally forcing the subway down their throats.  God forbid if someone wants to use the local bus to avoid the gazillion stairs, rats, nut jobs and everything else you find in the subways, so now every time the subway lines turn into a mess, we see exactly what the has created.  Perfect example was this morning.   line was a disaster due to signal problems and trains having to be short turned... Buses were packed... Lots of people were walking in some cases since there weren't enough buses to accommodate those who were stranded with the subway fiasco.  

 

Yeah, that's the excuse the gave.  Ending it Barclays does just what the want... It deters ridership from the northern part of the route so that they don't get pressured into extending the B37 back to where it ran previously and then they can turn around and do just what they did recently... Reduce service on the B37... A lot of people wanted it to run where it did previously, and the refused outright to do so as if there are no other buses running in that vicinity that deal with traffic.  

 

Yeah, so in that case there was bus service paralleling the subway and it was nowhere near enough. Extending a single bus route across the bridge (on 12 minute headways or whatever he's proposing) would've moved a small fraction of the riders stranded as a result of the power outage (even if they were jam-packed). Now if we were talking a dedicated busway over the bridge and into Manhattan with multiple buses running over it, then that might've actually put a dent in the crowds. But wouldn't that money be better invested into maintaining the electrical and signal systems so that such an event doesn't happen again?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah, so in that case there was bus service paralleling the subway and it was nowhere near enough. Extending a single bus route across the bridge (on 12 minute headways or whatever he's proposing) would've moved a small fraction of the riders stranded as a result of the power outage (even if they were jam-packed). Now if we were talking a dedicated busway over the bridge and into Manhattan with multiple buses running over it, then that might've actually put a dent in the crowds. But wouldn't that money be better invested into maintaining the electrical and signal systems so that such an event doesn't happen again?

My point is there will be instances where the subways will go down no matter how much money you sink into them.  Having limited alternatives is not the answer.  It's not about how many people you can move all of the time, but rather taking some of the strain off of the services you do have.  This subway centric way of thinking is why we're in the mess that we're in terms of the subways.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Because they don't want to. They've even gone out of their way to cut express bus service in Brooklyn in areas without subways or that aren't ADA accessible, so that should tell you something. The B51 was another local bus route that went to Manhattan and was axed and it wasn't restored. The B39 runs so infrequently that it's almost not worth running it. I've been saying that our subways don't have infinite capacity, but it's like talking to a wall. There are some that can't get past the idea of the subways being the be all end all, and any other alternative is supposedly too expensive and not worth it because it doesn't carry "X" amount of people, so this is what we have... A crumbling subway system that is an overburdened money pit.

I could tell the moment I looked at that map.

 

Negligence toward the fastest growing borough will have lasting, generations-long consequences for an agency that depends more and more on riders as a source of revenue.

 

If the fare was brought DOWN, MORE would be willing AND able to pay. The MTA indeed chooses to operate dysfunctionally.

 

But then again, so do riders. What we did this year to preserve base fare is something we can replicate elsewhere.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

There are weight restrictions on certain bridges. I believe the Brooklyn Bridge is definitely one of them and perhaps the Willliamsburg Bridge as well.

I hear the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't allow commercial traffic at all or GWVR over 10K.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

 

 

The is looking to CUT bus service in Brooklyn, not add service. It's that simple. For example, weekend service on the X27 and X28 were brought back in part due to threats of lawsuits due to subway stations not being ADA accessible.

Those threats need to continue and take on a different form.

Instead of increases, the buses need to be apportioned, like the House is every ten years.

 

Some gain, others lose.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[checkmatechamp13]

Negligence toward the fastest growing borough will have lasting, generations-long consequences for an agency that depends more and more on riders as a source of revenue.

 

But then again, so do riders. What we did this year to preserve base fare is something we can replicate elsewhere.

 

Staten Island & The Bronx are the fastest-growing boroughs. Yes, the MTA shouldn't neglect them, but I'm not sure how that ties into a discussion about Brooklyn-Manhattan bus service.

 

And you having an EZPay MetroCard should know that by preserving the base fare (which barely anybody pays), the fare for Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard users went up. Since you say it reverse-credits the bonus and charges $2.62 instead of $2.75, then you should be smart enough to figure out that the fare would've been $2.59 for you if they had went with the other plan.Somebody like you who rides buses all day instead of working should appreciate the few cents of difference. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If the fare was brought DOWN, MORE would be willing AND able to pay. The MTA indeed chooses to operate dysfunctionally.

 

It would have to be a combination of fares that remained the same AND better service.  The real issue is service is worsening, and in the few instances where service has been decent, the cost has increased substantially, pushing people to other alternatives.  

[Around the Horn]

Those threats need to continue and take on a different form.

Instead of increases, the buses need to be apportioned, like the House is every ten years.

 

Some gain, others lose.

 

You're going to need to explain that in concrete policy details, cause that just sounds like a mess.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

 

 

And you having an EZPay MetroCard should know that by preserving the base fare (which barely anybody pays), the fare for Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard users went up. Since you say it reverse-credits the bonus and charges $2.62 instead of $2.75, then you should be smart enough to figure out that the fare would've been $2.59 for you if they had went with the other plan.Somebody like you who rides buses all day instead of working should appreciate the few cents of difference.

Afraid not.

 

That's only when I suspend my UL status, which you can do with EZP.

 

An extra $4.50 is quite a hit. By no means am I spared. I mentioned it out of concern for those who might have more fiscal obligations (kids, out of pocket insurance, etc.)

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

You're going to need to explain that in concrete policy details, cause that just sounds like a mess.

Political pressure needs to be maintained. The fact that the base fare remains unchanged is a good start. We shouldn't stop. Prepare for 2019 now, especially with the upcoming train shutdown.

 

We need to encourage communities to stay involved in the political process no matter how bad things get.

 

Further, people need to set time aside to make sure their voices are heard at these meetings. Too often the attendance is dismal but the uproar is louder the following week when a decision is made.

 

Roleplay:

"I can't set time aside, I have to work."

 

Rationale:

If you don't speak your mind with an agency as finicky as this one, you won't have a way to get to work either because they axe the bus or jack up the fare.

 

I'm sure you can reason with your boss or ask for a shift change to avoid conflicts.

 

Maybe that's not realistic, but neither is saying "I ain't gonna vote."

 

That's how monsters get elected to public service. When the good, hardworking people do nothing.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

It would have to be a combination of fares that remained the same AND better service. The real issue is service is worsening, and in the few instances where service has been decent, the cost has increased substantially, pushing people to other alternatives.

Maybe bus lanes aren't the exact solution.

 

I'm sure if we opted for HOV lanes that could be leased to other operators we'd have a better chance of convincing third parties.

 

The reason for the backlash, even in a city like this, is because everyone is just thinking of themselves and not the bigger picture.

 

Emergency vehicles could take advantage of HOV lanes and TSP to respond to situations much faster.

 

Taxis or E-class license holders can maneuver around traffic safely without risky maneuvers as when buses aren't running the HOV lane is all theirs.

 

Commercial vehicles that carry store supplies and wares would be able to automatically make use of them because it's included in their employer's highway slip.

 

It's usually a folded, watermarked paper located on the top left near the glove box on buses & trucks.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The reason for the backlash, even in a city like this, is because everyone is just thinking of themselves and not the bigger picture.

The reason for the backlash is simple... The fares aren't in line with the service.  My girlfriend recently told me about a Uber share program where you can get to say Canal Street for dirt cheap from say Midtown.  There are people now doing just that instead of using the bus or the subway, so if they're willing to pay that, if bus service was decent enough, perhaps those people would switch since they dislike the subway.  Those are the sorts of people that we're losing from the system entirely.

[N6 Limited]

Too bad they can't terminate the at Fulton Street & Franklin if service changes require it.

[Around the Horn]

Political pressure needs to be maintained. The fact that the base fare remains unchanged is a good start. We shouldn't stop. Prepare for 2019 now, especially with the upcoming train shutdown.

 

We need to encourage communities to stay involved in the political process no matter how bad things get.

 

Further, people need to set time aside to make sure their voices are heard at these meetings. Too often the attendance is dismal but the uproar is louder the following week when a decision is made.

 

Roleplay:

"I can't set time aside, I have to work."

 

Rationale:

If you don't speak your mind with an agency as finicky as this one, you won't have a way to get to work either because they axe the bus or jack up the fare.

 

I'm sure you can reason with your boss or ask for a shift change to avoid conflicts.

 

Maybe that's not realistic, but neither is saying "I ain't gonna vote."

 

That's how monsters get elected to public service. When the good, hardworking people do nothing.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Proceeds to give me more spiel and no policy details about apportioning buses every 10 years...

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Proceeds to give me more spiel and no policy details about apportioning buses every 10 years...

Every five would be better. In conjunction with comptroller elections.

 

Do you think the DOT head should be elected the same way instead of being appointed (like Hizzoner did Trottenberg?)

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[Deucey]

Every five would be better. In conjunction with comptroller elections.

 

Do you think the DOT head should be elected the same way instead of being appointed (like Hizzoner did Trottenberg?)

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

So you're thinking that bus fleet size and routing should be solely based and built around completion of decennial censuses?

 

I'm not understanding what you're advocating here.

[B35 via Church]

If the fare was brought DOWN, MORE would be willing AND able to pay.

Fallacious..... just like that old *if transportation was free, there'd be less cars on the road * belief....

It's predicated on the widespread notion that public transportation is the creme de la creme (so to speak) of commuting.....

 

The issue as to why you have as many farebeaters in this city, really isn't that there's such this strain on the wallet to pay the fare - as much as it's led to believe that it is.....

 

Those threats need to continue and take on a different form.

Instead of increases, the buses need to be apportioned, like the House is every ten years.

 

Some gain, others lose.

Taking away service from high ridership routes to give to routes with average or low ridership is rather counterproductive, regardless of how often its done.... Same goes for routes with average daily ridership to below average ridership.... It will not accomplish any parity, or balancement of ridership throughout the system....

 

It would have to be a combination of fares that remained the same AND better service.  The real issue is service is worsening, and in the few instances where service has been decent, the cost has increased substantially, pushing people to other alternatives.  

That's the part that's often left out.....

 

You're going to need to explain that in concrete policy details, cause that just sounds like a mess.

The MTA will fold before any of that happens.... They'd want no part of that logistical nightmare; bear in mind this is an agency that takes years to "study" & implement a minor bus routing change.....

 

Maybe bus lanes aren't the exact solution.

 

I'm sure if we opted for HOV lanes that could be leased to other operators we'd have a better chance of convincing third parties.

 

The reason for the backlash, even in a city like this, is because everyone is just thinking of themselves and not the bigger picture.

 

Emergency vehicles could take advantage of HOV lanes and TSP to respond to situations much faster.

 

Taxis or E-class license holders can maneuver around traffic safely without risky maneuvers as when buses aren't running the HOV lane is all theirs.

 

Commercial vehicles that carry store supplies and wares would be able to automatically make use of them because it's included in their employer's highway slip.

 

It's usually a folded, watermarked paper located on the top left near the glove box on buses & trucks.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Get back to us about a bigger picture when service gets better & fares cease increasing that individuals have to pay..... Funny how that works, doesn't it.... Also, I don't know about you, but people tend to have things called budgets; Time and Money.....

 

In laymens, people expect better service for the fares they're paying.... There is no greater good with what's going on....

[checkmatechamp13]

Those threats need to continue and take on a different form.

Instead of increases, the buses need to be apportioned, like the House is every ten years.

 

Some gain, others lose.

 

Political pressure needs to be maintained. The fact that the base fare remains unchanged is a good start. We shouldn't stop. Prepare for 2019 now, especially with the upcoming train shutdown.

 

We need to encourage communities to stay involved in the political process no matter how bad things get.

 

Further, people need to set time aside to make sure their voices are heard at these meetings. Too often the attendance is dismal but the uproar is louder the following week when a decision is made.

 

Roleplay:

"I can't set time aside, I have to work."

 

Rationale:

If you don't speak your mind with an agency as finicky as this one, you won't have a way to get to work either because they axe the bus or jack up the fare.

 

I'm sure you can reason with your boss or ask for a shift change to avoid conflicts.

 

Maybe that's not realistic, but neither is saying "I ain't gonna vote."

 

That's how monsters get elected to public service. When the good, hardworking people do nothing.

 

Every five would be better. In conjunction with comptroller elections.

 

Do you think the DOT head should be elected the same way instead of being appointed (like Hizzoner did Trottenberg?)

 

You do realize you're saying two contradictory statements, right? On one hand, buses should be allocated strictly based on population (I guess tourists and people who work in Manhattan but live in one of the outer boroughs or suburbs and take the local bus should be packed into them). On the other hand, they should be allocated based on political power/vocality (which is even more asinine because the people who need the bus service the most are too busy using it to get to multiple jobs and/or school).

 

Here's a crazy idea....why don't we allocate buses based on (**gasp**) where they're needed most?       To handle overcrowding on busy routes, and to provide basic coverage and connectivity in lower-ridership areas?

 

Instead of having riders fight each other over buses (which is what the MTA would love to see. I can't stand when I go to a public hearing on Staten Island and people talk about "Manhattan has all the service, why don't you cut from them?", or "all the service cuts were in areas of color", or the opposite "You're cutting from the middle-class and affluent areas"), how about we pressure them to actually use the buses they have wisely and design an efficient network that gets high ridership and gets people where they need to go? Instead of adding little shuttles that get less ridership than routes that were previously cut for low ridership, how about we ask the MTA to use those buses to restructure service in areas so that service runs more efficiently. Riders have to wait less, make less transfers and spend shorter amounts of time on the bus, and ridership and revenue goes up.

[Around the Horn]

Every five would be better. In conjunction with comptroller elections.

 

Do you think the DOT head should be elected the same way instead of being appointed (like Hizzoner did Trottenberg?)

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

still not giving me any details...

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

So you're thinking that bus fleet size and routing should be solely based and built around completion of decennial censuses?

 

I'm not understanding what you're advocating here.

Not solely, and I mentioned five years, with respect to a community's transit dynamic.

 

In the scenario I set up, East Queens, Castle Hill & Staten Island would stand to gain and Downtown Brooklyn, FiDi & Midtown would stand to lose.

 

The loudest, involved and most credible complainers would get more buses while the less involved would lose them.

 

There are some neighborhoods that have dysfunctional bus service and if it's a detriment and a money bleeder I would think they'd serve their purpose better in a more deserving neighborhood.

 

The second piece involves separate elections for the city DOT commissioner much like there is for the comptroller. I think a stronger advocate that's immune to the mayor's whim would really help.

 

Not just Hizzoner, but every mayor hasn't done enough for transit, homelessness, etc. They found it easier to sweep them under the rug.

 

These reforms would be a good way to kick some of that dirt back to them.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

 

 

You do realize you're saying two contradictory statements, right? On one hand, buses should be allocated strictly based on population (I guess tourists and people who work in Manhattan but live in one of the outer boroughs or suburbs and take the local bus should be packed into them). On the other hand, they should be allocated based on political power/vocality (which is even more asinine because the people who need the bus service the most are too busy using it to get to multiple jobs and/or school).

 

Here's a crazy idea....why don't we allocate buses based on (**gasp**) where they're needed most? To handle overcrowding on busy routes, and to provide basic coverage and connectivity in lower-ridership areas?

 

 

You know I hate having politics and transit in the same bed. You misconstrued my remark. The last thing this transit system needs is politicization.

 

Based on involvement, not just population.

There is no one simple trick to fix a portfolio of issues, which is why I considered as many as possible.

 

B35 you're still muted but I can tell you picked and chose what you wanted to read because you quoted my entire reply block.

 

If you want to answer and be heard reply to a specific block. The reason I find issue with you is because you don't think before you type.

 

 

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

You know I hate having politics and transit in the same bed. You misconstrued my remark.

 

Your posts are so vague and lack specificity to the point that it is nearly impossible to construe them at all

[B35 via Church]

B35 you're still muted but I can tell you picked and chose what you wanted to read because you quoted my entire reply block.

 

If you want to answer and be heard reply to a specific block. The reason I find issue with you is because you don't think before you type.

Lucky for this forum, this character is the absolute anomaly of the caliber of millennials on here.....

I'm so-called muted, but then commences to telling me what I should do to be heard....

 

The reason you have to convince yourself of that bullshit at the end there, is for nothing more than not being able to soundly counter any of my replies.... It is as simple as that.... A yellow belly with yellow panties around his neck.... Par for the course.

 

Keep hiding, kid.