B44 +SelectBusService+

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You've never been on Kings Highway between Ocean Avenue and Bay Parkway, have you? The concept is nice (one I wish was workable), but basically impossible because of Kings Highway being a tiny 2-way road west of Ocean.

Not sure what you're talking about, as I said I don't think the B82 warrants SBS service. I lived near Kings Highway for a few years so I've been all over there and have used the B82 often enough.

 

 

Yeah kings highway south of av P is a congested mess. It'd be better off running on av P and then zig zag somewhere to rejoin KH. For the B82, I don't think it needs the SBS, but more limiteds would be ideal because there's no reason it has to make every damn stop from Nostrand to flatbush av. What they should do is make the B7 run local for that segment while the B82 can be 'limited stop' only for that segment.

Yeah but the headways on the B7 stink along Kings Highway and they only run them to Kings Hwy train station part-time.  I could recall using the B7 maybe once along Kings Highway. I'd usually just take the B82 since it was far more frequent.

[BrooklynBus]

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2013/11/b44-sbs-update-initial-reviews-are-in-part-3-of-3/

[Via Garibaldi 8]

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2013/11/b44-sbs-update-initial-reviews-are-in-part-3-of-3/

Oh boy... How dare the try to speed up buses and reduce its costs... Those complaining about local bus service on the B44 will have Bus Time to track their buses soon enough.

[Interested Rider]

Just a couple of things to ponder:

 

The new pick sheets should be out soon as if (someone please correct me if I am wrong) as it is supposed to start after New Years. Let us see what they will do in terms of (possibly) correcting some of the problems that have occurred since the start up over a week ago. At the present time, i have avoided taking the B/44 as it takes me more time if I have to take the local over the replaced limited so I take the bus to the Q for the same trip. I am taking a wait and see attitude before I will take the route in the future.

 

When I first started working for the state, I had a supervisor who stated quite clearly "Don't send me problems, send me solutions". What this meant was before I sent something to management in the form of a proposal, I made sure that it is well thought out and took into account the interests of all the parties involved. The supervisor then played "devil's advocate" and looked at from a different perspective, thus examining the practicality of whether it should be implemented before it was sent to the higher ups. Ideas that could work were tried, those that didn't were discarded.

 

A couple of years later, this entire thing went out the window as management became dictatorial and everything became a war. The generals in their ivory towers were now dictating strategy to the ground troops, no matter how irrelevant it was to the battlefield. Our supervisors now changed from letting us find solutions  to looking over their backs for their next promotion. The generals (supervision) no longer cared about the morale of the troops (the employees) just placating the one above them.

  

Let's apply it here to the B/44 SBS situation. If this would have been done in the era of sending not problems but solutions.the person who made the suggestion would have spoken to all the parties directly including riders, drivers, business owners, scheduling, dispatchers and all other interest observers before putting anything on paper. Persons involved with the project would have rode the route and spoken with the drivers and the riders even before the proposal reached the planning stage. It may be his idea but the input of the others involved would be seen quite clearly well before the project was implemented. Thus when it went to the next level, their suggestions would have been duly noted  and the reasons for acceptance or rejection listed. Once the proposal was accepted and implemented, a lot of the issues would have been resolved prior to implementation that was not seen with the B/44 SBS. 

 

What happened here and in many other similar situations over the past 30 years is that the generals are not on the battlefield with the troops, they are in a office far, far away from the field. What they see on the computer screen is not what is the reality of the situation. In reading the posts on the B/44 SBS and other topics of a similar nature, this is what is happening today, not only here but in every decision being made by our federal, state and local governments as well. We would not be spending our time discussing the schedule (there would have been local service the full length of the route), all the parties would have known why the stops were or/ were not included and information would have released weeks before the actual implementation as all of us played a role in the project.

 

There is really nothing that can be done for the public has accepted this like all the other things that have come down the pike over the past 30 years. They will do nothing as usual and with the exception of a few individuals who will speak up and who are then branded as "rebels and traitors" by those in positions of power.

The mainstream media will parrot management's thoughts and will dismiss the brave individuals with the same words of the generals and their computers.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all

 

 

[Acela Express]

The system pick was posted for us operators in September. 

All runs are set in stone at the moment, unless they cut the January pick short, for another depot pick to add more local runs, but for now they are adding wildcats for additional service until they get things situated with more 'scheduled' runs.

[Grand Concourse]

Not sure what you're talking about, as I said I don't think the B82 warrants SBS service. I lived near Kings Highway for a few years so I've been all over there and have used the B82 often enough.

 

 

 

 

Yeah but the headways on the B7 stink along Kings Highway and they only run them to Kings Hwy train station part-time.  I could recall using the B7 maybe once along Kings Highway. I'd usually just take the B82 since it was far more frequent.

 

true, but that portion of kh isn't really that crowded and the b82 could use a relief somewhere along the line. What they should do i make the b7 permanent to 16th st. I only wised the b82 limited ran outside of rush hours as it was such a relief to not have to stop at every single stop. It's not so much that the stops are packed or too time consuming, but it's the stop and go nature of the line that makes it so terrible.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

true, but that portion of kh isn't really that crowded and the b82 could use a relief somewhere along the line. What they should do i make the b7 permanent to 16th st. I only wised the b82 limited ran outside of rush hours as it was such a relief to not have to stop at every single stop. It's not so much that the stops are packed or too time consuming, but it's the stop and go nature of the line that makes it so terrible.

Yeah but the B7 wouldn't be used unless the headways were bumped up.  The B82 comes far more frequently over there and so folks flock to that route.  The B7 is an afterthought.  Even when I lived in Midwood and was going short distances, I'd take the B82 before I took the B7. Always saw B7's when I was walking on Kings Highway and they were usually empty.  They just don't run enough for people to ditch the B82.

[bobtehpanda]

@VG8: SBSBRT routes (like in my city and a few other regions here) and even New York's SBS are even listed on the ITDP list of BRT services, which are made by the international BRT Standard Commitee board so that even confirms my previous post.

 

Anyway: it's not local service nor express service. Maybe *you* think it's local service but that doesn't make it officially local. Even if the marks it as local somewhere on the interwebz, then it still isn't really local because SBS (not even the name) is not something the came up with.

 

This is a minor quibble, but I thought that SBS didn't even make the ITDP's Bronze criteria because it was such a compromised BRTlite.

[B35 via Church]

I do not think service has to be cut in order for operating costs to be cut. What have I still not answered? I keep harping on cutting operating costs in one part of the system (without cutting service, which is something that can be done with SBS) so that another part of the system can have more without increasing operating costs overall and while making the system more attractive to the public.

 

But you do not seem to see SBS as making the system more attractive. But perhaps you would if MTA did not screw up these projects so much (like what happened with the B44 local. I am not sure of the extent to which they screwed up with the M15 SBS/local and Bx12 SBS/local. I cannot comment on the S79 SBS/S78/whatever other buses are involved with the S79 or M34/A SBS other than to say that they seem to really suck).

Follow along here man...

 

You said:

"before MTA thinks about truncating the B49 they must consider rerouting it northbound via Foster then NYA then Fulton to terminate at Franklin, and southbound via Dean then Brooklyn then Midwood St then NYA then Foster and then follow the current route to KCC."

 

I replied & said:

"I suppose, but they won't do that, because that would actually mean they'd have to spend money.... The idea is to have enough riders cram onto the 44 for efficiency purposes (more riders + faster commutes, is the logic).... It would be inefficient to reroute 49's on NY av..."

 

You then said:

"on the other hand if they just make more SBS routes or cut costs in other ways that are not too terrible they can save even more money and then some of that money can be used on something like what I proposed for the B49."

 

...and I've asked/I'm asking you, are you really supporting cuts (cutting costs) elsewhere to support a route change *like what you proposed for the B49*?

 

Then you went into a diatribe about net service cuts & what does or doesn't hurt more people than it helps (which is why I believe you knew exactly what I was asking you to begin with).... You chose to be roundabout about the whole thing, instead of answering a simple question briefly.....

 

 

This isn't about what I think of SBS (which is no secret by now), this is about your mention of cutting costs "in other ways" to have B49's run up NY av.....

 

You said that in a rebuttal to my saying that doing (what you're suggesting) to the 49 would be less efficient than the current 49.... In other words, you're aiming to look to save money from elsewhere to pay for such a suggestion.... That wouldn't make the actual suggestion anymore efficient, but I didn't even get to talking about that b/c it seems we're at a crossroads with the question you don't seem to understand that I'm asking....

 

If you don't get it by now, there's not more for me to say......

[BNQtrain3912]

ok i have a question flatbush has about 245 buses and im pretty sure the 2 and 31 only uses abou tlets say 10 buses all together during rush hour..you mean to tell me there is enough buses for b44 local service?..i hear people complaing about waiting 30 to 45 mins for a bus going northbound

is there really not enough buses or is there not enough drivers?? because  i dont think traffic is that bad for buses to be so late plus the schedule says every 10 mins does that not mean anything

and does the select bus actually use all 40 artics during rush hour? i dont think they do they should leave atleast 15 for local service

[Turbo19]

Coming as little to no surprise to anyone at all is the complaints of riders left to use the local alternative along the route. Specifically are the complaints of the riders at Nostrand & L.


^{Protesters gathered on Nostrand Avenue to make their case to restore the B44 stop at Avenue L for the new Select Bus Service.}
 
Brooklyn’s first Select Bus Service (SBS) line arrived on Nostrand Avenue on Sunday, November 17, replacing the B44 Limited route with what is essentially a super-express bus route between Williamsburg and Sheepshead Bay.
 
However, although some people are excited about the prospect of getting to their destination faster, others are calling for the return of at least one eliminated bus stop they say is crucial to the route’s effectiveness for neighborhood residents.
 
“This is about the elimination of the stop at Avenue L and Nostrand Avenue, causing distress to residents of the area,” said Councilmember Jumaane Williams at an early morning rally on November 19.
 
“Many people at Andries Hudde J.H.S., the rehabilitation center, the synagogue and the handicapped [facilities] rely on this stop,” said Williams. “Now there is an added burden to the community.”
 
Until now, the B44 has run in two sections: the Limited route and the Local route. Both stopped at Avenue L, which is a mini-transit hub with the Bay Ridge-to-Flatlands B9 stopping at the same intersection.
 
But, no longer. In addition to requiring passengers to pay their fare before boarding—using MuniMeter-like machines instead—the new SBS route jumps from Kings Highway to the Flatbush Junction—a distance of 1.2 miles, with Avenue L in between.  Commuters must now rely on the Local bus to get them to an SBS stop, meaning longer waits and crowded buses.
 
Read More: Source

[Vistausss]

@Bob: They made it. And not only (MTA)'s SBS, but also SBS and BRTSBS (which is a type of half BRT route, half SBS route) service over here made it.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Coming as little to no surprise to anyone at all is the complaints of riders left to use the local alternative along the route. Specifically are the complaints of the riders at Nostrand & L.

 

^{Protesters gathered on Nostrand Avenue to make their case to restore the B44 stop at Avenue L for the new Select Bus Service.}

 

Brooklyn’s first Select Bus Service (SBS) line arrived on Nostrand Avenue on Sunday, November 17, replacing the B44 Limited route with what is essentially a super-express bus route between Williamsburg and Sheepshead Bay.

 

However, although some people are excited about the prospect of getting to their destination faster, others are calling for the return of at least one eliminated bus stop they say is crucial to the route’s effectiveness for neighborhood residents.

 

“This is about the elimination of the stop at Avenue L and Nostrand Avenue, causing distress to residents of the area,” said Councilmember Jumaane Williams at an early morning rally on November 19.

 

“Many people at Andries Hudde J.H.S., the rehabilitation center, the synagogue and the handicapped [facilities] rely on this stop,” said Williams. “Now there is an added burden to the community.”

 

Until now, the B44 has run in two sections: the Limited route and the Local route. Both stopped at Avenue L, which is a mini-transit hub with the Bay Ridge-to-Flatlands B9 stopping at the same intersection.

 

But, no longer. In addition to requiring passengers to pay their fare before boarding—using MuniMeter-like machines instead—the new SBS route jumps from Kings Highway to the Flatbush Junction—a distance of 1.2 miles, with Avenue L in between.  Commuters must now rely on the Local bus to get them to an SBS stop, meaning longer waits and crowded buses.

 

Read More: Source

 

Well, I think it'll take a while before MTA puts that stop, but I know they will.

[Q43LTD]

It's a lot of stops that should be restored. This will be just like the Bx12...

[BrooklynBus]

Just a couple of things to ponder:

 

The new pick sheets should be out soon as if (someone please correct me if I am wrong) as it is supposed to start after New Years. Let us see what they will do in terms of (possibly) correcting some of the problems that have occurred since the start up over a week ago. At the present time, i have avoided taking the B/44 as it takes me more time if I have to take the local over the replaced limited so I take the bus to the Q for the same trip. I am taking a wait and see attitude before I will take the route in the future.

 

When I first started working for the state, I had a supervisor who stated quite clearly "Don't send me problems, send me solutions". What this meant was before I sent something to management in the form of a proposal, I made sure that it is well thought out and took into account the interests of all the parties involved. The supervisor then played "devil's advocate" and looked at from a different perspective, thus examining the practicality of whether it should be implemented before it was sent to the higher ups. Ideas that could work were tried, those that didn't were discarded.

 

A couple of years later, this entire thing went out the window as management became dictatorial and everything became a war. The generals in their ivory towers were now dictating strategy to the ground troops, no matter how irrelevant it was to the battlefield. Our supervisors now changed from letting us find solutions  to looking over their backs for their next promotion. The generals (supervision) no longer cared about the morale of the troops (the employees) just placating the one above them.

  

Let's apply it here to the B/44 SBS situation. If this would have been done in the era of sending not problems but solutions.the person who made the suggestion would have spoken to all the parties directly including riders, drivers, business owners, scheduling, dispatchers and all other interest observers before putting anything on paper. Persons involved with the project would have rode the route and spoken with the drivers and the riders even before the proposal reached the planning stage. It may be his idea but the input of the others involved would be seen quite clearly well before the project was implemented. Thus when it went to the next level, their suggestions would have been duly noted  and the reasons for acceptance or rejection listed. Once the proposal was accepted and implemented, a lot of the issues would have been resolved prior to implementation that was not seen with the B/44 SBS. 

 

What happened here and in many other similar situations over the past 30 years is that the generals are not on the battlefield with the troops, they are in a office far, far away from the field. What they see on the computer screen is not what is the reality of the situation. In reading the posts on the B/44 SBS and other topics of a similar nature, this is what is happening today, not only here but in every decision being made by our federal, state and local governments as well. We would not be spending our time discussing the schedule (there would have been local service the full length of the route), all the parties would have known why the stops were or/ were not included and information would have released weeks before the actual implementation as all of us played a role in the project.

 

There is really nothing that can be done for the public has accepted this like all the other things that have come down the pike over the past 30 years. They will do nothing as usual and with the exception of a few individuals who will speak up and who are then branded as "rebels and traitors" by those in positions of power.

The mainstream media will parrot management's thoughts and will dismiss the brave individuals with the same words of the generals and their computers.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all

Let me give you a little background into the SBS process since I am somewhat familiar with the history. In 2003, the MTA decided they would make use of federal money for Bus Rapid Transit. The way a bureaucracy thinks, when federal money becomes available, we might as well use it even if we have no need for it, otherwise a place like Utah will get it. Since there was no federal money to extend subway lines, they made the immediate decision to build a scaled down version of bus rapid transit wherever a subway line was planned, since our streets are not wide enough for real bus rapid transit, which in other cities are built on abandoned railroad lines where there is not enough demand for light rail. Our stripped down version was renamed Seect Bus Service. That way we make no promises of it being rapid.

 

It was decided in the next five years, by 2008, we would build one SBS line per borough. After an initial learning curve, during the following five years we would build 10 more lines, two more per borough. That brings us to 2013 when 15 SBS lines woud have been competed. If we had the money only one subway extension coud have been competed in that period of time. That's how the plan was sold.

 

Four or five routes were selected for each borough and would be analyzed. In 2005 a meeting was held in each borough to solicit public comments on each of the 5 alternatives. The Brooklyn meeting was held at Atlantic Center. I attended and made two suggestions. First that they buy 3 door articulated buses because the two door service delays buses when they are heavily loaded. That idea was dismissed by Ted Orosz , who is coordinating the MTA part of the project, since it was a cooperative venture between the MTA and City DOT, because he said those buses were not structurally sound enough for NYC streets. In the end, that is what they bought.

 

Second , I suggested an east west route in southern Brooklyn for the Brooklyn pilot route over the other choices, the B44, B46, B41. Some suggested other routes. The only two the MTA really looked at were the B41 and B44. The others were eliminated immediately with virtually no analysis. They decided on the B44 over the B41 without really spelling out their reasons. In Queens, they ran into a snag. Their choice of Merrick Blvd met with severe opposition. In typical MTA style, rather than moving to their second choice, Queens had to be punished with no SBS route during this first phase. That's when they decided to do two routes for Manattan, picking 34th Street out of the air because it was short and they thought simpe to plan. It also met with severe opposition and was severely delayed.

 

The Bronx Bx12 was first out of the starting gate. The M15 was chosen so if the lower portion of the Second Avenue subway never gets built the MTA could claim at least they did something. The rest of the story you know. Everything was delayed mostly because the MTA had to have ten times the number of meetings they intended to have because community and business groups repeatedly asked them back again because they woud either mislead or not give direct answers to questions. The process could have been greatly streamlined if the MTA didn't decide to meet with each group individually, but with all the business groups together, for example, and were straight forward with their presentations and in giving truthful answers to questions. they only emphasized the positive points of SBS leaving you to figure out the negative ones.

 

In no case did the MTA consider the SBS routes in relation to the existing system and other bus routes, proposing simultaneous changes to local bs routes, or having an SBS route that combines portions of two existing routes. SBS was myopically planned and the MTA kept the entire planning process a secret as they always do.

[Grand Concourse]

Not surprised about the av L b44 stop protests. Very short sighted to just cut that stop when the b9 passes thru there. All crosstown bus lines should have transfers. It was stupid to force everyone over to the local just to save what 2 min? At least if the sbs stopped there, that's fewer people that would have to pile onto the local and make the sbs buses more filled.

Yeah but the B7 wouldn't be used unless the headways were bumped up.  The B82 comes far more frequently over there and so folks flock to that route.  The B7 is an afterthought.  Even when I lived in Midwood and was going short distances, I'd take the B82 before I took the B7. Always saw B7's when I was walking on Kings Highway and they were usually empty.  They just don't run enough for people to ditch the B82.

yeah, now the b7 is based from fp, it's not like they can increase it and reduce b82 service to balance things out, but i still think the b82 is way too long and could benefit from a brief segment of limited only stops. They should increase the b7 service for at least that segment. But yeah as far as b82 vs b7, i'd see at least 2-3 b82s before i'd see a b7.

[limitednyc]

It's not the service that the problem it is the way it was it was implemented.  all the ta did was convert the ltd-sbs without realizing that the current lcl service wouldn't be enough. once the lcl i fix everything well be better.  as for additional sbs at ave l will be added eventually (politics) . i wonder why Glennwood road  has not  been spoken of .  i'ts as huge transfer point for passengers from canarie and eny. it busier than myrtle and gates  which have been spoken of.

 

Also it can can be said if the media in central Brooklyn would cover the many scoping communities meetings maybe more people would have known. Just as the merchants along nostrand ave who get there complaints heard at these meeting.

[Vistausss]

@BrooklynBus: Let me give you a little background information too then: like I said earlier: didn't invent SBS, nor did they invent the name. The only thing they did was making an internally used name for that kind of service (it's been used since at least 1998 here but I wouldn't be surprised if it was used before then) the public name of the service they started to run.

[B35 via Church]

Yeah but the B7 wouldn't be used unless the headways were bumped up.  The B82 comes far more frequently over there and so folks flock to that route.  The B7 is an afterthought.  Even when I lived in Midwood and was going short distances, I'd take the B82 before I took the B7. Always saw B7's when I was walking on Kings Highway and they were usually empty.  They just don't run enough for people to ditch the B82.

yeah, now the b7 is based from fp, it's not like they can increase it and reduce b82 service to balance things out, but i still think the b82 is way too long and could benefit from a brief segment of limited only stops. They should increase the b7 service for at least that segment. But yeah as far as b82 vs b7, i'd see at least 2-3 b82s before i'd see a b7.

They can increase headways on the B7 all they want, people will still flock to the B82 - For the simple fact that the B82 brings more people to (what I call) "commercial" Kings Hwy than the B7 ever will..... Saying that another way, yeah the service on the B7 sucks, but where it goes (due north) doesn't do riders any justice either (esp. north of flatbush av)....

 

The B82 being "too long" is another issue entirely.... Ridership on the old B5 was lacking, which is (one reason) they combined it with the old B50..... I sincerely believe now that ridership west of the Brighton on the B82 is as strong as it is (and not like it was when the old B5 was around), they could go back to splitting the B82... But of course in all actuality, they won't do it b/c they'll need more buses w/ that plan, than with keeping the B82 as is.....

 

Not for nothing, but good thing they didn't opt to combine the old B5 w/ the B7.... That would've made it all too easy to cut service.... 

As much as I do not care for the B82, it made more sense than a B5/B7 combo because the usage the B50 had was potent & consistent.....

 

 

It's not the service that the problem it is the way it was it was implemented.  all the ta did was convert the ltd-sbs without realizing that the current lcl service wouldn't be enough.

There will never be "true" BRT in the city... The MTA knows that.... Quite sure they know SBS a bastardized version of it.

One of my problems w/ SBS is that the MTA advertises it as if the thing is light years better than LTD service (which it simply isn't).... Like passengers are stupid & that you can plug any type of service in front of them & have them be just as exuberant as they are about the thing (think about how they try to justify cuts & tell me their advertising tactics aren't eerily similar).... Never mind that said exuberance is disingenuous - and it is so, for no other reason than to spoof riders to believe that SBS is the next best thing since sliced bread..... 

 

It isn't the next best thing (IMO), but it is the next thing - Because this is the future of bus service in this city....

(that underlined adjective should be decided by no one other than the riders that will have to determine how the service will end up looming for them.... But again, this is the MTA - where the opinion of the riding public does not matter.... ridership stats & figures don't have opinions - and that is exactly how we are treated.....)

 

As you can see, folks over there by Av L are just enamored with SBS on the B44 !!

[BrooklynBus]

@BrooklynBus: Let me give you a little background information too then: like I said earlier: didn't invent SBS, nor did they invent the name. The only thing they did was making an internally used name for that kind of service (it's been used since at least 1998 here but I wouldn't be surprised if it was used before then) the public name of the service they started to run.

Thanks for the education. I suggest you also educate the people at Wickipedia since if you look up Select Bus Service there, you only get references to NYC. No mention that the term is or was ever used anywhere else but in NYC.

[Vistausss]

@BrooklynBus: In that case I'll shall contact them via a discussion page because the article is incorrect if it only refers to NYC. Just because NYC is using the term outside of documents doesn't mean it should be the only one in that article.

[BrooklynBus]

@BrooklynBus: In that case I'll shall contact them via a discussion page because the article is incorrect if it only refers to NYC. Just because NYC is using the term outside of documents doesn't mean it should be the only one in that article.

It sounds like such a dumb name, I automatically assumed the term was coined by the MTA.

[Grand Concourse]

Ok, fair point b35. I still question why they couldn't just keep either the b5 or b50 designation and change it to the b82 like they did. Makes no sense.

 

And the b44 sbs doesn't stop on glenwood? That blows. Another transfer point missed. Yes i know it would be too close to the av h stop, but a stop on glenwood would've made more sense (not the same stop as the northbound b41, but they could've put it like near the bank, so people can still walk to the subway entrance and wouldn't have to cross flatbush av to get to glenwood for the b6).

[bobtehpanda]

There will never be "true" BRT in the city... The MTA knows that.... Quite sure they know SBS a bastardized version of it.

One of my problems w/ SBS is that the MTA advertises it as if the thing is light years better than LTD service (which it simply isn't).... Like passengers are stupid & that you can plug any type of service in front of them & have them be just as exuberant as they are about the thing (think about how they try to justify cuts & tell me their advertising tactics aren't eerily similar).... Never mind that said exuberance is disingenuous - and it is so, for no other reason than to spoof riders to believe that SBS is the next best thing since sliced bread..... 

 

It isn't the next best thing (IMO), but it is the next thing - Because this is the future of bus service in this city....

(that underlined adjective should be decided by no one other than the riders that will have to determine how the service will end up looming for them.... But again, this is the MTA - where the opinion of the riding public does not matter.... ridership stats & figures don't have opinions - and that is exactly how we are treated.....)

 

As you can see, folks over there by Av L are just enamored with SBS on the B44 !!

 

Here's the thing; SBS is not a MTA thing. It's mostly, if not all, NYCDOT. NYCDOT is the one who decides which corridors get the furniture, the lanes, the signal priority, and all that (which is why all the SBS materials are hosted on the NYCDOT page); MTA is just happy to get any money thrown its way.

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with improving bus service (and prior to B44 SBS, most of the implementations were fairly decent save for the M34 and S79), NYCDOT is sneakily using these as a way to avoid having to pay for outer borough subway extensions. If you'll notice, all new transit construction in the city has been in Manhattan. The one new subway project started under this Administration was originally for a vanity Olympic bid, and then converted into a vanity office-building project, and it was all city financed. Both of these projects cost more than $1B/km; with numbers like these, outer borough subway extensions are simply unaffordable, despite the fact that the capacity is needed on many corridors. Bloomberg, all his bravado aside, didn't have enough balls to take on the racket they run over at MTACC (20+ people working on a TBM when the same project in Spain uses less than 10, rampant conflict of interests with designers and engineers allowed to bid on the construction of the plans they're making, cost overruns like there's no tomorrow, etc.), so they came up with the next best thing: SBS!

 

SBS is great. It's cheap, the feds will cover nearly all capital costs, and it's highly visible. Best of all, the paint can be removed once a mayoral administration in 2132 gets construction costs under control and builds the subway extensions we actually need.

 

To prove my point; nearly all corridors under consideration have been proposed as subway corridors.

 

Bay Ridge-Hylan: Narrows subway tunnel, proposed in 1929

Nostrand: Part of the original plans for the Brooklyn IRT

Webster: Replacement of the Third Av El, torn down in the 70s

Second/First: Replacement of the Third and Second Av El, torn down in the 50s; Second Avenue Subway, proposed in 1929

34th: Midtown circulators, proposed in various forms starting from 1968

Merrick: SE Queens subway, proposed in 1968

125th: Proposed by Eliot Sander in the 40-year vision plan

Astoria-LGA: Proposed by Giuliani but scuppered by community opposition

Hillside (future): Proposed in 1929

Utica (future): Proposed in 1929

 

The only line that doesn't fit this mold is the Bx12, but even that should be some sort of rail with its ridership levels.

[BrooklynBus]

Here's the thing; SBS is not a MTA thing. It's mostly, if not all, NYCDOT. NYCDOT is the one who decides which corridors get the furniture, the lanes, the signal priority, and all that (which is why all the SBS materials are hosted on the NYCDOT page); MTA is just happy to get any money thrown its way.

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with improving bus service (and prior to B44 SBS, most of the implementations were fairly decent save for the M34 and S79), NYCDOT is sneakily using these as a way to avoid having to pay for outer borough subway extensions. If you'll notice, all new transit construction in the city has been in Manhattan. The one new subway project started under this Administration was originally for a vanity Olympic bid, and then converted into a vanity office-building project, and it was all city financed. Both of these projects cost more than $1B/km; with numbers like these, outer borough subway extensions are simply unaffordable, despite the fact that the capacity is needed on many corridors. Bloomberg, all his bravado aside, didn't have enough balls to take on the racket they run over at MTACC (20+ people working on a TBM when the same project in Spain uses less than 10, rampant conflict of interests with designers and engineers allowed to bid on the construction of the plans they're making, cost overruns like there's no tomorrow, etc.), so they came up with the next best thing: SBS!

SBS is great. It's cheap, the feds will cover nearly all capital costs, and it's highly visible. Best of all, the paint can be removed once a mayoral administration in 2132 gets construction costs under control and builds the subway extensions we actually need.

To prove my point; nearly all corridors under consideration have been proposed as subway corridors.

 

Bay Ridge-Hylan: Narrows subway tunnel, proposed in 1929

Nostrand: Part of the original plans for the Brooklyn IRT

Webster: Replacement of the Third Av El, torn down in the 70s

Second/First: Replacement of the Third and Second Av El, torn down in the 50s; Second Avenue Subway, proposed in 1929

34th: Midtown circulators, proposed in various forms starting from 1968

Merrick: SE Queens subway, proposed in 1968

125th: Proposed by Eliot Sander in the 40-year vision plan

Astoria-LGA: Proposed by Giuliani but scuppered by community opposition

Hillside (future): Proposed in 1929

Utica (future): Proposed in 1929

The only line that doesn't fit this mold is the Bx12, but even that should be some sort of rail with its ridership levels.

But the MTA picks the routes. Other than that, you have pretty much stated in more detail, what I have been saying all along. Many have been just too blind to see that. The major reason I was opposed the the First / Second Avenue corridor, is that it gives the MTA an excuse to not finish the Second Avenue Subway, not that SBS coudn't work there.