B44 +SelectBusService+

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

Does the MTA pick out the routes? I was under the impression that since DOT did the SBS Phase II study and has nearly all of the planning documents (with a little NYCDOT stamp on each PDF) that they were the ones who called all the shots. Maybe the MTA just picks which order the routes are chosen in: DOT already picked out Nostrand, the M60, and Utica in their Phase II study (although it's probably MTA that picks the particular order of routes chosen)

[Vistausss]

@BrooklynBus: To be fair, the is far, far into the debts. With their kind of debt it doesn't surprise me they don't want to spend millions on extending a few miles of subway (SAS Phase II) but rather choose for SBS.

[Mysterious2train]

 

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.

 

 

 

Does the MTA pick out the routes? I was under the impression that since DOT did the SBS Phase II study and has nearly all of the planning documents (with a little NYCDOT stamp on each PDF) that they were the ones who called all the shots. Maybe the MTA just picks which order the routes are chosen in: DOT already picked out Nostrand, the M60, and Utica in their Phase II study (although it's probably MTA that picks the particular order of routes chosen)

 

Nitpicking here, but the B44 is one of the Phase 1 routes. The starting date has been pushed back so long that the Bx41, the first Phase 2 route, has started up before it. The MTA/DOT has been looking to start up SBS on the 44 for the better part of 2 years.

 

On another note, does anything think local service will get even more erratic? Just the other day I saw 3 of them back to back.

 

 

[BrooklynBus]

Does the MTA pick out the routes? I was under the impression that since DOT did the SBS Phase II study and has nearly all of the planning documents (with a little NYCDOT stamp on each PDF) that they were the ones who called all the shots. Maybe the MTA just picks which order the routes are chosen in: DOT already picked out Nostrand, the M60, and Utica in their Phase II study (although it's probably MTA that picks the particular order of routes chosen)

I believe this is mostly an MTA project from a planning perspective. They pick the routes, the order, procure the buses and fare machines, and decide service levels, and is responsible for the publicity. DOT is really the engineers by deciding how the project is implemented: curbside or traffic lane for bus, hours for bus lanes, enforcement, design of bus stops and bus bulbs, installing street furniture, etc. the only part they share equally is meeting with the communities and merchant associations where they make the presentations jointly as a cooperative effort.

[B35 via Church]

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.

Not that I'm defending the renaming, but I still think they chose "82" because the B50 ended in starrett with the 83 (the "51" at the time was already taken; the city hall route)... that, and the old 84 ran in that part of brooklyn also..... An attempt at uniformity, I suppose.... 

 

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.

Now all of a sudden, SBS isn't an MTA thing..... Where was all this when SBS inaugurated with the Bx12?

 

It aint so great to me; SBS is a lazy & frugal way of cutting bus service system-wide in the future.... You may not see it, but I certainly do.

Furthermore, If LTD service was a way to save money over providing for more non-LTD service, then why even come out with SBS if it isn't a means to save that much more (money) over the LTD's? Because they're deeply concerned with making riders' commutes faster - Lol, yeah right....

 

The fact that those proposed SBS corridors were also proposed subway corridors is even more proof that they're trying to be frugal with providing service..... I mean, I'm quite sure that Hillside & Merrick (for example) would be enamored with SBS over a direct subway line to/from/along said corridors.....

 

 

....On another note, does anything think local service will get even more erratic? Just the other day I saw 3 of them back to back. 

Even though headways increased? That's not a good sign at all...

I don't think the local 44 will get any more erratic, but I am worried about the level of local service they're providing.....

 

Just a couple hrs ago, I was over by WBP.... wanted to take that SBS 44, but it had just pulled out after I walked it out from the B67 (Wythe, via navy yard.... finally got a chance to take that)... So I just took a LTD 46 home..... There was someone at the fare payment machine, helping a couple ppl. out, for the next incoming 44 (I didn't feel like waiting for that next 44).... and when I was @ peter luger, I saw a 46 just pull out, so I figure by time I get to the B46 lane, the next 46 would be ready to depart (which I was right, twas only like a 2 min. wait).... Managed to see a 24 & a 32 also, but I didn't feel like doing too much fanning today....

[bobtehpanda]

Now all of a sudden, SBS isn't an MTA thing..... Where was all this when SBS inaugurated with the Bx12?

 

 

It aint so great to me; SBS is a lazy & frugal way of cutting bus service system-wide in the future.... You may not see it, but I certainly do.

Furthermore, If LTD service was a way to save money over providing for more non-LTD service, then why even come out with SBS if it isn't a means to save that much more (money) over the LTD's? Because they're deeply concerned with making riders' commutes faster - Lol, yeah right....

 

The fact that those proposed SBS corridors were also proposed subway corridors is even more proof that they're trying to be frugal with providing service..... I mean, I'm quite sure that Hillside & Merrick (for example) would be enamored with SBS over a direct subway line to/from/along said corridors.....

 

The "it's great" comment was meant to come off sarcastically, and that may not have come across.

 

I don't think it's an attempt to weaken the system; in any case, it'd be a very slow grind towards deteriorating the system. The B44 took the better part of four years, and the M60 is continually on/off. Add the fact that DOT has been very quick to water down or stop proposals in the name of community opposition (median bus lanes on Hylan, the 34th St transitway, most of the 125th St bus lanes), and I don't think the overall system is in grave danger for a while now.

 

I think it's more of an unwillingness to deal with the unreasonable costs of subway construction in this town, which is two or three times higher than other peer cities (and over 10 times that of Spanish metro builders). With the Second Avenue Subway, you've already got Rep. Maloney breathing down the MTA's neck for Phase II and such an unbelievable crush of people that you could probably have SBS and subway, but there's a very real risk that the other potential subway lines may not get built until much later.

[BrooklynIRT]

I wonder just how much some of these subway extensions are needed, considering the problems with overcrowding and delays these subways presently experience, especially on the weekends.

 

And let us not forget that neighborhoods like Sheepshead Bay and Bay Ridge are at risk because of rising sea levels. Investing in subway extensions there strikes me as a mistake considering the present subway problems.

 

I am not sure why bus lanes, especially the offset ones, should be removed at any time unless they are going to be replaced by mass transit lines making almost the same exact stops as the SBS. (It seems to me that you meant that they should be removed when subway extensions are built, because you wrote "Best of all, the paint can be removed...")

[BrooklynIRT]

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

There is also the B103, which pretty much serves the same area between JCT and Flatlands-E 80.

[bobtehpanda]

I wonder just how much some of these subway extensions are needed, considering the problems with overcrowding and delays these subways presently experience, especially on the weekends.

 

And let us not forget that neighborhoods like Sheepshead Bay and Bay Ridge are at risk because of rising sea levels. Investing in subway extensions there strikes me as a mistake considering the present subway problems.

 

I am not sure why bus lanes, especially the offset ones, should be removed at any time unless they are going to be replaced by mass transit lines making almost the same exact stops as the SBS. (It seems to me that you meant that they should be removed when subway extensions are built, because you wrote "Best of all, the paint can be removed...")

 

1. The point about removable lanes was a sarcastic remark, but is probably what actually goes on in the Administration's collective heads. Plus, given the fact that the SBS lines do have stations placed only at what would logically be good rapid transit station locations (and in the case of the B44, less than that amount), they are definitely replaceable. Outside of Manhattan, no LTD line directly parallels a subway corridor for its entire length, and there is good reason for that.

 

2. You can build subway stations to be floodproof; otherwise, cities like Bangkok or Mumbai wouldn't have metro systems due to monsoon season. Even South Ferry would've been safe from flooding had debris not punctured its barricade.

 

3. Many of the bus corridors being SBS'ed or under consideration for such treatment have extremely high per-mile ridership levels; Utica Av, which is being considered for the next corridor, has higher per-mile ridership than every single light rail in the United States except for Boston's Green Line, which is partially underground. Light rail would be inadequate and force people onto transfers, and bus capacity would be even less adequate.

 

A lack of trunk capacity does not preclude extensions outward. Various systems around the world, from the Silver Line in DC, to BART in the Bay Area, to DART in Dallas are being extended despite a lack of capacity on trunk lines. It's because heavy rail has an outsized regional benefit when it comes to reducing commute times and congestion; think of how many buses and people converge on the Junction, or at Jamaica Center, or in Flushing. In fact, extensions may reduce congestion, since less trains will be held up at overcrowded transfer points.

[Vistausss]

I'm all in for subway extensions, but I still haven't got an answer as to where the money should come from. Or did I miss something and did the pay off all their debts and NYC has found a way to get millions of money for extensions?

[bobtehpanda]

I'm all in for subway extensions, but I still haven't got an answer as to where the money should come from. Or did I miss something and did the pay off all their debts and NYC has found a way to get millions of money for extensions?

 

The point I was making was that SBS is being used in place of subway extensions, because New York cannot seem to build subway extensions at reasonable prices. Woodhaven is a special case since the ROW already exists and the work that the MTA would be doing on the line would be pretty similar to work it does on its existing lines (laying track, fixing signals and electrification, rehabbing/building above ground stations, structural reinforcement), so it wouldn't be too expensive, considering the fact that most costs in subway construction here consist of using TBMs, building underground complexes, and utility relocations.

 

If there was ever political will to make the cost of construction go down, then more subway extensions would be eligible for FTA funding and the like, making it significantly easier to build (FTA hands out its funds using, among other things, a cost-per-rider metric). The expensive construction is largely limited to mass transit; building skyscrapers or regular buildings in New York isn't ridiculously expensive; if it was, we'd see a lot less construction going on around town.

[Acela Express]

Starting to think things are looking up for the sbs northbound because I picked a lot more than usual today along Rogers, where I had about 50 people on board- almost fully seated...

[BrooklynBus]

Starting to think things are looking up for the sbs northbound because I picked a lot more than usual today along Rogers, where I had about 50 people on board- almost fully seated...

We're you on time?

[BrooklynIRT]

A lack of trunk capacity does not preclude extensions outward.

 

That sounds a bit different from this:

 

(Not to mention, the IRT in Brooklyn is also at capacity, and any sort of service expansion would be impossible without rebuilding the flat junction at Nostrand.)

 

In any case, I do not think I would support an extension of the Nostrand line unless they did something about train problems, meaning if the schedule says the trains should be 12 minutes apart during weekends and weeknights until about midnight, do not have trains more than 15 minutes apart at these times unless there is a very good reason for such delays that lead to overcrowding. If nothing is going to be done about these problems, do not remove bus lanes along the B44 so at least the Nostrand Ave riders trying to reach stations north of Ave "H" can make use of the or local to B44 connection to reach their destinations before the next train does when that  train is busy running 16+ minutes behind its leader that Nostrand Ave riders just missed.

 

And even then I wonder if it makes sense to encourage such development south of Kings Hwy or so. It might be better to encourage people not to move to flood zones..

 

And let 'em extend whatever other line they want I suppose. I strongly support a Utica Ave subway that runs no further south than about Ave "H" or so.

[Acela Express]

We're you on time?

I left the Junction on time, as always.

There's no time points until you hit Flushing Avenue.

 

They did have checkers at every time-point for the locals earlier all day, southbound on Nostrand, even clocking the SBS' at non-timepoints; hence the no time-points quote above.

[bobtehpanda]

That sounds a bit different from this:

 

 

 

In any case, I do not think I would support an extension of the Nostrand line unless they did something about train problems, meaning if the schedule says the trains should be 12 minutes apart during weekends and weeknights until about midnight, do not have trains more than 15 minutes apart at these times unless there is a very good reason for such delays that lead to overcrowding. If nothing is going to be done about these problems, do not remove bus lanes along the B44 so at least the Nostrand Ave riders trying to reach stations north of Ave "H" can make use of the or local to B44 connection to reach their destinations before the next train does when that  train is busy running 16+ minutes behind its leader that Nostrand Ave riders just missed.

 

And even then I wonder if it makes sense to encourage such development south of Kings Hwy or so. It might be better to encourage people not to move to flood zones..

 

And let 'em extend whatever other line they want I suppose. I strongly support a Utica Ave subway that runs no further south than about Ave "H" or so.

 

The MTA has acknowledged a rebuilding of the flat junction at Nostrand as a priority, and the outgoing chairman of the MTA did say that the next capital plan would be less heavy on brand-new construction and more focused on rehabbing, so it's fair to assume that the MTA will be rebuilding the junction at some later point in time.

 

Positions are also liable to change over time as opinions evolve. I literally said that ten months ago.

 

Wasn't there already an entire thread on IRT headway issues where workers said it was due to widespread flagging and work-related disruption? It doesn't make sense to not extend service just because existing service is not up to par; something is better than nothing.

 

No one is arguing for the removal of bus lanes if there is no subway extension.

 

To prevent improvements for today because of the potential for natural disaster tomorrow is silly. It'd be one thing if there weren't already people living there, but Southern Brooklyn is a very dense, transit-dependent neighborhood that requires adequate transit service just as much as any other neighborhood does. According to this logic, we shouldn't build any transport infrastructure in New Orleans or most of the Netherlands, since these areas are actually below sea level, despite the fact that these are very populated areas.

[BrooklynIRT]

If nothing is going to be done about train problems (headways and crowding), neither the B44 bus lanes outside of Sheepshead Bay nor the POP system should be removed, regardless of whether the Nostrand subway is extended.

 

I also thought that extending existing service that tends to suck at certain hours would eventually encourage more use of space-inefficient automobiles. I envision a situation in which the Nostrand line is extended to a place like Nostrand-Kings Hwy, and this leads to a population increase in areas within 0.5 mile of Nostrand-Ave "K" and about Nostrand-Ave "P".

 

So everybody who lives near the new stations (I guess they would be Nostrand-"L" and Nostrand-KH) is happy about having subway service there, at first.

 

But then a few too many of these people have a few too many annoying experiences (16+ minute waits and overcrowding) with the train during the times that there is no to Flatbush because nothing was done about the problem before the service was extended.

 

Then as time goes on people become impatient and start using cabs, car services, and/r personal automobiles instead of the train to make trips to/from the train's service area. It is true that not everybody is doing this, but at least some people are doing it. The further south you go along Nostrand, the less likely it is that you can use the or local to B44 connection to get to whatever Nostrand subway station before the next train does if that train is 16+ minutes behind its leader and 9-10+ minutes behind its or local leader.

 

Especially once you are on bidirectional Nostrand Ave, where there are no offset bus lanes and traffic signals suck compared to unidirectional Nostrand. And if more people use space-inefficient automobiles, even the people riding the B44 might have a problem because now they might have to deal with more traffic on Nostrand. This would increase their travel time and could make the or local to B44 connection less effective than it is now. The worst problems would happen around Flatbush/Nostrand Aves, where most of the congestion along Nostrand exists.

 

Do you see a problem here?

[Grand Concourse]

I still think if they were to extend the 2 train further south, Flatbush av would make more sense since there's a swarm of riders getting off the train and then piling onto the B41 above. It is also wider, so digging under Flatbush av wouldn't be as disruptive as it would be for Nostrand. Not to mention at some point Nostrand isn't stable enough for a tunnel and would need to be elevated. FB av is more commercial, so it won't be too 'residential' to cause a nimby uproar, if they had to build the rest of the line as an el.

B41 could really use bus time to close the gap or they need some more short turn buses running south of Nostrand/av H since it's the northern segment where the b41 is bogged down. South of nostrand is fairly decent and wide enough that there aren't many delays. I think Kings Highway would be good enough as a middle ground, but ideally Kings Plaza with the mall and all the other bus lines converging there could be a good case for an extension that far.

 

I do think if anything it comes down to either an IRT 2 line extension or a Utica Av line. I just dunno which one the MTA would pick and the 2 via Flatbush av would more or less be 'good enough' as they won't need to build a new line and the 2 is already deep into the southern part of Brooklyn where an extension of maybe 1 stop can help ease the load on the B41. As for the current Fb station, that would probably need to be abandoned so the train can turn directly under the intersection and they would probably build the new station near av H. I'm sure they could keep the current station, but then it'd need to snake back around under the Target complex or maybe under av I, so I think the new platform/station would be better.

[BrooklynIRT]

I see a problem with extending the train unless they do something about the headway problems because what we have here is a combination of:

 

-Service that presently has several problems and has had them for many years

 

and

 

-Extending this problematic service into neighborhoods with climate change issues (although this depends on how far south you send it)

 

Those two issues combined send up a red flag for me.

 

...And then there is the potential for all of this to decrease the effectiveness of a space-inefficient automobile-free method of circumventing train nonsense.

 

I would much rather see a Utica Ave line than a train extension.

[Vistausss]

So much for the B44 discussion...

[bobtehpanda]

If nothing is going to be done about train problems (headways and crowding), neither the B44 bus lanes outside of Sheepshead Bay nor the POP system should be removed, regardless of whether the Nostrand subway is extended.

 

I also thought that extending existing service that tends to suck at certain hours would eventually encourage more use of space-inefficient automobiles. I envision a situation in which the Nostrand line is extended to a place like Nostrand-Kings Hwy, and this leads to a population increase in areas within 0.5 mile of Nostrand-Ave "K" and about Nostrand-Ave "P".

 

So everybody who lives near the new stations (I guess they would be Nostrand-"L" and Nostrand-KH) is happy about having subway service there, at first.

 

But then a few too many of these people have a few too many annoying experiences (16+ minute waits and overcrowding) with the train during the times that there is no to Flatbush because nothing was done about the problem before the service was extended.

 

Then as time goes on people become impatient and start using cabs, car services, and/r personal automobiles instead of the train to make trips to/from the train's service area. It is true that not everybody is doing this, but at least some people are doing it. The further south you go along Nostrand, the less likely it is that you can use the or local to B44 connection to get to whatever Nostrand subway station before the next train does if that train is 16+ minutes behind its leader and 9-10+ minutes behind its or local leader.

 

Especially once you are on bidirectional Nostrand Ave, where there are no offset bus lanes and traffic signals suck compared to unidirectional Nostrand. And if more people use space-inefficient automobiles, even the people riding the B44 might have a problem because now they might have to deal with more traffic on Nostrand. This would increase their travel time and could make the or local to B44 connection less effective than it is now. The worst problems would happen around Flatbush/Nostrand Aves, where most of the congestion along Nostrand exists.

 

Do you see a problem here?

 

This is veering off topic dangerously, but the bus lanes on SBS are only bus-only (and right turns where applicable) during peak hours, so removing them wouldn't do anything for SBS on the weekends or nights. 

 

You also seem to be assuming that the same level of congestion would exist with a subway extension, which simply wouldn't be true. The reason why Flatbush/Nostrand is such a congested point is because of the massive amount of ped/bus and car traffic there. A subway extension would reduce ped/bus transfer activity throughout the area, because people wouldn't be transferring from 44s to the .

 

I maintain that SBS is being used as an excuse to not extend the subway. However, the good is not the enemy of the perfect, so I still support the features of SBS being rolled out (if not how it's being put into practice), such as traffic signal priority, prepayment, and bus lanes.

[BrooklynIRT]

Ok bob.

 

Getting back to the B44 SBS discussion, for whatever it is worth, I cannot wait for the entire west side of Nostrand b/w Glenwood and FB to be converted to a no standing anytime or no stopping anytime zone (to be used by buses and right turns only, 24/7).

[TeeLow]

Ok bob.

 

Getting back to the B44 SBS discussion, for whatever it is worth, I cannot wait for the entire west side of Nostrand b/w Glenwood and FB to be converted to a no standing anytime or no stopping anytime zone (to be used by buses and right turns only, 24/7).

+1

 

The situation btn Glenwood & Flatbush is so ridiculous it's beyond absurd. Delivery trucks double parked on one side, $cabs doubled on the other, uneven traffic lights at both intersections...if Nostrand was made a one way south of Farragut Rd to Flatbush traffic could flow much easier for SBS, locals and regular traffic. Create No Standing zones from 7AM-7PM and create 3 distinct lanes with arrowed designations for traffic flow: far left lane for left turns onto Flatbush headed south, middle lane for S/B Nostrand & right lane for S/B and rights onto Flatbush north.

 

Problem would be how to coordinate with N/B traffic. The green light for Nostrand is too damn short at Flatbush!

[BrooklynIRT]

They banned left turns from Nostrand to Flatbush and I hope they do not lift that ban.

 

They cannot make Nostrand one-way southbound between Farragut and FB unless they find another road to make one-way northbound, and even then they have to think about how the east-west roads might need to be changed.

 

That is one reason that the field of traffic engineering seems like a total nightmare to me.

[TeeLow]

I have an answer for your N/B one way concern but it's too involved and would deviate from the topic.