B44 +SelectBusService+

[BrooklynIRT]

I have no comment on the B44 timings you propose, because I am not a traffic planner by profession and I take no interest in micromanaging something that should be left up to the MTA. However, buses and trains do have a inherent disadvantage over cars; they must decelerate and stop every so often to offload and load passengers and are limited to a set route, while cars can take advantage of less trafficked side routes and highways. Take the Q53 on Woodhaven. Woodhaven is one of the largest roads in the city, at a whopping 195 feet wide at its widest point. Buses on the road are very fast. Now let's compare travel times between the Q53 Limited and a car at 1:30AM, where traffic is lightest and buses probably don't have to navigate around traffic.

 

Between Woodhaven/Queens and Woodhaven/Rockaway Blvd, a distance of 4 miles:

 

Car: 10 min (24 MPH)

Bus: 16 min (15 MPH)

Food for thought: Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing on a B44 SBS is 4.7 miles, as is Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H" on a B44 SBS. I allowed 25 minutes for a one-way trip on the B44 SBS in either direction in post #1106. 25 minutes = 25/60 hour (twenty-five sixtieths of an hour). 4.7 miles/(25/60 hour) = average speed of 11.28 miles per hour.

if y'all wanna make faster travel there is a solution, nostrand ave could become a bus, delivery vehicles, and green/yellow taxis (not livery cars because those do mostly illegal pickups) street, which would defeat the purpose of SBS and there could be local buses running every 3 minutes and they wouldn't bunch

I would want it to be a bus and delivery vehicles only street, but taking personal automobiles out (but leaving green/yellow taxis in) could be quite helpful. I do not understand how your proposal would defeat the purpose of SBS though. I would still want there to be a surface mass transit service that makes stops every 0.3 to 0.7 mile, does not require everybody to board at one door and pay at one farebox, and makes good use of curb extensions and bus lanes.

 

I still do not think this would be as effective as pretty much leaving everything the way it is now except for completely removing personal automobile parking from both curbs b/w Flushing and Farragut (on Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford) and completely removing parking from the west side of Nostrand b/w Farragut and Flatbush. I do like the idea of banning personal automobiles from the B44 SBS corridor (at least b/w Flushing and "H"), but as long as those personal automobiles displaced from Nostrand/Rogers/Bedford Aves do not almost completely disappear from these roads and nearby roads, the following fact will make it very difficult to ban personal automobiles from the B44 SBS corridor b/w Flushing and "H":

 

dodging the prices restrictions would be very simple, because you could just drive over to the next parallel street due to the grid systems prevalent in the city. This is negative on all fronts - these parallel roads are often narrower and outfitted with fewer crosswalks and traffic lights. In addition, arterials are more retail-oriented in nature, while side streets are by and large residential-oriented, with kids playing in yards and crossing to parks and schools on a regular basis. I crossed out "prices" and replaced it by "restrictions" since you, NYSubwayBuff, did not specifically mention congestion pricing, which was the original context of this statement bobtehpanda made.

We would have to ask, "what is the purpose of SBS and what constitutes 'defeating the purpose of SBS'?" In my opinion, the B44 SBS should definitely include complete removal of personal automobile parking on the middle section of the route (Flushing to "H") because I truly do not believe that the running times I indicated in post #1106 could be achieved unless this were done, and the purpose of taking such measures to speed up the B44 SBS is to do something about "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," keeping in mind the fact that the B44 is a very long route that transfers to other mass transit services that provide connections to neighborhoods that are not served by the (for example): The LIRR, the B38, the , the B26, the B52, the B54, the Q54, and the Q59.

 

In my opinion, one purpose of the B44 SBS should be to do something about "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," especially since it travels on unidirectional roads with better-than-average traffic signals and transfers to so many heavy rail and bus services that provide connections to parts of Queens and Brooklyn not served by the .

[BrooklynIRT]

ditto on the B44 +SBS+ to address the age old problem of a much needed IRT Nostrand Ave Line extension from the last stop on the and  which the City Of New York failed to build.

You consider this a problem? Let us consider the following statements:

 

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 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.

most people in New York City use a car for other purposes because it is much more convenient. For one thing, car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit.

Now let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is far from any urban core and the fact that a lot of people who live there are directly impacted by the fact that "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit." Also let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is very close to the Belt Pkwy, and recall this statement:

 

Add in the fact that cars can also use highways, and it becomes clear that the car will always "win" over mass transportation in the outer boroughs. Quotation marks mine.

Now, would you agree that one of the worst possible consequences of extending the Nostrand Ave line too far south is that it could encourage more development and residency in neighborhoods where personal automobile use is encouraged by the presence of highways (like the Belt Pkwy) nearby? The further south one goes in Brooklyn, the more difficult it could be to create transit lines that do something about "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit."

 

We also have to consider the fact that people living out there may not even want anything to be done about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," despite the fact that personal automobile use causes so many problems for surface mass transit riders and other road users (including other personal automobile users) in this city. So should we really be encouraging development in neighborhoods like Sheepshead Bay by building another subway line there?

[realizm]

You consider this a problem? Let us consider the following statements:

 

Now let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is far from any urban core and the fact that a lot of people who live there are directly impacted by the fact that "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit." Also let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is very close to the Belt Pkwy, and recall this statement:

 

Now, would you agree that one of the worst possible consequences of extending the Nostrand Ave line too far south is that it could encourage more development and residency in neighborhoods where personal automobile use is encouraged by the presence of highways (like the Belt Pkwy) nearby? The further south one goes in Brooklyn, the more difficult it could be to create transit lines that do something about "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit."

 

We also have to consider the fact that people living out there may not even want anything to be done about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," despite the fact that personal automobile use causes so many problems for surface mass transit riders and other road users (including other personal automobile users) in this city. So should we really be encouraging development in neighborhoods like Sheepshead Bay by building another subway line there?

 

Well reading through your points I can give you a short response. First let me clarify a particular: I wasn't necessarily advocating for a Nostrand Ave extension via NYC Transit. Not possible today. The B44 +SBS+ actually serves that purpose.

 

On the other point yes you may be correct on automobile access and the many options available for convenient drives to destinations such as the belt parkway which I will not deny for a minute. However you need to consider that many NY residents cannot afford to purchase cars, pay for maintainance, gas and car insurance. Times are tough for Flatbush residents more than you may be seeing at the moment, and they need adequate non expensive means of travel. Another benefit of the B44 +SBS+ service to feed into the and at Flatbush Ave - Brooklyn College. Or for crosstown service to Williamsburg on the other end as well as connections to the BMT Eastern Division and the IND Fulton Street and Crosstown Line. It should help to vitalize Wiliamsburg and Flatbush alike to tell you the truth and provide better access to jobs. As it is known job sectors are growing out of Manhattan according to MTA and independent studies Ive recently read.

 

I wont debate the other points as from a motorist perspective the observations you are bringing to the table here you are indeed correct as far as I see it. I'm responding from a commuter point of view - many people for the reasons mentioned will need a public transportation option. I think the MTA CCC and NYDOT made the correct call in investing into the surface transit service utilizing the available roadways for a select bus service with potential.

[BrooklynIRT]

On the other point yes you may be correct on automobile access and the many options available for convenient drives to destinations such as the belt parkway which I will not deny for a minute. However you need to consider that many NY residents cannot afford to purchase cars, pay for maintainance, gas and car insurance.

Under no circumstances would I ever want a car even if I could afford one. I think accommodations for personal automobiles, such as street parking for personal autos on roads such as Nostrand Ave b/w Flushing Ave and Ave "H", should be drastically reduced.

 

Times are tough for Flatbush residents more than you may be seeing at the moment, and they need adequate non expensive means of travel.

I know Flatbush residents need adequate non-expensive means of travel. Why do you think I want personal automobile parking to be entirely removed from both curbs b/w Flushing and Farragut (on Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford) and from the west side of Nostrand b/w Farragut and Flatbush so that the B44 SBS can be faster?

 

As I said in post #1126, "the purpose of taking such measures to speed up the B44 SBS is to do something about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," keeping in mind the fact that the B44 is a very long route that transfers to other mass transit services that provide connections to neighborhoods that are not served by the   (for example),: The LIRR, the B38, the  , the B26, the B52, the B54, the Q54, and the Q59."

 

Another benefit of the B44 +SBS+ service to feed into the and at Flatbush Ave - Brooklyn College. Or for crosstown service to Williamsburg on the other end as well as connections to the BMT Eastern Division and the IND Fulton Street Line. It should help to vitalize Wiliamsburg and Flatbush alike to tell you the truth and provide better access to jobs. As it is known job sectors are growing out of Manhattan.

I think the B44 SBS needs to be quite a bit faster than it is now in order for many to consider it beneficial. (See the running times I indicated in post #1106.) I do not think we should be entirely satisfied until MTA modifies the B44 SBS schedule such that the maximum running time (even during rush hours) between Flushing Ave and Ave "H" (in both directions) is about 25 minutes.

[realizm]

Under no circumstances would I ever want a car even if I could afford one. I think accommodations for personal automobiles, such as street parking for personal autos on roads such as Nostrand Ave b/w Flushing Ave and Ave "H", should be drastically reduced.

 

I know Flatbush residents need adequate non-expensive means of travel. Why do you think I want personal automobile parking to be entirely removed from both curbs b/w Flushing and Farragut (on Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford) and from the west side of Nostrand b/w Farragut and Flatbush so that the B44 SBS can be faster?

 

As I said in post #1126, "the purpose of taking such measures to speed up the B44 SBS is to do something about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," keeping in mind the fact that the B44 is a very long route that transfers to other mass transit services that provide connections to neighborhoods that are not served by the   (for example),: The LIRR, the B38, the  , the B26, the B52, the B54, the Q54, and the Q59."

 

I think the B44 SBS needs to be quite a bit faster than it is now in order for many to consider it beneficial. (See the running times I indicated in post #1106.) I do not think we should be entirely satisfied until MTA modifies the B44 SBS schedule such that the maximum running time (even during rush hours) between Flushing Ave and Ave "H" (in both directions) is about 25 minutes.

 

Ok. So from your response thats actually what I mean for the most part. Yes thats my take on this as well although i worded it differently.

[Trainmaster5]

I jump in to read this thread from time to time just to see what people think about the B44SBS service. I've seen some good points made regarding it's implementation as well as some "pie in the sky" ideas about bus vs auto use in the outer boroughs. I'd like to hear more from the B/O s about the running time and schedules in general. I happen to think that the B44 route, although long and delay-prone, was not the best candidate for SBS at the onset. Almost any of the longer east-west bus routes that connected with the subways would have been a better choice, IMO. Exactly how many riders are traveling on the B44 between Nostrand Junction and the Fulton St or Flushing Avenue connections ? Has the number increased since SBS was instituted or has the ridership remained the same as before with the local/LTD service. Those are the type of questions that need to be answered before B44SBS can be considered a success or not. As I pointed out before the speed up of the whole operation from end to end only fully benefits the , and some B/O s while the riders who aren't traveling a substantial distance on the SBS or local riders gain relatively little in comparison. As for those who hold the utopian view that the private automobile is hindering their travel times remember that the taxes/fees the drivers pay for the privilege of driving on city streets help to maintain the very roadways the buses run on. As long as auto drivers have the right to make right hand turns the buses will be limited in how fast they can go, even in their own dedicated bus lanes. Politicians may speak up for mass transit when the cameras are rolling but they're not brave or dumb enough to piss off those motorists either. BTW, have any of you bus fans or B/O s noticed if the traffic lights at Linden Blvd, Eastern Parkway, and Atlantic Ave have been adjusted since SBS started ? That is what I look for when I judge this service. When the NYCDOT gives priority to the SBS over the east- west traffic on these 3 streets will go a long way in determining how successful B44SBS will be. Agree or not I respect your opinions. Carry on.

[BrooklynBus]

You make some good points but I doubt the MTA will collect the needed data to prove success or failure. They will only quote bus time savings and increased patronage and declare success. They will ignore walking times and passengers who switched from the Limted to the local and now ave longer trips. Long distance riders are the ones who save the most time, but they are a relatively small percentage of total users which is why another route would have been a better choice.

 

And it's the merchants wo are first to oppose any loss of parking, not the residents.

[qjtransitmaster]

You consider this a problem? Let us consider the following statements:

 

 

Now let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is far from any urban core and the fact that a lot of people who live there are directly impacted by the fact that "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit." Also let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is very close to the Belt Pkwy, and recall this statement:

 

 

Now, would you agree that one of the worst possible consequences of extending the Nostrand Ave line too far south is that it could encourage more development and residency in neighborhoods where personal automobile use is encouraged by the presence of highways (like the Belt Pkwy) nearby? The further south one goes in Brooklyn, the more difficult it could be to create transit lines that do something about "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit."

 

We also have to consider the fact that people living out there may not even want anything to be done about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," despite the fact that personal automobile use causes so many problems for surface mass transit riders and other road users (including other personal automobile users) in this city. So should we really be encouraging development in neighborhoods like Sheepshead Bay by building another subway line there?

instafix new SBS B102 via belt!!!

Under no circumstances would I ever want a car even if I could afford one. I think accommodations for personal automobiles, such as street parking for personal autos on roads such as Nostrand Ave b/w Flushing Ave and Ave "H", should be drastically reduced.

 

I know Flatbush residents need adequate non-expensive means of travel. Why do you think I want personal automobile parking to be entirely removed from both curbs b/w Flushing and Farragut (on Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford) and from the west side of Nostrand b/w Farragut and Flatbush so that the B44 SBS can be faster?

 

As I said in post #1126, "the purpose of taking such measures to speed up the B44 SBS is to do something about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," keeping in mind the fact that the B44 is a very long route that transfers to other mass transit services that provide connections to neighborhoods that are not served by the   (for example),: The LIRR, the B38, the  , the B26, the B52, the B54, the Q54, and the Q59."

 

I think the B44 SBS needs to be quite a bit faster than it is now in order for many to consider it beneficial. (See the running times I indicated in post #1106.) I do not think we should be entirely satisfied until MTA modifies the B44 SBS schedule such that the maximum running time (even during rush hours) between Flushing Ave and Ave "H" (in both directions) is about 25 minutes.

Use SBS B44 then report back it's been pretty fast when I was on it.

[BrooklynIRT]

the riders who aren't traveling a substantial distance on the SBS...gain relatively little in comparison.

Right, and this is partially because...

 

...As long as auto drivers have the right to make right hand turns the buses will be limited in how fast they can go, even in their own dedicated bus lanes.

 

As for those who hold the view that the private automobile is hindering their travel times remember that the taxes/fees the drivers pay for the privilege of driving on city streets help to maintain the very roadways the buses run on.

Can you explain how it is utopian for a bus rider on a road that is probably overpopulated with [illegally parked] private automobiles to believe that the private automobile is hindering his/her travel time?

 

 

remember that the taxes/fees the drivers pay for the privilege of driving on city streets help to maintain the very roadways the buses run on.

Which group of road vehicles is more responsible for the wear-and-tear on these roads? The ~5700 buses MTA operates, or the tens or hundreds of thousands of cars on these roads? If enough people stop driving, can the government not determine ways to compensate for the loss of revenues from registration fees, tolls, and fuel taxes?

 

(Subchat user JAzumah's response to that last question: "They could, but have failed thus far. My question is why the government has to find the money all of the time? We can't have a bike tax? *grin*"...Link here: http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=289136)

 

...I also wonder whether the government has to find money all the time. Whether I support the bike tax depends on several factors, like how much the tax would be.

 

 

Politicians may speak up for mass transit when the cameras are rolling but they're not brave or dumb enough to piss off those motorists either.

Exactly what do you mean by "brave" and "dumb?"

 

 

BTW, have any of you bus fans or B/O s noticed if the traffic lights at Linden Blvd, Eastern Parkway, and Atlantic Ave have been adjusted since SBS started ?

Probably not. Those signals are not really responsive to SBS buses AFAIC. (I have not really seen transit signal priority/TSP in action.) I hate the signal at Parkside, which changes to red before the next one (at Clarkson) and so the buses always have to stop for the red at Parkside even if they left Empire (Sterling St) as soon as the signal went to green at Sterling St. Although, vehicles cutting in front of the bus and illegally using the bus lane (and, as you pointed out, making right turns) probably have a hand in this (the bus not being able to get from Sterling St to the Clarkson Ave bus stop without stopping) as well.

 

 

Use SBS B44 then report back it's been pretty fast when I was on it.

I have already used it and I can do plenty of reporting upon request.

[BrooklynIRT]

the riders who aren't traveling a substantial distance on the SBS...gain relatively little in comparison.

Forget about "as long as auto drivers have the right to make right hand turns the buses will be limited in how fast they can go," instead I probably should have written this:

 

 

the riders who aren't traveling a substantial distance on the SBS...gain relatively little in comparison.

Right, and this is partially because...

...if the schedule gives you __ minutes for a run that you can do in __ minutes CYA and take your time. That's always been rule #1 throughout the TA. Let the schedule makers worry about the time alloted. Those who are complaining about your speed ain't gonna pay your bills. Carry on.

I did have a back-and-forth with bobtehpanda about running time on page 111, but still.

[bobtehpanda]

You consider this a problem? Let us consider the following statements:

 

Now let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is far from any urban core and the fact that a lot of people who live there are directly impacted by the fact that "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit." Also let us consider the fact that Sheepshead Bay is very close to the Belt Pkwy, and recall this statement:

 

Now, would you agree that one of the worst possible consequences of extending the Nostrand Ave line too far south is that it could encourage more development and residency in neighborhoods where personal automobile use is encouraged by the presence of highways (like the Belt Pkwy) nearby? The further south one goes in Brooklyn, the more difficult it could be to create transit lines that do something about "car travel between boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit."

 

We also have to consider the fact that people living out there may not even want anything to be done about "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit," despite the fact that personal automobile use causes so many problems for surface mass transit riders and other road users (including other personal automobile users) in this city. So should we really be encouraging development in neighborhoods like Sheepshead Bay by building another subway line there?

 

Let me get this straight. You would deny needed infrastructure improvements to a neighborhood simply because it is hard to reach without a car? That's the entire point of a transit extension - to make places easier to reach without a car. These neighborhoods already have high transit usage and overwhelm their current facilities; this indicates that given more capacity, transit usage will rise further. Not only that, but expansion of faster transit facilities, bus or train, will do a lot to speed up journey times. Buses are the slowest segment of any transit journey; New York's buses are among the slowest in the nation, with speeds below 10MPH. In contrast, the on Queens Blvd (which has modern, half-mile rapid transit stop spacing as opposed to the IRT's more frequent stops, and which is a better model for modern subway construction) has an average speed of 18MPH. Doubling speed would allow riders to halve the outer segments of their commute; someone who spent half an hour on the bus would be able to save fifteen minutes using a train, turning a hour's commute into a 45 minute one. Expansion of rail facilities would only reduce the difference in travel time between mass transit and cars.

 

Even if more development were to be encouraged by mass transit development (which would also require a change to zoning laws), car travel would not be "encouraged" by development near highways. The highway system in these areas, especially the Belt, are in a near-constant state of traffic delay or paralysis. A road that is at capacity cannot carry more people, and these additional people would choose transit over cars.

 

The expansion of transit should, first and foremost, be catered to the needs and capacity demands of existing riders, and are not about excluding neighborhoods by highways just to fulfill some misguided urbanist delusion about a car-free New York. If we were to forgo extending the subway into any areas with easy highway access, we wouldn't have any new subways at all; with the exception of the Third Av corridor, nearly all underserved areas with transit at or over capacity are near highways. In fact, we have many highways near existing subway corridors, but that doesn't mean we should fill in the subways so those pesky car dependents aren't encouraged to drive.

[BrooklynIRT]

Let me get this straight. You would deny needed infrastructure improvements to a neighborhood simply because it is hard to reach without a car? That's the entire point of a transit extension - to make places easier to reach without a car. These neighborhoods already have high transit usage and overwhelm their current facilities; this indicates that given more capacity, transit usage will rise further. Not only that, but expansion of faster transit facilities, bus or train, will do a lot to speed up journey times. Buses are the slowest segment of any transit journey; New York's buses are among the slowest in the nation, with speeds below 10MPH. In contrast, the on Queens Blvd (which has modern, half-mile rapid transit stop spacing as opposed to the IRT's more frequent stops, and which is a better model for modern subway construction) has an average speed of 18MPH. Doubling speed would allow riders to halve the outer segments of their commute; someone who spent half an hour on the bus would be able to save fifteen minutes using a train, turning a hour's commute into a 45 minute one. Expansion of rail facilities would only reduce the difference in travel time between mass transit and cars.

 

Even if more development were to be encouraged by mass transit development (which would also require a change to zoning laws), car travel would not be "encouraged" by development near highways. The highway system in these areas, especially the Belt, are in a near-constant state of traffic delay or paralysis. A road that is at capacity cannot carry more people, and these additional people would choose transit over cars.

 

The expansion of transit should, first and foremost, be catered to the needs and capacity demands of existing riders, and are not about excluding neighborhoods by highways just to fulfill some misguided urbanist delusion about a car-free New York. If we were to forgo extending the subway into any areas with easy highway access, we wouldn't have any new subways at all; with the exception of the Third Av corridor, nearly all underserved areas with transit at or over capacity are near highways. In fact, we have many highways near existing subway corridors, but that doesn't mean we should fill in the subways so those pesky car dependents aren't encouraged to drive.

I do not want to type a long post at the moment, so I will just list two theories that might give you some food for thought and could be used to argue against what you are saying:

 

-Induced demand theory

 

and 

 

-Triple convergence theory

 

I will try to expand on this later.

[Trainmaster5]

@ BrooklynIRT

 

 If I take your proposals to the extreme then private automobile travel should be curtailed/eliminated for the benefit of those who travel by bus. Is this what you are putting out there as a realistic goal ? Most mass transit advocates that I know have never expressed such a desire so I'd really like to know why you think this way. This isn't North Korea or the old Soviet Union where someone could be forced to travel on a specific form of transportation by diktat but you seem to think that the or NYC should be able to dictate how one can travel around ones own borough. As numerous posters have pointed out this SBS route has it's advantages as well as disadvantages but I've yet to see anyone take this to the extreme as you appear to take it. Quite frankly the speed limit for vehicles on city streets is normally 30 mph for safety reasons yet you seem to be consumed by the travel time(s) of the SBS compared to the local. That appears to be one of the fallacies in your reasoning. The schedules that are in effect today regarding running times may be "padded" somewhat but if you look at Nostrand Avenue from Flushing to Empire Blvd or even New York Avenue between Fulton St and Foster Ave the characteristics of those streets go a long way in determining the basic running times of both B44 services. You can only travel so fast legally and safely. I've known Nostrand, Rogers, and New York Avenues when they were two-way streets all the way and even back then there was only so much you could do to speed up the B44 route. When I get a chance I'm going to ride the SBS from the bridge to the Junction and I'm going to drive that same route, following the same interval but making no SBS stops and I doubt there would be much difference in the elapsed time. It interests me because I used to ride the B44 from Bridge Plaza to Linden Blvd every night for six months years ago. I also rode the B44 from Fulton/Nostrand to Rutland for years when Nostrand was two-way. Maybe a bus operator or regular rider can help me out here but, in my experience, the most crowded and slowest segment of the s/b B44 was from Fulton St to Prospect-Lefferts before it picks up again at Church Avenue. In rush hour how much time can one really save in that segment on the local or SBS?  IMO it's segments like that that mean the most. Some people look at SBS in different ways. I'm more focused on how many people it carries within a certain segment. Then I look at the travel times. To me that determines whether it's a useful service or a sop to quiet some of the complaining public.Carry on.

[BrooklynIRT]

I have to eliminate some quoted posts because of restrictions on the amount of quotes I can put in one post.

In post #1138, Trainmaster5 said: "If I take your proposals to the extreme then private automobile travel should be curtailed/eliminated for the benefit of those who travel by bus. Is this what you are putting out there as a realistic goal ? Most mass transit advocates that I know have never expressed such a desire so I'd really like to know why you think this way."

Now BrooklynIRT says: Curtailing private auto travel as a realistic goal? Absolutely. Eliminating it as a realistic goal? Maybe not. I will have to type a full response later. It will require a lot of thought. I appreciate your patience.

 

In post #1138, Trainmaster5 said: "...you seem to think that the   or NYC should be able to dictate how one can travel around ones own borough."

Now BrooklynIRT says: Let us consider my proposal about parking removal so the buses could move faster, which proposal I have outlined in several posts but chose to quote the following one:

 

completely removing personal automobile parking from both curbs b/w Flushing and Farragut (on Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford) and completely removing parking from the west side of Nostrand b/w Farragut and Flatbush.

Now let us consider a discussion I had with B35 via Church:
 

-Do your statements leading up to dictation apply in a situation where every inhabitant of a certain neighborhood owns one car, and then one person moves into the neighborhood and has nowhere to place a car s/he would own and therefore must do without it?

In this scenario, there's nothing amounting to dictation, because there is no one directly or indirectly telling this fictional person that he/she cannot own their car.... 
 
Furthermore, [Lack of parking spaces] & [having the choice to utilize the personal vehicle over mass transit] have zero to do with each other
(As much as ppl. complain about lack of parking, at the end of the day, they end up finding somewhere to park, now don't they)..... 

Love to know how much parking can be reduced before the two start having something to do with each other.

There could be no parking whatsoever in an entire neighborhood & the two would have nothing to do with each other....

 
Now based on these statements and your own opinions, Trainmaster5, would you say that my proposal about parking removal from the middle portion of the B44 SBS's corridor could be construed as dictating how one could travel around one's borough? Furthermore, do you agree or disagree with B35 via Church's statements?
 

As numerous posters have pointed out this SBS route has it's advantages as well as disadvantages but I've yet to see anyone take this to the extreme as you appear to take it.

This is part of my response to that statement:
 

I did not start getting heavy with the "anticar" posts until about 1.5-2 years ago. One factor may have been negative remarks about SBS that criticized its failure to make the buses significantly faster. A factor that may have complemented that first factor may have been comments about the lack of space on the roads, much of which is occupied by cars, whether they are moving or stationary, like this one:

SBS is about as good as it's going to get for surface mass transit in New York due to road widths and traffic issues.

 

The rest of my response to that statement, as well as my response to your curiosity regarding my position on this entire subject (first quote in this post), will come later.
 

Quite frankly the speed limit for vehicles on city streets is normally 30 mph for safety reasons

Nothing wrong with that. I do not want anybody to speed or otherwise drive in an unsafe manner. When I drive (which I never do unless asked to and I think the reason is good enough), I do not speed or drive in an unsafe manner either.
 

The schedules that are in effect today regarding running times may be "padded" somewhat but if you look at Nostrand Avenue from Flushing to Empire Blvd or even New York Avenue between Fulton St and Foster Ave the characteristics of those streets go a long way in determining the basic running times of both B44 services. You can only travel so fast legally and safely.

Much easier for a B44 SBS bus to legally and safely achieve an average speed of 11.28 miles per hour (25 minutes to travel 4.7 miles, the distance from Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing or from Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H") if parking is removed from this section of its corridor so that the bus has more room to safely maneuver and typically the worst illegal parking anybody can do is parking along the curb in a no parking/no standing zone instead of double parking.

[bobtehpanda]

I do not want to type a long post at the moment, so I will just list two theories that might give you some food for thought and could be used to argue against what you are saying:

 

-Induced demand theory

 

and 

 

-Triple convergence theory

 

I will try to expand on this later.

 

I fail to see how those are arguments against expanding rail service. Induced demand theory and triple convergence theory state that when a road is built, people will begin to make new trips using the extra capacity, and that people will shift from other modes of travel. However, no one is talking about building new roads.

 

The same theories apply to rail as well, and even SBS to a certain extent; without any corresponding increase in road capacity, people will utilize transit more and shift from other modes. Road capacity is capped by a hard physical limit that is rather low; a highway lane has capacity of only 2-3K people per hour, and the lower speed limits, stop signs, and traffic lights on urban streets reduce it even further. If congestion on Nostrand is as bad as has been suggested on this forum, that means there is no additional road capacity for any new residents to use. Traffic congestion would likely remain the same, but transit mode share on the corridor would rise, which is a good thing on balance.

 

Saying "we shouldn't build a subway because that would induce car travel" is like saying that we shouldn't have built the first subway because it would've increased horsecar and omnibus congestion in Manhattan. As it is, road congestion decreased significantly after the first subway, so to suggest that road travel would increase after building a subway would be quite disingenous when a century of transit has proved otherwise.

[BrooklynIRT]

Induced demand theory and triple convergence theory state that when a road is built, people will begin to make new trips using the extra capacity, and that people will shift from other modes of travel. However, no one is talking about building new roads.

According to Subchat user WillD, new roads do not have to be built for the induced demand or triple convergence theory to rear its ugly head: http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1234194

 

"Strategies to reduce congestion are not ridiculous

 

Okay, then lets go through them one by one:

 

1- We could have fewer cars and trucks on the road by increasing mass transit options and encouraging rail freight

 

Building mass transit to reduce congestion on highways is a fools errand. The people who avail themselves of whatever new transit service is offered will no longer be stuck in the traffic. But due to the triple convergence of mode, route, and time, whatever the reduction in traffic due to their trips being removed from a congested road will be filled by another commuter adjusting their route, mode, or departure time. You cannot build your way out of congestion, either by building roads or rails. All you can hope to do is maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit."

[bobtehpanda]

According to Subchat user WillD, new roads do not have to be built for the induced demand or triple convergence theory to rear its ugly head: http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1234194

 

"Strategies to reduce congestion are not ridiculous

 

Okay, then lets go through them one by one:

 

1- We could have fewer cars and trucks on the road by increasing mass transit options and encouraging rail freight

 

Building mass transit to reduce congestion on highways is a fools errand. The people who avail themselves of whatever new transit service is offered will no longer be stuck in the traffic. But due to the triple convergence of mode, route, and time, whatever the reduction in traffic due to their trips being removed from a congested road will be filled by another commuter adjusting their route, mode, or departure time. You cannot build your way out of congestion, either by building roads or rails. All you can hope to do is maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit."

 

This statement, ignoring the boldfaced cherrypicking, actually agrees with my assertions; that transit should be built to "maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit." There is induced demand, but road usage stays the same, because there is no brand-new road capacity that allows for an absolute increase in road travel. That's like saying a two lane road can somehow fit more vehicles than it did before, just because people can be carried underground. That is impossible, because cars in this universe have to obey the laws of physics and geometry.

 

I argue that trains should be expanded so that commute time is reduced by grade separating public transport. That will cause people to use trains more, and "maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit", which will reduce overall commute times. In fact, I mention so in the statement that you decided to cherrypick for your own benefit.

 

I fail to see how those are arguments against expanding rail service. Induced demand theory and triple convergence theory state that when a road is built, people will begin to make new trips using the extra capacity, and that people will shift from other modes of travel. However, no one is talking about building new roads.

 

The same theories apply to rail as well, and even SBS to a certain extent; without any corresponding increase in road capacity, people will utilize transit more and shift from other modes. Road capacity is capped by a hard physical limit that is rather low; a highway lane has capacity of only 2-3K people per hour, and the lower speed limits, stop signs, and traffic lights on urban streets reduce it even further. If congestion on Nostrand is as bad as has been suggested on this forum, that means there is no additional road capacity for any new residents to use. Traffic congestion would likely remain the same, but transit mode share on the corridor would rise, which is a good thing on balance.

 

Saying "we shouldn't build a subway because that would induce car travel" is like saying that we shouldn't have built the first subway because it would've increased horsecar and omnibus congestion in Manhattan. As it is, road congestion decreased significantly after the first subway, so to suggest that road travel would increase after building a subway would be quite disingenous when a century of transit has proved otherwise.

 

You are somehow arguing that more trains = more cars, which doesn't make sense given that the road transport network is at capacity.

 

By the way, even if you removed all the parking, there would still be congestion. Do you live in a "congested" area? Congratulations, you live in a place that's fairly populated and economically healthy!

[qjtransitmaster]

This statement, ignoring the boldfaced cherrypicking, actually agrees with my assertions; that transit should be built to "maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit." There is induced demand, but road usage stays the same, because there is no brand-new road capacity that allows for an absolute increase in road travel. That's like saying a two lane road can somehow fit more vehicles than it did before, just because people can be carried underground. That is impossible, because cars in this universe have to obey the laws of physics and geometry.

 

I argue that trains should be expanded so that commute time is reduced by grade separating public transport. That will cause people to use trains more, and "maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit", which will reduce overall commute times. In fact, I mention so in the statement that you decided to cherrypick for your own benefit.

 

 

You are somehow arguing that more trains = more cars, which doesn't make sense given that the road transport network is at capacity.

 

By the way, even if you removed all the parking, there would still be congestion. Do you live in a "congested" area? Congratulations, you live in a place that's fairly populated and economically healthy!

Dude it's a lost cause. 

[BrooklynIRT]

This statement, ignoring the boldfaced cherrypicking, actually agrees with my assertions; that transit should be built to "maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit." There is induced demand, but road usage stays the same, because there is no brand-new road capacity that allows for an absolute increase in road travel.

There are several cases in which I think road usage needs to be reduced because the roads in question are congested (with traffic and/r illegally parked vehicles), and I do not think road usage staying the same in those cases is acceptable.

 

I argue that trains should be expanded so that commute time is reduced by grade separating public transport. That will cause people to use trains more, and "maximize the number of people who are unaffected by that congestion on mass transit", which will reduce overall commute times.

Let us focus on the , since I have more doubts about extending the than I have about extending any other subway line. (I would have no problem with a Utica subway and would much rather see that than a extension.) Extending the would reduce overall commute times for those who want to go to the urban core, but what about those who want to go to the outer boroughs, for work or recreation? To what extent would extending the reduce the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit?"

 

Would that reduction in the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit" be offset by an increase in the number of people using cars due to a population increase in neighborhoods that are far from the urban core (Sheepshead Bay) and far from the rest of the city/boroughs in general? And these people wanting to make trips to neighborhoods outside the service area of the ?

 

Ignoring the facts that it will be an extremely long time before these subway lines are extended (if it ever happens) and extending these lines will cost a lot of money, is reducing the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit" less important than reducing commute times between the urban core and neighborhoods as far from the urban core as Nostrand Ave in Sheepshead Bay? Keep in mind recent job growth in the outer boroughs that has outpaced job growth in Manhattan.

 

How important is it to reduce the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit?"

 

I will post this article about commuting between the outer boroughs and job growth in the outer boroughs again: http://nycfuture.org/research/publications/ny-borough-to-borough-commute-fuhgeddaboudit

 

A quote from somebody that is very closely related to a neighborhood and institution located in the B44 SBS's service area:

 

In our study, we interviewed a number of outer borough employers who felt that a lack of dependable rapid transit service has exacted a toll on their businesses. A lack of transit effectively shrinks their labor pool, they said, and causes more turnover as disgruntled employees decide to leave rather than suffer through two hour commutes every day. The chief operating officer at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in East Flatbush Brooklyn even said that it could cause the hospital to rethink its plans for expansion. "I've been here 24 years," he said, "and I still haven't seen any improvements in mass transit."

 

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

 

I changed "affected by" to "using cars specifically because" since "affected by" was not very specific.

[Trainmaster5]

I'd like to know when the COO at SUNY Downstate made this statement and in what context. The place is surrounded by the B12, B35, and B44 buses. The B41 and B49 all run within a quarter mile to the west at most. The B46 is a little further to the east. The instituted mid-day service a few years ago. The COO might need eye care if he hasn't noticed any improvements in mass transit in 24 years. Maybe he doesn't think much of the B44 SBS service? Carry on.

[BrooklynIRT]

I'd like to know when the COO at SUNY Downstate made this statement and in what context. The place is surrounded by the B12, B35, and B44 buses. The B41 and B49 all run within a quarter mile to the west at most. The B46 is a little further to the east. The instituted mid-day service a few years ago. The COO might need eye care if he hasn't noticed any improvements in mass transit in 24 years. Maybe he doesn't think much of the B44 SBS service? Carry on.

That article is from March 2011.

 

One thing I wonder about is where KCH/D-state workers commute from. If a lot of them commute from points north and east, that could potentially indicate how important it is that the B44 SBS be very fast, especially since it provides connections to so many services that serve parts of Queens and Brooklyn (in the north and east) not served by the .

 

Another point I will make is that while the place is surrounded by buses, the buses are quite slow as we all know.

 

The B44 SBS probably has a higher average travel speed than any other bus route in the D-state area, but the northbound bus does use Rogers Ave instead of NY Ave. If the B44 SBS actually performed up to my standards (post #1106), people would probably not care about having to walk a half-mile b/w Rogers-Clarkson and KCH/D-state because they would be walking that distance to access a service traveling at an average speed of 11.28 mph instead of MTA's [rather low] expectation of an average speed of 7.05 to 7.83 mph. (They allow a maximum of 36 minutes to get from Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing, which corresponds to 7.83 mph, and a maximum of 40 to get from Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H", which corresponds to 7.05 mph.)

[BrooklynBus]

Not only are they slow, they need to be restructured so that so any trips don't require three buses or indirect travel to make use of transfers. Bust routes hae not changed around the hospital area since the 1930s, except for the SBS which made travel to the hospital more difficult not better because no other routes were changed or added.

[bobtehpanda]

There are several cases in which I think road usage needs to be reduced because the roads in question are congested (with traffic and/r illegally parked vehicles), and I do not think road usage staying the same in those cases is acceptable.

 

Let us focus on the , since I have more doubts about extending the than I have about extending any other subway line. (I would have no problem with a Utica subway and would much rather see that than a extension.) Extending the would reduce overall commute times for those who want to go to the urban core, but what about those who want to go to the outer boroughs, for work or recreation? To what extent would extending the reduce the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit?"

 

Would that reduction in the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit" be offset by an increase in the number of people using cars due to a population increase in neighborhoods that are far from the urban core (Sheepshead Bay) and far from the rest of the city/boroughs in general? And these people wanting to make trips to neighborhoods outside the service area of the ?

 

Ignoring the facts that it will be an extremely long time before these subway lines are extended (if it ever happens) and extending these lines will cost a lot of money, is reducing the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit" less important than reducing commute times between the urban core and neighborhoods as far from the urban core as Nostrand Ave in Sheepshead Bay? Keep in mind recent job growth in the outer boroughs that has outpaced job growth in Manhattan.

 

How important is it to reduce the number of people affected by using cars specifically because "car travel between [outer] boroughs is 3-4x faster than by mass transit?"

 

I will post this article about commuting between the outer boroughs and job growth in the outer boroughs again: http://nycfuture.org/research/publications/ny-borough-to-borough-commute-fuhgeddaboudit

 

A quote from somebody that is very closely related to a neighborhood and institution located in the B44 SBS's service area:

 

In our study, we interviewed a number of outer borough employers who felt that a lack of dependable rapid transit service has exacted a toll on their businesses. A lack of transit effectively shrinks their labor pool, they said, and causes more turnover as disgruntled employees decide to leave rather than suffer through two hour commutes every day. The chief operating officer at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in East Flatbush Brooklyn even said that it could cause the hospital to rethink its plans for expansion. "I've been here 24 years," he said, "and I still haven't seen any improvements in mass transit."

 

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

 

I changed "affected by" to "using cars specifically because" since "affected by" was not very specific.

 

It would still speed up journeys between, say, the Bronx and Brooklyn, or even Queens and Brooklyn, since the subway system is also the fastest way to go between the outer boroughs, and given that there aren't many wide rights-of-way between Brooklyn and Queens in the first place, it will remain so for the forseeable future. Even if the Triboro RX were built, it would be much faster for a person to ride the subway to Flatbush, transfer to the RX, and then transfer to train lines in Queens or the Bronx. Say what you want about the bus, but it is not going to reach subway speeds, and the bus will always be the slowest segment of any multi-modal trip.

 

A quick bus route between Queens and Brooklyn is not possible due to the disjointed, irregular street grid that runs between the two. The BQE is too far west, and Woodhaven is too far east. The only frequent bus route running between the two areas is the Q58, which has the dubious distinction of "slowest bus in Queens", running at an average speed of 7MPH despite having a Limited route. (Adding bus lanes is not feasible due to the sheer narrowness of the roads on which it runs; for the great majority of its length, it is one lane in each direction with two parking lanes.)

[Trainmaster5]

That article is from March 2011.

 

One thing I wonder about is where KCH/D-state workers commute from. If a lot of them commute from points north and east, that could potentially indicate how important it is that the B44 SBS be very fast, especially since it provides connections to so many services that serve parts of Queens and Brooklyn (in the north and east) not served by the .

 

Another point I will make is that while the place is surrounded by buses, the buses are quite slow as we all know.

 

The B44 SBS probably has a higher average travel speed than any other bus route in the D-state area, but the northbound bus does use Rogers Ave instead of NY Ave. If the B44 SBS actually performed up to my standards (post #1106), people would probably not care about having to walk a half-mile b/w Rogers-Clarkson and KCH/D-state because they would be walking that distance to access a service traveling at an average speed of 11.28 mph instead of MTA's [rather low] expectation of an average speed of 7.05 to 7.83 mph. (They allow a maximum of 36 minutes to get from Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing, which corresponds to 7.83 mph, and a maximum of 40 to get from Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H", which corresponds to 7.05 mph.)

In my 54 year experience with Downstate, Flatbush/Rugby, Lefferts Gardens, and Bed-Stuy, I can state that from about 1963 onward the majority of the workforce at KCH/Downstate came from the areas I've mentioned. I don't recall anyone coming from north of Hancock Street, west of Franklin or east of Reid. You must remember Brooklyn had many other hospitals back then so people didn't have to make that long commute. A person living in those areas could be employed at St. John's, St. Mary's, Kingsbrook, Brooklyn Jewish , Brookdale, or Caledonian hospitals if they wanted to ditch that commute. I can't speak to the doctors or supervisory people at the institutions but the regular people came from those areas mainly. I used to date, party, hangout, with many of the people who worked there. Heck, I used to deliver " The World Telegram and Sun " newspaper to Downstate and the surrounding neighborhood in the early sixties. I lived in the area and my friends went to Wingate while I and a few others did the Erasmus Hall thing. With grandparents living around the corner from Fulton/Nostrand and my first apartment down in what was called Vanderveer Estates you can probably understand my interest in the B44 and the other bus routes I've mentioned. I think that the changing demographics in the immediate area as well as in the workforce at the medical facilities has probably changed the commuting patterns today. With many medical facilities closed or closing in Brooklyn maybe it's not only the commutation times but wages that make the difference. My sister-in-law works on Long Island in a nursing home and many of her co-workers come from Bed-Stuy and Prospect Lefferts Gardens. These people, including nurses, are commuting by car or LIRR to Suffolk County which doesn't really jibe with the COO of Downstate's statement.  To be sure I'd love to see the real results of the type of survey BrooklynBus spoke about. In fact if I've made any mistakes in this post I'm sure my classmate will correct me. BrooklynBus and I go wayyyyyyyy back (50 + years) and he also knows the neighborhood and time I speak of. Carry on

[BrooklynIRT]

It would still speed up journeys between, say, the Bronx and Brooklyn, or even Queens and Brooklyn, since the subway system is also the fastest way to go between the outer boroughs, and given that there aren't many wide rights-of-way between Brooklyn and Queens in the first place, it will remain so for the forseeable future. Even if the Triboro RX were built, it would be much faster for a person to ride the subway to Flatbush, transfer to the RX, and then transfer to train lines in Queens or the Bronx. Say what you want about the bus, but it is not going to reach subway speeds, and the bus will always be the slowest segment of any multi-modal trip.

 

A quick bus route between Queens and Brooklyn is not possible due to the disjointed, irregular street grid that runs between the two. The BQE is too far west, and Woodhaven is too far east. The only frequent bus route running between the two areas is the Q58, which has the dubious distinction of "slowest bus in Queens", running at an average speed of 7MPH despite having a Limited route. (Adding bus lanes is not feasible due to the sheer narrowness of the roads on which it runs; for the great majority of its length, it is one lane in each direction with two parking lanes.)

Easier to make modifications to the current system and create surface mass transit or heavy rail lines in an attempt to increase the number of mass transit trips b/w outer boroughs that are no more than 2x slower than the same trips made by personal auto while decreasing the number of situations where people currently use cars specifically because their car travel between [outer] boroughs is more than 2x faster than by the mass transit they could [hypothetically] use to make the trip instead.

 

Easier to try to do that with the current system, than to try to do that after possibly encouraging further decentralization of the city/boroughs by extending a subway into a far out neighborhood that is susceptible to climate change. Or maybe talk to QJT about his B102 SBS (post #1133), for starters...

 

I fully support the (RX) because the (RX) would do an excellent job of connecting neighborhoods that are not too far from the urban core and would bring the city together (centralization). I think the (RX) is a much better idea than a extension. But some problems include whatever red tape was mentioned in the (RX) thread I created...

 

You previously stated that "the expansion of transit should, first and foremost, be catered to the needs and capacity demands of existing riders" in post #1136.

 

Let me assure you that neither you nor anyone else should think for a second that I do not want any subway extensions. I know the SAS is needed. I am not against it (despite the cost and schedule overruns!). The extension I question the most is the   extension. I would love for there to be a Utica line terminating at Utica-"H". Maybe it should go further south than that. Going down to at least Utica-"H" is definitely ok in my book. And as I said before, I fully support the (RX) even though the posts in the (RX) thread I created indicate that attempting to implement this service will be a giant headache.

 

Now as for the needs and capacity demands of existing riders, I will just respond by sort of quoting myself: "Extending the   would reduce overall commute times for those who want to go to the urban core, but it might not do much for those who want to go to the outer boroughs, for work or recreation." There are existing riders who take long interborough (non-Manhattan) trips using mass transit, and I am sure they need these trips to be faster by mass transit than they are now. I have said this before, but encouraging development in neighborhoods too far from the core could create more situations where people have to take long interborough trips using mass transit..meaning more of these problems somebody has to try to solve.

 

[philosophical statement]Now it is true that if we had no problems to solve, life would become very boring very quickly[/philosophical statement], but I do not think any of us wants to use that in an attempt to back our positions, so moving right along...

 

This subway extension addresses the needs of people who live in far out neighborhoods and want to go to the urban core, but it just seems that it is not designed to specifically increase the number of mass transit trips b/w [parts of] the outer boroughs that are no more than 2x slower than the same trips made by personal auto.

 

You mentioned the fact that it would speed up journeys between the outer boroughs, but the thing is that I wish to overall reduce [and I seek to eliminate] situations where people currently use cars specifically or partially because their car travel between [outer] boroughs is more than 2x faster than by the mass transit they could [hypothetically] use to make the trip instead. I am trying very hard to focus on that specific goal (making transit no more than 2x slower than driving) because I think that that is the best way of adhering to certain standards for travel time via mass transit, which adherence, I feel, will go a long way in encouraging transit use. (Again, those standards are from JAzumah, and BrooklynBus basically agreed with those standards in post #1111.)

 

Also to say more about encouraging transit use, and this could potentially lead to a discussion about MTA needing to make a whole slew of operational changes to address this issue, MTA is more likely to increase service frequency on the bus lines (esp. SBS and LTD) in response to ridership increases than it is to increase service frequency on the in response to ridership increases FOR SO MANY REASONS including the fact that the max load point for the is probably somewhere in Midtown. And increasing frequencies on lines like the B44 SBS could prove to be *very* important for reducing commute times on non-Manhattan trips.

 

In light of the fact that grade-separated rail service connecting the outer boroughs (like the (RX)) seems very, very difficult to implement, I feel that it could potentially, maybe, possibly, be better to try making the buses much faster than they currently are, for example by removing parking so that the B44 SBS can regularly achieve an average speed of 11.28 mph b/w Flushing Ave and JCT with stops added back at Myrtle + Gates + Bergen/Dean/Pacific (LIRR connection on the northbound that I mentioned in post #1107).

 

Especially since the B44 SBS connects to so many mass transit services that serve areas other than the urban core, has excellent route geometry with hardly any turns, uses unidirectional roads a lot, and is different from the IRT in that it does not require one to backtrack into Downtown BK in order to access services that go to points east of Nostrand Ave (like the LIRR and the , all of which go to Queens).

 

Maybe it would even be fine to have both faster buses (which requires that the buses have a certain amount of space to safely maneuver at high average speeds such as 11.28 mph for the B44 SBS b/w Flushing and "H") and an (RX). I would want something like that, although most people seem to disagree with the measures I would want to take to have "faster surface mass transit." While removing parking to an extent that I have suggested may seem very difficult, at this point it could potentially be easier to do than try to create an (RX). I think you (bobtehpanda) even said they will not even start thinking about it for another 20-30 years or so.

 

On the one hand we want to reduce commute times on mass transit, but on the other hand extending the would probably be more costly than bringing the B44 SBS up to my standards or implementing an (RX), and I think making the B44 SBS faster or implementing an (RX) would do more for outer borough commuting than a extension. And I think plans involving the B44 SBS (north of Kings Hwy or "L", inclusive) or (RX) would be more conducive to "bringing the city together" than extending the .

 

I guess extending the to Kings Hwy would be alright actually. Still think something should be done about the B44 SBS (north of Kings Hwy or "L") and (RX) first though. Or at least the (RX) and a Utica subway. Utica subway should definitely come before a Nostrand extension. Even a Utica subway would do more to "bring the city together" than extending the .

 

I was also going to talk about the thing about building rail lines in neighborhoods near highways, but I decided I would not in this post because of exhaustion and post length. I am not against building rail lines near highways in all situations. (I am not against the SAS, which is near the FDR Drive.) I question extending the to Sheepshead Bay for various reasons other than the highway thing (like decentralization?).

 

I do acknowledge the problems you mentioned involving the street grid b/w BK and QNS and the fact that Woodhaven is too far east while the BQE is too far west, and the Q58.

 

I was thinking about making the B38 faster, albeit east of Nostrand/Bedford it only uses unidirectional roads for a few blocks.

 

I tend to focus more on speed than route restructuring or route creation; might be a good idea to start thinking about the last two a bit more...

 

My sister-in-law works on Long Island in a nursing home and many of her co-workers come from Bed-Stuy and Prospect Lefferts Gardens. These people, including nurses, are commuting by car or LIRR to Suffolk County which doesn't really jibe with the COO of Downstate's statement.

I do not quite follow this (esp. the underlined part). Can you explain?

 

Also I appreciate your discussion of history and your experiences.