B44 +SelectBusService+

[BrooklynIRT]

I made a huge gaffe; the does not go to Queens. Sorry. I blame exhaustion.

[bobtehpanda]

The problem with focusing on the speed is that there isn't really a way to speed up service between the outer boroughs. Staten Island and the Bronx are separated by large gulfs of water with limited crossings. Brooklyn and Queens are not very interconnected, and buses are unlikely to ever reach the 18MPH average speeds of something like the RX (which wouldn't be hard, technically speaking, but lacks a champion). It doesn't really matter if you speed up the B44, because the slowest part of any bus-only trip between Queens and Brooklyn would still be the segment between the two boroughs, which already takes up the most time of any leg of that trip. Unless you managed to obtain a grade separated ROW without traffic lights or turns, you wouldn't be able to speed up bus traffic, and subways into the core would still be faster (not to mention, the all-bus commute would require at least three or four buses just to get to Queens Blvd). This is evidenced by the fact that people do indeed use the subway to travel to south Brooklyn from the outer boroughs; the trip to Coney Island is made by many in the Bronx and Queens using the subway, not buses.

The area around Utica is actually more floodprone than Sheepshead Bay; this flood zone map from WNYC shows most of Utica in zones higher than neighboring areas on Nostrand. In any case, the farthest any lines should extend would be to Avenue U, which would be a logical place to terminate subway service.

 

This part of your quote confuses me:

 

 

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.

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but no matter how you slice it, if you speed up the slowest part of the journey and bring up the average speed, is that not reducing the time difference between car travel and mass transit? Or are you arguing that we should slow down cars so that transit has "gained" an advantage? New York already has the highest average commuting times of any metro area; pushing areas outside of a reasonable commute time by any mode would just result in reduced opportunities for employers and potential employees.

 

 

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

 

The MTA has included in its latest budget increases in off-peak service on the and ; the main reason it has not really done so for the is that it is useful for getting out of the Nostrand Av corridor, but is too short to actually use within the corridor. If the corridor were to be extended to say, Avenue U, it would be more useful, simply because more people wouldn't have to transfer to a bus to get to their destination (and if you had to travel from upper Nostrand to take the subway but had to transfer to a bus to get past Flatbush, why wouldn't you just stay on the B44 to avoid the transfer?)

 

The main argument against a Utica extension is that you would need additional train capacity. Unlike the , where a lot of riders are already transferring from the B44, B46 riders currently have the options of the and . Provisions currently exist to extend from the Eastern Pkwy line or the Fulton Line, but neither is feasible at this point in time. The is already crowded in Brooklyn, and extending that as the sole line down Utica would just end up shoving most Utica users onto a single train line instead of four. Extensions from Fulton are not feasible either; if you send the , there's no local service between Utica and Euclid, and if you send the , then east of Euclid gets screwed.

 

About your plan to remove parking on Nostrand; that would go down with the community like a lead balloon. With the current B44, DOT is already accused of arrogance and refusing community input, despite accommodating the wishes of neighborhood merchants and residents (who, among other things, explicitly stated a desire to maintain as much street parking as possible). You would have a very, very hard time finding a civic organization such as Transportation Alternatives that would support this, let alone any community boards or politicians willing to stand behind such a drastic overreach (when the problem could easily be solved using the automated enforcement that hasn't been turned on yet.)

Even if something like this were to go through, the prospect of losing street parking would be so unpalatable that it would lead to scuppering of any plans to expand SBS service to other routes. Opponents would be able to point to Nostrand and say, "You removed the parking on Nostrand, how do we know you're not going to try and pull that here?" In addition, it would never be implemented because someone would probably sue the City or MTA for strong-arming the community and violating due process, and they would probably win. You would end up winning the battle for better bus service on Nostrand, but losing the war, and everyone would be worse off for it.

[BrooklynBus]

More street parking could be eliminated if we had more off-street parking. But in NYC we feel it is a sin to leave one square inch of undeveloped land anywhere. We must put structures everywhere. Then we complain there is too much congestion.

[BrooklynIRT]

More street parking could be eliminated if we had more off-street parking. But in NYC we feel it is a sin to leave one square inch of undeveloped land anywhere. We must put structures everywhere. Then we complain there is too much congestion.

This problem will be attacked either by changing zoning laws that imply that "it is a sin to leave one square inch of undeveloped land anywhere..."

 

...or by convincing people that they can still use (their?) cars even if street parking were eliminated without eliminating off-street parking (see B35 via Church's statements I quoted in post #1139, which this proposal agrees with)...

 

...or by convincing people (which is NOT the same as forcing them to believe or agree with something) who live reasonably close to the urban core and the rest of the city (Kings Hwy probably is; south of there I would have to think about it) that many or most 'reasons' for personal automobile use are not real 'reasons' at all and therefore there is no need to own personal automobiles that occupy street space while parked on the street and compromise maneuverability of moving road vehicles (this proposal would probably involve disagreement with B35 via Church's statements I quoted in post #1139).

[BrooklynBus]

I don't see how people can still use their cars even if parking were eliminated. I disagree with B35 that people will complain but will still find a parking place anyway. If finding a spot is that much of a hassle, they won't be using their car the next time. That's why so many who use public transit only do so if traveling into Manhattan where much the time parking is all but impossible. I've stopped taking my car to my dentist's office in Brooklyn because by the time I find a spot a quarter or a half mile away, I could be there quicker by mass transit.

 

Also, a few months ago, I spent about an hour trying to find a parking space one evening to have dinner in Bay Ridge. We never even saw a single car park or pull out. We finally gave up looking and ended up driving to and parking in Park Slope to eat. So it is wrong to state that you always find a spot because sometimes you don't.

 

When I was in Seattle in 2003, I was afraid to take my car downtown because I was thinking NYC. Every other block was a parking lot, not a skyscraper shoe horned in everywhere. If you were willing to walk three blocks, the rates were also quite reasonable. And even without a subway, there was little traffic even in the heart of rush hour. They were smart and only developed 50% of the land area downtown, unlike what we do here. We cause our own congestion, then we complain about it.

 

I also disagree with drawing an imaginary line like south of Kings Highway and saying someone above that point does not need a car. It all depends on what your needs are and what your alternatives are. Someone living in an area with excellent mass transit in his neighborhood may still need a car if the places where they go to frequently or often enough are not convenient by mass transit or if they travel at odd times. A quick trip by subway to Manhattan does you no good if you work in Suffolk County and there is no bus from the LIRR to your place of employment or if it operates every hour.

[BrooklynIRT]

I don't see how people can still use their cars even if parking were eliminated. I disagree with B35 that people will complain but will still find a parking place anyway. If finding a spot is that much of a hassle, they won't be using their car the next time. That's why so many who use public transit only do so if traveling into Manhattan where much the time parking is all but impossible. I've stopped taking my car to my dentist's office in Brooklyn because by the time I find a spot a quarter or a half mile away, I could be there quicker by mass transit.

 

Also, a few months ago, I spent about an hour trying to find a parking space one evening to have dinner in Bay Ridge. We never even saw a single car park or pull out. We finally gave up looking and ended up driving to and parking in Park Slope to eat. So it is wrong to state that you always find a spot because sometimes you don't.

I have my own interpretation of what B35 said about this subject, but I will hold back on that interpretation for a moment because I do not want to cause confusion. If B35 does not make a post explaining his statements further, then I guess I will state my interpretation.

[bobtehpanda]

More street parking could be eliminated if we had more off-street parking. But in NYC we feel it is a sin to leave one square inch of undeveloped land anywhere. We must put structures everywhere. Then we complain there is too much congestion.

Off-street parking tends to deaden the neighborhoods around it and cause congestion in and of itself (it won't be free, and people will still try to "shop" for parking spaces until they really don't have to, plus you've got all those cars trying to get in and out of one driveway)

[bobtehpanda]

This problem will be attacked either by changing zoning laws that imply that "it is a sin to leave one square inch of undeveloped land anywhere..."

 

...or by convincing people that they can still use (their?) cars even if street parking were eliminated without eliminating off-street parking (see B35 via Church's statements I quoted in post #1139, which this proposal agrees with)...

 

...or by convincing people (which is NOT the same as forcing them to believe or agree with something) who live reasonably close to the urban core and the rest of the city (Kings Hwy probably is; south of there I would have to think about it) that many or most 'reasons' for personal automobile use are not real 'reasons' at all and therefore there is no need to own personal automobiles that occupy street space while parked on the street and compromise maneuverability of moving road vehicles (this proposal would probably involve disagreement with B35 via Church's statements I quoted in post #1139).

 

The problem with downzoning areas that are congested is that, well, most of the city is congested, and the city is projected to add a million residents by 2030. We have to accommodate tomorrow's growth without pushing out long-time New Yorkers who face rising rents and property prices due to a lack of supply in the housing market, and we can only do that by increasing development. Of course everyone will say they don't want it in their backyard, but if we concentrate the growth in certain corridors where transit service can plausibly be expanded (along existing subway lines and corridors such as Woodhaven, Guy R Brewer, Merrick, Hillside, Northern, Utica, Nostrand, Third Av (Bronx), and Fordham), then we will have more of a basis to push for improved transit. More development does not necessarily mean high-rises; it could mean a eight-story instead of a five-story, a five-story instead of a three-story, and a three-story apartment instead of a detached house. If we don't accommodate this growth, even more New Yorkers will be pushed out due to gentrification, and the lack of affordable housing and resulting decrease in quality of life will convince developers to move to greener pastures, which would be terrible for the city's diversification efforts.

 

One only needs to look at San Francisco to see what happens when you enact restrictive zoning in the name of "character preservation" and "preventing congestion." The city is even more unaffordable than New York, and the companies that do want to move into the city simply cannot due to a lack of appropriate spaces.

[BrooklynIRT]

I also disagree with drawing an imaginary line like south of Kings Highway and saying someone above that point does not need a car. It all depends on what your needs are and what your alternatives are. Someone living in an area with excellent mass transit in his neighborhood may still need a car if the places where they go to frequently or often enough are not convenient by mass transit or if they travel at odd times. A quick trip by subway to Manhattan does you no good if you work in Suffolk County and there is no bus from the LIRR to your place of employment or if it operates every hour.

Although it is true that we have to consider the transportation situation at the other end of the commute (in this case, the suburbia that passes for Suffolk County), it is typically easier to deconstruct somebody's 'reasons' for personal auto use if the person lives in a neighborhood that is closer, both time-wise via mass transit, and physically closer, to services that connect to non-core destinations. This is true regardless of the transportation situation at the other end of the commute, even though I do recognize that we still have to consider it as well as other factors.

 

Also, I just want to remind everyone that the goal of deconstructing somebody's 'reasons' for personal auto use is to convince him/her to dump his/her car, but not to force him/her to dump his/her car.

[BrooklynIRT]

The problem with downzoning areas that are congested is that, well, most of the city is congested, and the city is projected to add a million residents by 2030. We have to accommodate tomorrow's growth without pushing out long-time New Yorkers who face rising rents and property prices due to a lack of supply in the housing market, and we can only do that by increasing development. Of course everyone will say they don't want it in their backyard, but if we concentrate the growth in certain corridors where transit service can plausibly be expanded (along existing subway lines and corridors such as Woodhaven, Guy R Brewer, Merrick, Hillside, Northern, Utica, Nostrand, Third Av (Bronx), and Fordham), then we will have more of a basis to push for improved transit. More development does not necessarily mean high-rises; it could mean a eight-story instead of a five-story, a five-story instead of a three-story, and a three-story apartment instead of a detached house. If we don't accommodate this growth, even more New Yorkers will be pushed out due to gentrification, and the lack of affordable housing and resulting decrease in quality of life will convince developers to move to greener pastures, which would be terrible for the city's diversification efforts.

I agree with the bold part 1000%.

 

I have mentioned something similar to people (who are not transit buffs and do not use this forum) with whom I have had discussions about reducing personal automobile use and increasing transit use. (It typically gets brought up when I start talking about discouraging the creation of more suburbias and people wonder how we are supposed to fit people into the cities such as NYC if we do not want to create suburbias, and then I talk about replacing less dense housing by more dense housing in the outer boroughs.

 

I do not know if replacing less dense housing (detached house/3-/5-story building) by more dense housing (3-/5-/8-story building) in the outer boroughs is something you agree with; I know that replacing housing in some cases would involve all kinds of messes for all kinds of personal reasons that opponents would bring up.

 

One only needs to look at San Francisco to see what happens when you enact restrictive zoning in the name of "character preservation" and "preventing congestion." The city is even more unaffordable than New York, and the companies that do want to move into the city simply cannot due to a lack of appropriate spaces.

What kind of restrictive zoning might you be talking about? I have to visit SF and study it carefully.

[BrooklynBus]

To bobthepanda:

 

I think you have it a little backwards. You don't first increase the density, then hope You can improve transit later. You first put improve transit, then you increase the growth. That's how the City was traditionally built. It's a mess when it's done the other way around. Look at what happened on Second and Third Avenue when we announced a Second Avenue Subway but never built one. Three story buildings were replaced with skyscrapers and we overloaded the Lexington Avenue line.

 

But the problem we have is the MTA will not put in more service until after the demand is there. We can't get the support to reactivate the abandoned Rockaway line which would be a perfect area to upzone to accommodate future housing needs. Increasing density along Woodhaven Boulevard while reducing parking and traffic lanes will only increase congestion. Select Bus Service going to limited destinations can't possibly meet all transit needs when many riders will still have to transfer to multiple local bus routes to complete their trips. People will still need their cars and traffic congestion will get worse. New rapid transit lines is the only way to increase density to provide for long term housing needs. And you put the transit lines in first, not after.

 

And when I was talking about more off-street parking, I realize that has its own problems about getting in and out through one driveway. But I was not suggesting just building more parking. I was suggesting off-street parking as a replacement for on-street parking to free up more traffic lanes for cars and buses in response to the comment that you could never get away with banning on-street parking.

 

To Brooklyn IRT:

 

You convince someone to dump his car by improving transit and giving him other options.

[qjtransitmaster]

To bobthepanda:

 

I think you have it a little backwards. You don't first increase the density, then hope You can improve transit later. You first put improve transit, then you increase the growth. That's how the City was traditionally built. It's a mess when it's done the other way around. Look at what happened on Second and Third Avenue when we announced a Second Avenue Subway but never built one. Three story buildings were replaced with skyscrapers and we overloaded the Lexington Avenue line.

 

But the problem we have is the MTA will not put in more service until after the demand is there. We can't get the support to reactivate the abandoned Rockaway line which would be a perfect area to upzone to accommodate future housing needs. Increasing density along Woodhaven Boulevard while reducing parking and traffic lanes will only increase congestion. Select Bus Service going to limited destinations can't possibly meet all transit needs when many riders will still have to transfer to multiple local bus routes to complete their trips. People will still need their cars and traffic congestion will get worse. New rapid transit lines is the only way to increase density to provide for long term housing needs. And you put the transit lines in first, not after.

 

And when I was talking about more off-street parking, I realize that has its own problems about getting in and out through one driveway. But I was not suggesting just building more parking. I was suggesting off-street parking as a replacement for on-street parking to free up more traffic lanes for cars and buses in response to the comment that you could never get away with banning on-street parking.

 

To Brooklyn IRT:

 

You convince someone to dump his car by improving transit and giving him other options.

 

Winner of bobtehpanda vs BrooklynIRT= Brooklynbus!!!

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.)

By the downstate hospital area? You mean.

[realizm]

I don't see how people can still use their cars even if parking were eliminated. I disagree with B35 that people will complain but will still find a parking place anyway. If finding a spot is that much of a hassle, they won't be using their car the next time. That's why so many who use public transit only do so if traveling into Manhattan where much the time parking is all but impossible. I've stopped taking my car to my dentist's office in Brooklyn because by the time I find a spot a quarter or a half mile away, I could be there quicker by mass transit.

 

Well thats one of the complaints of the merchants associations opposed to the B44 +SBS+: They feel that the dedicated bus lanes on Nostrand is putting a strain on their delivery trucks making stock deliveries so that they can conduct business and replenish inventory. Ok, understandable if I put myself in the shoes of the business owner however they must realize that the +SBS+ at the same time would bring more business wouldn't it? 

 

However they want to go on the deep end and put a stop to the service completely. Thats where I'm totally opposed to the merchants associations' severe criticisms of this brilliant MTA megaproject because in my estimation it is needed for customers reliant on public transit, period. 

 

However yes it is frustrating when you cant find parking on the motorist end running around blocks hoping someone will pull out of a spot on the curb so I can see where you are coming from.

But the problem we have is the MTA will not put in more service until after the demand is there. We can't get the support to reactivate the abandoned Rockaway line which would be a perfect area to upzone to accommodate future housing needs. 

 

Agreed. Passenger demand determines frequency of service with all modes of public transit the MTA has to offer.

[Cait Sith]

Winner of bobtehpanda vs BrooklynIRT= Brooklynbus!!!

.

 

Stop with the useless spam and posts. This will be the very last time I'm telling you this.

 

Sent from my XT1034 using Tapatalk

 

 

[BrooklynIRT]

By the downstate hospital area? You mean.

What are you saying/asking?

[realizm]

What are you saying/asking?

 

I'm not clear but I guess hes talking about SUNY Downstate Medical Center by Clarkson and New York Avenue which is a block away from Nostrand Avenue.

[BrooklynBus]

Well thats one of the complaints of the merchants associations opposed to the B44 +SBS+: They feel that the dedicated bus lanes on Nostrand is putting a strain on their delivery trucks making stock deliveries so that they can conduct business and replenish inventory. Ok, understandable if I put myself in the shoes of the business owner however they must realize that the +SBS+ at the same time would bring more business wouldn't it? 

 

However they want to go on the deep end and put a stop to the service completely. Thats where I'm totally opposed to the merchants associations' severe criticisms of this brilliant MTA megaproject because in my estimation it is needed for customers reliant on public transit, period. 

 .

What gets me is that they are asked to restrict delivery to 21 hours a day instead of 24 and they feel they are sacrificing too much. If it was up to me I would have deliveries on all busy streets restricted to the middle of the night as is done in Israel and other places in Europe. What would they say then? That was the plan for the Fulton Mall to require all deliveries after 7PM , but the merchants refused, so instead of buses fighting cars, they now fight delivery trucks instead so bus traffic is just as slow as before the Mall when the street was four lanes wide.

[BrooklynIRT]

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

In post #1152, bobtehpanda said: "The problem with focusing on the speed is that there isn't really a way to speed up service between the outer boroughs...It doesn't really matter if you speed up the B44, because the slowest part of any bus-only trip between Queens and Brooklyn would still be the segment between the two boroughs, which already takes up the most time of any leg of that trip. Unless you managed to obtain a grade separated ROW without traffic lights or turns, you wouldn't be able to speed up bus traffic, and subways into the core would still be faster (not to mention, the all-bus commute would require at least three or four buses just to get to Queens Blvd). This is evidenced by the fact that people do indeed use the subway to travel to south Brooklyn from the outer boroughs; the trip to Coney Island is made by many in the Bronx and Queens using the subway, not buses."

Now BrooklynIRT says: There is also bus route restructuring, especially assuming the (RX) does not happen at all. I would not bother with doing anything about the Bronx to Coney Island trips, but I would bother with the Queens to Coney Island trips. Do those trips include trips beginning on Queens Blvd? Going from Astoria to CI via the Broadway subway is more direct than going from much of QBL to CI via whatever subway(s) would be involved. Probably best to focus on speeding up QBL to CI trips. Or Jamaica to CI, although at least some of the Jamaica to CI trips are more direct via LIRR to ATL and then the , and people who can afford LIRR tickets can take advantage of this.
 
Actually to get to Queens Blvd from the B44 SBS corridor with the current system, I can take the B44 SBS to Bridge Plaza for the B24 or Q59, so that is just 2 buses instead of 3 or 4. Sucks that only half the B44 SBS buses go to Bridge Plaza, but that can be changed. They could also speed up the B24 and/r Q59, although I know this cannot happen unless ridership increases on these lines. And again, there is also the possibility of restructuring bus routes.
 
Even if the (RX) gets built, I think the surface mass transit should be sped up (and restructured in some cases) in order to fill in the gaps in outer borough mass transit that the (RX) cannot fill, again, even if it is built. Unless even more heavy rail lines connecting the outer boroughs are built in addition to the (RX), such that there is no need to speed up/restructure the surface mass transit to fill in any gaps, which gaps would, presumably, be considered insignificant as far as the transit system is concerned.
 

The area around Utica is actually more floodprone than Sheepshead Bay; this flood zone map from WNYC shows most of Utica in zones higher than neighboring areas on Nostrand. In any case, the farthest any lines should extend would be to Avenue U, which would be a logical place to terminate subway service.

I saw the WNYC flood map. I do not quite understand how Utica north of "H" is more flood prone than Nostrand south of "H".
 
The fact that you said Avenue "U" should be the furthest extent of any subway line is very good; for a while I thought you may have been thinking Ave "W" or Voorhies Ave like the original proposals called for, which I would disagree with.
 

This part of your quote confuses me:
 

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.

 
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but no matter how you slice it, if you speed up the slowest part of the journey and bring up the average speed, is that not reducing the time difference between car travel and mass transit? Or are you arguing that we should slow down cars so that transit has "gained" an advantage? New York already has the highest average commuting times of any metro area; pushing areas outside of a reasonable commute time by any mode would just result in reduced opportunities for employers and potential employees.

 

In general, we do want to reduce the time difference between car travel and mass transit. But, it seems that you have a general focus on reducing the time difference b/w car travel and mass transit, while I have (or think I have) a specific focus on reducing [and seeking 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.
 
Question: Have I made any statements you would consider relevant to this discussion that imply that cars should be slowed down? If so, which statements were they?
 

The MTA has included in its latest budget increases in off-peak service on the and ; the main reason it has not really done so for the is that it is useful for getting out of the Nostrand Av corridor, but is too short to actually use within the corridor. If the corridor were to be extended to say, Avenue U, it would be more useful, simply because more people wouldn't have to transfer to a bus to get to their destination (and if you had to travel from upper Nostrand to take the subway but had to transfer to a bus to get past Flatbush, why wouldn't you just stay on the B44 to avoid the transfer?)

Yes, then somebody could, theoretically, take the B44 south to President St or Sterling St and then go downstairs to take the to Midwood or Sheepshead Bay. As long as one does not have to wait too long for the train to come. (When the is running there, you almost never have to wait more than 10 minutes for a southbound train to arrive at a Nostrand Ave station, but when it is not running there, watch out!)
 
Also recall the weekend TPH restrictions on the West Side IRT lines.
 

The main argument against a Utica extension is that you would need additional train capacity. Unlike the , where a lot of riders are already transferring from the B44, B46 riders currently have the options of the and . Provisions currently exist to extend from the Eastern Pkwy line or the Fulton Line, but neither is feasible at this point in time. The is already crowded in Brooklyn, and extending that as the sole line down Utica would just end up shoving most Utica users onto a single train line instead of four. Extensions from Fulton are not feasible either; if you send the , there's no local service between Utica and Euclid, and if you send the , then east of Euclid gets screwed.

What about this: A that starts at Utica-"H" (for now), goes up Utica to Fulton, heads west on Fulton via the IND Fulton local tracks (the merge would be just east of Utica Ave station there; might have to be a jug turn because I want the to stop on the same tracks as the at Utica-Fulton), branch off the IND Fulton local tracks either b/w Clinton-Washington Aves and LaFayette Ave stations or just west of LaFayette Ave station, merge with the   and come into DeKalb Ave station, and then I guess branch off before Whitehall St station and then get up to 2nd Ave (connect with the Second Ave Subway).
 

About your plan to remove parking on Nostrand; that would go down with the community like a lead balloon. With the current B44, DOT is already accused of arrogance and refusing community input, despite accommodating the wishes of neighborhood merchants and residents (who, among other things, explicitly stated a desire to maintain as much street parking as possible). You would have a very, very hard time finding a civic organization such as Transportation Alternatives that would support this, let alone any community boards or politicians willing to stand behind such a drastic overreach (when the problem could easily be solved using the automated enforcement that hasn't been turned on yet.)

Careful about the word "overreach." The online dictionaries say it is a verb. Most do not recognize it as a noun. I think I know what you mean to say, though.
 
Is this automated enforcement going to be enough to allow the B44 SBS to perform up to the travel time standards I outlined in post #1106? Is it going to allow MTA to publish schedules reflecting nothing [significantly] less than those travel time standards at all times? Is this automated enforcement going to be enough to allow the B44 SBS to perform up to a lower standard of 30 minutes to travel 4.7 miles (9.4 mph), regardless of whether the bus stops back at Myrtle, Gates, or Bergen? After they finish with the utility work on Nostrand b/w Flushing and Atlantic and put bus lanes and curb extensions at all of the SBS stops there?
 
Another thing about that automated enforcement:
 

The problem with SBS bus lanes is that they aren't really usable as such; there are too many exceptions. They're only enforced during peak hours, drivers can do pickup/dropoff and right turns, etc. and this all has an effect on performance.

If they are only enforced during peak hours, what are we going to do about non-peak hours? I think the bus lanes should formally be in effect during all hours of SBS operation; it is not desirable to be sitting behind a bunch of cars using the offset bus lane (legally or illegally), waiting to get past Linden Blvd or Flatbush Ave when I want my bus to make the green signal so I do not have to wait 60 to 90 seconds for the next one. The more vehicles there are in front of my bus, the more motorists have to react to the changing signal and leave following distances and the less likely it is that my bus will make the signal.
 
Nor is it desirable to be on a bus fighting its way through an obstacle course of double parked vehicles b/w Linden Blvd and Church Ave, which fighting through an obstacle course causes the bus to miss green signals at Martense St and/r Church Ave and have to wait for the next one. This happens on weekends when the offset bus lanes are not formally in effect.
 

Even if something like this were to go through, the prospect of losing street parking would be so unpalatable that it would lead to scuppering of any plans to expand SBS service to other routes.

Some people would wonder whether this would be a bad thing considering the current performance of SBS lines in general (not just the B44):
 
 

I have never been against the SBS concept. I have only objected to how the MTA has gone about implementing it, choosing corridors, and the lack of enforcement of bus lanes. I'm also not crazy about the eagle team boarding buses and delaying them for te purposes of enforcement. They should be able to conduct their checks with the proper equipment whie the buses are moving. Riders shoud also not be fined when all machines at a stop are broken.

 
 
 

Opponents would be able to point to Nostrand and say, "You removed the parking on Nostrand, how do we know you're not going to try and pull that here?" In addition, it would never be implemented because someone would probably sue the City or MTA for strong-arming the community and violating due process, and they would probably win. You would end up winning the battle for better bus service on Nostrand, but losing the war, and everyone would be worse off for it.

Proponents might be able to point to Nostrand and say, "although you removed the parking on Nostrand, you improved the average speed of the B44 SBS to 11.28 mph (25 minutes Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing or Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H"), up from MTA's measly expectations of 7.05 mph (40 minutes, southbound, Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H", weekday rush hours) to 8.8125 mph (32 minutes, northbound, Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing, early Sunday afternoons). We totally want this in our neighborhood!"
 
What strong-arming and violating due process? There is no strong-arming, just using logical reasoning in an attempt to convince people in the relevant communities that so and so transit improvements should be implemented by removing parking, while minimizing negative changes to anybody's lifestyle. If the people are convinced that so and so transit improvements should be implemented for the common good by removing parking so there can be less reliance on traffic law enforcement that is funded by them (the taxpayers), the people will attempt to get DOT to make the changes.
 
If the people will not be convinced that so and so transit improvements should be implemented by removing parking and that the B44 SBS should be performing up to certain standards (post #1106), then let the whole enforcement blitz and automated enforcement thing run its course and meanwhile, let us wait God knows how long for the outer boroughs to finally get heavy rail expansions such as the (RX) or Utica Ave.
 
I remember you mentioning something about Bloomberg lacking the courage to take on construction companies who would build subways for us. Also you have mentioned that the (RX) currently does not have a champion. Part of my philosophy with this whole thing is that in order to build support for heavy rail expansions (such as the (RX), the SAS, Utica, and others), we will have to start small. To me, starting small means getting more people to advocate mass transit.
 
I am of the opinion that there is not enough of a sense of urgency to improve the transit system because many people use the personal automobile to circumvent the problems the transit system has instead of pressing MTA to fix the transit system and do what they, the riding public (assuming they use mass transit and/r want to use it as much as possible), want them to do. Or pressing MTA to be more accountable, which accountability would be much more important to people if they had to use the transit system a lot more or made a conscious decision to do so.

 

I also think it is difficult it is to convince people that the transit system needs to be improved when such an attractive alternative (the personal automobile) is available to them. I have spoken to so many people who are NYC residents in my age group at my university, which is in Manhattan, about this subject; guess how many of them want to have their own cars one of these days! Guess how many of them complain about problems with the transit system and connect this to their desires to own and use personal automobiles! How much do you think these people want to fight to improve the transit system, especially once they have cars and start using the transit system less?

 

One of my friends, with whom I have discussed this topic extensively, told me last week that I am quite different in that I wish to eschew personal automobile (and taxi and car service) use, use the transit system as much as possible, and motivate people to fight for improvements. Using the transit system as much as possible is tied to motivating people to fight for improvements because somebody who uses the transit system a lot and does not intend on "escaping" it by using forms of transportation that have a lot of external impacts will probably want the experience to be as good as possible.***

 

Somebody who does not use it a lot (see elected officials and the "untouchables") probably will not care what is going on with mass transit and will not be part of the fight. If influential people are not part of the fight, it could be very difficult to get things done. That reminds me of a www.carsstink.org statement about how our current transit and city planning is done by people who will not use public transit for anything.

 

Now, BrooklynBus has stated before that owning a car for whatever number of years he has owned one has not prevented him from advocating for transit improvements. I believe that, but obviously advocating for mass transit has been a lifetime mission of BrooklynBus'. Trainmaster5 has also stated that a person can advocate for mass transit and own a car. In theory this is true, but most people, whether they own cars or not, are not really motivated to improve mass transit. These people have "better things to do" and/r "not enough time" and/r "are too busy" to worry about this stuff.

 

B35 via Church once said not enough people in this city are involved in pushing for mass transit improvements: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/43946-why-are-trolleys-opposed-so-much/page-14?do=findComment&comment=747505

 

So basically I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem.

 

We transit advocates want heavy rail to be expanded (I may object to certain expansions, but in general I consider myself someone who wants heavy rail to be expanded) and want mass transit to be improved so its modal share increases and people have more support for mass transit, but the SAS project shows that expanding heavy rail is extremely costly these days. One way to try to care of this, according to bobtehpanda, is to take on the construction companies.

 

bobtehpanda stated that the (RX) lacks a champion. Now, if it is safe for us to say that heavy rail proposals, in general, lack champions these days, then I think we can also say that this fact is the reason that expanding heavy rail is extremely costly these days. It seems that we have a chicken-and-egg problem because we want mass transit to be improved so its modal share increases and people have more support for mass transit, but it is currently hard to get people to support mass transit and push for expensive and drawn-out heavy rail improvements.

 

Especially if such a "convenient" and attractive alternative is available to them AND they are not transit buffs/advocates or it is not a "lifetime mission" for them.

 

There is also the fact that "having your own personal vehicle represent the american dream (even if it's said to be dead these days, ppl. still want their own & want no part of public transportation))," as B35 via Church once said.

 

So moving right along...

[BrooklynIRT]

***This is not to say that somebody who does not use mass transit a lot does not care about the experience or cannot or will not fight for improvements.

That statement with the three stars at the beginning refers to the sentence with the three stars after the period in post #1168.

[BrooklynIRT]

Finally I can respond to this inquiry of Trainmaster5's directly.

 

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.

I am actually just going to respond using part of that megapost I made (post #1168); I think it addresses the inquiry in bold pretty directly:

 

I am of the opinion that there is not enough of a sense of urgency to improve the transit system because many people use the personal automobile to circumvent the problems the transit system has instead of pressing MTA to fix the transit system and do what they, the riding public (assuming they use mass transit and/r want to use it as much as possible), want them to do. Or pressing MTA to be more accountable, which accountability would be much more important to people if they had to use the transit system a lot more or made a conscious decision to do so.

 

I also think it is difficult it is to convince people that the transit system needs to be improved when such an attractive alternative (the personal automobile) is available to them. I have spoken to so many people who are NYC residents in my age group at my university, which is in Manhattan, about this subject; guess how many of them want to have their own cars one of these days! Guess how many of them complain about problems with the transit system and connect this to their desires to own and use personal automobiles! How much do you think these people want to fight to improve the transit system, especially once they have cars and start using the transit system less?

 

One of my friends, with whom I have discussed this topic extensively, told me last week that I am quite different in that I wish to eschew personal automobile (and taxi and car service) use, use the transit system as much as possible, and motivate people to fight for improvements. Using the transit system as much as possible is tied to motivating people to fight for improvements because somebody who uses the transit system a lot and does not intend on "escaping" it by using forms of transportation that have a lot of external impacts will probably want the experience to be as good as possible.***

 

Somebody who does not use it a lot (see elected officials and the "untouchables") probably will not care what is going on with mass transit and will not be part of the fight. If influential people are not part of the fight, it could be very difficult to get things done. That reminds me of a www.carsstink.org statement about how our current transit and city planning is done by people who will not use public transit for anything.

 

Now, BrooklynBus has stated before that owning a car for whatever number of years he has owned one has not prevented him from advocating for transit improvements. I believe that, but obviously advocating for mass transit has been a lifetime mission of BrooklynBus'. Trainmaster5 has also stated that a person can advocate for mass transit and own a car. In theory this is true, but most people, whether they own cars or not, are not really motivated to improve mass transit. These people have "better things to do" and/r "not enough time" and/r "are too busy" to worry about this stuff.

 

B35 via Church once said not enough people in this city are involved in pushing for mass transit improvements: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/43946-why-are-trolleys-opposed-so-much/page-14?do=findComment&comment=747505

 

So basically I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem.

 

We transit advocates want heavy rail to be expanded (I may object to certain expansions, but in general I consider myself someone who wants heavy rail to be expanded) and want mass transit to be improved so its modal share increases and people have more support for mass transit, but the SAS project shows that expanding heavy rail is extremely costly these days. One way to try to care of this, according to bobtehpanda, is to take on the construction companies.

 

bobtehpanda stated that the (RX) lacks a champion. Now, if it is safe for us to say that heavy rail proposals, in general, lack champions these days, then I think we can also say that this fact is the reason that expanding heavy rail is extremely costly these days. It seems that we have a chicken-and-egg problem because we want mass transit to be improved so its modal share increases and people have more support for mass transit, but it is currently hard to get people to support mass transit and push for expensive and drawn-out heavy rail improvements.

 

Especially if such a "convenient" and attractive alternative is available to them AND they are not transit buffs/advocates or it is not a "lifetime mission" for them.

 

There is also the fact that "having your own personal vehicle represent the american dream (even if it's said to be dead these days, ppl. still want their own & want no part of public transportation))," as B35 via Church once said.

 

[NYCT7720]

So I read the new article in Sheepshead Bites and that double fare issue should be addressed by MTA and NYCDOT I feel that the receipts issued by B44SBS should be given or used on B44 locals traveling in the same direction as it is on the M15 SBS and M15 Local in fact the same rules that are on M15 SBS and M15 Local should be enforced on all current SBS and Local routes with Drivers and customers receiving the same education. Like weeks before B44 SBS started B44 early morning "hawk" drivers were making announcements about the service changes which gave a little clue of what was going on. B44 drivers should have been given the option to weigh in on stops and how they feel the service would impact the line. B44 SBS on February pick is doing a great job operators are driving like SBS lines in Manhattan and The Bronx so I will applaud that.

[BrooklynIRT]

One of my friends, with whom I have discussed this topic extensively, told me last week that I am quite different in that I wish to eschew personal automobile use, use the transit system as much as possible, and motivate people to fight for improvements.

I forgot to say that that friend of mine thinks I am quite different in my attitude about transportation because other people she knows have told her about their desires to get their own cars one day and no longer have to use the transit system [as much].

 

It went something like "Well, I have to say you are very different from other people - I have had conversations with people in which they have told me that they do not like the subway and want to get their own car so they do not have to use the subway anymore (or less often or whatever), but you are the first person who has told me that he dislikes cars and wants to improve the transit system."

 

Obviously I am not the only person who dislikes cars or wants to improve the transit system; the most important piece of information here is that not a lot of people are not pushing for these improvements and whatnot.

 

I can also throw in something my father told me the other day (something to this effect): "This thing about you and cars..you seem to think people like being in cars. People use cars because they get tired of dealing with mass transit."

 

I am sure he was not implying that that was the only reason for somebody to use a car instead of mass transit to make a trip, but still.

 

I can also throw in this post by city-data user Pruzhany from last year (http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-york-city/1777293-double-parking-busy-streets-where-buses-4.html#ixzz2tAZbcL4W):

 

"My view has its foundation in living in Brownsville in the early 60s where a three bedroom apt was a three family apartment. Even back then the buses were primarily for students, people who couldn't afford cars and the minor few who didn't want a car. Once the adults got cars, they never rode the buses ever again. As a student I had to use buses to get to/from school. But once I got a license I never rode a bus ever again (trains would be another thread). As to your issue, there are more people and more cars now than in the past."

[B35 via Church]

I liked the "wait wait wait."

 

I have something against the things people do that delay surface mass transit. I do not have anything against the people themselves.

Then you're being either dishonest or completely conflicting here.....

 

If you are constantly/continuously in a thread like this defiantly defending your anti-car position, it is clear that you have something against motorists..... Motorists are people themselves, are they not? 

 

I don't see how people can still use their cars even if parking were eliminated. I disagree with B35 that people will complain but will still find a parking place anyway. If finding a spot is that much of a hassle, they won't be using their car the next time. That's why so many who use public transit only do so if traveling into Manhattan where much the time parking is all but impossible. I've stopped taking my car to my dentist's office in Brooklyn because by the time I find a spot a quarter or a half mile away, I could be there quicker by mass transit.

Tell me something... The people that are bitching about not finding parking in their neighborhoods (or wherever they go, for the matter), where are they parking (and don't commence in telling me that the lot of these people are keeping the car home & taking mass transit instead... Lol... Because if that were the case, there would NOT be as many cars on the road).... Better yet, how potent are their complaints still? If finding parking was so bad a problem in this city as ppl. make like it is, then there'd be much more of a fuss raised about it, city-wide.... Guaranteed.....

 

Have these people tell it, every damn parking spot in this city is occupied by some vehicle that hasn't moved out of one 24 freakin 7..... Give me a break.... 

 

Also, this assertion that so many people are using mass transit b/c they can't find parking, I can't believe to be the case.....

Some, yeah.... So many, I don't know about all that now....

 

I have my own interpretation of what B35 said about this subject, but I will hold back on that interpretation for a moment because I do not want to cause confusion. If B35 does not make a post explaining his statements further, then I guess I will state my interpretation.

Smh @ your recent crusade to try to get people to disagree with my statements in this discussion.... But let it be known that doesn't mean for one thin second I'm going to amend anything I said..... Also, I'm not making any further post explaining that particular statement because quite frankly, there is no need for me to....

 

If I don't make a post explaining my statements further.... Or else what? You'll post your interpretation? Lol.....

Go ahead & post your interpretation or whatever, BrooklynIRT... You should've done that when I was more active in this discussion anyway..... You wait until I become less active in here to announce such a thing..... I mean really, how catastrophically different can it possibly be from all the rhetoric you've posted in this thread thus far......

 

QJT might have gotten warned for his commentary in this thread or w/e, but I have to agree with the guy with one thing.... It's a lost cause with you.... More power to BobPanda, I suppose.....

 

You convince someone to dump his car by improving transit and giving him other options.

Why is there always this assumption that everyone wants to put up with mass transit....

[qjtransitmaster]

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

 

In post #1152, bobtehpanda said: "The problem with focusing on the speed is that there isn't really a way to speed up service between the outer boroughs...It doesn't really matter if you speed up the B44, because the slowest part of any bus-only trip between Queens and Brooklyn would still be the segment between the two boroughs, which already takes up the most time of any leg of that trip. Unless you managed to obtain a grade separated ROW without traffic lights or turns, you wouldn't be able to speed up bus traffic, and subways into the core would still be faster (not to mention, the all-bus commute would require at least three or four buses just to get to Queens Blvd). This is evidenced by the fact that people do indeed use the subway to travel to south Brooklyn from the outer boroughs; the trip to Coney Island is made by many in the Bronx and Queens using the subway, not buses."

 

Now BrooklynIRT says: There is also bus route restructuring, especially assuming the (RX) does not happen at all. I would not bother with doing anything about the Bronx to Coney Island trips, but I would bother with the Queens to Coney Island trips. Do those trips include trips beginning on Queens Blvd? Going from Astoria to CI via the Broadway subway is more direct than going from much of QBL to CI via whatever subway(s) would be involved. Probably best to focus on speeding up QBL to CI trips. Or Jamaica to CI, although at least some of the Jamaica to CI trips are more direct via LIRR to ATL and then the , and people who can afford LIRR tickets can take advantage of this.

 

Actually to get to Queens Blvd from the B44 SBS corridor with the current system, I can take the B44 SBS to Bridge Plaza for the B24 or Q59, so that is just 2 buses instead of 3 or 4. Sucks that only half the B44 SBS buses go to Bridge Plaza, but that can be changed. They could also speed up the B24 and/r Q59, although I know this cannot happen unless ridership increases on these lines. And again, there is also the possibility of restructuring bus routes.

 

Even if the (RX) gets built, I think the surface mass transit should be sped up (and restructured in some cases) in order to fill in the gaps in outer borough mass transit that the (RX) cannot fill, again, even if it is built. Unless even more heavy rail lines connecting the outer boroughs are built in addition to the (RX), such that there is no need to speed up/restructure the surface mass transit to fill in any gaps, which gaps would, presumably, be considered insignificant as far as the transit system is concerned.

 

I saw the WNYC flood map. I do not quite understand how Utica north of "H" is more flood prone than Nostrand south of "H".

 

The fact that you said Avenue "U" should be the furthest extent of any subway line is very good; for a while I thought you may have been thinking Ave "W" or Voorhies Ave like the original proposals called for, which I would disagree with.

 

In general, we do want to reduce the time difference between car travel and mass transit. But, it seems that you have a general focus on reducing the time difference b/w car travel and mass transit, while I have (or think I have) a specific focus on reducing [and seeking 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.

 

Question: Have I made any statements you would consider relevant to this discussion that imply that cars should be slowed down? If so, which statements were they?

 

Yes, then somebody could, theoretically, take the B44 south to President St or Sterling St and then go downstairs to take the to Midwood or Sheepshead Bay. As long as one does not have to wait too long for the train to come. (When the is running there, you almost never have to wait more than 10 minutes for a southbound train to arrive at a Nostrand Ave station, but when it is not running there, watch out!)

 

Also recall the weekend TPH restrictions on the West Side IRT lines.

 

What about this: A that starts at Utica-"H" (for now), goes up Utica to Fulton, heads west on Fulton via the IND Fulton local tracks (the merge would be just east of Utica Ave station there; might have to be a jug turn because I want the to stop on the same tracks as the at Utica-Fulton), branch off the IND Fulton local tracks either b/w Clinton-Washington Aves and LaFayette Ave stations or just west of LaFayette Ave station, merge with the   and come into DeKalb Ave station, and then I guess branch off before Whitehall St station and then get up to 2nd Ave (connect with the Second Ave Subway).

 

Careful about the word "overreach." The online dictionaries say it is a verb. Most do not recognize it as a noun. I think I know what you mean to say, though.

 

Is this automated enforcement going to be enough to allow the B44 SBS to perform up to the travel time standards I outlined in post #1106? Is it going to allow MTA to publish schedules reflecting nothing [significantly] less than those travel time standards at all times? Is this automated enforcement going to be enough to allow the B44 SBS to perform up to a lower standard of 30 minutes to travel 4.7 miles (9.4 mph), regardless of whether the bus stops back at Myrtle, Gates, or Bergen? After they finish with the utility work on Nostrand b/w Flushing and Atlantic and put bus lanes and curb extensions at all of the SBS stops there?

 

Another thing about that automated enforcement:

 

If they are only enforced during peak hours, what are we going to do about non-peak hours? I think the bus lanes should formally be in effect during all hours of SBS operation; it is not desirable to be sitting behind a bunch of cars using the offset bus lane (legally or illegally), waiting to get past Linden Blvd or Flatbush Ave when I want my bus to make the green signal so I do not have to wait 60 to 90 seconds for the next one. The more vehicles there are in front of my bus, the more motorists have to react to the changing signal and leave following distances and the less likely it is that my bus will make the signal.

 

Nor is it desirable to be on a bus fighting its way through an obstacle course of double parked vehicles b/w Linden Blvd and Church Ave, which fighting through an obstacle course causes the bus to miss green signals at Martense St and/r Church Ave and have to wait for the next one. This happens on weekends when the offset bus lanes are not formally in effect.

 

Some people would wonder whether this would be a bad thing considering the current performance of SBS lines in general (not just the B44):

 

 

 

 

 

Proponents might be able to point to Nostrand and say, "although you removed the parking on Nostrand, you improved the average speed of the B44 SBS to 11.28 mph (25 minutes Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing or Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H"), up from MTA's measly expectations of 7.05 mph (40 minutes, southbound, Lee-Flushing to Nostrand-"H", weekday rush hours) to 8.8125 mph (32 minutes, northbound, Nostrand-"H" to Bedford-Flushing, early Sunday afternoons). We totally want this in our neighborhood!"

 

What strong-arming and violating due process? There is no strong-arming, just using logical reasoning in an attempt to convince people in the relevant communities that so and so transit improvements should be implemented by removing parking, while minimizing negative changes to anybody's lifestyle. If the people are convinced that so and so transit improvements should be implemented for the common good by removing parking so there can be less reliance on traffic law enforcement that is funded by them (the taxpayers), the people will attempt to get DOT to make the changes.

 

If the people will not be convinced that so and so transit improvements should be implemented by removing parking and that the B44 SBS should be performing up to certain standards (post #1106), then let the whole enforcement blitz and automated enforcement thing run its course and meanwhile, let us wait God knows how long for the outer boroughs to finally get heavy rail expansions such as the (RX) or Utica Ave.

 

I remember you mentioning something about Bloomberg lacking the courage to take on construction companies who would build subways for us. Also you have mentioned that the (RX) currently does not have a champion. Part of my philosophy with this whole thing is that in order to build support for heavy rail expansions (such as the (RX), the SAS, Utica, and others), we will have to start small. To me, starting small means getting more people to advocate mass transit.

 

I am of the opinion that there is not enough of a sense of urgency to improve the transit system because many people use the personal automobile to circumvent the problems the transit system has instead of pressing MTA to fix the transit system and do what they, the riding public (assuming they use mass transit and/r want to use it as much as possible), want them to do. Or pressing MTA to be more accountable, which accountability would be much more important to people if they had to use the transit system a lot more or made a conscious decision to do so.

 

I also think it is difficult it is to convince people that the transit system needs to be improved when such an attractive alternative (the personal automobile) is available to them. I have spoken to so many people who are NYC residents in my age group at my university, which is in Manhattan, about this subject; guess how many of them want to have their own cars one of these days! Guess how many of them complain about problems with the transit system and connect this to their desires to own and use personal automobiles! How much do you think these people want to fight to improve the transit system, especially once they have cars and start using the transit system less?

 

One of my friends, with whom I have discussed this topic extensively, told me last week that I am quite different in that I wish to eschew personal automobile (and taxi and car service) use, use the transit system as much as possible, and motivate people to fight for improvements. Using the transit system as much as possible is tied to motivating people to fight for improvements because somebody who uses the transit system a lot and does not intend on "escaping" it by using forms of transportation that have a lot of external impacts will probably want the experience to be as good as possible.***

 

Somebody who does not use it a lot (see elected officials and the "untouchables") probably will not care what is going on with mass transit and will not be part of the fight. If influential people are not part of the fight, it could be very difficult to get things done. That reminds me of a www.carsstink.org statement about how our current transit and city planning is done by people who will not use public transit for anything.

 

Now, BrooklynBus has stated before that owning a car for whatever number of years he has owned one has not prevented him from advocating for transit improvements. I believe that, but obviously advocating for mass transit has been a lifetime mission of BrooklynBus'. Trainmaster5 has also stated that a person can advocate for mass transit and own a car. In theory this is true, but most people, whether they own cars or not, are not really motivated to improve mass transit. These people have "better things to do" and/r "not enough time" and/r "are too busy" to worry about this stuff.

 

B35 via Church once said not enough people in this city are involved in pushing for mass transit improvements: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/43946-why-are-trolleys-opposed-so-much/page-14?do=findComment&comment=747505

 

So basically I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem.

 

We transit advocates want heavy rail to be expanded (I may object to certain expansions, but in general I consider myself someone who wants heavy rail to be expanded) and want mass transit to be improved so its modal share increases and people have more support for mass transit, but the SAS project shows that expanding heavy rail is extremely costly these days. One way to try to care of this, according to bobtehpanda, is to take on the construction companies.

 

bobtehpanda stated that the (RX) lacks a champion. Now, if it is safe for us to say that heavy rail proposals, in general, lack champions these days, then I think we can also say that this fact is the reason that expanding heavy rail is extremely costly these days. It seems that we have a chicken-and-egg problem because we want mass transit to be improved so its modal share increases and people have more support for mass transit, but it is currently hard to get people to support mass transit and push for expensive and drawn-out heavy rail improvements.

 

Especially if such a "convenient" and attractive alternative is available to them AND they are not transit buffs/advocates or it is not a "lifetime mission" for them.

 

There is also the fact that "having your own personal vehicle represent the american dream (even if it's said to be dead these days, ppl. still want their own & want no part of public transportation))," as B35 via Church once said.

 

So moving right along...

Transfer policy change on Airtrain allowing those who board at Howard beach to get a free transfer at Jamaica without having to pay $10 but $5 instead to get more riders to use it if they switched at fed circle. Aside from that I am pretty much done with this thread.

[BrooklynIRT]

Then you're being either dishonest or completely conflicting here.....

 

If you are constantly/continuously in a thread like this defiantly defending your anti-car position, it is clear that you have something against motorists..... Motorists are people themselves, are they not?

Yes, motorists are people. But I cannot say I have something against the people/motorists for doing what they do. I personally know people who drive cars, and I personally know people who violate traffic and parking regulations and speed limits. I do not like it when anybody does these things.

 

I do not like it when motorists illegally use bus lanes, double park on streets where buses run, drive aggressively and/r dangerously, speed, play chicken with pedestrians, cut other vehicles (especially buses) off, dart out of parking spaces and in front of surface mass transit vehicles, drive slowly in front of surface mass transit vehicles, back into parking spaces in front of buses using offset bus lanes or streetcars on streetcar tracks, operate under the influence of alcohol, or use a cell phone while operating. I certainly have not liked it when motorists have created dangerous driving conditions for me on the occasions I have driven a road vehicle, either.

 

I do not even like the fact that so many people take their personal automobiles on the road to begin with (regardless of whether they have a good reason or not), especially if it is a road a [frequent/well-utilized] surface mass transit line uses. To some extent, I do not even like the fact that the personal automobile exists, even though I believe that everything happens for a reason.

 

But, I personally know people who I know have done stuff like what I mentioned before. I have been in cars being operated by people I know at excessive speeds and I have been in cars being operated by people who were using cell phones while operating and while I was a passenger in their car.

 

I cannot say or believe I have something against motorists themselves if I know people who are motorists and, to my knowledge, they have not done anything that has been detrimental to me or other people I know. I can only say [and believe] I have something against their actions.

 

To put forth the most extreme scenario, I will say I have something against a motorist [in addition to having something against the motorist's actions] if the motorist has killed or injured people while operating and I know that the instances of manslaughter or injury due to his/her vehicle occurred were unquestionably his/her fault.

 

I recognize that motorists who perform dangerous or [significantly] disruptive actions while operating do so because they are human beings that are unwillingly making mistakes (inexperienced/nervous drivers) or pretty much acting according to the principles of human nature (drivers of any experience level who willingly/knowingly and unnecessarily perform dangerous or [significantly] disruptive actions while operating and literally DO NOT CARE what kinds of problems they are causing).

 

If the personal automobile were not available to them, they would not be able to utilize it [to perform any of the dangerous or disruptive actions I described]. But it is available to them, and I suppose that the Law is simply not very effective at discouraging enough people from performing such dangerous or disruptive actions with massive machines. If it were effective enough, the dangerous and disruptive actions I described would not occur as frequently as they currently do.

 

I see and know of plenty of instances in which people I know (friends, acquaintances) and people I do not know do things they are not supposed to do or things that create problems for me or others, both with and without road vehicles, but typically I will not say or believe I have I have anything against the people themselves unless they willingly/knowingly committed a crime or willingly/knowingly and unnecessarily performed some other severe and inappropriate/detrimental action. In pretty much all other situations, I can only say and believe I have something against their actions.

 

Smh @ your recent crusade to try to get people to disagree with my statements in this discussion.... But let it be known that doesn't mean for one thin second I'm going to amend anything I said..... Also, I'm not making any further post explaining that particular statement because quite frankly, there is no need for me to....

 

If I don't make a post explaining my statements further.... Or else what? You'll post your interpretation? Lol.....

So you think I was trying to get people to disagree with your statements. I was not. Your [un-amended] statements might actually help my cause. I simply asked whether people agreed or disagreed. I even discussed different proposals for removing street parking (one that agreed with your statements and one that disagreed) in post #1154. The biggest reason I have been discussing your statements so much is that they could help my cause.

 

Go ahead & post your interpretation or whatever, BrooklynIRT... You should've done that when I was more active in this discussion anyway..... You wait until I become less active in here to announce such a thing..... I mean really, how catastrophically different can it possibly be from all the rhetoric you've posted in this thread thus far......

I will keep this in mind in similar situations in the future. Thank you.

 

Here are some of my interpretations:

 

-A person will always have the choice to utilize his/her own personal automobile instead of mass transit to go somewhere because the person does not have to restrict him/herself to parking spaces that are within a block or two of where s/he wants to go, which is what most people feel they need to do when using a car (standards too high and/r unrealistic in some cases?). The person may search for parking up to, say, a quarter-mile from his/her destination. Let us say the person finds the parking space no more than a quarter-mile from his/her destination.

 

Regardless of how much walking the person may have to do to get from the parked car to the final destination, the person still has successfully made use of the choice to use the personal automobile, regardless of the overall time difference between using the personal auto and using another travel mode to make the trip. This actually makes a lot of sense because I now remember that when I have been in a car with a driver who has tried to find parking somewhere, the driver has pretty much always circled the same block searching for a parking space. But, if the person gives him/herself more flexibility in finding parking by not restricting himself to a one or two block radius, the person might be more likely to find a space faster.

 

-A person will always have the choice to utilize a personal automobile that is not necessarily his/her own because s/he can use a friend's personal auto.

 

-A person might be able to park his/her own personal auto in a friend's driveway or garage that is reasonably close to where the person lives.

 

-Whether or not it makes sense, time-wise for example, to utilize a personal auto instead of another travel mode, is not necessarily related to whether or not one has a choice to utilize a personal automobile.

 

I think I have in mind at least several other interpretations, but I will leave it at that for now.