BrooklynIRT Posted March 3, 2014 Share #1251 Posted March 3, 2014 Bike lanes being separated from motor vehicle traffic? You surely are thinking in a utopic realm w/ all of this.... Explain how you would go about doing that.... Also, you can prefer to bike it out on uni-directional roads as much as you'd like.... Fact of the matter is, we're not talking about you - We're talking about the masses of folks you think you can get to abandon their cars for bicycles (in this case), along w/ mass transit.... Ignoring the existing bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicle traffic, I have had many thoughts about how I would go about doing that. It is quite complicated. I will have to outline specific proposals at some other time. Bicycle travel is more viable on unidirectional roads for several reasons, including the fact that the traffic signals on such roads allow one to move more quickly than on bidirectional roads, and that the chance of having a head-on collision with another vehicle on such roads is lower than that on bidirectional roads. For bicycle users, unidirectional roads are superior to bidirectional roads in terms of speed and safety. Sure, some motor vehicle jumping the curb can do far more damage to a person if said person gets struck, but with as many bikes riding on the sidewalks (one of many reason I'm glad I don't work in lower manhattan anymore, but w/e), how can you not believe that bikes are more of a threat to peds...... My thoughts on this matter are too complicated for me to fully respond to these statements here. Private automobile use is indirectly responsible for bicycles being operated on sidewalks. I will explain that statement at another time. Ok, I think it is a wrap until you post your next response, so 'til next time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted March 3, 2014 Share #1252 Posted March 3, 2014 There are many sidewalks that have little if any pedestrian traffic and where automobile usage is high . In those areas it would make sense to allow bike riding on sidewalks. I think the law should be changed that if no one is walking on a sidewalk, you shoud be allowed to bike there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 3, 2014 Share #1253 Posted March 3, 2014 Perhaps. There are merits to your statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1254 Posted March 4, 2014 Giving me a perfect opportunity to post the following quote from http://www.carsstink.org: "60. The huge amount of resources required to patrol the roads at even the meager current levels takes away resources from the law enforcement efforts at every other level of society." Reminds me of the resources required to patrol the roads, the ineffectiveness of which, based on statements you made in our exchange about traffic law enforcement on and around January 26th of this year, should be a larger reason for my dissatisfaction with the performance of surface mass transit than the problems private automobile use causes for surface mass transit. Is there evidence that I do not? To my knowledge, no and no. If we were having this conversation in person, I do not think you would think I were jerking your chain at all. No, I would say the suburbs should pretty much be left alone and none of what I have in mind should be tried there. I still do not have the slightest idea what monkey wrench that would throw into my "anti-car rhetoric" and why might this be significant. One of the problems might be that neither of us has specifically defined "anti-car" or whether it is wrong to be "anti-car," especially when one compares the cost of private automobile use to urban society, the costs of private automobile use to non-private automobile users, and even the costs of private automobile use to other private automobile users, to the benefits every private automobile user derives from private automobile use in an urban setting. 1- That's the gist of what I've been pointing out all along to you.... Your despisal for the motor vehicle is misguided.... You should really be miffed at the MTA (and local gov't, for the matter), not the motor vehicle owner, for the issues you are trying to remedy.... Wanting to oust cars off the road & having an influx of city residents cramming onto (surface) transit, in this case, and bikes, is basically throwing your hands up & resorting to some last ditch effort.... Not that I'm charging you with having to actually come up with a solution, but this extreme nonsense/rhetoric you've been spouting throughout this thread, is just that..... Utopic, unrealistic nonsense.... 2- If you're gonna make a silly statement telling me that I'm placing an emphasis on those who already own and/or utilize cars, then YES there is blatantly evidence that you don't know what you're arguing anymore.... What the heck else would I be defending against & refuting from someone who holds an anti-car stance? 3- Meaning what, exactly? You can't effectively & potently relay your points to me in text, than you can vocally..... 4- Lol...oh boy, You should have never said that.... (pretty much) Leave the suburbs alone? This, coming from the same guy that wants people to dump their cars? You can't get more pro-car than the masses that reside in the suburbs.... So let me get this straight - You want to try to get as many folks here in the city up out their cars, but those driving in from various suburbs w/i the tri-state area into the city can remain operating their vehicles into the city..... Can't have it both ways, man - Either you want cars off our (meaning, NYC's) roads or you don't... Simple as that..... You keep referencing that carsstink site... Quite sure the author(s) of that site are staunch car haters. No way in hell would they (and all the "hardcore" car haters out there... which I really don't think you are (see point #1, above)) support a position that involves leaving the suburbs alone... Matter fact, these are the same type of folks that think they can make a push for mass transit deep in the boonies; some exurban area or something...... But keep up the you're so dumbfounded act if you like, man (especially when all of sudden, you need the concept of being anti-car explained to you!)..... Your prerogative. As for whether it's wrong to be anti-car, well, that depends on the discussion being had..... The rest of that last paragraph (given your overall position) is nothing more than you illustrating that mass transit is cheaper than owning & utilizing a vehicle for those that live in urban areas - Which I'm not disputing that at all...... This doesn't mean though that you get to dictate how people should use their money - If they want to commute via the automobile, so be it.... Same goes for if they want to commute via mass transit... Or some combination of the 2 (like a park & ride situation, for example)..... You wanting to try to get as many people onto buses & bikes b/c you have as many drivers that don't follow the rules of the road (so to speak) I personally think is selfish, short-sighted, and misguided..... Ignoring the existing bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicle traffic, I have had many thoughts about how I would go about doing that. It is quite complicated. I will have to outline specific proposals at some other time. Bicycle travel is more viable on unidirectional roads for several reasons, including the fact that the traffic signals on such roads allow one to move more quickly than on bidirectional roads, and that the chance of having a head-on collision with another vehicle on such roads is lower than that on bidirectional roads. For bicycle users, unidirectional roads are superior to bidirectional roads in terms of speed and safety. My thoughts on this matter are too complicated for me to fully respond to these statements here. Private automobile use is indirectly responsible for bicycles being operated on sidewalks. I will explain that statement at another time. Ok, I think it is a wrap until you post your next response, so 'til next time.. 1- I am not doubting bike travel on uni-directional roads being more viable/effective, so save your strength on that one.... Personally, the issue does not matter to me - as I personally don't utilize a bike anymore (since my foot got fu**ed up the last time I used one), and (more importantly) I don't see a plethora of people abandoning cars for bikes nearly enough to where as many ppl. biking it out on uni-directional roads would be a major win-win for said folks..... 2- You can (explain it at some other time), but you don't have to.... I actually agree with you here. There are many sidewalks that have little if any pedestrian traffic and where automobile usage is high . In those areas it would make sense to allow bike riding on sidewalks. I think the law should be changed that if no one is walking on a sidewalk, you shoud be allowed to bike there. GTFOH.... Give me ONE sidewalk in this city where automobile usage is high, riding along it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1255 Posted March 4, 2014 @B35 via Church Wrote it too quickly. Meant to say automobile usage is high on the roadway (not on the sidewalk) so it would be safer to ride your bike on the sidewalk than in traffic and you woudn't be inconveniencing anyone if no one is walking on the sidewalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1256 Posted March 4, 2014 @B35 via Church Wrote it too quickly. Meant to say automobile usage is high on the roadway (not on the sidewalk) so it would be safer to ride your bike on the sidewalk than in traffic and you woudn't be inconveniencing anyone if no one is walking on the sidewalk. Your the only one that makes sense here these 2 are still at it it's like a remake of VG8 vs checkmate13 this thread is practically a shit show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1257 Posted March 4, 2014 ....these 2 are still at it it's like a remake of VG8 vs checkmate13 this thread is practically a shit show. Your existence on this forum is a shit show.... What the f**k do you even contribute to this forum besides irritation & headache anymore.... Why the hell you haven't been banned yet with these worthless, inane ass posts of yours as of late, I'll never know..... This is nothing like no "VG8 vs Checkmate 13"; There is no beef being displayed here.... What, b/c 2 MF-ers have a difference in opinion & are verbose with it...... Need more discussions on this forum anyway...... What other threads have I had a back & forth w/ BrooklynIRT of this magnitude? None - So stop being a fu**in instigator & STFU already... @B35 via Church Wrote it too quickly. Meant to say automobile usage is high on the roadway (not on the sidewalk) so it would be safer to ride your bike on the sidewalk than in traffic and you woudn't be inconveniencing anyone if no one is walking on the sidewalk. Ok, thought you were losing your marbles for a second there.... Anyway, this would reign (more) true/hold more water in the outerboroughs than in Manhattan..... You're not gonna see too many blocks in Manhattan where it would be all that safe & less of an inconvenience to bike it out on a sidewalk for any block long distance...... Even on the uni-directional streets (as BrooklynIRT points out)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acela Express Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1258 Posted March 4, 2014 SBS44 update. Pick posted for Spring 2014. They've cut one run on the SBS so far, so it's down from 55 to 54 effective the new pick (March 30th). One of the changes so far - they've stopped the practice of every SBS leaving the bridge terminating at Avenue U, and all SBS leaving Flushing terminating at Shore Pkwy & Knapp; and vice versa for northbound. Now there's SBS doing full runs from Knapp to the Bridge during the day, and Av U buses terminating at Flushing Av. Timetables will be up soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1259 Posted March 4, 2014 You should really be miffed at the MTA (and local gov't, for the matter), not the motor vehicle owner, for the issues you are trying to remedy.... Well, the MTA is a pretty large organization that may not necessarily have the time or resources to do anything significant about regular lawbreaking that causes them to have to inflate the running times of the B44 SBS despite the fact that it is supposed to be using an offset bus lane complete with curb extensions at SBS stops on unidirectional roads that are supposed to allow for relatively high performance due to their traffic signalling systems. Government officials will not listen to a commoner making requests by him/herself, especially if the requests are related to transportation, which is not perceived as a life-or-death issue like crime or poverty. (Although I can easily use the broken windows theory to draw connections between the quality of mass transit and the quality of life in the neighborhoods served by said mass transit.) I think we can also agree that many elected officials pay lip service to mass transit. Reminding me of the facts that our current transit (and city) planning is done by people who will not use mass transit for anything and "the few people who make decisions and control elections drive cars and therefore refuse to build useful public transportation for the rest of us." Also, if I am not mistaken, most of the people who run the MTA and/r the NYC government, such as mayors, city council members, assembly members, congresspersons, and senators, are motor vehicle owners who take little interest in improving mass transit. There have been some glimmers of hope here and there, in which elected officials have made pushes for projects such as the MNR stopping at Co-Op City, but the consensus seems to be that mass transit in NYC is not performing as well as it can or should. What the heck else would I be defending against & refuting from someone who holds an anti-car stance? Very complicated and multifaceted problems we are discussing here. You may be defending against and refuting something that is not part of my position. Some other factors to consider include whether it was ever part of my position, when it stopped being part of my position if it ever was, why it stopped being part of my position, the extent to which it has ever been part of my position, and whether its contribution to my position was or has been direct or indirect. It is very complicated. 3- Meaning what, exactly? You can't effectively & potently relay your points to me in text, than you can vocally..... Since response times are faster in in-person conversations than they are in internet conversations and I find speaking easier than typing or texting (typing takes a lot of time and, if done for a long time, can be tiring), more items can be clarified more quickly in in-person conversations than they can on internet message boards. That being said, I hope I am doing the best I can here. but those driving in from various suburbs w/i the tri-state area into the city can remain operating their vehicles into the city..... Can't have it both ways, man - Either you want cars off our (meaning, NYC's) roads or you don't... Simple as that..... Not so simple. This is a short modification, although I do not know if it is grammatically correct or makes sense: I cannot have it both ways overnight. This is a longer modification and is definitely grammatically correct: I cannot change things overnight such that I have it both ways. Attempting to change things overnight would result in disaster. The performance of the B44 SBS is hampered more by stationary vehicles than by moving vehicles. This goes back to the removal of street parking for private automobiles to give surface mass transit more of an edge. I would like for at least several of the moving private automobiles to disappear as well, but stationary vehicles are much more of a concern to me than moving vehicles in all this, I think. Again, very, very complicated and multifaceted problems we are discussing here. (Induced demand and triple convergence are two of the reasons I am not sure how much less of a concern moving vehicles should be than stationary vehicles, but one thing at a time.) Now, I could talk about how moving vehicles on roads such as the Cross-Bronx (which has been directly and indirectly responsible for much urban decay) make it impossible to realistically propose demolishing a grade-separated road such as the Cross-Bronx and putting something that would be better for the surrounding communities in its place. This would add yet another facet to the discussion. For now, my main concern is stationary vehicles, especially since the illegally parked ones restrict the freedom of movement of surface mass transit users. [And other road users, including other private automobile users, whom I do care about. I just want private auto use to be reduced, unless there are good reasons that it should not be reduced, which is probably very debatable considering the fact that numerous people and organizations have recognized the problems caused by personal auto use for decades.] You keep referencing that carsstink site... Quite sure the author(s) of that site are staunch car haters. No way in hell would they (and all the "hardcore" car haters out there... which I really don't think you are (see point #1, above)) support a position that involves leaving the suburbs alone... Matter fact, these are the same type of folks that think they can make a push for mass transit deep in the boonies; some exurban area or something...... But keep up the you're so dumbfounded act if you like, man (especially when all of sudden, you need the concept of being anti-car explained to you!)..... Your prerogative. Not agreeing with certain aspects of somebody's position does not mean I cannot use their statements to support my position, IINM. Please explain how separating the suburbs from the cities in this discussion throws a monkey wrench into my "anti-car rhetoric" if making a push for mass transit in the boondocks, an exurban area, or a similar area is not part of my position and we both agree that I am not a "hardcore" car hater. It is easier for me to agree that I am not a "hardcore" car hater than it is for me to agree that I "spew anti-car rhetoric" because "hardcore car hater" seems easier to define, based on your commentary - A "hardcore" car hater would never support a position that involves leaving the suburbs alone, and I am not particularly interested in doing much with the suburbs with respect to transportation. You have specifically defined an aspect of a "hardcore" car hater's position that I know that is not an aspect of my position. "Hardcore car hater" is stronger and more clearly defined than "anti-car." You guessed that I would "single out those that live in the suburbs & focus more on getting those that live in urbanized areas (out of their cars & onto mass transit)....." and that I could "attempt to do that, but then that would throw a complete monkeywrench in your anti-car rhetoric....." This makes it seem like that monkey wrench were really meant for the "hardcore" car haters, while we agree I am not a "hardcore" car hater, IINM. You still think I was pretending to be dumbfounded? The rest of that last paragraph (given your overall position) is nothing more than you illustrating that mass transit is cheaper than owning & utilizing a vehicle for those that live in urban areas - Which I'm not disputing that at all...... This doesn't mean though that you get to dictate how people should use their money I was talking about the external impacts of private automobile use, not the money that a person has to allocate to private automobile use if that person wishes to make use of a private automobile as a private automobile operator or a passenger. Was that long sentence in post #1250 confusing or grammatically incorrect in any way? I will add a few words that might make it clearer, and put some words in bold: One of the problems might be that neither of us has specifically defined "anti-car" or whether it is wrong to be "anti-car," especially when one compares the cost of private automobile use to urban society, the costs of private automobile use to non-private automobile users, and even the costs of private automobile use to other private automobile users, to the benefits every private automobile user derives from his/her own private automobile use in an urban setting. If they want to commute via the automobile, so be it.... Of course. We would not want dictatorship or communism. You wanting to try to get as many people onto buses & bikes Let us not forget trams, hence why I keep saying "surface mass transit" instead of "buses." b/c you have as many drivers that don't follow the rules of the road (so to speak) I personally think is selfish, short-sighted, and misguided...... My thoughts on this matter are too complicated for me to fully respond to this statement here. Are you implying that I want as many people to use modes other than private automobiles as possible solely because of motorists that do not follow the rules of the road, so to speak? Noncompliance with rules is not my sole reason. I do not think it is my main reason either. The effects of it might be my main reasons or include some of my main reasons. I think we can agree to disagree on the "misguided" part, since you seem to think I should be more concerned with traffic law enforcement, which is often very ineffective and can probably be considered costly to taxpayers, than with private automobiles. You think this despite the fact that the NYPD Traffic Division likely cannot exist without road vehicles. Let us not forget about the slow pace at which many government agencies operate, especially in response to a commoner who makes requests by him/herself. In your use of the words "short-sighted" and "selfish," are you assuming that noncompliance with rules is my sole reason or main reason for wanting people to use modes other than the private automobile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1260 Posted March 4, 2014 -delete- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1261 Posted March 4, 2014 Well, the MTA is a pretty large organization that may not necessarily have the time or resources to do anything significant about regular lawbreaking that causes them to have to inflate the running times of the B44 SBS despite the fact that it is supposed to be using an offset bus lane complete with curb extensions at SBS stops on unidirectional roads that are supposed to allow for relatively high performance due to their traffic signalling systems. Government officials will not listen to a commoner making requests by him/herself, especially if the requests are related to transportation, which is not perceived as a life-or-death issue like crime or poverty. (Although I can easily use the broken windows theory to draw connections between the quality of affordable transportation and the quality of life in the neighborhoods served by said affordable transportation.) I think we can also agree that many elected officials pay lip service to mass transit. Reminding me of the facts that our current transit (and city) planning is done by people who will not use mass transit for anything and "the few people who make decisions and control elections drive cars and therefore refuse to build useful public transportation for the rest of us." Also, if I am not mistaken, most of the people who run the MTA and/r the NYC government, such as mayors, city council members, assembly members, congresspersons, and senators, are motor vehicle owners who take little interest in improving mass transit. There have been some glimmers of hope here and there, in which elected officials have made pushes for projects such as the MNR stopping at Co-Op City, but the consensus seems to be that mass transit in NYC is not performing as well as it can or should. Sure, however, you can't flat out ignore the fact that motor vehicle owners (that don't want anything to do w/ mass transit) won't listen/adhere to your pipe dream either..... As for the motor vehicle owners that have *some* vested interest in mass transit - well you can try to target those people to ditch their cars, but yet & still & again, even if 100% of those follow suit, you would still have a significant amount of motor vehicles/traffic in this city.... So what is the overall point if you are still gonna have the masses of motorists burning rubber (lol) on the roads..... Very complicated and multifaceted problems we are discussing here. You may be defending against and refuting something that is not part of my position. Some other factors to consider include whether it was ever part of my position, when it stopped being part of my position if it ever was, why it stopped being part of my position, the extent to which it has ever been part of my position, and whether its contribution to my position was or has been direct or indirect. It is very complicated. I think you're making it more complicated than it has to be - for yourself. This reply is a perfect example of it.... Instead of even typing this, all you had to do was plainly lay out your position..... What is is, is that, You say something, I come up w/ a rebuttal, You say something else, I come up with a rebuttal for that.... etc etc.... My position has been straight-forward from jump when it comes to commuting choices - Let commuters choose whichever is best for them..... Your position however, really isn't all that clear (that is, outside of trying to get as many ppl. out of cars & onto some other mode as possible).... You keep adding bits & pieces to your position as I rebut what you're posting.... Also, whether you want to admit it or not, regarding your (what I continue to call) anti-car rhetoric, you have said some contradictory isht within all this... This is what happens when you're not consistent with EVERY facet of a position..... Not so simple. This is a short modification, although I do not know if it is grammatically correct or makes sense: I cannot have it both ways overnight. This is a longer modification and is definitely grammatically correct: I cannot change things overnight such that I have it both ways. Attempting to change things overnight would result in disaster. It is very much a simple concept - You can't have it both ways (leaving suburbanites to driving into the city, while trying to have urbanites ditch their cars), at all - If your end goal is to have the masses ditch their cars & feed into this utopia that involves folks utilizing mass transit & bicycles.... Bringing up changing things overnight is nothing more than you being illogical at this point - Not one person within this discussion expects anything to happen overnight, so it was silly for you to even bring that up..... The performance of the B44 SBS is hampered more by stationary vehicles than by moving vehicles. This goes back to the removal of street parking for private automobiles to give surface mass transit more of an edge. I would like for at least several of the moving private automobiles to disappear as well, but stationary vehicles are much more of a concern to me than moving vehicles in all this, I think. Again, very, very complicated and multifaceted problems we are discussing here. (Induced demand and triple convergence are two of the reasons I am not sure how much less of a concern moving vehicles should be than stationary vehicles, but one thing at a time.) Now, I could talk about how moving vehicles on roads such as the Cross-Bronx (which has been directly and indirectly responsible for much urban decay) make it impossible to realistically propose demolishing a grade-separated road such as the Cross-Bronx and putting something that would be better for the surrounding communities in its place. This would add yet another facet to the discussion. For now, my main concern is stationary vehicles, especially since the illegally parked ones restrict the freedom of movement of surface mass transit users. [And other road users, including other private automobile users, whom I do care about. I just want private auto use to be reduced, unless there are good reasons that it should not be reduced, which is probably very debatable considering the fact that numerous people and organizations have recognized the problems caused by personal auto use for decades.] Yeah, I don't know about that..... I wouldn't be so quick to say the 44 SBS is slowed/hampered/impeded more by stationary vehicles than by moving vehicles.... It seems as if you're now saying that so people on here won't think you have a problem with vehicles in motion..... I didn't forget your rants involving the plaza auto mall down along nostrand av..... You have a problem with cars on the road, period - whether they are in motion or stationary.... Why, because either one is aiding in impeding in the progress of the 44 SBS..... That much I get, and you are not gonna spoof me with anything else otherwise..... What I don't get, as it pertains to your postion, is to what extent do you want automobile usage to be reduced? You have never made that clear in all this...... Not agreeing with certain aspects of somebody's position does not mean I cannot use their statements to support my position, IINM. Please explain how separating the suburbs from the cities in this discussion throws a monkey wrench into my "anti-car rhetoric" if making a push for mass transit in the boondocks, an exurban area, or a similar area is not part of my position and we both agree that I am not a "hardcore" car hater. It is easier for me to agree that I am not a "hardcore" car hater than it is for me to agree that I "spew anti-car rhetoric" because "hardcore car hater" seems easier to define, based on your commentary - A "hardcore" car hater would never support a position that involves leaving the suburbs alone, and I am not particularly interested in doing much with the suburbs with respect to transportation. You have specifically defined an aspect of a "hardcore" car hater's position that I know that is not an aspect of my position. "Hardcore car hater" is stronger and more clearly defined than "anti-car." You guessed that I would "single out those that live in the suburbs & focus more on getting those that live in urbanized areas (out of their cars & onto mass transit)....." and that I could "attempt to do that, but then that would throw a complete monkeywrench in your anti-car rhetoric....." This makes it seem like that monkey wrench were really meant for the "hardcore" car haters, while we agree I am not a "hardcore" car hater, IINM. You still think I was pretending to be dumbfounded? ----- One of the problems might be that neither of us has specifically defined "anti-car" or whether it is wrong to be "anti-car," especially when one compares the cost of private automobile use to urban society, the costs of private automobile use to non-private automobile users, and even the costs of private automobile use to other private automobile users, to the benefits every private automobile user derives from his/her own private automobile use in an urban setting. I agree, as it's called picking & choosing your arguments..... Got all that. The rest of this, Let's not get disingenuous here.... Don't add that "if" statement to what I said regarding separating suburban car travel (and leaving them be) & those that drive within the city; urban area..... You're adding that if statement because it was plainly laid out how it throws a monkeywrench into your whole rhetoric..... It really doesn't matter if you want to ignore those driving in from the suburbs into NYC (by saying it's not a part of your position), because the fact of the matter is, is that it's happening, and will continue to happen..... You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting these folks to taking mass transit... or biking... or taking trams, or whatever other mode you can think of that maneuvers along a road.... You only focusing on getting folks w/i NYC out of their cars will not take enough cars off the road in NYC for your utopia to have any real desired effect..... I still think you're acting dumbfounded with this whole, what's not clearly defined nonsense.... I've been stating the term "anti-car" in this thread the whole time; now all of a sudden since this past weekend, you're unclear as to what it means..... Do you realize how long this particular back & forth's been going on, for you to come up with this nonsense now..... Of course. We would not want dictatorship or communism. Let us not forget trams, hence why I keep saying "surface mass transit" instead of "buses." My thoughts on this matter are too complicated for me to fully respond to this statement here. Are you implying that I want as many people to use modes other than private automobiles as possible solely because of motorists that do not follow the rules of the road, so to speak? Noncompliance with rules is not my sole reason. I do not think it is my main reason either. The effects of it might be my main reasons or include some of my main reasons. I think we can agree to disagree on the "misguided" part, since you seem to think I should be more concerned with traffic law enforcement, which is often very ineffective and can probably be considered costly to taxpayers, than with private automobiles. You think this despite the fact that the NYPD Traffic Division likely cannot exist without road vehicles. Let us not forget about the slow pace at which many government agencies operate, especially in response to a commoner who makes requests by him/herself. In your use of the words "short-sighted" and "selfish," are you assuming that noncompliance with rules is my sole reason or main reason for wanting people to use modes other than the private automobile? 1- Well, I don't.... Not sure if I can say the same for you with your position though; being that you're not pro-choice when it comes to folks' commuting habits..... 2- Sure, why not..... 3- Solely, no..... I see that you have other reasons..... Didn't feel the need to list them all to make that particular point in that paragraph (from which you took that snippet you replied to, from).... The main part of my position in regards to your anti-car rhetoric is not necessarily that you should be more concerned w/ law enforcement - But (MUCH) more, less concerned with pinning/blaming motorists as to why surface transit is ineffective..... Which is the very essence of me arguing an anti-car position..... You're giving everyone else passes (including the MTA) as to why you hold said position, except the motorist - Including the poor soul(s) that are following the rules of the road..... .....and don't worry yourself with the grammatical stuff, I'm not charging you with any of that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1262 Posted March 4, 2014 Your existence on this forum is a shit show.... What the f**k do you even contribute to this forum besides irritation & headache anymore.... Why the hell you haven't been banned yet with these worthless, inane ass posts of yours as of late, I'll never know..... This is nothing like no "VG8 vs Checkmate 13"; There is no beef being displayed here.... What, b/c 2 MF-ers have a difference in opinion & are verbose with it...... Need more discussions on this forum anyway...... What other threads have I had a back & forth w/ BrooklynIRT of this magnitude? None - So stop being a fu**in instigator & STFU already... Ok, thought you were losing your marbles for a second there.... Anyway, this would reign (more) true/hold more water in the outerboroughs than in Manhattan..... You're not gonna see too many blocks in Manhattan where it would be all that safe & less of an inconvenience to bike it out on a sidewalk for any block long distance...... Even on the uni-directional streets (as BrooklynIRT points out)..... Would never apply in Manhattan. Anyway I'm in Florida right now and where I am there are no sidewalks. Instead every road has a bike path along it and all are well utilized. An average of a bike passes every minute passes in each direction. Of course many ride in groups. There are more bikes than pedestrians, but pedestrians share the bike paths quite safely with pedestrians. Of course the cyclists take it easy. Haven't seen any crazy delivery guys on bikes driving like maniacs like we have in NYC. They coudn't co-exist on the same path with pedestrians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted March 4, 2014 Share #1263 Posted March 4, 2014 Sure, however, you can't flat out ignore the fact that motor vehicle owners (that don't want anything to do w/ mass transit) won't listen/adhere to your pipe dream either..... As for the motor vehicle owners that have *some* vested interest in mass transit - well you can try to target those people to ditch their cars, but yet & still & again, even if 100% of those follow suit, you would still have a significant amount of motor vehicles/traffic in this city.... So what is the overall point if you are still gonna have the masses of motorists burning rubber (lol) on the roads..... I think you're making it more complicated than it has to be - for yourself. This reply is a perfect example of it.... Instead of even typing this, all you had to do was plainly lay out your position..... What is is, is that, You say something, I come up w/ a rebuttal, You say something else, I come up with a rebuttal for that.... etc etc.... My position has been straight-forward from jump when it comes to commuting choices - Let commuters choose whichever is best for them..... Your position however, really isn't all that clear (that is, outside of trying to get as many ppl. out of cars & onto some other mode as possible).... You keep adding bits & pieces to your position as I rebut what you're posting.... Also, whether you want to admit it or not, regarding your (what I continue to call) anti-car rhetoric, you have said some contradictory isht within all this... This is what happens when you're not consistent with EVERY facet of a position..... It is very much a simple concept - You can't have it both ways (leaving suburbanites to driving into the city, while trying to have urbanites ditch their cars), at all - If your end goal is to have the masses ditch their cars & feed into this utopia that involves folks utilizing mass transit & bicycles.... Bringing up changing things overnight is nothing more than you being illogical at this point - Not one person within this discussion expects anything to happen overnight, so it was silly for you to even bring that up..... Yeah, I don't know about that..... I wouldn't be so quick to say the 44 SBS is slowed/hampered/impeded more by stationary vehicles than by moving vehicles.... It seems as if you're now saying that so people on here won't think you have a problem with vehicles in motion..... I didn't forget your rants involving the plaza auto mall down along nostrand av..... You have a problem with cars on the road, period - whether they are in motion or stationary.... Why, because either one is aiding in impeding in the progress of the 44 SBS..... That much I get, and you are not gonna spoof me with anything else otherwise..... What I don't get, as it pertains to your postion, is to what extent do you want automobile usage to be reduced? You have never made that clear in all this...... I agree, as it's called picking & choosing your arguments..... Got all that. The rest of this, Let's not get disingenuous here.... Don't add that "if" statement to what I said regarding separating suburban car travel (and leaving them be) & those that drive within the city; urban area..... You're adding that if statement because it was plainly laid out how it throws a monkeywrench into your whole rhetoric..... It really doesn't matter if you want to ignore those driving in from the suburbs into NYC (by saying it's not a part of your position), because the fact of the matter is, is that it's happening, and will continue to happen..... You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting these folks to taking mass transit... or biking... or taking trams, or whatever other mode you can think of that maneuvers along a road.... You only focusing on getting folks w/i NYC out of their cars will not take enough cars off the road in NYC for your utopia to have any real desired effect..... I still think you're acting dumbfounded with this whole, what's not clearly defined nonsense.... I've been stating the term "anti-car" in this thread the whole time; now all of a sudden since this past weekend, you're unclear as to what it means..... Do you realize how long this particular back & forth's been going on, for you to come up with this nonsense now..... 1- Well, I don't.... Not sure if I can say the same for you with your position though; being that you're not pro-choice when it comes to folks' commuting habits..... 2- Sure, why not..... 3- Solely, no..... I see that you have other reasons..... Didn't feel the need to list them all to make that particular point in that paragraph (from which you took that snippet you replied to, from).... The main part of my position in regards to your anti-car rhetoric is not necessarily that you should be more concerned w/ law enforcement - But (MUCH) more, less concerned with pinning/blaming motorists as to why surface transit is ineffective..... Which is the very essence of me arguing an anti-car position..... You're giving everyone else passes (including the MTA) as to why you hold said position, except the motorist - Including the poor soul(s) that are following the rules of the road..... .....and don't worry yourself with the grammatical stuff, I'm not charging you with any of that at all. Calm down I already told you he is a lost cause IRT is too anti-car even by my standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1264 Posted March 5, 2014 I have to eliminate some quoted posts because of restrictions on the amount of quotes I can put in one post. In post #1261, B35 via Church said: Sure, however, you can't flat out ignore the fact that motor vehicle owners (that don't want anything to do w/ mass transit) won't listen/adhere to your pipe dream either..... Now BrooklynIRT says: Of course not. In post #1261, B35 via Church said: As for the motor vehicle owners that have *some* vested interest in mass transit - well you can try to target those people to ditch their cars, but yet & still & again, even if 100% of those follow suit, 1. you would still have a significant amount of motor vehicles/traffic in this city.... 2. So what is the overall point if you are still gonna have the masses of motorists burning rubber (lol) on the roads..... Now BrooklynIRT says: 1. Separation of problems caused by moving vehicles from those caused by stationary vehicles (the latter of which are probably more significant when it comes to the performance of the B44 SBS, among other surface transit lines in this city). 2. Depends on what is meant by masses of motorists, and people's positions are liable to change over time as the consensus evolves. In post #1261, B35 via Church said: This reply is a perfect example of it.... Instead of even typing this, all you had to do was plainly lay out your position..... Now BrooklynIRT says: I will plainly and fully lay it out at some other time. The main reason I cannot do it now is that it will be labor- and time-intensive. In post #1261, B35 via Church said: Your position however, really isn't all that clear (that is, outside of trying to get as many ppl. out of cars & onto some other mode as possible).... Now BrooklynIRT says: While that may be part of my position, I have also mentioned those who do not currently own or use cars or have licenses several times. I did make posts about convincing people to dump their cars, but I think I only did that once or twice. I think many of my posts relating to this issue have centered around taking steps to give surface mass transit more of an edge, particularly when it comes to street space occupied by stationary/parked vehicles. [Lack of parking spaces] and [having the choice to utilize the personal automobile over mass transit] have zero to do with each other. Many of my posts have also centered around the ways in which private automobile use compromises the performance of surface mass transit. Getting people who own or use cars out of cars might be less important to me than you think. This has probably been true since the end of 2012, which was when I started to realize that the ineffectiveness of the NYPD Traffic Division is one of the reasons that SBS is not performing as well as it should. And then I realized that the extent to which the Traffic Division performs its duties would probably not be as big a deal if there were fewer road vehicles, and this made me realize that I had better not own or use a private automobile unless absolutely necessary and should attempt to convince others that the external impacts of private automobile use outweigh the benefits they afford individuals who use them. This was motivated by the facts that private automobile use directly and indirectly impedes the improvement of all mass transit (not just surface mass transit), government officials will not listen to a commoner making requests by him/herself, especially if the requests are related to transportation, and many government agencies operate at a slow pace, especially in response to a commoner who makes requests by him/herself. This is based on my assumption that it would take them longer to respond to a commoner who makes requests by him/herself than it is taking me to convince people that the external impacts of private automobile use outweigh the benefits they afford individuals who use them. This assumption assumes that the government would have started responding to the commoner in question at that same time that I started making a serious effort to convince people that the external impacts of private automobile use outweigh the benefits they afford individuals who use them. In post #1261, B35 via Church said: It is very much a simple concept - You can't have it both ways (leaving suburbanites to driving into the city, while trying to have urbanites ditch their cars), at all Now BrooklynIRT says: I do not think induced demand or triple convergence agrees with that. Those two theories are huge reasons that this transportation problem is so complicated, and are also "two of the reasons I am not sure how much less of a concern moving vehicles should be than stationary vehicles, but one thing at a time," and you are telling me I cannot have it both ways? In post #1261, B35 via Church said: I wouldn't be so quick to say the 44 SBS is slowed/hampered/impeded more by stationary vehicles than by moving vehicles.... Now BrooklynIRT says: Well, I said it in post #1259, and I think the vast majority of my points about the relationship between the performance of the B44 SBS and private auto use (I began making these points on this forum last year) have been more about the problems caused by stationary vehicles than those caused by moving vehicles. In post #1261, B35 via Church said: It seems as if you're now saying that so people on here won't think you have a problem with vehicles in motion..... Now BrooklynIRT says: "(Induced demand and triple convergence are two of the reasons I am not sure how much less of a concern moving vehicles should be than stationary vehicles, but one thing at a time.)" I honestly do not know whether it makes sense to have a problem with private autos in motion, but I will leave them alone for now because I want to focus on one thing at a time and I do not think they are causing as many problems for the B44 SBS (among other surface lines) as stationary private autos. I didn't forget your rants involving the plaza auto mall down along nostrand av..... I reached the point where I stopped caring about that early last year. I can provide evidence that I stopped caring about it last year. One reason was that I finally realized that encouraging development in flood zones (like those further south along the B44, and south of PAM) should probably be avoided, after I thought enough about the effects of Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters on flood zones. You have a problem with cars on the road, period - whether they are in motion or stationary.... Why, because either one is aiding in impeding in the progress of the 44 SBS..... That much I get, and you are not gonna spoof me with anything else otherwise..... Correct. However, you have not mentioned the extent to which I have a problem with moving or stationary cars. Actually, you do mention it later on, in question form... What I don't get, as it pertains to your postion, is to what extent do you want automobile usage to be reduced? You have never made that clear in all this...... Assuming private automobile use needs to be reduced in order for the B44 SBS to perform up to or close to the standards I posted in post #1106, I at least want private automobile use to be reduced is the extent that the B44 SBS performs up to those standards. This is even more important if no Triboro (RX) is getting built any time soon. (And even then, people wanting to go from points that are north of Flatbush Ave and along the B44 SBS corridor to other parts of Brooklyn or Queens might not be able to take advantage of an (RX) that would follow the LIRR Bay Ridge ROW.) The rest of this, Let's not get disingenuous here.... Don't add that "if" statement to what I said regarding separating suburban car travel (and leaving them be) & those that drive within the city; urban area..... You're adding that if statement because it was plainly laid out how it throws a monkeywrench into your whole rhetoric..... I think I have been making it clear since last year that I focus on problems I think private auto use in urban areas where frequent and well-utilized surface mass transit lines run, such as Nostrand Avenue, Rogers Avenue, and Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn. I certainly do not recall making any posts in which I specifically mentioned that suburban car travel should be reduced. I have never been concerned with it to nearly the extent that I have been concerned with urban car travel. You only focusing on getting folks w/i NYC out of their cars will not take enough cars off the road in NYC for your utopia to have any real desired effect..... Does this apply to my desire that the B44 SBS perform up to or close to the standards I posted in post #1106? I still think you're acting dumbfounded with this whole, what's not clearly defined nonsense.... I've been stating the term "anti-car" in this thread the whole time; now all of a sudden since this past weekend, you're unclear as to what it means..... Do you realize how long this particular back & forth's been going on, for you to come up with this nonsense now..... For me, the confusion began when you first brought up suburban car travel in post #1247. Not sure if I can say the same for you with your position though; being that you're not pro-choice when it comes to folks' commuting habits..... That is debatable - I have been focusing on stationary vehicles (parked on the streets) since last year, and [lack of parking spaces] and [having the choice to utilize the personal automobile over mass transit] have zero to do with each other. Furthermore, I do not want dictatorship or communism because despite the problems I have with capitalism and tainted democracy (not saying democracy is totally tainted in NYC/USA), I recognize that capitalism and democracy are probably the best socioeconomic systems at the moment. I do not want a communistic society, although I want socioeconomic inequality to be reduced. I do not want a dictatorship either. I have a rough idea of what happens under such systems. It sounds like a disaster. The main part of my position in regards to your anti-car rhetoric is not necessarily that you should be...less concerned with pinning/blaming motorists as to why surface transit is ineffective..... Which is the very essence of me arguing an anti-car position..... Does this assume that one way of making mass transit more effective is by significantly increasing the speed of existing surface transit lines such as the B44 SBS? You're giving everyone else passes (including the MTA) as to why you hold said position, except the motorist - Including the poor soul(s) that are following the rules of the road..... You mean like me, when I do operate an automobile? Remember my story about the cab driver on Paul Avenue back in the trolley thread from January? Does the following mean anything: For now, my main concern is stationary vehicles, especially since the illegally parked ones restrict the freedom of movement of surface mass transit users. [And other road users, including other private automobile users, whom I do care about. I just want private auto use to be reduced, unless there are good reasons that it should not be reduced, which is probably very debatable considering the fact that numerous people and organizations have recognized the problems caused by personal auto use for decades.] ? .....and don't worry yourself with the grammatical stuff, I'm not charging you with any of that at all. If I unknowingly make grammatical mistakes, I wish to know. (I am not asking you or anybody to go out of your or his/her way to notify me.) I am trying to improve my writing because others have said I need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1265 Posted March 5, 2014 I made typographical mistakes that I need to correct; corrections are in red: Assuming private automobile use needs to be reduced in order for the B44 SBS to perform up to or close to the standards I posted in post #1106, I at least want private automobile use to be reduced is to the extent that the B44 SBS performs up to those standards. This is even more important if no Triboro (RX) is getting built any time soon. (And even then, people wanting to go from points that are north of Flatbush Ave and along the B44 SBS corridor to other parts of Brooklyn or Queens might not be able to take advantage of an (RX) that would follow the LIRR Bay Ridge ROW.) I think I have been making it clear since last year that I focus on problems I think private auto use causes in urban areas where frequent and well-utilized surface mass transit lines run, such as Nostrand Avenue, Rogers Avenue, and Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn. Also I should have made some of the following statements clearer, and I apologize for any confusion: For now, my main concern is stationary vehicles, especially since the illegally parked ones restrict the freedom of movement of surface mass transit users. [And They also restrict the freedom of movement of other road users, including other private automobile users, whom I do care about. I just want private auto use to be reduced, unless there are good reasons that it should not be reduced, which is probably very debatable considering the fact that numerous people and organizations have recognized the problems caused by personal auto use for decades.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1266 Posted March 5, 2014 You're giving everyone else passes (including the MTA) as to why you hold said position, except the motorist I know the MTA and other government agencies have internal issues that should be fixed. That is merely another piece of the puzzle. Also, many of the people who operate the MTA and many elected officials are motorists and/r have chauffeurs on demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1267 Posted March 5, 2014 Another thing I should have made clearer: And then I realized that the extent to which the Traffic Division performs its duties would probably not be as big a deal if there were fewer private automobiles, especially parked ones, on the roads, and this made me realize that I had better not own or use a private automobile unless absolutely necessary and should attempt to convince others that the external impacts of private automobile use outweigh the benefits they afford individuals who use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYSubwayBuff Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1268 Posted March 5, 2014 I agree with @BrooklynIRT's anti-car stance from an environmental and congestion standpoint, if only 50 ppl got off thier cars and got on a bus, there would be less pollution, and less cars on the road to inconvenience the ppl who can't survive without cars e.g. living in an area with no bus or train Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemak3r Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1269 Posted March 5, 2014 I agree with @BrooklynIRT's anti-car stance from an environmental and congestion standpoint, if only 50 ppl got off thier cars and got on a bus, there would be less pollution, and less cars on the road to inconvenience the ppl who can't survive without cars e.g. living in an area with no bus or train Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk I can't take your comment seriously enough for the fact that you have a Lincoln as your icon. Either way, I can't believe I read 3 pages of back and forth arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1270 Posted March 5, 2014 I can't take your comment seriously enough for the fact that you have a Lincoln as your icon. Either way, I can't believe I read 3 pages of back and forth arguments. LOL welcome to the forums I stopped reading after the first page you must have been really bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYSubwayBuff Posted March 5, 2014 Share #1271 Posted March 5, 2014 I agree with @BrooklynIRT's anti-car stance from an environmental and congestion standpoint, if only 50 ppl got off thier cars and got on a bus, there would be less pollution, and less cars on the road to inconvenience the ppl who can't survive without cars e.g. living in an area with no bus or train Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk I can't take your comment seriously enough for the fact that you have a Lincoln as your icon. Either way, I can't believe I read 3 pages of back and forth arguments. Yes I have a Lincoln as my profile pic its a good car, I like it, but would I buy it? NO! because it is not environmentaly friendly and I wouldn't want to pullote the air with and use non renewable resources to drive a car "because I like it" Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacemak3r Posted March 6, 2014 Share #1272 Posted March 6, 2014 LOL welcome to the forums I stopped reading after the first page you must have been really bored. Indeed, I kept seeing replies so I figured why not read some of them. Yes I have a Lincoln as my profile pic its a good car, I like it, but would I buy it? NO! because it is not environmentaly friendly and I wouldn't want to pullote the air with and use non renewable resources to drive a car "because I like it" Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk When you say "good car" and "not environmentally friendly" in the same sentence, that's pretty much contradicting each other. It's like me saying: "Yeah you know Coors is a good beer but it damages my liver so I wouldn't buy it." Like what? ===== Initially I wanted to post this in the Random Thoughts thread, but I figured to shed some light here instead. I was wondering, SBS buses has the capability of changing the traffic lights into their favor, do they? If so, let's say they ever intersect another SBS route, if both SBS buses trigger that capability, what happens? (ie. B44 SBS and let's say in this case the B41 at the Junction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYSubwayBuff Posted March 6, 2014 Share #1273 Posted March 6, 2014 LOL welcome to the forums I stopped reading after the first page you must have been really bored. Indeed, I kept seeing replies so I figured why not read some of them. Yes I have a Lincoln as my profile pic its a good car, I like it, but would I buy it? NO! because it is not environmentaly friendly and I wouldn't want to pullote the air with and use non renewable resources to drive a car "because I like it" Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk When you say "good car" and "not environmentally friendly" in the same sentence, that's pretty much contradicting each other. It's like me saying: "Yeah you know Coors is a good beer but it damages my liver so I wouldn't buy it." Like what? ===== Initially I wanted to post this in the Random Thoughts thread, but I figured to shed some light here instead. I was wondering, SBS buses has the capability of changing the traffic lights into their favor, do they? If so, let's say they ever intersect another SBS route, if both SBS buses trigger that capability, what happens? (ie. B44 SBS and let's say in this case the B41 at the Junction.) 1. Not every good car has to be environmentaly friendly (Lamborghini comes to mind) every car had it's pros and cons, this car's is it's environmental impact, it's a good car because its a comfortable car and a nice looking car but I wouldn't buy it (or any car for that matter) because it destroys fossil fuels abd causes pollution. It is possible to like a car that gets 17mpg gallon and be preaching environmental safety (Nancy Pelosi does it) 2. In the MTA's world it would probably be first come first serve, in a perfect world it should be whichever bus is more behind schedule ir if one is early then it gets held up Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 6, 2014 Share #1274 Posted March 6, 2014 Indeed, I kept seeing replies so I figured why not read some of them. When you say "good car" and "not environmentally friendly" in the same sentence, that's pretty much contradicting each other. It's like me saying: "Yeah you know Coors is a good beer but it damages my liver so I wouldn't buy it." Like what? ===== Initially I wanted to post this in the Random Thoughts thread, but I figured to shed some light here instead. I was wondering, SBS buses has the capability of changing the traffic lights into their favor, do they? If so, let's say they ever intersect another SBS route, if both SBS buses trigger that capability, what happens? (ie. B44 SBS and let's say in this case the B41 at the Junction.) They don't necessarily change the light; they either shorten their red or extend their green. If that were to happen, the bus that was already green would probably still get an extended green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted March 6, 2014 Share #1275 Posted March 6, 2014 I haven't had a chance to ride the B44SBS yet but I have some questions for the B/O s and the riders who have used the service as a regular mode of commuting. Speed or the lack of speed isn't a big part of what I'm asking about, mainly because of the weather conditions in the metro area in the last few months. I've broken down the route into segments because I really am interested in the usage numbers. Let's say from Knapp / Ave U to Nostrand Junction at Flatbush. From the Junction to Fulton Street in Bed-Stuy and then from Fulton St to Flushing or Bridge Plaza. I can see the ridership on the southern end using the service to transfer to connections for the Brighton line and the IRT line or bus service at the Junction. I can see some ridership from points in the middle segment of the route toward Fulton St and the IND line. The part that has me wondering is the segment between Fulton St and the northern terminals. What destinations/ trip generators exist on that segment ? Is there a major employment center in that area or are people using the B44 as a way to get to Woodhull hospital via a transfer to another bus? The way I picture it there isn't a major destination on the northern end of the route because if one wanted to go toward the west(downtown) Brooklyn area there is no reason to go that far toward Flushing Avenue to head downtown. IIRC it's even quicker to reach the Navy Yard area by the train or B25 bus and a transfer at Clinton-Washington or Vanderbilt Avenue. I've pointed out the benefits to the , the Operations and Planning Department, and to my B/O brothers but, excluding students, I fail to see the need for the service to run to Flushing Avenue as frequently as it does especially in non-rush hours. Loop some B44 SBS and locals at Fulton Street and send them back south because, IMO, that's where most of the ridership is. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.