B44 +SelectBusService+

[Trainmaster5]

I've been watching the back and forth between two posters in this thread about mass transit, buses, parking, bicycles, and the private automobile. Let me throw this into the mix. Starting from December 15th of last year until this past Monday how would one transport a Christmas tree, snow shovels, bags of rock salt or calcium flakes, a snow blower, a game console or two, a desktop computer, weekly groceries, a trip to the vet. I want to know what mode of transportation a person would use to move these items. It sure isn't the bus. There are those who live in an alternate reality who think it makes sense to ban private automobiles from urban areas. Are they advocating we turn to dog sleds instead? As my late uncle used to say " boy do you screw your head on in the morning ?" Carry on.

[BrooklynIRT]

I certainly do not believe it makes sense to ban private automobiles from urban areas, nor have I ever indicated a firm belief in the idea of banning private automobiles from urban society.

 

I do firmly believe in reducing private automobile use in urban areas, though. As of now, 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 believe in private automobile use being reduced such that the B44 SBS performs up to or close to those standards. This is even more important if no Triboro (RX) is getting built any time soon.

 

I will not be able to answer your inquiry about how to transport the items and make the trips you mentioned unless I know all the roads on which the origins and destinations involved were located and all the neighborhoods in which the origins and destinations were located, the intersection closest to each origin and destination, and/r the major intersection closest to each origin and destination.

 

The answer I provide once I know that information may not even be a complete answer or the final answer, for several reasons.

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

Now that you mention it, does the MTA short turn any of its SBS routes?

[Trainmaster5]

I certainly do not believe it makes sense to ban private automobiles from urban areas, nor have I ever indicated a firm belief in the idea of banning private automobiles from urban society.

 

I do firmly believe in reducing private automobile use in urban areas, though. As of now, 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 believe in private automobile use being reduced such that the B44 SBS performs up to or close to those standards. This is even more important if no Triboro (RX) is getting built any time soon.

 

I will not be able to answer your inquiry about how to transport the items and make the trips you mentioned unless I know all the roads on which the origins and destinations involved were located and all the neighborhoods in which the origins and destinations were located, the intersection closest to each origin and destination, and/r the major intersection closest to each origin and destination.

 

The answer I provide once I know that information may not even be a complete answer or the final answer, for several reasons.

I believe we're in the B44 SBS thread so.......let's use  the Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford Avenue corridors as a starting point. I'm thinking of the B44 route in particular between Flushing Avenue and Avenue H or so.

[B35 via Church]

Calm down I already told you he is a lost cause IRT is too anti-car even by my standards

A long post doesn't mean I'm not calm....

 

Anyway, I concur that it's a lost cause with him.... But I'm still going to reinforce my points.

Too anti-car for your standards, well, I get why you're anti-car - You want to divert local buses all over the place, where they have no business going (and thinking that's gonna get a widespread amt. of people out of their cars).... BrooklynIRT OTOH is jumping on the anti-car bandwagon b/c he's fed up with the motorists that exacerbate surface transit....

 

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

Aye, you do what you have to do....

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

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.

 

Exactly.... So what is still making you think you can get said folks to ditch their cars?

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

 

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.

 

1. What you say here (in this incomplete statement) doesn't address what I stated in point #1 at all....

Regardless if vehicles are in motion or stationary, they're still on the roads.... So the significant amt. of traffic would still exist - It's only a matter of when (the stationary vehicles are no longer so)..... This is why it's silly to now all of a sudden want to harp on parked cars vs those that are in motion.... It's looking like you're grasping for straws here....

 

2. The vast majority of those operating a motor vehicle in & out of this city, is what is meant by that.

 

As far as people's positions changing, it's not a matter of *if* it's liable to change, but *how many* will end up changing their minds - Over whatever time period...... I'm sorry, but you don't have the numbers (of motorists that would be so willing to ditch their cars for mass transit) on your side.... Your optimism for a transit utopia isn't gonna trump the feeling of freedom that comes with someone operating his/her motor vehicle...

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

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.

 

I said plainly, not fully...... You had ample time in this discussion to do the former.

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

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.

 

The underlined part.... All of that is a long-winded way of saying you want to enhance surface transit by attempting to significantly lessen the amt. of motorists on the roads......

 

Furthermore, Lack of parking spaces & commuting choices have zero to do with each other? How is that possible when a motor vehicle (a commuting choice) has to park somewhere..... It also ties into your point about stationary vehicles making matters worse for (surface) mass transit; i.e. curbside parking.... Getting folks out of their own vehicles can't be less important to you if your aim is to improve mass transit - because that is one way  you'd aim to do so.... Let's not start backpedaling here (pun unintended).....

 ------------

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?

 

None of this addressed anything I said there....

 ------------

 

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.

 

That's your assessment.... I don't have to take it in as truth, especially with as biased as you are, regarding cars.....

Still doesn't sound all that plausible to me, but w/e.....

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

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.

 

Either you're purposely evading the point here, or you're somehow confused....

I never once said you said suburban car travel should be reduced.....

 

The central point in that paragraph in question was where I said "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....."

 

How in the world do you get from that quote, that I'm referring to some mention of you reducing folks coming into the city from the suburbs.....

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

Does this apply to my desire that the B44 SBS perform up to or close to the standards I posted in post #1106?

 

Since the B44 SBS is a part of our mass transit system, yes it applies.... Why even ask that....

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

 

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?

 

I'm not answering this question, for the simple fact you purposefully edited words out of the original quote you were replying to, to make it mean something entirely different... Is that what you have to resort to now.....

 

your edit:

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.....

 

my original comment

"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 aint slick, dude.......

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

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.]

 

Nope, I don't mean like you..... Don't see where I even implicated you as being in that category....

I wouldn't include you as being someone that would even want to operate an automobile, with the anti-car attitude you possess & continue to portray yourself as having on this forum.....

 

I was referring to the motorists that aren't out here double parking, driving along bus lanes (further impeding city buses), and anything else involving not exacerbating matters regarding our buses.... But aye, have you tell it, every single person driving a car exacerbates (regardless if he/she does or doesn't make matters worse for) (surface) mass transit, just on the simple notion that it's on our roads, I suppose.....

 

reply in red.....

 

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

That's not his argument at all.... 

 

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.

They want to have these long SBS routes so they can cram more people onto them..... The idea is to have more SBS', compared to locals..... What you're suggesting is how (more) 44's (LTD's or locals) should have operated like, if they wanted to be efficient..... IMO. Too many buses ran up to Flushing (av).... I also think it had to do w/ the B48 (well, before it got extended back to prospect park subway, that is) & the B49 ending at Fulton/Franklin.....

 

I've been watching the back and forth between two posters in this thread about mass transit, buses, parking, bicycles, and the private automobile. Let me throw this into the mix. Starting from December 15th of last year until this past Monday how would one transport a Christmas tree, snow shovels, bags of rock salt or calcium flakes, a snow blower, a game console or two, a desktop computer, weekly groceries, a trip to the vet. I want to know what mode of transportation a person would use to move these items. It sure isn't the bus. There are those who live in an alternate reality who think it makes sense to ban private automobiles from urban areas. Are they advocating we turn to dog sleds instead? As my late uncle used to say " boy do you screw your head on in the morning ?" Carry on.

Private Jet

[BrooklynIRT]

In post #1261, B35 via Church said: Exactly.... So what is still making you think you can get said folks to ditch their cars?

 

Now BrooklynIRT says: Assuming it matters whether I can get any amount of said folks to ditch their cars, one thing that makes me think I can get such people to do that is the fact that people's positions are liable to change over time as the consensus evolves.

 

1. What you say here (in this incomplete statement) doesn't address what I stated in point #1 at all....
Regardless if vehicles are in motion or stationary, they're still on the roads.... So the significant amt. of traffic would still exist - It's only a matter of when (the stationary vehicles are no longer so)..... This is why it's silly to now all of a sudden want to harp on parked cars vs those that are in motion.... It's looking like you're grasping for straws here....

 
In order to fully respond to this and explain why, assuming that harping on parked cars vs those that are in motion would significantly increase the possibility of the B44 SBS performing up to the standards I mentioned in post #1106, it is not silly to harp on parked cars vs those that are in motion, I would need to outline a specific proposal with diagrams and other items.
 

Your optimism for a transit utopia isn't gonna trump the feeling of freedom that comes with someone operating his/her motor vehicle...

 
No, my "optimism for a 'transit utopia'" by itself probably will not trump that feeling of freedom. This is where logical reasoning comes in.
 
Good thing you said motor vehicle. I thought about bringing up bicycles again until I read your sentence again and saw the word "motor."
 

I said plainly, not fully...... You had ample time in this discussion to do the former.

 
Typically I try to focus on replying only to the specific points you raise and the specific questions you ask because I do not want to introduce more new material to the discussion than is necessary. I do not think you specifically asked me to lay out my position until post #1261.
 

Furthermore, Lack of parking spaces & commuting choices have zero to do with each other? How is that possible when a motor vehicle (a commuting choice) has to park somewhere.....

I have to try to answer this at another time.
 

Getting folks out of their own vehicles can't be less important to you if your aim is to improve mass transit

Yes it can. I can explain.
 

None of this addressed anything I said there....

Not even the part about induced demand/triple convergence? Induced demand and triple convergence, among other things, make it impossible to not have a situation at any time where one group of people would ditch their cars (urban dwellers) while another group of people (suburban dwellers) would still use them. I think this holds even if society is attempting to move towards less private automobile use in the name of improving other travel modes.

 

Either you're purposely evading the point here, or you're somehow confused....
I never once said you said suburban car travel should be reduced.....
 
The central point in that paragraph in question was where I said "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....."
 
How in the world do you get from that quote, that I'm referring to some mention of you reducing folks coming into the city from the suburbs.....

You have never once said that I said suburban car travel should be reduced, but in post #1247 you made a statement that I interpret as "if I single out (that basically means ignore in this case, right?) people who commute into the city from the suburbs, a monkey wrench will be thrown into my 'anti-car rhetoric.'"
 

I'm not answering this question, for the simple fact you purposefully edited words out of the original quote you were replying to, to make it mean something entirely different... Is that what you have to resort to now.....

If my edit changed the meaning that much, that was not my intention. I will be more careful about that from now on. I wanted to isolate the part about blaming motorists as to why surface transit is ineffective, but that was probably unnecessary. I thought one of your criticisms of my position (within or without that post/quote) was that I should be less concerned with blaming motorists for the ineffectiveness of surface mass transit, regardless of the extent to which I am concerned with law enforcement.
 

Nope, I don't mean like you..... Don't see where I even implicated you as being in that category....
I wouldn't include you as being someone that would even want to operate an automobile, with the anti-car attitude you possess & continue to portray yourself as having on this forum.....

 
I am including myself in that category, and I was including myself in that category in post #1264. I never want to operate a private automobile, but I have done it before. (The only automobiles I have operated have been sedans. No buses, trucks, SUVs, or any other type of automobile.)

If I, for all intents and purposes, completely ignore air pollution, and certain other conditions are satisfied (including, but not limited to, not taking the car on an urban freeway that I think should be demolished if reasonably possible due to its significant contributions to urban decay and poverty, such as the Cross-Bronx, not driving through the Junction until they figure out a way to reasonably separate the B41, B44, and B103 from much of the private auto traffic in the area, and driving on roads as close to shorelines as possible in the boroughs), I actually do not have much of a problem with operating a private automobile if someone asks me to.
 

But aye, have you tell it, every single person driving a car exacerbates (regardless if he/she does or doesn't make matters worse for) (surface) mass transit, just on the simple notion that it's on our roads, I suppose.....

 
No. Not every single person driving a car (or having it parked on any street, legally or illegally) significantly exacerbates or causes problems for [surface] mass transit.
 
But typically, the more cars there are on the roads, the worse the problems are for mass transit. The more cars there are on the roads, the worse the problems are for bicycles also. These statements hold even if everybody is pretty much following the rules (whether their vehicles are moving or legally parked) and driving alertly and not aggressively.

[peacemak3r]

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.

 

That brings up another thing, does the light return back to it's original frequency afterwards? Because most drivers will know this, they hate lights that are not synced with other lights. (For example, like if a series of 10 blocks have a green but that one random light in the middle is red.)

[BrooklynIRT]

That's not his argument at all....

 

And I thought I was hardcore about taking trips down memory lane. Challenge accepted.

 

From post #1265, although this really should have been in post #1264:

 

"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.]"

 

Heavy emphasis on the underlined and italicized part. I even said, in that 2013 post you quoted, that "I understand that people do have good reasons for using [private automobiles]" and that I "acknowledge that someone who lives in an area with practically no transit network needs a car to get around."

 

The last quoted statement is very much related to what NYSubwayBuff said in post #1268. I spoke of "someone living in an area with practically no transit network" last year, and NYSubwayBuff spoke of "[people] who can't survive without cars, [such as those] living in an area with no bus or train" in post #1268.

 

I believe we're in the B44 SBS thread so.......let's use  the Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford Avenue corridors as a starting point. I'm thinking of the B44 route in particular between Flushing Avenue and Avenue H or so.

 

I will fully answer later. I think you were off the mark when you said "it sure isn't the bus," and I will explain why.

 

Assuming one is by oneself, taking all those items on a transit vehicle in which one has to pay as one enters is difficult. Taking all those items on a transit vehicle in which one does not have to pay as one enters is not nearly as difficult.

 

Also, if the B44 SBS were a tram line instead of a bus line, I have a feeling it would be easier to handle that cargo on the surface transit vehicle in question (the tram). That reminds me...

 

Why are trolleys opposed so much in NYC, or in general?

 

In NYC, it's simple..... The roads don't allow for it, and there is simply way too much vehicular traffic on said roads......

[BrooklynIRT]

Mistake in post #1281 that I need to correct (just an incorrect post number, although I do feel cruddy about making that error):
 
"In post #1261 #1280, B35 via Church said: Exactly.... So what is still making you think you can get said folks to ditch their cars?
 
Now BrooklynIRT says: Assuming it matters whether I can get any amount of said folks to ditch their cars, one thing that makes me think I can get such people to do that is the fact that people's positions are liable to change over time as the consensus evolves."

[BrooklynIRT]

Another blunder in post #1281 that is probably worth fixing:

 

"Typically I try to focus on replying only to the specific points you raise and the specific questions you ask because I do not want to introduce more new material to the discussion than is necessary. I do not think you specifically asked me to lay out my position mentioned me laying out my position until post #1261."

 

Also, a note about this:

 

"I am including myself in that category, and I was including myself in that category in post #1264. I never want to operate a private automobile, but I have done it before. (The only automobiles I have operated have been sedans. No buses, trucks, SUVs, or any other type of automobile.)"

 

The category I was referring to, and in which I included myself, was that of motorists who follow the rules of the road.

 

Although, the seemingly most popular online dictionaries basically say that a motorist is somebody who operates an automobile, with about half of said dictionaries specifying "private automobile/vehicle" or "privately-owned automobile/vehicle," and the only distinction I wish to make there lies in the tense. I do not like to think of myself as somebody who operates (present imperfect tense) a private automobile, rather I prefer to think of myself as somebody who has operated (present perfect tense) a private automobile because I do not do it regularly and I do not intend on or think I will ever be doing it regularly.

 

Most of said dictionaries use the present imperfect tense rather than the present perfect tense, so by those definitions, I am technically not a motorist. But, the times that I have been a motorist, I have followed the rules of the road to the maximum possible extent. And if I ever find myself operating an automobile again (which would make me a motorist then), I will follow the rules of the road to the maximum possible extent, as has always been the case whenever I have operated an automobile.

 

These statements about semantics are mostly about me being a motorist/operating a private automobile, not about anybody else being a motorist/operating a private automobile.

 

And then there was a slight blunder in post #1283:

 

"Heavy emphasis on the underlined and italicized part. I even said, in that 2013 post you quoted linked, that "I understand that people do have good reasons for using [private automobiles]" and that I "acknowledge that someone who lives in an area with practically no transit network needs a car to get around." "

[BrooklynIRT]

I believe we're in the B44 SBS thread so.......let's use  the Nostrand, Rogers, and Bedford Avenue corridors as a starting point. I'm thinking of the B44 route in particular between Flushing Avenue and Avenue H or so.

 

I spent about 20 minutes typing a response, but then stopped.

 

The sort of trip you mentioned can be made using one transit line (the B44 SBS) if the trip occurs entirely within less than 0.5 mile of the B44 SBS corridor.

 

Basically a large duffel bag with cushion-like materials placed between items inside the bag (to prevent damage to certain items) would be useful for getting most of the items you mentioned into a single container. The domesticated animal (referring to the trip to the vet) would have to go in a cage if possible and must not be placed in a container that either allows no light to enter or does not allow the animal to breathe or see his/her surroundings.

 

It seems a bit unusual that all the items you listed were transported in a single trip made by motorized transport.

 

I am actually not going to respond further unless I know all of the details of the situation because I have been spending a lot of time on this forum, and I do not want to type long responses without knowing as many details about a somewhat specific situation presented to me as are necessary for me to type an appropriate response. Sorry about that.

[BrooklynIRT]

If my edit changed the meaning that much, that was not my intention. I will be more careful about that from now on. I wanted to isolate the part about blaming motorists as to why surface transit is ineffective, but that was probably unnecessary. I thought one of your criticisms of my position (within or without that post/quote) was that I should be less concerned with blaming motorists for the ineffectiveness of surface mass transit, regardless of the extent to which I am concerned with law enforcement.

 

I made a mistake when I quoted post #1280 because I was tired. That was the problem. I did not realize what I did until I went back and read it just now.

 

What you typed in post #1280:

 

"your edit:

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.....

 

my original comment

"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....." "

 

I cut out the part about law enforcement because I wanted to focus on your belief that I should be less concerned with blaming motorists as to why surface transit is ineffective.

 

The mistake I made after I cut out the part about law enforcement was that I made it look like you were saying I should not necessarily be less concerned with blaming motorists. That was NOT what I wanted to make it to look like you were saying.

 

That was a very sloppy mistake on my part. Sorry.

[NYSubwayBuff]

If the mta/government really wanted people to get on buses they should do it by force, instead of this advocating for public transit bs, the government could employ a toll for any car entering a certain borough/area/even street if u will except for those from out of town or those with special permit e g. Taxi/ truck/ wheelchair passenger and then those not rich enough would ditch thie cars and make it easier for the rest of us non car users

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

 

[BrooklynIRT]

If the mta/government really wanted people to get on buses they should do it by force

No way would I agree to that. I do not want a dictatorship or any similar system of government.

 

 

the government could employ a toll for any car entering a certain borough/area/even street if u will except for those from out of town or those with special permit e g. Taxi/ truck/ wheelchair passenger and then those not rich enough would ditch thie cars and make it easier for the rest of us non car users Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

I would need to see detailed proposals to figure out whether this would work.

[qjtransitmaster]

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.

 

Err B44 also connects to Williamsburg which links to B32& several lines.

A long post doesn't mean I'm not calm....

 

Anyway, I concur that it's a lost cause with him.... But I'm still going to reinforce my points.

Too anti-car for your standards, well, I get why you're anti-car - You want to divert local buses all over the place, where they have no business going (and thinking that's gonna get a widespread amt. of people out of their cars).... BrooklynIRT OTOH is jumping on the anti-car bandwagon b/c he's fed up with the motorists that exacerbate surface transit....

 

reply in red.....

 

That's not his argument at all....

 

They want to have these long SBS routes so they can cram more people onto them..... The idea is to have more SBS', compared to locals..... What you're suggesting is how (more) 44's (LTD's or locals) should have operated like, if they wanted to be efficient..... IMO. Too many buses ran up to Flushing (av).... I also think it had to do w/ the B48 (well, before it got extended back to prospect park subway, that is) & the B49 ending at Fulton/Franklin.....

 

Private Jet

I guess I don't look at buses as local or express I look at them as simply busroutes that make up a transit network. I guess that can fly in places like Westchester or NJ or Philly or systems with zone fares or large coverage areas. But I reevaluated my previous queens and Brooklyn ideas and maybe shuffling DH runs would be a better way or restructuring LIRR city zone fares would speed up commutes better. However some roadways have clearances too low for MCIs therefore only local/Ltd buses can use em.Previously I wasn't really for diverting but extending via rapid segments to connect major transit or transfer hubs that aren't linked directly.

[BrooklynIRT]

And in post #1287 I probably should have made it clear that outside of the quotations, the word "you" was referring to "B35 via Church."

 

Moving right along..

[bobtehpanda]

If the mta/government really wanted people to get on buses they should do it by force, instead of this advocating for public transit bs, the government could employ a toll for any car entering a certain borough/area/even street if u will except for those from out of town or those with special permit e g. Taxi/ truck/ wheelchair passenger and then those not rich enough would ditch thie cars and make it easier for the rest of us non car users Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

That's a bunch of crap. The cost of making a toll system that complex and complicated (down to the street level) would be astronomical compared to the cost, and on top of that public transit journeys simply aren't feasible for a good part of the outer boroughs, where there are basically no local grocery stores or businesses of any sort. It also opens up the possibility of placard abuse, which is quite frankly bad enough as it is.

 

The most feasible solution would be to equalize tolls on all inbound crossings into Manhattan while at the same time reducing the tolls at outerborough crossings, so that cars trying to get out of town have an incentive to avoid the city. If specific areas needed congestion reduction, hike parking rates; parking is the single biggest reason why people choose mass transit over personal vehicles. Encouraging public transport use does not mean punishing those who don't live in walkable areas with easy access to transit, particularly when many of these areas are lower and middle class.

[BrooklynBus]

You get people to use buses by improving service and or lowering fares. That includes new routes at service levels people would use, not every 30 minutes and revising existing routes that no longer adequately serves riders.

 

You don't force people to use buses or any other type of transit. We still live in a democracy, at least supposedly.

[peacemak3r]

If the mta/government really wanted people to get on buses they should do it by force, instead of this advocating for public transit bs, the government could employ a toll for any car entering a certain borough/area/even street if u will except for those from out of town or those with special permit e g. Taxi/ truck/ wheelchair passenger and then those not rich enough would ditch thie cars and make it easier for the rest of us non car users Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

No....just no.

 

No way would I agree to that. I do not want a dictatorship or any similar system of government.

 

 

I would need to see detailed proposals to figure out whether this would work.

 

In conjunction with NYSubwayBuff's "proposal" on tolling cars entering a certain borough/area/even street, I believe there was a proposed idea of tolling people getting into Manhattan through all the access bridges south of 96th Street. Though could have worked but, it's hard enough putting a toll on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges if I recall. Second, I believe it was dismissed as outrageous to the public.

 

Back to some B44 SBS discussion, how frequent are these SBS' at night? I'll say around past 9:30pm? Or did I miss the fact that SBS ends at a certain time like the Limited did? I walk home on Nostrand on occasion and I realized that I only see B44 local's rolling around, happy to see they still have a few short turning on Avenue U still.

[NYSubwayBuff]

Doesnt the SBS end at 11? Correct me if im wrong

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[NewFlyer 230]

The schedule should tell you that.

[Trainmaster5]

I spent about 20 minutes typing a response, but then stopped.

 

The sort of trip you mentioned can be made using one transit line (the B44 SBS) if the trip occurs entirely within less than 0.5 mile of the B44 SBS corridor.

 

Basically a large duffel bag with cushion-like materials placed between items inside the bag (to prevent damage to certain items) would be useful for getting most of the items you mentioned into a single container. The domesticated animal (referring to the trip to the vet) would have to go in a cage if possible and must not be placed in a container that either allows no light to enter or does not allow the animal to breathe or see his/her surroundings.

 

It seems a bit unusual that all the items you listed were transported in a single trip made by motorized transport.

 

I am actually not going to respond further unless I know all of the details of the situation because I have been spending a lot of time on this forum, and I do not want to type long responses without knowing as many details about a somewhat specific situation presented to me as are necessary for me to type an appropriate response. Sorry about that.

I think the point I was trying to make was missed by you. The items I mentioned were purchased in the time frame I mentioned and transported by private auto along that aforementioned corridor. Perhaps this post and the original one I made should have been in the random thread but I was trying to point out that your obvious anti-car rhetoric and bias seem to blind you to the solution that makes the most sense. I don't think there are too many bus fans on the forums who would even suggest using surface transit to transport those items. I would venture a guess that most riders wouldn't take kindly to a person transporting a real Christmas tree on a bus they were on. As a retired motorman I will state that most riders don't want to be in a  train car with a dog, caged or not, because of fear, allergies, or whatever so I think that would hold true for buses as well. BTW the items were transported by auto in three separate trips with the tree and the snow blower needing two people to lift and carry them.The simple fact is that even if the SBS service on Nostrand Avenue were speeded up (optimized in your way of thinking) it wouldn't benefit everyone residing along the route. It might even be detrimental to many of the residents and commercial establishments along the route whom you always seem to overlook in your posts. I also don't think that Ichabod, a 75 lb German shepherd, would like being caged up on a bus. He made the trip from Nostrand and Fenimore to Fulton and Washington by private auto which was quicker than mass transit. Face it, there are quite a few instances where mass transit is not the best option. Why disparage the people who look upon mass transit as an option to utilize when it makes the most sense. Transportation is not a "one size fits all" thing in NYC thankfully. Carry on.

[BrooklynBus]

There was a funny NY lottery commercial on TV a few months ago showing two people transporting a christmas tree on the subway. I think they were trying to show how innovative some New Yorkers are. But the point was that it was just ridiculous to try. Most would agree.

 

As Trainmaster 5 stated, mass transit certainly has its place. It certainly needs to be encouraged, but there are cerain situations where it just doesn't make any sense. For many urban trips as well as virtually all rural trips and some suburban trips the car is still the most efficient and best way to travel.

[BrooklynIRT]

I don't think there are too many bus fans on the forums who would even suggest using surface transit to transport those items. I would venture a guess that most riders wouldn't take kindly to a person transporting a real Christmas tree on a bus they were on. As a retired motorman I will state that most riders don't want to be in a  train car with a dog, caged or not, because of fear, allergies, or whatever so I think that would hold true for buses as well.

 

Yes, I mostly agree with your statement about Christmas trees. I also agree with your statement about domesticated animals.

 

BTW the items were transported by auto in three separate trips with the tree and the snow blower needing two people to lift and carry them.

 

Well, very good to know it was not done in one trip.

 

The simple fact is that even if the SBS service on Nostrand Avenue were speeded up (optimized in your way of thinking) it wouldn't benefit everyone residing along the route. It might even be detrimental to many of the residents and commercial establishments along the route whom you always seem to overlook in your posts.

 

Yes, you said "it would not benefit everyone" and that it might be detrimental to "many" of the residents and commercial establishments. The point is to benefit most people, or as many people as possible; I know it is probably not possible to benefit everyone by speeding up the B44 SBS. If I drew up proposals, I would probably be able to plausibly explain how most of the residents and commercial establishments would benefit, overall, from the B44 SBS being sped up to the extent I described in post #1106.

 

I also don't think that Ichabod, a 75 lb German shepherd, would like being caged up on a bus.

 

I agree 100%.

 

Why disparage the people who look upon mass transit as an option to utilize when it makes the most sense.

 

Good question. Have you noticed any disparaging in this thread?

[BrooklynIRT]

There was a funny NY lottery commercial on TV a few months ago showing two people transporting a christmas tree on the subway. I think they were trying to show how innovative some New Yorkers are. But the point was that it was just ridiculous to try. Most would agree.

 

As Trainmaster 5 stated, mass transit certainly has its place. It certainly needs to be encouraged, but there are cerain situations where it just doesn't make any sense. For many urban trips as well as virtually all rural trips and some suburban trips the car is still the most efficient and best way to travel.

 

I mostly agree with you. The only items I would really challenge here are the meaning of "most efficient" and the meaning of "best," as far as urban areas are concerned. (I am not really concerned with rural or suburban areas.)