B44 +SelectBusService+

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) I don't think the other boroughs got additional depots built (more like depots being expanded, or depots replacing other depots). Then again, the transit ridership was already well-established in Brooklyn, whereas that wasn't the case in Staten Island (the ridership has grown much faster, percentage-wise on Staten Island).

2) The point is that you can't just keep on expanding service just because "Stataten Island has been waiting so long". If another corridor needs it more, it should get it first (though, personally, I don't see why they can't work on 2 or more projects at once).

The point is that any expansion project should be determined by need.

 

 

 

For the S78, many of the riders along the southern portion of Hylan Blvd are just using it to get to other places along Hylan Blvd (or to connect to other routes). North of the Grasmere area is where you get more ferry-bound riders (riders going to St. George from points south take the SIR).

 

For the S79, seeing as it follows a different route from the SIR (serving the SI Mall, Eltingville Transit Center, and Brooklyn tends to have more riders heading towards one of these destinations, for whom taking the SIR wouldn't be worth it.

 

Any bus-only lane is going to impact traffic, but during rush hours, the buses (both local and express) run very frequently down Hylan Blvd. You might be able to attract some additional ridership, both from local riders (say, parents driving their children to school, or their spouse to work) and express riders (from those who, for one reason or another, are driving into Manhattan).

 

 

 

I recall Merrick Blvd and Hillside Avenue were once up for discussion, but merchants opposed the plan and it was shut down. Other corridors that could use it are Kissena Blvd, Northern Blvd (the western portion).

 

Personally, I don't see why +SBS+ has to include the full package. If the community doesn't want bus lanes, just implement +SBS+ without bus lanes and call it a day.

 

 

Like I said, I see no reason why they can't work on both projects simultaneously. Also, what are the real start-up costs involved? Just get some paint for bus lanes, and some ticket vending machines. You don't even need articulated buses for +SBS+ (all this of course, after talking with community members).

 

 

 

The +SBS+ probably wouldn't run frequently for both a local and limited to run simultaneously, so, unless the MTA wants to be extremely generous, there will probably be no local service on Hylan Blvd.

 

1) The transit base on Staten Island never quite got established because of the neglect from the . The saying "build it and they will come" applies quite well here. If there is no service of course there will be no established base.

 

2) Based on your analysis, Brooklyn would get most of the SBS service seeing that it has the biggest population out of the five boroughs. Your position on the issue would lead to service being completely undistributed throughout the five boroughs. EVERY BOROUGH has needs and you can't just say oh well this one should get more because it has more people and screw the other folks, which is basically what you're saying in a nutshell albeit indirectly. Every borough should get at least one SBS line if the can get the federal funding for it. From a planning stand point, that's the smart thing to do this way you can see how the service works in each borough and make changes from there as each borough will have different issues with SBS.

 

 

3) What's the point of implementing SBS without the whole package? Okay so the bus will make fewer stops, but it will still lag terribly. The (M15) SBS is a perfect example. Bus times have sped up because of the enforcement of the bus lanes. I lived with something like the is trying to do in Europe years ago with the whole boarding at any door and paying at the curb except you would board through any door and stamp your ticket at any of the ticket machines on the bus and it makes things a lot quicker. The bus lanes will make things even quicker. I know you love subways and all, but at some point you have to be realistic and know that the cannot afford to keep building subways, so if mainly Federal funds is going to be paying for this, they might as well make the service as quick as possible, since the goal is to move people quicker and get more people attracted to the service. Plus the saves money in that they don't have to spend much to get new buses, etc. since the service is mainly paid for by federal dollars.

 

Your last comment makes no sense at all. You can't provide SBS service w/no local service.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) The transit base on Staten Island never quite got established because of the neglect from the . The saying "build it and they will come" applies quite well here. If there is no service of course there will be no established base.

 

2) Based on your analysis, Brooklyn would get most of the SBS service seeing that it has the biggest population out of the five boroughs. Your position on the issue would lead to service being completely undistributed throughout the five boroughs. EVERY BOROUGH has needs and you can't just say oh well this one should get more because it has more people and screw the other folks, which is basically what you're saying in a nutshell albeit indirectly. Every borough should get at least one SBS line if the can get the federal funding for it. From a planning stand point, that's the smart thing to do this way you can see how the service works in each borough and make changes from there as each borough will have different issues with SBS.

 

 

3) What's the point of implementing SBS without the whole package? Okay so the bus will make fewer stops, but it will still lag terribly. The (M15) SBS is a perfect example. Bus times have sped up because of the enforcement of the bus lanes. I lived with something like the is trying to do in Europe years ago with the whole boarding at any door and paying at the curb except you would board through any door and stamp your ticket at any of the ticket machines on the bus and it makes things a lot quicker. The bus lanes will make things even quicker. I know you love subways and all, but at some point you have to be realistic and know that the cannot afford to keep building subways, so if mainly Federal funds is going to be paying for this, they might as well make the service as quick as possible, since the goal is to move people quicker and get more people attracted to the service. Plus the saves money in that they don't have to spend much to get new buses, etc. since the service is mainly paid for by federal dollars.

 

Your last comment makes no sense at all. You can't provide SBS service w/no local service.

 

1) Yes, it has been established. Out of the 100,000 local bus riders out here, I would say at least 50,000 are regular riders. You can get more riders by offering more frequent service, but that costs money.

 

Also, there is a limit to how high ridership will go, even if service is really frequent. At the height of rush hour, there are buses going down Richmond Avenue with 10 people in them, even though service is very frequent (so you would think more people would use them).

 

The "build it and they will come" concept only applies to major expansions, such as subways, not little bus improvements. The problem is that, once the subway comes, the whole area tends to become more "urbanized", which some people out here don't want.

 

2) Like I said, it would be very nice if we could get +SBS+ routes in major corridors in every borough, and I don't see why the MTA is taking so long to implement it when it is to everybody's benefit.

 

Also, each borough has different ways of coping with its population. Brooklyn shouldn't necessarily get the most +SBS+ routes, since the subway covers a good portion of the borough. What I'm saying is to simply evaluate each corridor based on the corridor itself, not which borough it is in, rather than say ____ should get +SBS+ because they've been lacking transportation improvements.

 

Finally, you have to consider that some neighborhoods might as well be in different boroughs, simply because of their distance from each other. Bay Ridge may be part of Brooklyn, but it in no way benefits from the B44 +SBS+.

 

3) On some corridors, such as Church Avenue and Utica Avenue, the streets are too narrow for bus lanes. In other cases, such as Merrick Blvd, the merchants in the area felt the bus lanes would take away parking. If you can't implement a bus lane in the corridor, that is no reason that you should give up completely on the +SBS+ concept.

 

4) Yes you can. The S59 and S78 could be the locals, and the S79 would be the limited/+SBS+ route. I'm just saying that, unless the MTA is being very generous, there will be passengers who will have to walk a longer distance (or take a local bus) to reach the +SBS+ stops. That is no reason to stop the project from going through (especially considering that they will be balanced out by passengers who have a faster trip)-but it is something to consider.

 

I support the S79 +SBS+ plan, but I'm just saying that Staten Island shouldn't be the first to get improvements just because "we've been neglected for so long". If the Hylan Blvd corridor demonstrates the greatest need out of all of the other corridors in the city, it should be done first (considering the MTA isn't going to change its mind about doing projects one at a time). If there are other corridors that would have a greater benefit from this project, they should be done before the S79.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Yes, it has been established. Out of the 100,000 local bus riders out here, I would say at least 50,000 are regular riders. You can get more riders by offering more frequent service, but that costs money.

 

Also, there is a limit to how high ridership will go, even if service is really frequent. At the height of rush hour, there are buses going down Richmond Avenue with 10 people in them, even though service is very frequent (so you would think more people would use them).

 

The "build it and they will come" concept only applies to major expansions, such as subways, not little bus improvements. The problem is that, once the subway comes, the whole area tends to become more "urbanized", which some people out here don't want.

 

2) Like I said, it would be very nice if we could get +SBS+ routes in major corridors in every borough, and I don't see why the MTA is taking so long to implement it when it is to everybody's benefit.

 

Also, each borough has different ways of coping with its population. Brooklyn shouldn't necessarily get the most +SBS+ routes, since the subway covers a good portion of the borough. What I'm saying is to simply evaluate each corridor based on the corridor itself, not which borough it is in, rather than say ____ should get +SBS+ because they've been lacking transportation improvements.

 

Finally, you have to consider that some neighborhoods might as well be in different boroughs, simply because of their distance from each other. Bay Ridge may be part of Brooklyn, but it in no way benefits from the B44 +SBS+.

 

3) On some corridors, such as Church Avenue and Utica Avenue, the streets are too narrow for bus lanes. In other cases, such as Merrick Blvd, the merchants in the area felt the bus lanes would take away parking. If you can't implement a bus lane in the corridor, that is no reason that you should give up completely on the +SBS+ concept.

 

4) Yes you can. The S59 and S78 could be the locals, and the S79 would be the limited/+SBS+ route. I'm just saying that, unless the MTA is being very generous, there will be passengers who will have to walk a longer distance (or take a local bus) to reach the +SBS+ stops. That is no reason to stop the project from going through (especially considering that they will be balanced out by passengers who have a faster trip)-but it is something to consider.

 

I support the S79 +SBS+ plan, but I'm just saying that Staten Island shouldn't be the first to get improvements just because "we've been neglected for so long". If the Hylan Blvd corridor demonstrates the greatest need out of all of the other corridors in the city, it should be done first (considering the MTA isn't going to change its mind about doing projects one at a time). If there are other corridors that would have a greater benefit from this project, they should be done before the S79.

 

I don't think it matters which borough gets what first. What is important is that each borough gets its fare share of service. For example, Manhattan or the Bronx should not get two SBS routes while Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island has none currently. Each borough should have one SBS route and then go from there overwise it looks like favouritism from the which is supposed to be representing everyone's interests and needs.

 

The SBS should be rolled out in each borough when it is ready and the service can be implemented.

 

My point to Shortline was that if a borough is set to receive SBS service they should not be put on hold to bump up another borough that's seen as "more important".

[B35 via Church]

I haven't been in Queens enough on the local buses to comment on their needs. The times I've been out there it's been by car or by the express bus mainly.

 

Why aren't you a fan or artics for Brooklyn? I assume you'd be concerned w/less bus service?

 

Yeh, that's the main concern....

 

 

I remember when they had them on Guy R Brewer for a little bit... while the Q111/113 does carry, service on those two routes are erratic enough as it is... especially the 113...

 

I'm glad that was a "trial" sort of ordeal & didn't remain a mainstay over there.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, that's the main concern.

 

I mean the (B44), (B41) and (B46) are pretty busy routes. I don't think artics could be out on the (B46) because of the narrow streets in some parts of the route, so that leaves the (B44) and the (B41), both of which I can't see having really reduced service because of the artics. Ridership is simply too high, plus look at what they've done with the (Bx12) and (M15)? I see those (M15) SBS buses down on Pearl/Water St when I'm on the X14 every few minutes.

 

The goal is for them to attract more ridership on those SBS esp. because they want the lines to do well so that they can expand the service to other lines and see how they can get buses moving to get more savings.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Well according to page 4 of the document below, they actually plan on improving the headway in addition to giving the line Artics. They say it's gonna be every 3 minutes rush hours and every 7 minutes off hours as opposed to the current 4-6 mins (rush hour) and 8-9 mins (midday weekday). On the weekend the headway is currently anywhere from 8 to 15 minutes.

 

http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/docs/Nostrand%20Making%20the%20Case%20rev%206%20with%20map.pdf

 

Now I was a little shocked when I saw the proposed headways because I expected that at best they would put the Artics on the line and keep the headway the same. At worst, put Artics on and make the headways longer. But if they stick to what they said in the document then I will be very impressed. So based on the document they will not cut service after they bring Artics over. They say they will actually make service more frequent. Which seems financially doable since they can have the improved frequencies on the line while still having less or the same number of (SBS) buses on the road as they do now (LTD).

[BrooklynBus]

I don't think artics could be out on the (B46) because of the narrow streets in some parts of the route, .

 

Don't really understand. The (B46) route may be too narrow for SBS but why would it be too narrow for artics? There aren't even any 90 degree turns on the (B46). It is a fairly straight route with a few gentle curves and no tight turns.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well according to page 4 of the document below, they actually plan on improving the headway in addition to giving the line Artics. They say it's gonna be every 3 minutes rush hours and every 7 minutes off hours as opposed to the current 4-6 mins (rush hour) and 8-9 mins (midday weekday). On the weekend the headway is currently anywhere from 8 to 15 minutes.

 

http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/docs/Nostrand%20Making%20the%20Case%20rev%206%20with%20map.pdf

 

Now I was a little shocked when I saw the proposed headways because I expected that at best they would put the Artics on the line and keep the headway the same. At worst, put Artics on and make the headways longer. But if they stick to what they said in the document then I will be very impressed. So based on the document they will not cut service after they bring Artics over. They say they will actually make service more frequent. Which seems financially doable since they can have the improved frequencies on the line while still having less or the same number of (SBS) buses on the road as they do now (LTD).

 

 

The whole point of SBS is not only to make the routes faster but also to attract more riders to use it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Don't really understand. The (B46) route may be too narrow for SBS but why would it be too narrow for artics? There aren't even any 90 degree turns on the (B46). It is a fairly straight route with a few gentle curves and no tight turns.

 

My question is then why don't they have artics on the (B46) already?

[Cait Sith]

My question is then why don't they have artics on the (B46) already?

 

Simple, Flatbush Depot does not support artics yet, nor do they have enough room for them

[Grand Concourse]

That plus I still think it makes more sense to consolidate the artics at Manhattan and the Bronx. Plus unless they were to run 2 artics for what would have been 3 buses or 1 artic for 1 bus, it would've been an MTA ploy to give less service to the line. Not to mention a fare beater's paradise.

[BrooklynBus]

Simple, Flatbush Depot does not support artics yet, nor do they have enough room for them

 

I believe they were proposed for the B41 and the community came out against it. Also, I think there may be a problem in getting them in buying them. Joe Smith once mentioned to me that he wanted them but couldn't get them.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

True, but then what happens when the B44 SBS is started? If they really wanted to run they could maybe work out something and have them run out of another depot.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That plus I still think it makes more sense to consolidate the artics at Manhattan and the Bronx. Plus unless they were to run 2 artics for what would have been 3 buses or 1 artic for 1 bus, it would've been an MTA ploy to give less service to the line. Not to mention a fare beater's paradise.

 

lol... The (B46) has one of the lines with the highest amount of farebeaters w/out the artics so that's a moot point. They could assign more checkers if they really cared about cracking down...

[Grand Concourse]

My other point about the MTA possibly using artics in place of 2 buses still stands.

[BrooklynBus]

True, but then what happens when the B44 SBS is started? If they really wanted to run they could maybe work out something and have them run out of another depot.

 

Not if there is a valid reason why they cannot buy enough of them anytime soon. (I think there is a problem with some of the turns on the B44 local, but that doesn't apply to the B46.) Maybe they can only get enough for the SBS right now.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

My other point about the MTA possibly using artics in place of 2 buses still stands.

 

I understand your NIMB stance, but I really don't think that would happen. They tend to serve the more urban parts of Brooklyn better than the more suburban parts...

['89 Liberty MCI]

True, but then what happens when the B44 SBS is started? If they really wanted to run they could maybe work out something and have them run out of another depot.

 

Well a lot of people have been saying Grand Avenue. I'm pretty sure the relief point must be a terminal on any line that is Select, so that should do away with the Junction as a relief point on the B44 Select. They may keep it for the local if the route (local only or local and select) stays in Flatbush though.

 

Getting back to the relief point being a terminal, I wish the route would stay in Flatbush because the B3/B44 (Flatbush depot to Knapp Street terminal) run more frequently than the Q59 (Grand Avenue depot to Washington Plaza terminal). Keeping the route in Flatbush and putting the relief point at Knapp Street would result in less hassle than dealing with the insane headways of the Q59 at the other end.

 

On a side note it would also be more economically sound to leave the route in Flatbush if they ever were to extend it to the Lower East Side via the Williamsburg Bridge. Running on/off or traveling (using the Q59 and then either the , , or then-extended B44) between the relief point/terminal in LES and Grand Avenue depot would be quite wasteful. I mention this extension because it would give the route a new purpose, although that may not be on the MTA's agenda at the moment since they're currently just trying to save money rather than make it.

 

For now I guess they could put it in Grand, but I still question the move because the Q59 is funny and the BQE traffic is funny, which makes the traffic on nearby streets funny; the B44 buses running on/off would now have to use these same streets. If Flatbush doesn't have enough room for these buses then the B49 should go to Ulmer Park. Ulmer Park is a bit closer to Kingsborough CC terminal than Flatbush depot anyway because as a driver you have to go all the way around the Sheepshead bay just to go between Kingsborough and Flatbush depot.

[Grand Concourse]

I understand your NIMB stance, but I really don't think that would happen. They tend to serve the more urban parts of Brooklyn better than the more suburban parts...

 

I think you are too optimistic. B41, another busy route, is prone to bunching and can be a total mess in the rush hours. This is with 40' buses. Artics will make things worse. Plus they aren't going to limit the artics to one line, they'll probably interline the B41 and B46 as they do now. Artics are not suited for Flatbush Av.

[Cait Sith]

I think you are too optimistic. B41, another busy route, is prone to bunching and can be a total mess in the rush hours. This is with 40' buses. Artics will make things worse. Plus they aren't going to limit the artics to one line, they'll probably interline the B41 and B46 as they do now. Artics are not suited for Flatbush Av.

 

Gotta agree, artics would cause a lot of issues and would make it harder for buses to cut through traffic. Unless they were to fix up some of these issues especially by the junction and by the Atlantic Terminal area, artics would be fine.

[BrooklynBus]

The problem I have with artics are the longer bus stops which are necessary and that the MTA replaces 5 regular buses with 4 artics so service is reduced. Also if they buy two-door artics, loading times are greatly increased on non-SBS routes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think you are too optimistic. B41, another busy route, is prone to bunching and can be a total mess in the rush hours. This is with 40' buses. Artics will make things worse. Plus they aren't going to limit the artics to one line, they'll probably interline the B41 and B46 as they do now. Artics are not suited for Flatbush Av.

 

I was born and raised in Brooklyn. I'm quite familiar with the (B41) and the (B46). Unless the is completely moronic, they'd be smart and not cut back on service on these lines if they use artics. The ridership is just too high. They increased the frequency on the (M15) and I don't see why the would cut back on these two lines.

 

You can argue they would for financial reasons, BUT lines like these are exactly the type of lines that the wants to make quicker and if they can get those buses moving, that means a savings for them already, so the cuts may not be necessary, especially if they can grow ridership on those lines, which is also another goal, since they're both SBS type lines.

[Grand Concourse]

Gotta agree, artics would cause a lot of issues and would make it harder for buses to cut through traffic. Unless they were to fix up some of these issues especially by the junction and by the Atlantic Terminal area, artics would be fine.

 

Thank you! My point exactly. It would be one thing if the roads at the northern end didn't start to narrow or intersect with other roads, but they do and Brooklyn isn't as ideal as Manhattan is with their grid system.

So sure they can put an artic for SBS, but artics for regular service would be problematic. And from experience B41 service can be as bad [bunching wise] as the M101-3 service on 3rd Av/Lexington Av.

I was born and raised in Brooklyn. I'm quite familiar with the (B41) and the (B46). Unless the is completely moronic, they'd be smart and not cut back on service on these lines if they use artics. The ridership is just too high. They increased the frequency on the (M15) and I don't see why the would cut back on these two lines.

 

You can argue they would for financial reasons, BUT lines like these are exactly the type of lines that the wants to make quicker and if they can get those buses moving, that means a savings for them already, so the cuts may not be necessary, especially if they can grow ridership on those lines, which is also another goal, since they're both SBS type lines.

 

You can call me a cynic, but I don't put much stock in the MTA. If they can find a way to cut corners because they are a bloated beuracracy, I wouldn't be too surprised about it. So forgive me if I doubt how the artics will be an improvement over what it is now with artics and NGs.

Flatbush Av they need to unclog the road north of Nostrand [i say as extreme as banning parking for the daytime hours and bus only lanes].

[Cait Sith]

Thank you! My point exactly. It would be one thing if the roads at the northern end didn't start to narrow or intersect with other roads, but they do and Brooklyn isn't as ideal as Manhattan is with their grid system.

So sure they can put an artic for SBS, but artics for regular service would be problematic. And from experience B41 service can be as bad [bunching wise] as the M101-3 service on 3rd Av/Lexington Av.

 

What would seriously need to be done for the B41 is to change up a ton of traffic patterns. The Junction alone is one very serious traffic spot, south of it going to Kings Plaza seems to be fine. Same goes for the B44 SBS to work out. If they were to fix up The Junction's traffic issues, all them bus lines should be able to breeze through. But for the B41, traffic conditions is all over that line and its pretty annoying. Artics would in a sense, help, and kill the line.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What would seriously need to be done for the B41 is to change up a ton of traffic patterns. The Junction alone is one very serious traffic spot, south of it going to Kings Plaza seems to be fine. Same goes for the B44 SBS to work out. If they were to fix up The Junction's traffic issues, all them bus lines should be able to breeze through. But for the B41, traffic conditions is all over that line and its pretty annoying. Artics would in a sense, help, and kill the line.

 

Parts of Flatbush Ave. are undergoing major changes. They are aware of the traffic problems and trying to address them where possible.

 

@ Grand Concourse, I also don't trust the , but these are two core bus lines we're talking about here. They're not cutting in those areas. Where they're cutting is in South Brooklyn, in my old neck of the woods... I'm still pissed at what they're doing with the (B36) and what they did with the (B4). :mad:

 

I was just down in Brooklyn today. So weird not seeing the (B4) around...