Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Is the MTA Unfair to the Outer Boroughs?


BrooklynBus

Recommended Posts

No question about it. The majority of the 8 million New Yorkers come from the outer boroughs. Hell, I wouldn't even call the (MTA) Manhattan centric anymore because you get the same sh*tty service in the city too, though you have more options, but necessarily easy ones, where they f*ck up the subways to the point that a thousand transfers are required be it on the subway or the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority (as in 95%) of the current subways in operation was built by, or in operation by the 1940's. Since then there have been a few connections or conversions of existing abandoned or bankrupt rail lines; improved connections among some of the subway lines, removal of antiquated elevated lines, and the building of shorter new segments of subway tracks and stations.

 

The really big issue with transit is money, often the lack of money determines what does not get built, and the maintenance of what is built and operating. The famed IND Second System not built (except for small remants) due to the lack of money during the Great Depression.

 

The various versions of the Second Avenue subway - not built - why? Bond issue monies were needed to maintain let alone modernize the rest of the subway. The 1970's city's fiscal crisis and related funding issues put the kabash to most of the extensive plans publicized at the time. President Ford to "New York Drop Dead" was not just a campaign slogan. Other NIMBY actions in Queens just simply help.

 

Mass transit is about moving large numbers of people from one place to another. For the longest time, the Manhattan CBD was the powerful economic engine of the region - that's why there's relatively plenty of transit to get there. Now the economic centers are a bit more dispersed, and sometimes is located in places where subway transit goes not go.

 

Building a train line while not an easy task means that once built, the transit facility is not going to move any time soon, even if a part of the reason why it was built in the first place might change a little. As much as some folk want to look at the decentralized nature of the location of jobs - the Manhattan CBD still has plenty of kick to it, and thus remains a viable center, and a place that folks want to get to.

 

With the extremely high cost per mile of subway transit, it is not a good idea to keep one's hopes up for an extensive subway building program in the other boroughs. The reality is that's not going to happen, regard-less of the amount of brightly colored fantasy maps and schemes.

 

Mass transit policy is based upon having money to do stuff, and when there's no money, it is an effort to just keep running what is running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do they want the MTA to do? dump billions of dollars (which, BTW It doesn't have!) to rebuild the subways and re route the buses?

 

It doesn't even have the money for Phase 2, much less any kind of outerboro expansion, most neighborhoods of which are they way they are because of no subways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Manhattan, the subway isn't *just* used for people commuting from their house to the office, but for people who need to get from place to place within Manhattan.

 

And no, there are plenty of areas of Manhattan which require multiple fares... I live in Manhattan and if I want to avoid walking over half a mile, I have to take bus -> train -> bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for one i like how the bronx system is now, over the past 15 years they have did alot of work on all lines in the bronx and the buses are very good., i get home fast unless something happens that the MTA cant avoid everything goes nice here. all stations are nice for the most part all the lines have new trains the buses we where the first place too have SBS service in the city so we get good stuff too me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe we should build a massive light rail system, and somehow integrate it along with our subway system creating a massive transit system that would help people in the City.
that would be great adding anything is always great but nyers dont want too pay for it, it coast alot of money billions of dollars that people here would cry and scream about it, and then with building it people would hate that too look at the 2nd ave line they are going nuts over the construction of that and many of them asked for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they should be doing is looking to buses instead of trying to slash them. Some changes could cost little or next to nothing like having local buses connect better to speed up commutes. They need to be implementing more limited stop service on some lines or mini versions. That would help a lot right there. The subways in many cases are fine in the outer boroughs, but it's getting to them that's a pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The streets in most areas of the outerboros that do not have subways running underneath or above them are also not wide enough for long enough distances to warrant light rail.

 

A few Bronx examples:

Third Avenue (which needs some sort of service on it or on Park which has been suggested here before), narrow two lanes in either direction, in many places double parking makes it a one lane.

Grand Concourse is wide enough, but it already has the (4)(:P(D) running under it.

Westchester Avenue is narrow and has the (2)(5)(6) on it.

Gun Hill Road has only two lanes in each direction for most of its length, and the combination of buses that run on it are generally efficient (they all stop at Montefiore, they all serve various parts of Co-op).

Tremont Avenue is only a couple lanes in each direction from West Farms to its southeastern end, and one lane in its western end from West Farms to University.

 

Of all the above mentioned roads, the only possible service improvement would be limited stop buses along Gun Hill. Grand Concourse and Third Avenue already has them, Westchester is too narrow and has trains above them (which are faster than limited surface buses). Tremont Avenue would benefit if the road was wide end to end, but in parts of the most heavily traveled parts (between West Farms and University) its only one lane, and can't support limited service. I always felt if Tremont's western section was as wide as its eastern part, there would have been limited service on it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority (as in 95%) of the current subways in operation was built by, or in operation by the 1940's. Since then there have been a few connections or conversions of existing abandoned or bankrupt rail lines; improved connections among some of the subway lines, removal of antiquated elevated lines, and the building of shorter new segments of subway tracks and stations.

 

The really big issue with transit is money, often the lack of money determines what does not get built, and the maintenance of what is built and operating. The famed IND Second System not built (except for small remants) due to the lack of money during the Great Depression.

 

The various versions of the Second Avenue subway - not built - why? Bond issue monies were needed to maintain let alone modernize the rest of the subway. The 1970's city's fiscal crisis and related funding issues put the kabash to most of the extensive plans publicized at the time. President Ford to "New York Drop Dead" was not just a campaign slogan. Other NIMBY actions in Queens just simply help.

 

Mass transit is about moving large numbers of people from one place to another. For the longest time, the Manhattan CBD was the powerful economic engine of the region - that's why there's relatively plenty of transit to get there. Now the economic centers are a bit more dispersed, and sometimes is located in places where subway transit goes not go.

 

Building a train line while not an easy task means that once built, the transit facility is not going to move any time soon, even if a part of the reason why it was built in the first place might change a little. As much as some folk want to look at the decentralized nature of the location of jobs - the Manhattan CBD still has plenty of kick to it, and thus remains a viable center, and a place that folks want to get to.

 

With the extremely high cost per mile of subway transit, it is not a good idea to keep one's hopes up for an extensive subway building program in the other boroughs. The reality is that's not going to happen, regard-less of the amount of brightly colored fantasy maps and schemes.

 

Mass transit policy is based upon having money to do stuff, and when there's no money, it is an effort to just keep running what is running.

 

It comes down to capital costs vs. operating costs. The subway/elevated lines may be expensive to build, but once they are built, the marginal cost per passenger is much lower than that of buses due to faster speeds and higher capacity.

 

In Manhattan, the subway isn't *just* used for people commuting from their house to the office, but for people who need to get from place to place within Manhattan.

 

And no, there are plenty of areas of Manhattan which require multiple fares... I live in Manhattan and if I want to avoid walking over half a mile, I have to take bus -> train -> bus.

 

Or you can take the M15 to the M20 (or for that matter, the M31 to the M20).

 

Walking 1/2 mile isn't the end of the world. The S93 is about a mile from me and I manage to walk to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you can take the M15 to the M20 (or for that matter, the M31 to the M20).

 

Walking 1/2 mile isn't the end of the world. The S93 is about a mile from me and I manage to walk to it.

 

M15/M22 (you meant 22 not 20 right?) is over an hour, while the M31/M20 is over an hour and a half. X90 used to be under an hour.

 

Last thing I want is to start another debate about this so back on subject, I was just saying that because it's not JUST the outer boroughs that lack sufficient bus/subway service, Manhattan has areas that could be covered much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do they want the MTA to do? dump billions of dollars (which, BTW It doesn't have!) to rebuild the subways and re route the buses?

 

 

It doesn't cost billions to reroute the buses. You could get massive time savings with simple reroutings. the problem is that the MTA has no interest in saving anyone time and making their trip easier because they feel they have a captive audience. That is a fallacy. People would use the system more if they could make trips quicker. All the MTA wants to do is cut service not improve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does this board have a reading comprehension problem..?

 

"billions of dollars to rebuild the subway and reroute the buses."

 

The whole system...

 

As I said, maybe the subways, but not the buses. You have a problem with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buses are not a good long term solution for anything. They have a higher maintenance cost, and a higher operating cost then light rail, or a subway line especially for Bus Rapid Transit. The good option here is either light rail or a subway line, but subway lines will take a long time to construct (Second Avenue Subway) unless if the line is elevated, but people these days won't support any elevated line even if it is built to blend in with the neighborhood and looks pretty, and light rail will have to run on the street where parking spaces are at so people will protest that as well. Ironically the people that clamor for mass transit are also the people that protest these solutions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buses are not a good long term solution for anything. They have a higher maintenance cost, and a higher operating cost then light rail, or a subway line especially for Bus Rapid Transit. The good option here is either light rail or a subway line, but subway lines will take a long time to construct (Second Avenue Subway) unless if the line is elevated, but people these days won't support any elevated line even if it is built to blend in with the neighborhood and looks pretty, and light rail will have to run on the street where parking spaces are at so people will protest that as well. Ironically the people that clamor for mass transit are also the people that protest these solutions as well.

 

You can't just dismiss buses like they are no good for anything. You make it sound like every area is suitable for a subway or light rail. That's just not true unless you are only talking about the densely populated areas. In most areas it would be impractical to build a subway or light rail even if you could afford to build them. It would just be uneconomical to operate them because you could not get the ridership to justify them. In those areas, buses are the most economical solution so it is important the the routes operate as efficiently and effectively as possible which is just not the case today with outdated and indirect routing that does not facilitate easy transferring in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I do, learn to read and place words in their proper orders. I mean the whole system, buses and trains, at once. how figgin hard is that to understand?

 

I think he has no opinion regarding the subway, but he's mad at the MTA for not doing simple things such as rerouting the buses.

 

Back on the original topic, the MTA clearly has its hands tied just trying to keep the system in Manhattan under control right now, so the neglect for the other boroughs makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I do, learn to read and place words in their proper orders. I mean the whole system, buses and trains, at once. how figgin hard is that to understand?

 

If you are lumping buses and trains into the same category, that is nonsensical. If you mean something else, I would suggest you learn how to write so someone can understand you. The problem is at your end not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he has no opinion regarding the subway, but he's mad at the MTA for not doing simple things such as rerouting the buses.

 

Back on the original topic, the MTA clearly has its hands tied just trying to keep the system in Manhattan under control right now, so the neglect for the other boroughs makes sense.

 

It's not that I have no opinion regarding the subway. I agree with him on that part, but you can't just lump the two modes into one category since it is so much easier to operate a new bus route than it is to build a new subway line.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about keeping the system under control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

god give me strength.....

 

what I have been attemping to say, which just about everyone else seems to have gotten, is that resturctuing the services provided by the MTA to suit the outer boroughs, would be extreamly expesnive....

 

how hard is that to understand?

 

Yes, in terms of the subway, but as I have stated three times there are a lot of routing improvements you can make with the buses that would be relatively cheap to implement, certainly not "billions" as you've stated. Operating costs would increase though if you do not consider added revenue as the MTA does.

 

Now do you get what I am saying?

 

I really doubt if everyone else is understanding you. if your "billions" are referring to buses and subways together, as I've said, it is unfair to lump them into a single category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe the MTA is shafting the outer boroughs. There are no plans for expansion in any of them and in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, there are no articulated buses or Limited/Select Bus services to deal with the heavy crowds on many of the buses that shuttle people to the subways. Not only that, many of the stations where multiple bus lines converge do so haphazardly. Main Street in Flushing is a prime example. There is no rhyme or reason to where the buses stop and start and they are in multiple locations, making transfers between buses and from bus to subway difficult. And since most people on the Flushing buses transfer to the (7) at Main Street, you have to deal with swarms of people descending on subway platforms that clearly were not designed to handle the crowd they see every day (Main Street was not intended to be the last stop on the (7)).

 

Now, an extension of the (7) eastward into Bayside would allow several of those bus routes to be cut back. A branch off of the (7) line into College Point (an (8) train) would allow more bus routes to be cut back. But the MTA not only claims to have no money to do this, they don't even have plans for it. They won't even run longer buses on these busy bus routes.

 

But there is something the MTA can (and should) look into doing, especially once ESA construction enters its advanced stages. That is to consider running additional trains on the LIRR's Port Washington as well as on the lines that run through southeast Queens. On Friday, the hottest day of the year, I took the LIRR home to Bayside, instead of the (7) and Q12. That LIRR train was not even close to being full. This was the 6:30 train out of Penn Station. I bet you if the MTA offered Queens residents a significantly discounted fare (with a transfer to/from the subway at Penn Station, Grand Central, Hunterspoint Avenue and Atlantic Avenue) on the LIRR to and from stations in Queens, many people would switch from the buses and (7) to the railroad. But the MTA is not even considering that. Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.