Future SBS Routes

[bobtehpanda]

Woodhaven Boulevard is not a ten lane street. Only a few blocks are ten lanes. 90% of it is eight lanes. Going under the LIRR south of the LIE is only 6 lanes as is the bridge over the LIRR tracks south of Metropolitan.  Those are the bottlenecks. Installing a bus lane there would have impacts all the way up to 63rd Drive on the north and down to Myrtle Avenue on the south. Also, it's not as simple as installing a bus lane in the service road.  The entire street would be redesigned with the malls eliminated where they exist, and the service roads only esist for half of the street. Currently trucks must use the service roads. If bus lanes are put there, that means trucks move over to the main road reducing auto capacity and greatly slowing traffic. And as I said, buses won't even save that much time. I also would be opposed to reducing the number of Limited stops if that is what they are planning.

 

If there are so many buses on Woodhaven, who do I hardly see any when I am driving? Because most of the time the buses do not run frequently.  Every four or five minutes for a bus is does not warrant an exclusive bus lane.  If it is also an HOV lane, that is another story, and that might work.

 

Utica Avenue - Eastern Parkway is not the only problem.  As I stated the entire street is exceedingly slow.  It is also very bad between Tilden and Farragut Roads with the double parking from all the auto related establishments.  Only on Sundays when they are closed, does traffic move well there. You say you know the area so how could you propose an exclusive lane "from Fulton to Flatbush", when north of Carroll there is only one lane in each direction?  Are you proposing to ban parking completely because that will never fly with the merchants?

 

The planning for the M15 and Bx12 was not rushed. In fact, it took way too long.  What is being rushed now is trying to get 7 new routes up and running in the next few years.  They should proceed with planning the Utica route, but they should take the time to get it right and also proceed with studying the three Laguardia routes.  I  have not looked at the Webster Ave route, so I have no opinions on it.

 

Eight lanes still makes it bigger than most of the arterials in this city - most are only four or six lanes, not counting turn lanes. From a transit perspective, the wideness of Woodhaven makes it an ideal candidate for SBS - if there's any place in this city that you can fit real BRT-style median stops in a road, this would be the place.

 

In any case, Woodhaven is the only arterial in this area, but it's certainly not the only way to go north-south in the area. People aren't going to try and ram into Woodhaven just like they always did. Some will find alternate routes, some will use other modes of transportation (walking, biking, using the SBS/local routes), and some will just not make certain discretionary trips. People change their habits - it's why none of the other places with bus lanes have seen gridlock increase, and why the Broadway redesigns have had no discernable impact on traffic.

[BrooklynBus]

I'm sorry but I agree that BrooklynBus is biased against buses... Why do you feel the need to ram trains down people's throats?  The does not have infinite monies around and I see nothing wrong with trying to give passengers IMMEDIATE relief rather than trying to plan train service for the distant future which is expensive and unpredictable.  Not every situation requires train service and sometimes SBS is sufficient enough.

 

I am certainly not against buses.  I have been pro-buses since about age 15 because I recognize their potential which has never been fulfilled because of the TA's and MTA's lack of willingness to make meaningful changes. When I was head of Planning, I couldn.t get them to do anything.  If I recommended additional service, they said they couldn't afford it. When I recommended a cut, they refused also saying that people depend on us, we can't cut anything. Virtually every change I recommended was met with "If it ain't broke don't fix it."  When I asked what changes do you make, the response was only if it involves safety.  That was the prevailing attitude for over 30 years. I always felt there was so much more you could do with buses  than with subways.

 

I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats.  I've often said you should take whatever mode works best for you. At the same time I don't believe the MTA should take an active role to make subways less attractive and Express buses more attractive so that people start switching from the train to express bus. That sentiment is purely from an operations point of view because it costs like four times the amount to transport someone by express bus verses subway and if many switch from subway to express bus, that increases the deficit. I don't have a problem with improving local bus service if that would permit a direct bus trip verses an indirect subway trip. That is my position.  If you wish to interpret that as anti-bus, that's your option. I don't.    

 

I like how you ignored my comment about your tone. Debate, don't dismiss.

 

Even 6 lanes is much wider than other streets that are proposed or currently have SBS. Fordham Road is only about 4 lanes, and 1st and 2nd Avenues are also only 4 (even though they are one-way), so I don't see the problem here. I don't know when you are along Woodhaven Blvd, but I always see a quite a few buses along the Woodhaven, so we obviously have different experiences. As for reducing the amount of LTD stops, if they do that, then they need to increase the amount of Q11/Q21 buses between Pitkin Avenue and Queens Center. This would offset the loss of some lesser used limited stops.

 

Utica Avenue is really anything but slow, so I don't see where you're coming from with that argument. Anyone who uses the B46 on a daily basis can vouch for me, the real trouble spot is Utica/Eastern, and all that area can be fixed with better parking. And frankly, I've never seen that much of a problem with auto retailers double parking; they tend to use the sidewalk (which is a issue for pedestrians). As for merchant issues, the bus lane north of Carroll could be daytime only, so merchants have time to receive shipments early in the morning. There are ways to compromise, which you are seeming to ignore.

 

Like VG8 said, while reactivating the Rockaway RoW is a good plan, and I'm not disagreeing with that, the money isn't there ATM to do that, because while the line is somewhat intact, you're going to have to deal with legal settlements to get rid of those who illegally placed their backyards on the RoW, and then there's the cost of rebuilding the stations/clearing the track of trees.

 

Even though it seems you were once a champion of buses, it seems like now you just want to shove people on trains. We need to make trains less crowded, not more crowded. 

 

I looked and I can't find your comment about my tone. Yes, Woodhaven is wider than most streets. It was built in the 1930's due to the growth of automobile traffic. The differences between Woodhaven / Cross Bay and Fordam/Pelham Parkway is that the Woodhaven corridor is over twice as long. Also, the bus lane on Fordham came from removal of the parking lane, not from removing a lane of moving traffic. So when you compare the two corridors in terms lanes of traffic being removed, i.e. Pelham vs. Woodhaven / Cross Bay, Woodhaven is four times longer. Since many cars use the entire corridor or at least two-thirds of it, the time to drive it would be significantly increased by as much as 20 or 30 minutes. I doubt it if trips on Pelham for cars were increased more than 5 minutes because the corridor is so much shorter.

 

Also there are alternative avenues to use north of Pelham Parkway if it becomes to congested. No alternatives exist for Woodhaven. Pennsylvania Avenue is the closest two way street to the west and 111 Street one mile to the east and that dead ends at Myrtle Avenue.

 

I don't know how often you used Woodhaven, but I drove its entire length daily for nine years. 

 

How can you say that Utica is not slow?  How many times have you driven it between Farragut Road and Fulton Street?  It moves like molasses mostly because it is a two way street without any traffic light synchronization like Nostrand or Rogers which now move better pre-SBS. It is also plagued with double parking like most other streets.  Also, if Utica is not slow, why would you even need or propose SBS? That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean that it can be "fixed with better parking."? 

 

The auto repairers, not retailers, I spoke of park on the sidewalks as well as double park on the street.  If you put SBS in, there will even be more cars on the sidewalks and then you really won't be able to walk on them.  Do you really think the police will do anything about that?

 

Yes, there are issues that have to be resolved vis-a-vis the Rockaway Line. Everything you state is true. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 

 

Also, tell me how insisting that the Utica Avenue SBS be done correctly and not supporting a Woodhaven SBS means I want to shove more people into trains and make them more crowded?  The two are not related and I certainly don't want more crowded trains.  Just check my posts in the Subway section for the thread on reducing passenger seating on the subways. I said the trains need more seats not fewer seats which means fewer standees, not more.  The benefits for bus riders with an SBS on Woodhaven are minimal, probably only five minutes, while the inconvenience to buses and trucks would be great (20 or 30 minutes). Traffic will not come to a standstill but the average speed will be cut in half, doubling the travel time for cars and trucks, with no better alternatives available.  The Van Wyck and the BQE are perpetually clogged.  And Pennsylvania Avenue leads to a parkway which cannot be used by trucks.

[checkmatechamp13]

He wants to say that the Rockaway RoW nearby is a reason to not have a Woodhaven SBS. That probably wasn't clear...

 

For starters, the Rockaway ROW doesn't have any sort of rail service on it. So you can't exactly pack people onto a service that doesn't exist (yet).

 

You have two choices: An SBS line, or a rail line. You're going to end up "packing people onto" one of those two modes. I don't see how "packing people onto" a brand-new rail line is going to be any worse than "packing people onto" SBS buses. We both know that they're not going to run buses so that everybody has a seat, on average anyway.

 

I guess we shouldn't build anymore subway extensions, then. On Utica Avenue, Hillside Avenue, and all those other major corridors SBS must be the long-term solution to everything, right? After all, instead of "packing onto" B46 SBS buses or Q43 SBS buses, they'll be "packing onto" trains and trains, which must be bad because those are subway lines.

 

The thing is that for starters, these would all be towards the end of the line, so for the most part, they wouldn't be "packed on". For all intents and purposes, let's say a train is "packed" when all the seats are taken. A 4-car train of 75-foot cars can seat around 300 people IIRC. A bus can seat around 40 people, so that means that in order to seat the same number of people, you need to run 7.5 buses for every train you would've run.

  

During rush hour, let's say the shuttle runs every 10 minutes, which is 6 trains per hour. That means that the MTA would have to run 45 buses per hour in order to seat the same number of people. Do you think the MTA is going to run SBS buses every 80 seconds? The train is going to be less packed.

 

You can argue that they're going to be "packed onto" the existing subway lines, like the QBL, but those people would've come from the SBS buses anyway. If say, 200 people get on at Woodhaven Blvd, what difference does it make if they came from a shuttle from the Rockaways, or if they came off a bus?

 

The same thing with those other lines. People are going to be coming off the Q43 & B46 anyway. The difference is that they'll already be on the train at 179th Street or Utica/Eastern anyway, rather than having transferred from a bus. Of course, ridership will increase, because generally ridership increases when you introduce rail service, but if it's brand-new riders, I don't see the problem. The trains will be a little more crowded, but you have to consider that it'll alleviate the crowding on the feeder buses, as well as save riders time (not to mention decrease long-term operating costs).

 

As far as this particular case, the issue is that the ROW is further over from Woodhaven, rather than being in the center of the action. Or else, I'd support it wholeheartedly. Add that to the fact that capacity on the QBL is limited (so you likely wouldn't get a direct ride to Manhattan), and it's a toss-up as to whether SBS or a Rockaway ROW reactivation is better.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I am certainly not against buses.  I have been pro-buses since about age 15 because I recognize their potential which has never been fulfilled because of the TA's and MTA's lack of willingness to make meaningful changes. When I was head of Planning, I couldn.t get them to do anything.  If I recommended additional service, they said they couldn't afford it. When I recommended a cut, they refused also saying that people depend on us, we can't cut anything. Virtually every change I recommended was met with "If it ain't broke don't fix it."  When I asked what changes do you make, the response was only if it involves safety.  That was the prevailing attitude for over 30 years. I always felt there was so much more you could do with buses  than with subways.

 

I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats.  I've often said you should take whatever mode works best for you. At the same time I don't believe the MTA should take an active role to make subways less attractive and Express buses more attractive so that people start switching from the train to express bus. That sentiment is purely from an operations point of view because it costs like four times the amount to transport someone by express bus verses subway and if many switch from subway to express bus, that increases the deficit. I don't have a problem with improving local bus service if that would permit a direct bus trip verses an indirect subway trip. That is my position.  If you wish to interpret that as anti-bus, that's your option. I don't.    

I do because you're quick to point out the negatives of SBS service but yet you don't talk any of the negatives with train service.  You talk about how the could re-activate the Rockway line as if it's simple and costs nothing to do, not to mention the amount of time that it would take to do it.  Sure, trains carry a lot of people but it costs a lot to build them and get them up and running... Certainly far more than any SBS service or even any express bus service.

[QM1to6Ave]

I am certainly not against buses.  I have been pro-buses since about age 15 because I recognize their potential which has never been fulfilled because of the TA's and MTA's lack of willingness to make meaningful changes. When I was head of Planning, I couldn.t get them to do anything.  If I recommended additional service, they said they couldn't afford it. When I recommended a cut, they refused also saying that people depend on us, we can't cut anything. Virtually every change I recommended was met with "If it ain't broke don't fix it."  When I asked what changes do you make, the response was only if it involves safety.  That was the prevailing attitude for over 30 years. I always felt there was so much more you could do with buses  than with subways.

 

I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats.  I've often said you should take whatever mode works best for you. At the same time I don't believe the MTA should take an active role to make subways less attractive and Express buses more attractive so that people start switching from the train to express bus. That sentiment is purely from an operations point of view because it costs like four times the amount to transport someone by express bus verses subway and if many switch from subway to express bus, that increases the deficit. I don't have a problem with improving local bus service if that would permit a direct bus trip verses an indirect subway trip. That is my position.  If you wish to interpret that as anti-bus, that's your option. I don't.    

 

Is this true even if you have a completely full express bus? Is it still operating on a loss? Obviously a single train holds a lot more people than a single express bus, but how many people do you need to ride an express bus for the cost to be cancelled out (and ignoring any reimbursements from the city for ex-PBL runs).

[checkmatechamp13]

Is this true even if you have a completely full express bus? Is it still operating on a loss? Obviously a single train holds a lot more people than a single express bus, but how many people do you need to ride an express bus for the cost to be cancelled out (and ignoring any reimbursements from the city for ex-PBL runs).

 

During the week, the most cost-efficient lines (the X27/37 & BxM7) have roughly a 65% farebox recovery ratio IIRC. On the weekends, it's around 80% because there's less deadheading and split shifts involved, because there's a lower peak:base ratio.

 

If you managed to fill every bus on the route to capacity (and there wasn't a whole lot of deadheading involved), you might break even as far as operating costs go. (But it would be very difficult to break even with respect to operating + overhead costs. No local line has done it so far).

[qjtransitmaster]

I am certainly not against buses.  I have been pro-buses since about age 15 because I recognize their potential which has never been fulfilled because of the TA's and MTA's lack of willingness to make meaningful changes. When I was head of Planning, I couldn.t get them to do anything.  If I recommended additional service, they said they couldn't afford it. When I recommended a cut, they refused also saying that people depend on us, we can't cut anything. Virtually every change I recommended was met with "If it ain't broke don't fix it."  When I asked what changes do you make, the response was only if it involves safety.  That was the prevailing attitude for over 30 years. I always felt there was so much more you could do with buses  than with subways.

 

I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats.  I've often said you should take whatever mode works best for you. At the same time I don't believe the MTA should take an active role to make subways less attractive and Express buses more attractive so that people start switching from the train to express bus. That sentiment is purely from an operations point of view because it costs like four times the amount to transport someone by express bus verses subway and if many switch from subway to express bus, that increases the deficit. I don't have a problem with improving local bus service if that would permit a direct bus trip verses an indirect subway trip. That is my position.  If you wish to interpret that as anti-bus, that's your option. I don't.    

 

 

 

I looked and I can't find your comment about my tone. Yes, Woodhaven is wider than most streets. It was built in the 1930's due to the growth of automobile traffic. The differences between Woodhaven / Cross Bay and Fordam/Pelham Parkway is that the Woodhaven corridor is over twice as long. Also, the bus lane on Fordham came from removal of the parking lane, not from removing a lane of moving traffic. So when you compare the two corridors in terms lanes of traffic being removed, i.e. Pelham vs. Woodhaven / Cross Bay, Woodhaven is four times longer. Since many cars use the entire corridor or at least two-thirds of it, the time to drive it would be significantly increased by as much as 20 or 30 minutes. I doubt it if trips on Pelham for cars were increased more than 5 minutes because the corridor is so much shorter.

 

Also there are alternative avenues to use north of Pelham Parkway if it becomes to congested. No alternatives exist for Woodhaven. Pennsylvania Avenue is the closest two way street to the west and 111 Street one mile to the east and that dead ends at Myrtle Avenue.

 

I don't know how often you used Woodhaven, but I drove its entire length daily for nine years. 

 

How can you say that Utica is not slow?  How many times have you driven it between Farragut Road and Fulton Street?  It moves like molasses mostly because it is a two way street without any traffic light synchronization like Nostrand or Rogers which now move better pre-SBS. It is also plagued with double parking like most other streets.  Also, if Utica is not slow, why would you even need or propose SBS? That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean that it can be "fixed with better parking."? 

 

The auto repairers, not retailers, I spoke of park on the sidewalks as well as double park on the street.  If you put SBS in, there will even be more cars on the sidewalks and then you really won't be able to walk on them.  Do you really think the police will do anything about that?

 

Yes, there are issues that have to be resolved vis-a-vis the Rockaway Line. Everything you state is true. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 

 

Also, tell me how insisting that the Utica Avenue SBS be done correctly and not supporting a Woodhaven SBS means I want to shove more people into trains and make them more crowded?  The two are not related and I certainly don't want more crowded trains.  Just check my posts in the Subway section for the thread on reducing passenger seating on the subways. I said the trains need more seats not fewer seats which means fewer standees, not more.  The benefits for bus riders with an SBS on Woodhaven are minimal, probably only five minutes, while the inconvenience to buses and trucks would be great (20 or 30 minutes). Traffic will not come to a standstill but the average speed will be cut in half, doubling the travel time for cars and trucks, with no better alternatives available.  The Van Wyck and the BQE are perpetually clogged.  And Pennsylvania Avenue leads to a parkway which cannot be used by trucks.

Want utica SBS replace LTD with straddling bus segment 1 atlantic to kings plaza then B46 ltd north of there to other places. DONE no traffic lanes lost and new speedy service at a quater the cost of subways.

[BrooklynBus]

I do because you're quick to point out the negatives of SBS service but yet you don't talk any of the negatives with train service. You talk about how the could re-activate the Rockway line as if it's simple and costs nothing to do, not to mention the amount of time that it would take to do it. Sure, trains carry a lot of people but it costs a lot to build them and get them up and running... Certainly far more than any SBS service or even any express bus service.

Of course trains also have negatives. The biggest one is the stairs which is why buses may make more sense for short distance trips of one or two subway stops if you have the choice. You also may be more likely to get a seat and get to see some scenery if you want to call it that on the bus. But what does any of that have to do with anything? I'm not comparing the two. You are. If you prefer buses That's fine. That's your prerogative, just like many subway riders avoid buses like the plague, the same is true for some bus riders who prefer to stay out of trains.

 

However, from an operational point of view as Checkmate pointed out, trains are much more efficient. Also. No one is going to pay the express bus fare if they have to stand, so their capacity is even lower than local buses.

 

What I didn't say is perhaps SBS on Woodhaven would work if buses shared a lane with trucks, or HOV vehicles. But I do not believe that is something that is being considered. They have their SBS model which is being applied almost universally all over with a few exceptions. No prepayment or artics on the S79 and a slight altering of the B44 and some bus lanes are part time. That's it. There is no consideration being given to altering other local bus routes so the SBSs can be more effective, and so far there are no shared bus lanes. It's buses or nothing. I can't see two packed lanes while a third one goes unutilized much of the time. That makes no sense to me. That's why I said these SBS routes shouldn't be rushed and just shoved down everyone's throats which they are trying to do now by working on six at once to make up for lost time and dragging their feet on the ones implemented thus far.

 

I see how DOT has already screwed up traffic on Woodhaven in the past 7 years and I'm just glad I don't have to rely on it on a daily basis any more. I just don't trust them. I feel they will put bus bulbs and pedestrian islands where they don't belong and make even a bigger mess because they view slowing down traffic and increasing trip times for cars as a good thing rather than as a bad thing.

 

Also, Checkmate, I do not understand your comment about the RBL not being in the center of the action.

 

Of course it will take money to construct, but it will cost a mere fraction per mile as the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access and #7 line are costing because you don't need deep tunneling and most important the right of way is already in place. If Woodhaven SBS is constructed, we will never see reactivation of the RBL because the City will skew the SBS data to show that traffic is improved, bus trips are faster, and the RBL is just not necessary. Traffic on Woodhaven varies daily. Some days are much better than others. They will go through their data and pick a "before" day where traffic is especially bad and call it a typical day. They will compare that to an "after day" when traffic is better than normal and say speeds are 20% faster to make themselves look good. They will never admit mistakes. Those who have been around long enough with enough knowledge and experience know how things are done. And the top people at the MTA or DOT may not even realize this is happening if they don't study the data and ask the right questions which they most likely won't do, because they too would rather have success than failure or what appears on the surface to be success, and those who are lying with the numbers want to look good so they can get their promotions. That is the real world.

 

And if the RBL is not reactivated, most likely the money will just be pissed away on converting the ROW to a bike lane that woud ony be used by a few during warm and dry weather. That truly would be a waste of good money when the potential is there to help thousands of people daily instead of hundreds during the summers only.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Of course trains also have negatives. The biggest one is the stairs which is why buses may make more sense for short distance trips of one or two subway stops if you have the choice. You also may be more likely to get a seat and get to see some scenery if you want to call it that on the bus. But what does any of that have to do with anything? I'm not comparing the two. You are. If you prefer buses That's fine. That's your prerogative, just like many subway riders avoid buses like the plague, the same is true for some bus riders who prefer to stay out of trains.

 

However, from an operational point of view as Checkmate pointed out, trains are much more efficient. Also. No one is going to pay the express bus fare if they have to stand, so their capacity is even lower than local buses.

 

What I didn't say is perhaps SBS on Woodhaven would work if buses shared a lane with trucks, or HOV vehicles. But I do not believe that is something that is being considered. They have their SBS model which is being applied almost universally all over with a few exceptions. No prepayment or artics on the S79 and a slight altering of the B44 and some bus lanes are part time. That's it. There is no consideration being given to altering other local bus routes so the SBSs can be more effective, and so far there are no shared bus lanes. It's buses or nothing. I can't see two packed lanes while a third one goes unutilized much of the time. That makes no sense to me. That's why I said these SBS routes shouldn't be rushed and just shoved down everyone's throats which they are trying to do now by working on six at once to make up for lost time and dragging their feet on the ones implemented thus far.

 

I see how DOT has already screwed up traffic on Woodhaven in the past 7 years and I'm just glad I don't have to rely on it on a daily basis any more. I just don't trust them. I feel they will put bus bulbs and pedestrian islands where they don't belong and make even a bigger mess because they view slowing down traffic and increasing trip times for cars as a good thing rather than as a bad thing.

 

Of course it will take money to construct, but it will cost a mere fraction per mile as the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access and #7 line are costing because you don't need deep tunneling and most important the right of way is already in place. If Woodhaven SBS is constructed, we will never see reactivation of the RBL because the City will skew the SBS data to show that traffic is improved, bus trips are faster, and the RBL is just not necessary. Traffic on Woodhaven varies daily. Some days are much better than others. They will go through their data and pick a "before" day where traffic is especially bad and call it a typical day. They will compare that to an "after day" when traffic is better than normal and say speeds are 20% faster to make themselves look good. They will never admit mistakes. Those who have been around long enough with enough knowledge and experience know how things are done. And the top people at the MTA or DOT may not even realize this is happening if they don't study the data and ask the right questions which they most likely won't do, because they too would rather have success than failure or what appears on the surface to be success, and those who are lying with the numbers want to look good so they can get their promotions. That is the real world.

 

And if the RBL is not reactivated, most likely the money will just be pissed away on converting the ROW to a bike lane that woud ony be used by a few during warm and dry weather. That truly would be a waste of good money when the potential is there to help thousands of people daily instead of hundreds during the summers only.

Excuse me, but you're the one that keeps writing these articles about SBS service and talking about how rail service would be better.  You keep harping on the cost.  It's not the ONLY factor that needs to be considered when looking at communities.  Like I said before rail service takes longer to get running, and costs more usually to start up.  I think it's irresponsible on your end to keep pressuring the with these articles to essentially drop their SBS proposals and run up costs trying to build out or reactivate rail links when they are in a fragile state fiscally.

[B35 via Church]

...Even though it seems you were once a champion of buses, it seems like now you just want to shove people on trains. 

lmao @ how this was put......

 

I'm sorry but I agree that BrooklynBus is biased against buses... Why do you feel the need to ram trains down people's throats?  The does not have infinite monies around and I see nothing wrong with trying to give passengers IMMEDIATE relief rather than trying to plan train service for the distant future which is expensive and unpredictable.  Not every situation requires train service and sometimes SBS is sufficient enough.

Although he goes on & on & on about SBS, I wouldn't say he's biased against buses necessarily.... However (and not that I care enough to figure out why), there has been this push out of him as of late to encourage people to take the rails..... I didn't forget that nonsense he went on about, about a hierarchy.....

 

Hasn't Rockaway reactivation been studied to death already multiple times? And hasn't it failed to get past a feasibility study every single time?

Yup, there's just too much that has to be done with it.....

 

...You have two choices: An SBS line, or a rail line. You're going to end up "packing people onto" one of those two modes. I don't see how "packing people onto" a brand-new rail line is going to be any worse than "packing people onto" SBS buses. We both know that they're not going to run buses so that everybody has a seat, on average anyway.

Yeah, that's one of the weaker arguments I've seen from anyone pro-SBS....

 

I for one would hate to see our system bastardized with SBS' running all over the place, but that's neither here nor there....

 

People have needs for the here & now, so I really don't wanna hear about no Rockaway RoW (see reply above)..... Anyway, since we're speaking in hypotheticals, you can still throw artics, retain the current LTD stops or w/e, & figure out what levels of service are attainable/justifiable along woodhaven if the situation (with ridership/usage) is that dire.... Whatever route # the route should be given, doesn't really matter to me..... Whatever restructuring of overall service (11/21/52/53) along Woodhaven that would result from it would just have to take place (if it's even necessary).... My belief is, as long as service levels aren't detrimentally f***ed with, people will be compliant..... But yeah, SBS has its advantages, but it isn't the end-all be-all solution here either (like the MTA wants riders to hold belief in)....

 

Once upon a time, there would be topics in this community asking which routes should have LTD's ran on em..... Then, the topics asking which routes should have artics ran on em.... Now we're discussing future SBS routes.... Go figure... Good old "something new" craze, as they call it.....

 

I do because you're quick to point out the negatives of SBS service but yet you don't talk any of the negatives with train service.

True about him & SBS in particular... But in fairness to him, people are quick to point out the negatives with bus service over train service anyway because there is much more of a disdain for the bus.... Always has been, always will be.....

 

Want utica SBS replace LTD with straddling bus segment 1 atlantic to kings plaza then B46 ltd north of there to other places. DONE no traffic lanes lost and new speedy service at a quater the cost of subways.

You with this straddling bus thing again.... All it is, is a funky elevated LRT that allows for vehicles to run under the contraption (which is dangerous anyway).... Utica gets narrow north of Carroll in both directions, so if SBS for the B46 isn't feasible to run at ground level for that reason, what in the world makes you think there'd be space width-wise for a straddling bus to run between kings plaza & atlantic av.......

[QM1to6Ave]

During the week, the most cost-efficient lines (the X27/37 & BxM7) have roughly a 65% farebox recovery ratio IIRC. On the weekends, it's around 80% because there's less deadheading and split shifts involved, because there's a lower peak:base ratio.

 

If you managed to fill every bus on the route to capacity (and there wasn't a whole lot of deadheading involved), you might break even as far as operating costs go. (But it would be very difficult to break even with respect to operating + overhead costs. No local line has done it so far).

Good to know. Obviously mass transit corporations are not businesses meant to reap great profits, but those numbers still always take me aback. 

[BrooklynBus]

Hasn't Rockaway reactivation been studied to death already multiple times? And hasn't it failed to get past a feasibility study every single time?

 

I mean it's great that there's a train line that's sort of still there, but the line needs to be brought into ADA compliance, you need to bore a tunnel to the Queens Boulevard Line portals, you need to rip out the trees and weeds and restore the bridges (because there are trees growing on top of bridges, and there is no way that is still strong enough to hold trains). Not to mention there's probably a huge capacity mismatch between any of the Queens Boulevard lines and the potential ridership of a reactivated Rockaway line.

When has reactivation been studied before? I am only aware that in the 1970s the MTA proposed reactivation as the way to get to JFK, then stupidly decided on AirTrain instead which has a far greater cost with much fewer benefits, not even providing a direct route to Manhattan. Of course the other problems you mention would have to be overcome.

 

Eight lanes still makes it bigger than most of the arterials in this city - most are only four or six lanes, not counting turn lanes. From a transit perspective, the wideness of Woodhaven makes it an ideal candidate for SBS - if there's any place in this city that you can fit real BRT-style median stops in a road, this would be the place.

That would be true if there weren't a much better alternative right next door.

 

In any case, Woodhaven is the only arterial in this area, but it's certainly not the only way to go north-south in the area. People aren't going to try and ram into Woodhaven just like they always did. Some will find alternate routes, some will use other modes of transportation (walking, biking, using the SBS/local routes), and some will just not make certain discretionary trips. People change their habits - it's why none of the other places with bus lanes have seen gridlock increase, and why the Broadway redesigns have had no discernable impact on traffic.

All true, but what will happen on Woodhaven is that overflow traffic will spil onto adjacent residential streets on days when traffic moves exceedingly slow. That currently happens and will just increase. When people get tired they will find alternatives like the Van Wyck, BQE, Pennsylvania Avenue, and other two-way streets in the area. The result will be that traffic will move a bit slower all over. My problem is when they measure the "success" of the program, none of that is analyzed. They only will look at traffic speeds on Woodhaven and will skew that data as I previously mentioned, to make it look like a success een when it isn't. I want to know what is happening on the alternate streets where traffic has been diverted to. The people on the adjacent residential streets won't realize what will happen on their streets until it is too late and then they will be ignored.

 

 

Excuse me, but you're the one that keeps writing these articles about SBS service and talking about how rail service would be better. You keep harping on the cost. It's not the ONLY factor that needs to be considered when looking at communities. Like I said before rail service takes longer to get running, and costs more usually to start up. I think it's irresponsible on your end to keep pressuring the with these articles to essentially drop their SBS proposals and run up costs trying to build out or reactivate rail links when they are in a fragile state fiscally.

Where in my articles have I pressured the MTA to drop their SBS proposals? I have only criticized their corridor selection, their inadequate and skewed measuring techniques, and their reluctance to change local bus routes in conjunction with SBS. I have also recommended ways or SBS to work better. So what you are saying is just not true. Just because rail costs more, I suppose you agree with the MTA that we should just give up on it entirely for the next 50 years.

 

We have to think of future generations, not only the next ten years. That's what Robert Moses did. If he wasn't thinking long term, he never woud have widened Woodhaven to 8 to 10 lanes. He would have only widened it from two lanes to four or six lanes and we would even be in a worse situation than we are today. Just compare cross- Brooklyn travel times by car to cross Queens travel times by car because we don't have the roadways that Queens does. It takes me 45 minutes to an hour to get from one end of the borough to the other by car. You can triple that time for buses. In the same 45 minutes, I can get to Westchester County or Nassau County by car or by subway to Midtown Manhattan from the southern most point in Brooklyn.

 

We can't abandon our rail plans. We have to think long term. Manhattan also cannot absorb more express buses. Yes the MTA does have a fiscal problem. That's why we have to look to creative financing and more public private partnerships to fund these lines, not only running up more debt. Those who benefit the most, need to pay some of the cost. I don't see that happening with any of the lines now being built. How much will those who will be benefiting from the development of the West Side be paying for the #7 extension?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Although he goes on & on & on about SBS, I wouldn't say he's biased against buses necessarily.... However (and not that I care enough to figure out why), there has been this push out of him as of late to encourage people to take the rails..... I didn't forget that nonsense he went on about, about a hierarchy.....

 

True about him & SBS in particular... But in fairness to him, people are quick to point out the negatives with bus service over train service anyway because there is much more of a disdain for the bus.... Always has been, always will be.....

Well to me it seems like he can't make up his mind... He slams the for cutting back on bus service, then slams them for adding too many SBS routes, then complains about them not doing enough for rail service.  I mean all of these things cost money, so the question is where is this money supposed to be coming from #1 and #2 I feel as if he's sending mixed signals.  On the one hand he argues that bus service needs to be restored, then complains that it's so expensive on the other hand. I mean really now... Which is it?  

 

When has reactivation been studied before? I am only aware that in the 1970s the MTA proposed reactivation as the way to get to JFK, then stupidly decided on AirTrain instead which has a far greater cost with much fewer benefits, not even providing a direct route to Manhattan. Of course the other problems you mention would have to be overcome.

 

That would be true if there weren't a much better alternative right next door.

 

 

All true, but what will happen on Woodhaven is that overflow traffic will spil onto adjacent residential streets on days when traffic moves exceedingly slow. That currently happens and will just increase. When people get tired they will find alternatives like the Van Wyck, BQE, Pennsylvania Avenue, and other two-way streets in the area. The result will be that traffic will move a bit slower all over. My problem is when they measure the "success" of the program, none of that is analyzed. They only will look at traffic speeds on Woodhaven and will skew that data as I previously mentioned, to make it look like a success een when it isn't. I want to know what is happening on the alternate streets where traffic has been diverted to. The people on the adjacent residential streets won't realize what will happen on their streets until it is too late and then they will be ignored.

 

 

Where in my articles have I pressured the MTA to drop their SBS proposals? I have only criticized their corridor selection, their inadequate and skewed measuring techniques, and their reluctance to change local bus routes in conjunction with SBS. I have also recommended ways or SBS to work better. So what you are saying is just not true. Just because rail costs more, I suppose you agree with the MTA that we should just give up on it entirely for the next 50 years.

 

We have to think of future generations, not only the next ten years. That's what Robert Moses did. If he wasn't thinking long term, he never woud have widened Woodhaven to 8 to 10 lanes. He would have only widened it from two lanes to four or six lanes and we would even be in a worse situation than we are today. Just compare cross- Brooklyn travel times by car to cross Queens travel times by car because we don't have the roadways that Queens does. It takes me 45 minutes to an hour to get from one end of the borough to the other by car. You can triple that time for buses. In the same 45 minutes, I can get to Westchester County or Nassau County by car or by subway to Midtown Manhattan from the southern most point in Brooklyn.

 

We can't abandon our rail plans. We have to think long term. Manhattan also cannot absorb more express buses. Yes the MTA does have a fiscal problem. That's why we have to look to creative financing and more public private partnerships to fund these lines, not only running up more debt. Those who benefit the most, need to pay some of the cost. I don't see that happening with any of the lines now being built. How much will those who will be benefiting from the development of the West Side be paying for the #7 extension?

Well then tell me what to make of your suggestion to reactivate the Rockaway branch? That seems to be the only suggestion you've made in this particular case regarding the SBS service so as far as I'm concerned, you're pretty much advocating for the rail service and I don't see how you advocate for both the rail service and the Rockaway branch based on the issues you seem to have with the corridor that would be used, the lack of funds available to the and your general stance in other articles that the is using SBS service as a way to get around making expanding rail service and making them more efficient.

[B35 via Church]

Well to me it seems like he can't make up his mind... He slams the for cutting back on bus service, then slams them for adding too many SBS routes, then complains about them not doing enough for rail service.  I mean all of these things cost money, so the question is where is this money supposed to be coming from #1 and #2 I feel as if he's sending mixed signals.  On the one hand he argues that bus service needs to be restored, then complains that it's so expensive on the other hand. I mean really now... Which is it? 

He is sending mixed messages, that I concur with...

For one, I don't see how you can argue costs, then bring up the RoW as a solution.....

 

Two... Well hell, I'm not gonna waste too much time here with this... The man is simply tryna get people to read his blogs moreso than his forum posts, point blank....You know who your general audience is & how to cater to them..... aye, whatever, his prerogative....

 

All I'm sayin is, don't come on forums & front like you've been sending the message that riders should take w/e mode works best for them - when in the past you used to talk heavy about improving individual bus routes [in Brooklyn] (just like what's currently done on here now in the bus section, myself included), and now on this tip all of a sudden about encouraging people take rails first (with which the suggestion of bringing up the Rockaway RoW over SBS along Woodhaven in this very thread certainly fits that bill, as well as other comments in the past).... While I'm not saying he's anti-bus, it's looking more & more like he's less pro-bus....

 

Threxx's comment about a "champion of buses" (lol) was not off base & it just goes to show that at least someone else has picked up on his sudden changing of the guard, so to speak....

 

One more thing.... If you're gonna focus on the negatives of SBS as much as what's being done, don't sit up here & claim that you're not anti-SBS..... Only for certain corridors? With as much as he goes IN talking about SBS, yeah right.... I'm against SBS & don't talk negatively about the things as much as he does.....

[Interested Rider]

The reason that there will be no train service but there will be SBS service is MONEY. In a previous post Brooklyn Bus stated that the difference between SBS and Limited service is that the Federal Government is providing money for Bus Rapid Transit  and that is why the Limited Service is being changed to an SBS on some routes even though adding a dispatcher or two on a route will provide better service. In my area we have had two weeks of disruptions as they changed the concrete from gray to white for the bus stop (Yes! it is true).

 

As long as the Federal Government provides the money, nothing will change as the agency does not want to spend its own money. This is what happens in a bureaucracy..

[BrooklynBus]

The reason that there will be no train service but there will be SBS service is MONEY. In a previous post Brooklyn Bus stated that the difference between SBS and Limited service is that the Federal Government is providing money for Bus Rapid Transit and that is why the Limited Service is being changed to an SBS on some routes even though adding a dispatcher or two on a route will provide better service. In my area we have had two weeks of disruptions as they changed the concrete from gray to white for the bus stop (Yes! it is true).

 

As long as the Federal Government provides the money, nothing will change as the agency does not want to spend its own money. This is what happens in a bureaucracy..

You are the only one I seem to understand. While the Feds aren't providing money to run the SBS, they are providing the funds to get it up and running. The MTA is eager to switch from Limited to SBS because it is cheaper for them to operate, not that it improves service that much.

 

The same thing is happening in Coney Island. The city is replacing all the bathrooms, most only ten years old, rather than making repairs because FEMA is paying for smaller prefabbed ugly new bathrooms that will be inconvenient to use, although most likely the repairs would be cheaper, but no one is paying for repairs.

 

Regarding the other points made, I do not see how I have been inconsistent anywhere. I have reiterated my positions many times. You are all making a big deal if I am pro-bus or anti-bus, or why would I advocate rail over bus. I really don't understand any of this and I am not sending mixed messages. There is nothing wrong with SBS if you choose the right corridors, benefit riders, clearly measure the benefits, and don't unnecessarily inconvenience other users of the road. As I said numerous times, I believe Nostrand was the wrong corridor to choose. I explained how an east west corridor where no subways exist and the average trips would be longer would make much more sense.

 

However, given that it will be done, there are many ways to improve it. Utica could work, but I don't have the confidence that it will be designed right and will cause unnecessary inconvenience. Woodhaven would be okay for SBS if you run enough buses to warrant it and don't have an exclusive bus lane that no other vehicles can share, you don't cause bottlenecks with bus bulbs or pedestrian islands in the wrong location, and you didn't have the Rockaway ROW nearby that is unused. It may even make sense to use that ROW for SBS instead of Woodhaven. That's why we need a feasibility study.

 

I'm only anti-SBS because of the process of how it's been done which I have explained in numerous articles. For example, how does a councilman state that he has been working with DOT completing a study regarding SBS on Woodhaven and that it could be up and running in a year, when the MTA website makes no mention that Woodhaven is even one of the corridors that will be considered in Phase 2? How come no one has a problem with that?

 

Or the fact that no one is measuring traffic impacts on alternate routes, but only in the affected corridor? I was taught in Planning that you first discuss your intentions with communities. Not that you engage in engineering studies before you do that. And that you do clear before and after studies to measure success. That hasn't been done. Only bus trip times have been examined regarding SBS, not how much time if any, riders are saving making their trips. That's why I'm anti SBS, if you want to call it that. Correct those problems and I will be pro-SBS. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. This entire pro vs anti bus discussion is ridiculous. I don't even understand what that means.

[YankeesPwnMets]

I've been a big advocate of this for a long time and I'm going to repeat it here... I still think the M14A/D needs SBS... the crowding on those two routes are insane.. at Union you have several 14A/D buses bunched together trying to load everybody on.. it is insane. I get the fact that bus lanes won't work in the neighborhoods it travels through, but I still believe off fare boarding could save a ton of traveling time.

[bobtehpanda]

Want utica SBS replace LTD with straddling bus segment 1 atlantic to kings plaza then B46 ltd north of there to other places. DONE no traffic lanes lost and new speedy service at a quater the cost of subways.

 

There are so many problems with this (proprietary technology, traffic light clearances, building the weird station configurations it requires, all the shitty drivers in this city that will probably crash into the thing) that this is immediately not a feasible solution.

[bobtehpanda]

Or the fact that no one is measuring traffic impacts on alternate routes, but only in the affected corridor? I was taught in Planning that you first discuss your intentions with communities. Not that you engage in engineering studies before you do that. And that you do clear before and after studies to measure success. That hasn't been done. Only bus trip times have been examined regarding SBS, not how much time if any, riders are saving making their trips. That's why I'm anti SBS, if you want to call it that. Correct those problems and I will be pro-SBS. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. This entire pro vs anti bus discussion is ridiculous. I don't even understand what that means.

 

DOT has an extensive catalog of their presentations to community boards and community workshops regarding SBS and bus lanes here. That's partially why it takes so damn long - DOT shows the results of the feasibility studies to the communities so that they can make judgements, not asking the community before making a feasibility study. You can't present the community options for something that may not even be feasible to operate.

 

DOT also listens to community input - that's why Merrick SBS was scrapped in favor of a more general Jamaica Bus Study, and why the plan for Hylan was reduced to few bus lanes and signal priority - DOT originally planned a full median busway for the route. And need I mention the 34th St fiasco?

 

It's not as if they're doing this by diktat.

 

Two other notes: SBS is more of a DOT thing than an MTA thing, and the website is really annoying to navigate - to find the community presentations, you have to click through to the individual project descriptions. Certain bus projects also lack a link from the front page, most notably the M60 lanes on 125th St.

[B35 via Church]

...Regarding the other points made, I do not see how I have been inconsistent anywhere. I have reiterated my positions many times. You are all making a big deal if I am pro-bus or anti-bus, or why would I advocate rail over bus. I really don't understand any of this and I am not sending mixed messages. There is nothing wrong with SBS if you choose the right corridors, benefit riders, clearly measure the benefits, and don't unnecessarily inconvenience other users of the road. As I said numerous times, I believe Nostrand was the wrong corridor to choose. I explained how an east west corridor where no subways exist and the average trips would be longer would make much more sense.

 

However, given that it will be done, there are many ways to improve it. Utica could work, but I don't have the confidence that it will be designed right and will cause unnecessary inconvenience. Woodhaven would be okay for SBS if you run enough buses to warrant it and don't have an exclusive bus lane that no other vehicles can share, you don't cause bottlenecks with bus bulbs or pedestrian islands in the wrong location, and you didn't have the Rockaway ROW nearby that is unused. It may even make sense to use that ROW for SBS instead of Woodhaven. That's why we need a feasibility study.

 

I'm only anti-SBS because of the process of how it's been done which I have explained in numerous articles. For example, how does a councilman state that he has been working with DOT completing a study regarding SBS on Woodhaven and that it could be up and running in a year, when the MTA website makes no mention that Woodhaven is even one of the corridors that will be considered in Phase 2? How come no one has a problem with that?

 

Or the fact that no one is measuring traffic impacts on alternate routes, but only in the affected corridor? I was taught in Planning that you first discuss your intentions with communities. Not that you engage in engineering studies before you do that. And that you do clear before and after studies to measure success. That hasn't been done. Only bus trip times have been examined regarding SBS, not how much time if any, riders are saving making their trips. That's why I'm anti SBS, if you want to call it that. Correct those problems and I will be pro-SBS. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. This entire pro vs anti bus discussion is ridiculous. I don't even understand what that means.

Why do I bother....

 

BrooklynBus, your reiteration of your position(s) isn't the problem.... Repeating 2+2 being 5 doesn't make it 5....

 

What is the problem (and ridiculous, to boot) is you, yet again, with this trying to play both sides of the fence regarding your comments about encouraging riders to take rail transportation first & acting stupefied like you don't know how you're giving off mixed messages when you say you've "often said you should take whatever mode works best"..... You don't suggest/encourage people engage in something & expect them to engage in something else if they so choose - That defeats the whole point of the encouragement.....

 

You wanna go off & suggest that people don't know what they're talking about b/c they don't hold your position regarding SBS along Woodhaven, that's one thing... However, why is it that the first thing that comes to mind is fixing up the Rockaway RoW of all things (even if you strongly don't approve of SBS along Woodhaven)? It most certainly is a position that supports not even bothering to consider possibly bettering matters along Woodhaven on the surface transit side of things..... I absolutely understand why you're being called out on your getting people to ride the rails all of a sudden - because you weren't on that tip before..... Back say 2-3 years ago, I honestly don't believe your first suggestion would've been to restore the RoW, but whatever man......

 

How is it that multiple users see/understand this logic, but you, for as many blog posts you've pumped out & postings that you make on here & on SC, don't? I believe you DO understand & are doing nothing more than some good ole C.Y.A.... Yeah right, you don't understand what anti-bus & pro-bus means.... Yeah a big deal will continue to be made until you drop the act, seriously....

 

 

As far as SBS goes, your position regarding SBS I'm not questioning, because I'm also anti-SBS & hold similar viewpoints you do.....

Your acceptance of what the position is, is what I've long been questioning.... By the way, you just called it anti-SBS, so that remark about "if you want to call it that" no longer flies..... After all this time, it's about time you literally said you were anti-SBS.... You couldn't seriously possibly expect readers to believe that you don't have a disdain for SBS with the way you have went on & on & on about it the past what, year or two now.... Unbelievable.....

[checkmatechamp13]

Also, Checkmate, I do not understand your comment about the RBL not being in the center of the action.

 

More centralized within the neighborhood. It's kind of hard to describe, but with larger streets (in this case, Woodhaven), people don't like having to cross them, and then continue to walk even further on the opposite side of the street.

 

Say somebody lives by 90th Street & Atlantic Avenue. They have to walk about a quarter mile over to Woodhaven Blvd, cross the street, and then walk another quarter mile to reach the train station.

 

Now let's take somebody who lives by 85th Street & Atlantic Avenue, but this time, instead of a train on the Rockaway ROW, it's SBS on Woodhaven. (So they're still about a half mile from the transit station). But this time, once they hit Woodhaven, that's the end of their trip.

 

So when the  second person hits Woodhaven, they just think "I'll just cross the street and wait for the bus", while the first person thinks "Oh, man, I have to cross the street, and then walk more on top of this".

 

With me, if I have to walk over to CSI to catch the S93, part of the reason why it's annoying (aside from the obvious distance factor) is because I have to cross a major street (Richmond Avenue) halfway through the trip. So I'm thinking "There's this big street I have to cross, and the S93 stop is still nowhere in sight".

 

If Woodhaven had a major commercial strip along any portion (I don't think it does), that would be another argument in favor of Woodhaven. But there's still that whole I guess "neighborhood division" factor to consider.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Why do I bother....

 

BrooklynBus, your reiteration of your position(s) isn't the problem.... Repeating 2+2 being 5 doesn't make it 5....

 

What is the problem (and ridiculous, to boot) is you, yet again, with this trying to play both sides of the fence regarding your comments about encouraging riders to take rail transportation first & acting stupefied like you don't know how you're giving off mixed messages when you say you've "often said you should take whatever mode works best"..... You don't suggest/encourage people engage in something & expect them to engage in something else if they so choose - That defeats the whole point of the encouragement.....

 

You wanna go off & suggest that people don't know what they're talking about b/c they don't hold your position regarding SBS along Woodhaven, that's one thing... However, why is it that the first thing that comes to mind is fixing up the Rockaway RoW of all things (even if you strongly don't approve of SBS along Woodhaven)? It most certainly is a position that supports not even bothering to consider possibly bettering matters along Woodhaven on the surface transit side of things..... I absolutely understand why you're being called out on your getting people to ride the rails all of a sudden - because you weren't on that tip before..... Back say 2-3 years ago, I honestly don't believe your first suggestion would've been to restore the RoW, but whatever man......

 

How is it that multiple users see/understand this logic, but you, for as many blog posts you've pumped out & postings that you make on here & on SC, don't? I believe you DO understand & are doing nothing more than some good ole C.Y.A.... Yeah right, you don't understand what anti-bus & pro-bus means.... Yeah a big deal will continue to be made until you drop the act, seriously....

 

 

As far as SBS goes, your position regarding SBS I'm not questioning, because I'm also anti-SBS & hold similar viewpoints you do.....

Your acceptance of what the position is, is what I've long been questioning.... By the way, you just called it anti-SBS, so that remark about "if you want to call it that" no longer flies..... After all this time, it's about time you literally said you were anti-SBS.... You couldn't seriously possibly expect readers to believe that you don't have a disdain for SBS with the way you have went on & on & on about it the past what, year or two now.... Unbelievable.....

Like seriously... That's what I've been saying... It's become especially obsessive since he took that trip to Chicago. It's like he came back and now he's been on this train kick. I dunno what's going on with him but the thinking process IMO is irrational.

[qjtransitmaster]

There are so many problems with this (proprietary technology, traffic light clearances, building the weird station configurations it requires, all the shitty drivers in this city that will probably crash into the thing) that this is immediately not a feasible solution.

Those shitty drivers do not need their licence afterward just punish them.

 

More centralized within the neighborhood. It's kind of hard to describe, but with larger streets (in this case, Woodhaven), people don't like having to cross them, and then continue to walk even further on the opposite side of the street.

 

Say somebody lives by 90th Street & Atlantic Avenue. They have to walk about a quarter mile over to Woodhaven Blvd, cross the street, and then walk another quarter mile to reach the train station.

 

Now let's take somebody who lives by 85th Street & Atlantic Avenue, but this time, instead of a train on the Rockaway ROW, it's SBS on Woodhaven. (So they're still about a half mile from the transit station). But this time, once they hit Woodhaven, that's the end of their trip.

 

So when the  second person hits Woodhaven, they just think "I'll just cross the street and wait for the bus", while the first person thinks "Oh, man, I have to cross the street, and then walk more on top of this".

 

With me, if I have to walk over to CSI to catch the S93, part of the reason why it's annoying (aside from the obvious distance factor) is because I have to cross a major street (Richmond Avenue) halfway through the trip. So I'm thinking "There's this big street I have to cross, and the S93 stop is still nowhere in sight".

 

If Woodhaven had a major commercial strip along any portion (I don't think it does), that would be another argument in favor of Woodhaven. But there's still that whole I guess "neighborhood division" factor to consider.

Dude they can use Q24 and transfer.

[checkmatechamp13]

Dude they can use Q24 and transfer.

 

I know the Q24 runs down Atlantic. Thank you Captain Obvious. And did you bother to read the part where I said it was an example? There's going to be a lot more stops on the line than just Atlantic Avenue.

 

In any case, if this line doesn't go to Manhattan, that means they're going to have to transfer from the QBL to the shuttle. After having already made at least two transfers, don't you think most riders would prefer to just walk directly home? The Q24 isn't guaranteed to be waiting at the stop as you walk out of the train station, and even if it was, there's extra thinking involved, because you have to go through the trouble of getting on and off. Plenty of people walk say, a half-mile to the subway when there's a bus route available because they don't want to be bothered.

 

Aside from that, if they're still taking the bus to the subway, how much better off are they compared to before? And it's not even an SBS bus, but a plain, local bus. (And I don't want to hear about any Q24 LTD or SBS plans or whatever, because even if there was ridership for those, those LTD/SBS buses would end up skipping the little local stops anyway).

 

In any case, I'm still torn as to which is the better option, but it's something to consider.

[BrooklynBus]

Why do I bother....

 

BrooklynBus, your reiteration of your position(s) isn't the problem.... Repeating 2+2 being 5 doesn't make it 5....

 

What is the problem (and ridiculous, to boot) is you, yet again, with this trying to play both sides of the fence regarding your comments about encouraging riders to take rail transportation first & acting stupefied like you don't know how you're giving off mixed messages when you say you've "often said you should take whatever mode works best"..... You don't suggest/encourage people engage in something & expect them to engage in something else if they so choose - That defeats the whole point of the encouragement.....

 

You wanna go off & suggest that people don't know what they're talking about b/c they don't hold your position regarding SBS along Woodhaven, that's one thing... However, why is it that the first thing that comes to mind is fixing up the Rockaway RoW of all things (even if you strongly don't approve of SBS along Woodhaven)? It most certainly is a position that supports not even bothering to consider possibly bettering matters along Woodhaven on the surface transit side of things..... I absolutely understand why you're being called out on your getting people to ride the rails all of a sudden - because you weren't on that tip before..... Back say 2-3 years ago, I honestly don't believe your first suggestion would've been to restore the RoW, but whatever man......

 

How is it that multiple users see/understand this logic, but you, for as many blog posts you've pumped out & postings that you make on here & on SC, don't? I believe you DO understand & are doing nothing more than some good ole C.Y.A.... Yeah right, you don't understand what anti-bus & pro-bus means.... Yeah a big deal will continue to be made until you drop the act, seriously....

 

As far as SBS goes, your position regarding SBS I'm not questioning, because I'm also anti-SBS & hold similar viewpoints you do.....

Your acceptance of what the position is, is what I've long been questioning.... By the way, you just called it anti-SBS, so that remark about "if you want to call it that" no longer flies..... After all this time, it's about time you literally said you were anti-SBS.... You couldn't seriously possibly expect readers to believe that you don't have a disdain for SBS with the way you have went on & on & on about it the past what, year or two now.... Unbelievable.....

 

The prime purpose of SBS on Woodhaven is to shorten trips to midtown for people from the Rockaways. That would be accomplished in a better fashion by using the Rockaway Line vs. SBS. Of course people at intermediate stops would also benefit but to a lesser extent.  That's why I am for it. I don't see how I am giving any mixed messages and I have not changed my opinions. I don't know why you oppose SBS, but as i keep stating, it's not SBS that I oppose. I oppose it in certain corridors, but more importantly its the process and the claiming what a huge success it has been that I object to.  How many times do I have to state the same thing?  If you want to call this anti-SBS, then call it that, but that's really only semantics. Since I am not against the theory of SBS, I don't consider my position anti-SBS, but what you call it really doesn't matter. 

 

I have always been for utilizing abandoned or un-utilized rights of way, such as the Brooklyn LIRR Bay Ridge Line for as long as I can remember.  Nothing has changed since my trip to Chicago.  The only reason I am writing about the Rockaway Line and very little about the Bay Ridge Line is because the Rockaway Line has been in the news for the past six months.  No one is talking about reactivating the Bay Ridge Line. And I still don't understand this nonsense why you have to be pro-bus or pro-subway.  The object is to improve mass transit, and you do that by which ever mode makes more sense for what you are trying to achieve.  And what is this about "encourage people engage in something & expect them to engage in something else."  I don't even know what that supposed to mean. All I said is that you don't make bus improvements for the specific reason to try to get someone out of the train and onto the bus. But you also don't prevent bus improvements in order to force people to ride the subway when the bus would be more direct.  I see nothing inconsistent or contradictory with those statements. 

 

DOT has an extensive catalog of their presentations to community boards and community workshops regarding SBS and bus lanes here. That's partially why it takes so damn long - DOT shows the results of the feasibility studies to the communities so that they can make judgements, not asking the community before making a feasibility study. You can't present the community options for something that may not even be feasible to operate.

 

DOT also listens to community input - that's why Merrick SBS was scrapped in favor of a more general Jamaica Bus Study, and why the plan for Hylan was reduced to few bus lanes and signal priority - DOT originally planned a full median busway for the route. And need I mention the 34th St fiasco?

 

It's not as if they're doing this by diktat.

 

Two other notes: SBS is more of a DOT thing than an MTA thing, and the website is really annoying to navigate - to find the community presentations, you have to click through to the individual project descriptions. Certain bus projects also lack a link from the front page, most notably the M60 lanes on 125th St.

 

I realize that DOT is making changes to accommodate, but it would also help if DOT and the MTA were more straight forward in making their presentations and answering questions from the communities.  Maybe that would speed the process. For example, when they presented the B44 proposal to Community Board 15, they explain all the positives of SBS, while ignoring the negatives and refused to answer some questions directly. How do you propose removing a lane from general traffic and not even verbally mention that in your presentation? All you say is you will be setting up an exclusive bus lane. If someone doesn't examine the diagrams, you could easily think the exclusive lane will come from the parking lane, not from one of the moving lanes. That is just misleading and not full disclosure.

 

 Also, after six months of asking, neither DOT or the MTA would answer the question as to how many parking spaces would be lost in the board.  They would only say it will be minimal.  After two years of working on the project, they should have been able to give an absolute number.  That is why the Board opposed it because they could not get straight-forward answers. 

 

More centralized within the neighborhood. It's kind of hard to describe, but with larger streets (in this case, Woodhaven), people don't like having to cross them, and then continue to walk even further on the opposite side of the street.

 

Say somebody lives by 90th Street & Atlantic Avenue. They have to walk about a quarter mile over to Woodhaven Blvd, cross the street, and then walk another quarter mile to reach the train station.

 

Now let's take somebody who lives by 85th Street & Atlantic Avenue, but this time, instead of a train on the Rockaway ROW, it's SBS on Woodhaven. (So they're still about a half mile from the transit station). But this time, once they hit Woodhaven, that's the end of their trip.

 

So when the  second person hits Woodhaven, they just think "I'll just cross the street and wait for the bus", while the first person thinks "Oh, man, I have to cross the street, and then walk more on top of this".

 

With me, if I have to walk over to CSI to catch the S93, part of the reason why it's annoying (aside from the obvious distance factor) is because I have to cross a major street (Richmond Avenue) halfway through the trip. So I'm thinking "There's this big street I have to cross, and the S93 stop is still nowhere in sight".

 

If Woodhaven had a major commercial strip along any portion (I don't think it does), that would be another argument in favor of Woodhaven. But there's still that whole I guess "neighborhood division" factor to consider.

 

You make it seem like there is no neighborhood near the Rockaway Line.  Yes if you live west of Woodhaven Blvd, that would be more convenient than the Rockaway Line.  But if you live close to the ROW, that would be more convenient than Woodhaven.  I realize that some blocks near the ROW have industrial uses, but after the line is developed, in time that would probably be rezoned to residential.