Future SBS Routes

[B35 via Church]

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.

- You can state whatever you'd like for as often as you'd like..... I'm still saying you are quick to point out & elaborate on the negatives of SBS in multiple blog posts & on forum posts but wanna sit & state it's not SBS you oppose (speaking of nonsense).... It's just the overglorification, the process (lol), and it being in certain corridors....  Really now....

As far as what the position is called, I'm certainly gonna pull your card with that because you wanna sit here & make like you're so damn neutral with your stances because you don't wanna ruffle feathers... It's not a matter of semantics when you outright DENY that your position is of someone that isn't against SBS.....

 

- There's no "have to be pro-bus or pro-subway" about it.... I'm not saying you have to be either/or.... Yes the goal is to improve mass transit.... What's under question is this increased encouragement out of you to get people onto rails though... That doesn't mean I'm saying you're against buses b/c I don't believe that you are... What I will say is, you have been making less posts on here talking about bus route improvements.... Let's get it together here.... Or are you gonna continue playing this "I don't understand" act.....

 

- I didn't say squat about any trip of yours to Chicago... Take that up with VG8.....

 

- As far as what that quote of mine is addressing, You know exactly what you said in a prior post talking about encouraging people onto rails first... Logically speaking, You cannot say riders should be encouraged into taking one mode over another first (in this case, rails over buses) - and at the same damn time, sit here & claim that riders should take whatever mode works best for them.... How is that not inconsistent.... That's what I meant with that quote, like you didn't know.....

 

- And finally...

 

This statement:

1] "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."

 

is not saying the same thing as this:

2] "I've often said you should take whatever mode works best for you."

 

The former statement of yours isn't the problem.... That's not what I'm claiming that's inconsistent....

Hell, the part about preventing bus improvements to force people onto the subway is what the MTA's doing now....

 

One more time... The latter statement of yours becomes a problem when you say riders should be encouraged to taking the rail over the bus....

[Acela Express]

I've skimmed through most of the thread in regards to the SBS along Utica Avenue, and for the most part, 'some' of you guys know what you're talking about. But, let me give you the real deal with Utica since I've been driving up and down this corridor for two years now.

 

First, let's talk about how the B46 works between Kings Plaza and the Bridge:

 

1--> the time the lights stay green along Utica Avenue can use some work, especially between Church Avenue and Avenue H. When I'm running my LTD bus, after leaving Church Avenue, I can make the light at Snyder, then get caught by the Tilden Avenue light; after waiting for Tilden to change, I can punch straight through to Clarendon; afterwards, just to make it one block to the Avenue D stop, you literally need to be the first vehicle at the Clarendon light and a straight forward shot to the stop in one stroke or you're caught by the light. 

 

After leaving the Avenue D light, you approach Foster Avenue, its red -- by the time you leave Foster, the light at Farragut Rd. is getting ready to change and no matter how much you punch it, you won't make it (trust me, I know this all too well).

 

The point I'm trying to make is, look at the same stretch along Nostrand Avenue (B44) between Church Avenue & Newkirk Avenue - the LTDs have a straight shot with the lights synced and a decent time-frame that you can don't have to worry about (the stretch between Empire Blvd & Clarkson Avenue is well synched and timed too).

 

2--> North & south of Atlantic Avenues on Utica - there needs to be left-turn ban from Utica onto Atlantic Avenues. I can tell you right now this along holds up traffic trying to make it through because you have both directions fighting to make turns, and the other traffic trying to go around when there's little to no room; then you have buses getting piled up, sometimes missing 1 or 2 lights, and the Atlantic Avenue light is super long. If DOT could get this intersection straightened-out, you'll see a significant change in traffic flow.

 

3--> the lights between Halsey Street and Gates Avenue along Malcolm X Blvd, while this is minor, I do believe the Jefferson Ave serves a "rogue" light - and I mean, you'll leave Halsey (Dekalb Ave-bound), get caught at Hancock while Jefferson is green, then when Hancock turns green, Jefferson turns red while Putnam is green, and soon as you get to Putnam, it's red; once Putnam is green, you have a straight shot to Gates Avenue. Sortof minor, but it needs to be fixed.

 

4--> now approaching Church Avenue from both directions (starting at Linden Blvd from the north and Snyder from the south), there's not much bus lanes will do until they enforce video cameras along the corridor because that intersection is such a nightmare. I remember one Saturday night (KP-bound) blowing 4 lights at Church Avenue because the traffic and double parking.

 

5--> approaching Eastern Parkway from both directions - not much you can do since it's a major transfer hub, but the bus lanes do help during rush hours when there's no one illegally parked in 'em. Now, not talking traffic, but moreso of how busy this stop is, warrants the use of off-board payments. Remember when Sandy hit and the buses & trains were free for two days? I can tell you right now, on a normal day, you'll spend 4-5 minutes loading at Eastern Parkway; during the free days? folks were in the bus less than 30 seconds, crush loaded.

 

My bad for the disorganized way I put everything out about Utica Avenue, but it was based off what hit me at the moment as I'm typing and trying to remember everything along the corridor. lol

[Vistausss]

Don't assume we know nothing about Woodhaven Blvd just to advance your point. You don't know what we know, and while I respect the work you have done with the TA in the past, it doesn't mean you are the one authority on these issues.

 

Anyway, Woodhaven Blvd is a 10 lane street. There is no way in hell that removing one lane will make the traffic situation (which is only bad south of Jamaica Avenue) that much worse. You can't say that with a straight face. I agree with reactivating the Rockaway RoW, but then comes issues of connecting it to a line to Manhattan for example, and clearing the RoW can be expensive. Also, consider the possible opposition from the residents. While they are unjustified, it will take a few years to throw them out of court, so a quicker solution is necessary. You also underestimate the bus traffic on Woodhaven. The Q11/21 and Q52/53 combined have a better frequency than just 4-5 minutes, and the passenger traffic is also very high.

 

As for Utica Avenue, I also used to use the B46 quite often, so I also know what I'm taking about. Utica Avenue is only a traffic nightmare at the Eastern Parkway intersection, and better enforcement can help remedy this issue. If the B46 were to get SBS, I would only have dedicated bus lanes between Fulton Street and Flatbush Avenue along Utica, as Malcolm X Blvd is definitely too small for it, and Broadway doesn't need it. It's possible north of Eastern Parkway if traffic enforcement is increased.

 

I disagree with your notion of lack of planning for SBS, with the exception of the S79 SBS (which did feel rushed) there seemed to be an ample amount of planning for the Bx12 and M15.

 

There's not much opposition of residents because the RoW is owned by the LIRR so they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

[BrooklynBus]

- You can state whatever you'd like for as often as you'd like..... I'm still saying you are quick to point out & elaborate on the negatives of SBS in multiple blog posts & on forum posts but wanna sit & state it's not SBS you oppose (speaking of nonsense).... It's just the overglorification, the process (lol), and it being in certain corridors.... Really now....

As far as what the position is called, I'm certainly gonna pull your card with that because you wanna sit here & make like you're so damn neutral with your stances because you don't wanna ruffle feathers... It's not a matter of semantics when you outright DENY that your position is of someone that isn't against SBS.....

 

- There's no "have to be pro-bus or pro-subway" about it.... I'm not saying you have to be either/or.... Yes the goal is to improve mass transit.... What's under question is this increased encouragement out of you to get people onto rails though... That doesn't mean I'm saying you're against buses b/c I don't believe that you are... What I will say is, you have been making less posts on here talking about bus route improvements.... Let's get it together here.... Or are you gonna continue playing this "I don't understand" act.....

 

- I didn't say squat about any trip of yours to Chicago... Take that up with VG8.....

 

- As far as what that quote of mine is addressing, You know exactly what you said in a prior post talking about encouraging people onto rails first... Logically speaking, You cannot say riders should be encouraged into taking one mode over another first (in this case, rails over buses) - and at the same damn time, sit here & claim that riders should take whatever mode works best for them.... How is that not inconsistent.... That's what I meant with that quote, like you didn't know.....

 

- And finally...

 

This statement:

1] "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."

 

is not saying the same thing as this:

2] "I've often said you should take whatever mode works best for you."

 

The former statement of yours isn't the problem.... That's not what I'm claiming that's inconsistent....

Hell, the part about preventing bus improvements to force people onto the subway is what the MTA's doing now....

 

One more time... The latter statement of yours becomes a problem when you say riders should be encouraged to taking the rail over the bus....

I think the problem is the word "encouraged" where the confusion is. Let me make it clear that I am definitely opposed to the MTA forcing people to take the train when the bus woud be better for them by preventing bus improvements when it makes more sense to take the bus because it is more direct, saves time and is more convenient. That is what the entire B4 fight was all about. That is not the same thing as focusing on bus changes for the specific goal of getting people out of the subway and onto buses. That is what I am opposed to. If you feel those two statements are contradictory, you have a right to that opinion. Too me they are two separate thoughts and the second one is why express bus routes were originally set up to serve areas without subway access so as not to compete with them. The MTA felt the same as me in that regard because of the extra expense to run that service and the extra traffic they cause in midtown, unless people really do leave their car at home to ride the express bus which I think is more the exception rather than the rule. I guess they put stops along Coney Island Avenue on the X29 when it ran because there weren't enough riders in Sea Gate to fill up the bus. There were many communities that were denied express bus service because subways conveniently served them.

 

I am making less posts about bus improvements not because I want them less, but after 40 years with no one at the MTA even listening, I'm a little tired. In fact I spend very little time even reading all the ideas everyone posts here, because I figure what's the use and I'm just gonna leave this for the younger guys with more energy. I started my website in 2003 with the idea of getting a dialogue going regarding improving bus routes. Yesterday, I got the first signature to my guest book by someone who wondered if the site was abandoned because I haven't updated it since 2006. I directed him here where I am very glad there are active discussions on how to change bus routes. I even gave all you guys a plug in the article of how knowledgable you are. So maybe I accomplished something. When I look back, I new realize that it was nothing short of a miracle that the southern Brooklyn changes were even made in 1978. They never would have come about without that lawsuit. I can only hope tat the new MTA chairman will surprise us and make te MTA more responsive. I've heard that's what he wants to do.

 

Sorry for getting Garibaldi's comment mixed up with yours. And I'll say it one more time, there is nothing wrong with SBS if it is done right and is needed, and I've explained numerous times what I mean by that. The MTA and DOT are not doing it right.

 

I've skimmed through most of the thread in regards to the SBS along Utica Avenue, and for the most part, 'some' of you guys know what you're talking about. But, let me give you the real deal with Utica since I've been driving up and down this corridor for two years now.

 

First, let's talk about how the B46 works between Kings Plaza and the Bridge:

 

1--> the time the lights stay green along Utica Avenue can use some work, especially between Church Avenue and Avenue H. When I'm running my LTD bus, after leaving Church Avenue, I can make the light at Snyder, then get caught by the Tilden Avenue light; after waiting for Tilden to change, I can punch straight through to Clarendon; afterwards, just to make it one block to the Avenue D stop, you literally need to be the first vehicle at the Clarendon light and a straight forward shot to the stop in one stroke or you're caught by the light.

 

After leaving the Avenue D light, you approach Foster Avenue, its red -- by the time you leave Foster, the light at Farragut Rd. is getting ready to change and no matter how much you punch it, you won't make it (trust me, I know this all too well).

 

The point I'm trying to make is, look at the same stretch along Nostrand Avenue (B44) between Church Avenue & Newkirk Avenue - the LTDs have a straight shot with the lights synced and a decent time-frame that you can don't have to worry about (the stretch between Empire Blvd & Clarkson Avenue is well synched and timed too).

 

2--> North & south of Atlantic Avenues on Utica - there needs to be left-turn ban from Utica onto Atlantic Avenues. I can tell you right now this along holds up traffic trying to make it through because you have both directions fighting to make turns, and the other traffic trying to go around when there's little to no room; then you have buses getting piled up, sometimes missing 1 or 2 lights, and the Atlantic Avenue light is super long. If DOT could get this intersection straightened-out, you'll see a significant change in traffic flow.

 

3--> the lights between Halsey Street and Gates Avenue along Malcolm X Blvd, while this is minor, I do believe the Jefferson Ave serves a "rogue" light - and I mean, you'll leave Halsey (Dekalb Ave-bound), get caught at Hancock while Jefferson is green, then when Hancock turns green, Jefferson turns red while Putnam is green, and soon as you get to Putnam, it's red; once Putnam is green, you have a straight shot to Gates Avenue. Sortof minor, but it needs to be fixed.

 

4--> now approaching Church Avenue from both directions (starting at Linden Blvd from the north and Snyder from the south), there's not much bus lanes will do until they enforce video cameras along the corridor because that intersection is such a nightmare. I remember one Saturday night (KP-bound) blowing 4 lights at Church Avenue because the traffic and double parking.

 

5--> approaching Eastern Parkway from both directions - not much you can do since it's a major transfer hub, but the bus lanes do help during rush hours when there's no one illegally parked in 'em. Now, not talking traffic, but moreso of how busy this stop is, warrants the use of off-board payments. Remember when Sandy hit and the buses & trains were free for two days? I can tell you right now, on a normal day, you'll spend 4-5 minutes loading at Eastern Parkway; during the free days? folks were in the bus less than 30 seconds, crush loaded.

 

My bad for the disorganized way I put everything out about Utica Avenue, but it was based off what hit me at the moment as I'm typing and trying to remember everything along the corridor. lol

What you say makes perfect sense, but in short all you are really saying is that many other improvements can be made which would improve service almost or just as much as SBS without the cost, time and expense and they are not being done. That has been my point all along. If there were spot enforcement of double parking on Utica between Linden and Church on a regular basis, that alone could cut 5 minutes from the route. I also made the point about the screwed up traffic lights. SBS would definitely help buses on Utica, but what woud it do to the other traffic is my question?

 

Also, you probably are not aware but there was off-board payment at Utica Avenue and Eastern Parkway during the PM rush from the 1950s through the 1970s or later. It is nothing new. There was a farebox on the street where people paid and a dispatcher woud let people board through the rear door. Buses loaded in alf the time saving another five minutes. Today, if they tried that, someone would walk off with the farebox.

 

So synchronizing the lights coud save 5 minutes, off board payment at that one location coud save another 5 minutes if possible today, reducing double parking on just one block, another 5 minutes, and eliminating some of the other bottlenecks could save more time, all without SBS. That's like 20 minutes saved all without SBS. Now when SBS is implemented and the 20 minutes are saved, it will all be attributed to SBS.

 

There's not much opposition of residents because the RoW is owned by the LIRR so they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

RBL opposition has been mainly from Rego Park residents and some from those right close to the ROW. Most everyone else is for it, especially Rockaway residents who would benefit the most.

[B35 via Church]

I think the problem is the word "encouraged" where the confusion is. Let me make it clear that I am definitely opposed to the MTA forcing people to take the train when the bus woud be better for them by preventing bus improvements when it makes more sense to take the bus because it is more direct, saves time and is more convenient. That is what the entire B4 fight was all about. That is not the same thing as focusing on bus changes for the specific goal of getting people out of the subway and onto buses. That is what I am opposed to. If you feel those two statements are contradictory, you have a right to that opinion. Too me they are two separate thoughts and the second one is why express bus routes were originally set up to serve areas without subway access so as not to compete with them.

 

The MTA felt the same as me in that regard because of the extra expense to run that service and the extra traffic they cause in midtown, unless people really do leave their car at home to ride the express bus which I think is more the exception rather than the rule. I guess they put stops along Coney Island Avenue on the X29 when it ran because there weren't enough riders in Sea Gate to fill up the bus. There were many communities that were denied express bus service because subways conveniently served them.

 

I am making less posts about bus improvements not because I want them less, but after 40 years with no one at the MTA even listening, I'm a little tired. In fact I spend very little time even reading all the ideas everyone posts here, because I figure what's the use and I'm just gonna leave this for the younger guys with more energy. I started my website in 2003 with the idea of getting a dialogue going regarding improving bus routes. Yesterday, I got the first signature to my guest book by someone who wondered if the site was abandoned because I haven't updated it since 2006. I directed him here where I am very glad there are active discussions on how to change bus routes. I even gave all you guys a plug in the article of how knowledgable you are. So maybe I accomplished something. When I look back, I new realize that it was nothing short of a miracle that the southern Brooklyn changes were even made in 1978. They never would have come about without that lawsuit. I can only hope tat the new MTA chairman will surprise us and make te MTA more responsive. I've heard that's what he wants to do.

 

Sorry for getting Garibaldi's comment mixed up with yours. And I'll say it one more time, there is nothing wrong with SBS if it is done right and is needed, and I've explained numerous times what I mean by that. The MTA and DOT are not doing it right.

See, now you're being intentionally misleading & insulting my intelligence by comparing two totally separate statements & telling me that they're not contradictory, where that not where the inconsistency lies.....

 

I'm not accusing you of concurring with the MTA's worsening of bus service.... I'm not (and never did) accusing you of wanting to sabotage bus service to get people onto trains..... I'm not saying that [forcing people to take trains by preventing bus improvements when the bus is more direct] & [focusing on bus changes to get people onto buses & off trains] are contradictory & you know it....

 

In that first paragraph, you're trying to convince me that you're not against buses.... I said this before, I realize you're not against buses.... You're doing this thing where you're repeating stances that you know you're not being questioned on (by me anyway)...... Furthermore, you say you think the word "encouraged" is being where the problem & confusion lies - but do absolutely nothing to clear it up.....

 

Ok, so you're a little tired of making posts about bus improvements after 40 years of no one at the MTA listening & you spend little time reading ideas ppl. post here b/c you figure what's the use.... Your prerogative....

In saying that, Now it's making more sense as to why you're on this sudden kick of encouraging people onto the rails....

 

Thanks for the "plug", I guess, but you've done me no favors by doing that.... That is something you should be telling Harry, since this is his site.... As far as the comment mixup w/ VG8, yeah, no problem....

 

Your final point there about SBS isn't saying much of anything when you've ranted & raved about it as many times as you have... Telling me that there's nothing wrong with it if it's done right & is needed can be said for anything that you have a problem with - No matter how many times you numerously explained what you meant...... You're not against SBS, you're against how it's being done...

 

There's nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream... the problem is that it's white & that milk is used to make it...

Laughable.

[checkmatechamp13]

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.

 

I just think the ROW is in an area where the catchment area is reduced, compared to Woodhaven. Instead of being say, 10 blocks in either direction, now it's 10 blocks going east, but 5 blocks going west.

 

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that nobody would walk from west of Woodhaven, but the amount of people would be reduced due to the fact that it's a major street. It wouldn't be by a huge amount (maybe 10-15% tops), but it's worth taking into consideration.

 

Plus, it's also a little harder to connect to the & , because the stations are right at Woodhaven/Cross Bay. (You'd have to walk through a passageway that's a few blocks long, rather than walking up a flight of steps).

[BrooklynBus]

See, now you're being intentionally misleading & insulting my intelligence by comparing two totally separate statements & telling me that they're not contradictory, where that not where the inconsistency lies......

Maybe I'm the dumb one around here, but I don't see how I am insulting your intelligence. I'm sorry you think I'm being intentionally misleading, but I'm being perfectly honest. As Paul Newman once said in Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

 

I'm not accusing you of concurring with the MTA's worsening of bus service.... I'm not (and never did) accusing you of wanting to sabotage bus service to get people onto trains..... I'm not saying that [forcing people to take trains by preventing bus improvements when the bus is more direct] & [focusing on bus changes to get people onto buses & off trains] are contradictory & you know it....

No I don't know it.

 

In that first paragraph, you're trying to convince me that you're not against buses.... I said this before, I realize you're not against buses.... You're doing this thing where you're repeating stances that you know you're not being questioned on (by me anyway)...... Furthermore, you say you think the word "encouraged" is being where the problem & confusion lies - but do absolutely nothing to clear it up.....

 

How do you want me to clear it up?

 

Now it's making more sense as to why you're on this sudden kick of encouraging people onto the rails....

I'm not on any "sudden kick" my positions regarding mass transit, subways, and buses have not changed over the years.

 

Thanks for the "plug", I guess, but you've done me no favors by doing that.... That is something you should be telling Harry, since this is his site....

I'm hoping Harry reads these posts or my links. I think he reads most of these posts because he's combined and moved threads on a number of occasions. I don't follow your logic how I am not doing you any favors and what's the point in telling Harry? I've told thousands of readers (or that's at least what I have been told) by writing that in the article and have publicized this site by doing so.

 

Your final point there about SBS isn't saying much of anything when you've ranted & raved about it as many times as you have... Telling me that there's nothing wrong with it if it's done right & is needed can be said for anything that you have a problem with - No matter how many times you numerously explained what you meant...... You're not against SBS, you're against how it's being done...

 

There's nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream... the problem is that it's white & that milk is used to make it...

Laughable.

 

 

I don't get the analogy with the vanilla ice cream. Are you saying that it is impossible to do SBS right? Where you choose sensible corridors where are average trip times are higher than the system average (not the case with the B44); or that when presentations are made to the communities, they be fair and honest without the intention to mislead and hold back vital facts; that it is not possible to keep inconvenience to motorists to a minimum; not possible to adequately measure success instead of doing surveys and selectively showing data to exaggerate success; and that they evaluate suggestions to improve SBS corridors rather than ignoring them or just dismissing them ? That's all I am asking for with SBS. And I believe that is all possible.

 

Did I ever mention that when I personally spoke to one of the heads of the program who I have known for years and gave him my suggestions to improve the B44 SBS, he told me that if they reject my idea, I must just accept it without question even if I know their reasons are BS? He said if I do question their reasons, they will never accept any of my other suggestions in the future? (And he never kept his promise to evaluate it.) So if one of the ingredients of vanilla ice cream has to be arrogance, I won't eat it.

[B35 via Church]

Maybe I'm the dumb one around here, but I don't see how I am insulting your intelligence. I'm sorry you think I'm being intentionally misleading, but I'm being perfectly honest. As Paul Newman once said in Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I don't think you're being perfectly honest, that's the problem....

It's not that you're not picking up what's being laid out, it's your refusal to see it for what it was - an inconsistency.....

(and not with those two statements you brought up in your prior post either)

 

No I don't know it.

...and this response illustrates why I think you're not being perfectly honest.

 

How do you want me to clear it up?

By not being misleading & being perfectly honest.....

 

What could you possibly mean by the word encouraged, if it's not advising people to do a certain something....

What other definition of the word is there...

 

The inconsistency I'm talking about was laid out in my last point of post #51...

In your reply to that post, you went off talking about bus improvements.... Why, I don't know.....

 

I'm not on any "sudden kick" my positions regarding mass transit, subways, and buses have not changed over the years.

You say that, but some of your comments do suggest otherwise.....

For one, such as attempting to balance our transportation system by encouraging riders onto the rails first...

 

I'm hoping Harry reads these posts or my links. I think he reads most of these posts because he's combined and moved threads on a number of occasions. I don't follow your logic how I am not doing you any favors and what's the point in telling Harry? I've told thousands of readers (or that's at least what I have been told) by writing that in the article and have publicized this site by doing so.

What's the point in telling me?

 

As far as my logic regarding that - because this is not my website obviously..... And that quotable about giving us guys a plug, suggests that you're some sort of big shot that just so happened to do the people of this forum (of which I'm one of) some sort of favor.....

 

I don't get the analogy with the vanilla ice cream. Are you saying that it is impossible to do SBS right? Where you choose sensible corridors where are average trip times are higher than the system average (not the case with the B44); or that when presentations are made to the communities, they be fair and honest without the intention to mislead and hold back vital facts; that it is not possible to keep inconvenience to motorists to a minimum; not possible to adequately measure success instead of doing surveys and selectively showing data to exaggerate success; and that they evaluate suggestions to improve SBS corridors rather than ignoring them or just dismissing them ? That's all I am asking for with SBS. And I believe that is all possible.

 

Did I ever mention that when I personally spoke to one of the heads of the program who I have known for years and gave him my suggestions to improve the B44 SBS, he told me that if they reject my idea, I must just accept it without question even if I know their reasons are BS? He said if I do question their reasons, they will never accept any of my other suggestions in the future? (And he never kept his promise to evaluate it.) So if one of the ingredients of vanilla ice cream has to be arrogance, I won't eat it.

What I'm saying with the analogy is that.... Don't tell me that your position is one of not being against SBS, but rant on & on about your disapproval of SBS - with which the reasons that you don't approve of SBS, entailing SBS for the most part (sans the over-glorification)....

 

Speaking of sensible corridors, where do you approve of SBS anyway....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Who says SBS isn't serious business... 

[bobtehpanda]

There's not much opposition of residents because the RoW is owned by the LIRR so they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

 

The ROW may be owned by the LIRR, but over the years people have built backyards and other things onto it. (There's a giant parking lot somewhere along the ROW as well.) It may be illegal, but they will raise hell if they find out what they considered was theirs wll be cut through with a train line with trains running every ten minutes or less during the peak. (The R160s are also pretty noisy train cars, so there's a giant noise issue.)

 

 

I just think the ROW is in an area where the catchment area is reduced, compared to Woodhaven. Instead of being say, 10 blocks in either direction, now it's 10 blocks going east, but 5 blocks going west.

 

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that nobody would walk from west of Woodhaven, but the amount of people would be reduced due to the fact that it's a major street. It wouldn't be by a huge amount (maybe 10-15% tops), but it's worth taking into consideration.

 

Plus, it's also a little harder to connect to the & , because the stations are right at Woodhaven/Cross Bay. (You'd have to walk through a passageway that's a few blocks long, rather than walking up a flight of steps).

 

 

This is a valid concern - the does not have a station right by the ROW. The has Rockaway Blvd, but that's another issue. There's also the issue of terminals, because if you think that Howard Beach and the Rockaways are strong enough anchors to hold two transit lines, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

Let's not forget that Woodhaven and Cross Bay are pretty wide streets with lots of fast-moving traffic - I imagine crossing it is only slightly less nightmarish than crossing Queens Blvd. Woodhaven creates such a strong psychological barrier that a lot of people will not consider using a line on the old Rockaway ROW because of the imagined barriers in the way.

 

It also avoids pretty much all of the commercial activity on Woodhaven, which would provide TOD opportunities along the corridor (and also boost ridership). No one is going to go to a restaurant on Woodhaven if it's that far off the beaten path.

 

With all these problems and the major work the ROW needs (uprooting trees and vegetation, rebuilding bridges, some level of noise abatement, ADA compliance, etc.), it may be better just to have any future train extension turn onto Woodhaven in the vicinity of the Jackie Robinson Parkway, with a terminus at Rockaway Blvd. But this is a bit off-topic foaming...

 

 

So synchronizing the lights coud save 5 minutes, off board payment at that one location coud save another 5 minutes if possible today, reducing double parking on just one block, another 5 minutes, and eliminating some of the other bottlenecks could save more time, all without SBS. That's like 20 minutes saved all without SBS. Now when SBS is implemented and the 20 minutes are saved, it will all be attributed to SBS.

 

Let me get this straight - you don't like it because the MTA puts a bunch of blue stickers with "+selectbusservice" on it, and nothing else?

 

In an ideal world the MTA would not have to make splashy announcements of service improvements to get pols and DOT officials on board with measures to improve bus service, but unfortunately we don't live in that world. My position is that I don't care if what it's called - if it gets the job done, then so be it.

[Trainmaster5]

Let me chime in with a point InterestedRider and BrooklynBus alluded to earlier in this thread. The key word is money. I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of SBS in general, although I do think that the Nostrand and Woodhaven plans are flawed, because I think the back and forth between my friends B35 and BrooklynBus about bus service only slightly touch upon the big picture as I see it. Because of the financial problems in the there is an unstated desire to reduce workforce. They claim that payroll, pension, and healthcare costs have skyrocketed and they are correct. I was told at least 15 years ago that OPTO, CBTC, ATS, and the RCC itself, were a means to cut costs in the RTO department and that the concept would eventually be tried in the Surface operations as well. The long term goal as I saw it was to drive bus ridership toward the rails as much as possible because the cost-cutting measures would be in place sooner than they could be implemented in the labor intensive surface operation. Just look at the subway forums and the railroad threads to a lesser extent. ATDs, Station agents, ticket collectors on the subways and railroads are vanishing breeds as far as rail operations are concerned. TVM/MVMs are the norm at most subway and rail stations. Now take a look at surface operations and look long term. When the Nostrand or Woodhaven SBS routes are implemented you will read a lot of PR about time savings, passenger satisfaction and the like in the beginning phases of the rollout. How many people except transit fanners will ride an SBS route from end to end ? The operator, right ? Give it time and I predict that you'll eventually see Artic type vehicles on those same routes. Then LTD and local service in those corridors will start to see a decline. Longer wait times will creep in, slowly at first, but it will happen.. Cutbacks in hours of operation of certain routes or consolidation/elimination are sure to follow. IMO the cuts and restructuring that occured last time were a preview of what's coming for the local bus system in about 10 years. What B35 once called "super routes" or words to that effect. As others have pointed out through the years most of the rest of the service will primarily serve as "subway feeders" and not much more. I don't really think BrooklynBus is anti-SBS by any means. When he mentioned the abandoned LIRR ROW being used instead of the proposed SBS on Woodhaven I ran the pros and cons over in my mind and came to some conclusions that touch upon both sides of the issue, at least in my humble opinion. The main argument I see against the use of the ROW is cost. Many have rightfully pointed out that the is broke and can't afford such a project. I agree with that but I ask you what if federal money could be used for the repair and rehab ? Would that change any minds ? The second argument is about time. I agree that implementation of SBS would be quicker and less costly financially. Theoretically it could be up and running in less than a year but this is NYC, home of the NIMBYs, so who knows? I wanted to see for myself what rush hour traffic on Woodhaven Blvd was like so yesterday afternoon I drove from the Belt to Queens Blvd twice to gauge traffic to see what has changed in the last year. Let's just say that no amount of LTD, SBS, or local service will make much of a difference in the n/b approach toward Queens Blvd. It still stinks, period. From my vantage point any time savings made by SBS will happen before you get to 1/2 mile of Queens Blvd. Depending on where you start your trip on the southern end one might see a good savings in time but that might be negated once you reach the northern end in the am rush. Middays is where one would see the greatest  time savings IMO. Because of the traffic patterns I would say that the propsed B44SBS from Fulton St n/b is a bigger time saver than the Woodhaven route can ever be. That's my opinion however YMMV. To go back to the argument over SBS vs the LIRR ROW I'm not really sure if this is the point that InterestedRider ,VG8, B35, and BrooklynBus were talking about but if a person was really looking at long-term benefit to the ridership the use of the ROW option could be cheaper, with the use of new technologies, and quicker than the bus. The problem, as I see it, is if SBS is implemented and deemed a "success" by the you close off the option to use that ROW at a later date and when the inevitable decline in bus service begins you a SOL. Sorry for the long post but I tried to give my view of the big picture. I take no offense at corrections or comments. Carry on.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Let me chime in with a point InterestedRider and BrooklynBus alluded to earlier in this thread. The key word is money. I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of SBS in general, although I do think that the Nostrand and Woodhaven plans are flawed, because I think the back and forth between my friends B35 and BrooklynBus about bus service only slightly touch upon the big picture as I see it. Because of the financial problems in the there is an unstated desire to reduce workforce. They claim that payroll, pension, and healthcare costs have skyrocketed and they are correct. I was told at least 15 years ago that OPTO, CBTC, ATS, and the RCC itself, were a means to cut costs in the RTO department and that the concept would eventually be tried in the Surface operations as well. The long term goal as I saw it was to drive bus ridership toward the rails as much as possible because the cost-cutting measures would be in place sooner than they could be implemented in the labor intensive surface operation. Just look at the subway forums and the railroad threads to a lesser extent. ATDs, Station agents, ticket collectors on the subways and railroads are vanishing breeds as far as rail operations are concerned. TVM/MVMs are the norm at most subway and rail stations. Now take a look at surface operations and look long term. When the Nostrand or Woodhaven SBS routes are implemented you will read a lot of PR about time savings, passenger satisfaction and the like in the beginning phases of the rollout. How many people except transit fanners will ride an SBS route from end to end ? The operator, right ? Give it time and I predict that you'll eventually see Artic type vehicles on those same routes. Then LTD and local service in those corridors will start to see a decline. Longer wait times will creep in, slowly at first, but it will happen.. Cutbacks in hours of operation of certain routes or consolidation/elimination are sure to follow. IMO the cuts and restructuring that occured last time were a preview of what's coming for the local bus system in about 10 years. What B35 once called "super routes" or words to that effect. As others have pointed out through the years most of the rest of the service will primarily serve as "subway feeders" and not much more. I don't really think BrooklynBus is anti-SBS by any means. When he mentioned the abandoned LIRR ROW being used instead of the proposed SBS on Woodhaven I ran the pros and cons over in my mind and came to some conclusions that touch upon both sides of the issue, at least in my humble opinion. The main argument I see against the use of the ROW is cost. Many have rightfully pointed out that the is broke and can't afford such a project. I agree with that but I ask you what if federal money could be used for the repair and rehab ? Would that change any minds ? The second argument is about time. I agree that implementation of SBS would be quicker and less costly financially. Theoretically it could be up and running in less than a year but this is NYC, home of the NIMBYs, so who knows? I wanted to see for myself what rush hour traffic on Woodhaven Blvd was like so yesterday afternoon I drove from the Belt to Queens Blvd twice to gauge traffic to see what has changed in the last year. Let's just say that no amount of LTD, SBS, or local service will make much of a difference in the n/b approach toward Queens Blvd. It still stinks, period. From my vantage point any time savings made by SBS will happen before you get to 1/2 mile of Queens Blvd. Depending on where you start your trip on the southern end one might see a good savings in time but that might be negated once you reach the northern end in the am rush. Middays is where one would see the greatest  time savings IMO. Because of the traffic patterns I would say that the propsed B44SBS from Fulton St n/b is a bigger time saver than the Woodhaven route can ever be. That's my opinion however YMMV. To go back to the argument over SBS vs the LIRR ROW I'm not really sure if this is the point that InterestedRider ,VG8, B35, and BrooklynBus were talking about but if a person was really looking at long-term benefit to the ridership the use of the ROW option could be cheaper, with the use of new technologies, and quicker than the bus. The problem, as I see it, is if SBS is implemented and deemed a "success" by the you close off the option to use that ROW at a later date and when the inevitable decline in bus service begins you a SOL. Sorry for the long post but I tried to give my view of the big picture. I take no offense at corrections or comments. Carry on.

Well yes, short term SBS makes more sense, but of course rail service makes sense in some cases for long term issues.  I also don't see why rail service can't be implemented later if SBS service comes into play if it is indeed needed and money isn't an issue.

[BrooklynBus]

I don't think you're being perfectly honest, that's the problem....

It's not that you're not picking up what's being laid out, it's your refusal to see it for what it was - an inconsistency.....

(and not with those two statements you brought up in your prior post either)

 

...and this response illustrates why I think you're not being perfectly honest.

 

By not being misleading & being perfectly honest.....

 

What could you possibly mean by the word encouraged, if it's not advising people to do a certain something....

What other definition of the word is there...

 

The inconsistency I'm talking about was laid out in my last point of post #51...

In your reply to that post, you went off talking about bus improvements.... Why, I don't know.....

 

You say that, but some of your comments do suggest otherwise.....

For one, such as attempting to balance our transportation system by encouraging riders onto the rails first...

 

What's the point in telling me?

 

As far as my logic regarding that - because this is not my website obviously..... And that quotable about giving us guys a plug, suggests that you're some sort of big shot that just so happened to do the people of this forum (of which I'm one of) some sort of favor.....

 

What I'm saying with the analogy is that.... Don't tell me that your position is one of not being against SBS, but rant on & on about your disapproval of SBS - with which the reasons that you don't approve of SBS, entailing SBS for the most part (sans the over-glorification)....

 

Speaking of sensible corridors, where do you approve of SBS anyway....

 

I am being perfectly honest and I still don't see any inconsistencies or that I am being misleading in any way.

 

I thought I already explained what I mean by "encouraged". I mean enacting specific programs, fare policies, or routes or limited or SBS services specifically designed to attract current subway riders to make the same trip instead by bus instead such as setting up bus routes to specifically compete with the subway.That doesn't mean you eliminate routes that already exist which compete with the subway. (Those statements are not inconsistent as you may think.)

 

I know you don't like the word "hierarchy."  But it does exist and is standard planning policy regarding motorized transport.  From lowest to highest,  its private automobile, taxi, jitney or small van, local bus, limited bus, SBS, subway and rail. From an agency's perspective, it is most desirable for riders to use the highest level of service for the  trip they want to make.  (Of course some trips require some combination of modes.) You don't do that by taking negative actions to hurt one mode like the MTA did or by not taking positive actions to improve bus service.  

 

Fordham Road /Pelham Parkway made sense.

 

First and Second Avenues make sense if it is not used as an excuse not to complete the Second Avenue Subway.  

 

I thought 34th Street would make sense before it was implemented, but after it was done, it seems to be a big failure because there is no enforcement of the bus lane.

 

I didn't think SBS on Hylan Blvd made sense because I thought you could do something with the local bus routes to increase SIRT usage since there is plenty capacity there, but I didn't thoroughly investigate it, so I am still undecided about Hylan.

 

I am against Nostrand as it is proposed, but would support it with changes they won't consider.

 

I am for Utica but only as far as Eastern Parkway provided it is designed not to cause unnecessary inconvenience to other traffic with the installation of bus bulbs or traffic islands where they don't belong.

 

I would have like to have seen an east west SBS along Flatlands Avenue and would like to see it all the way to JFK.

 

I have not studied the proposed Webster Ave route and have no opinion on it.

 

Woodhaven is bad.

 

I think the ideas of three SBS routes to Laguardia makes sense because trips made to LaGuardia would be longer than average bus trips, but have not looked at the specific routes or streets proposed.

 

Is that enough routes where I would support SBS?

[BrooklynBus]

Ignore this.

[BrooklynBus]

Let me get this straight - you don't like it because the MTA puts a bunch of blue stickers with "+selectbusservice" on it, and nothing else?

 

I said nothing of the sort. SBS has many features. I was hinting that you can still have some of the features like exclusive lanes without the entire SBS program on some routes. And it would be nice if they could have off-board fares at certain locations like Eastern Parkway and Utica Avenue.

 

Well yes, short term SBS makes more sense, but of course rail service makes sense in some cases for long term issues.  I also don't see why rail service can't be implemented later if SBS service comes into play if it is indeed needed and money isn't an issue.

 

Be great if that could be done but don't think that would happen in the real world. 

 

And Trainmaster5, that lengthy post of yours makes perfect sense.

[bobtehpanda]

I've said nothing of the sort. SBS consists of many features.  That doesn't mean you can't incorporate some of those features on other routes without the entire SBS program.  That is what I was hinting at.

 

There is no such thing as an "SBS program". All of the projects that have been implemented lack something that the other projects do have.

 

In any case, Woodhaven SBS does not necessarily have bus lanes through the entire length of Woodhaven - none of the SBS routes have bus lanes along the entirety of the route. MTA and DOT can be pressured to remove bus lanes from any specific stretch of the road - Hylan was supposed to be an actual median busway, and was reduced to part-time bus lanes on small stretches of the route.

[B35 via Church]

I am being perfectly honest and I still don't see any inconsistencies or that I am being misleading in any way.

 

I thought I already explained what I mean by "encouraged". I mean enacting specific programs, fare policies, or routes or limited or SBS services specifically designed to attract current subway riders to make the same trip instead by bus instead such as setting up bus routes to specifically compete with the subway. That doesn't mean you eliminate routes that already exist which compete with the subway. (Those statements are not inconsistent as you may think.)

 

I know you don't like the word "hierarchy."  But it does exist and is standard planning policy regarding motorized transport.  From lowest to highest,  its private automobile, taxi, jitney or small van, local bus, limited bus, SBS, subway and rail. From an agency's perspective, it is most desirable for riders to use the highest level of service for the  trip they want to make.  (Of course some trips require some combination of modes.) You don't do that by taking negative actions to hurt one mode like the MTA did or by not taking positive actions to improve bus service.  

 

Fordham Road /Pelham Parkway made sense.

 

First and Second Avenues make sense if it is not used as an excuse not to complete the Second Avenue Subway.  

 

I thought 34th Street would make sense before it was implemented, but after it was done, it seems to be a big failure because there is no enforcement of the bus lane.

 

I didn't think SBS on Hylan Blvd made sense because I thought you could do something with the local bus routes to increase SIRT usage since there is plenty capacity there, but I didn't thoroughly investigate it, so I am still undecided about Hylan.

 

I am against Nostrand as it is proposed, but would support it with changes they won't consider.

 

I am for Utica but only as far as Eastern Parkway provided it is designed not to cause unnecessary inconvenience to other traffic with the installation of bus bulbs or traffic islands where they don't belong.

 

I would have like to have seen an east west SBS along Flatlands Avenue and would like to see it all the way to JFK.

 

I have not studied the proposed Webster Ave route and have no opinion on it.

 

Woodhaven is bad.

 

I think the ideas of three SBS routes to Laguardia makes sense because trips made to LaGuardia would be longer than average bus trips, but have not looked at the specific routes or streets proposed.

 

Is that enough routes where I would support SBS?

- You say you're being perfectly honest, but you keep dodging what I'm saying is inconsistent... I even linked you the post describing the stances that are inconsistent..... But if you don't want to directly address it, that's your prerogative... This has gone on long enough...

 

- It's not about liking any word..... and why are you telling me about an actual hierarchy existing, when that's not what's being questioned.... I'm not talking about from an agency's perspective.... It's your encouragement of it (which is your opinion) - and sending the message that in order to balance our system, a hierarchy should continue to exist (of which does have rail travel on top of the totem pole, which isn't being disputed)..... How in all the free world does encouraging riders ride a particular mode balance our transportation system....

 

You are trying to get people to ride the rails more, and are coming up with any & everything to get people to believe that you aren't.... Yet another instance of trying to play the middle man.... You say you're not against SBS, but go on & on about the negatives of it.... You say your positions regarding mass transit hasn't changed, but here you are bringing up & co-signing a hierarchy.... You say you're not trying to get people onto the rails more, but suggest the Rockaway RoW be built (of all things).....

 

Flat out, You can't appease everybody in your forum posts & your blogs, BrooklynBus...

 

 

- The concept of being enough routes is immaterial....

 

Alright, fine - So you think SBS on the Bx12 makes sense, you'd like to see SBS along Flatlands to JFK, and the SBS to LGA.... The rest of the ones you say you're for, I'm not counting because you have stipulations appended to them...

[BrooklynBus]

There is no such thing as an "SBS program". All of the projects that have been implemented lack something that the other projects do have.

 

In any case, Woodhaven SBS does not necessarily have bus lanes through the entire length of Woodhaven - none of the SBS routes have bus lanes along the entirety of the route. MTA and DOT can be pressured to remove bus lanes from any specific stretch of the road - Hylan was supposed to be an actual median busway, and was reduced to part-time bus lanes on small stretches of the route.

 

What do you mean there is no such thing as an SBS program?  Of course there is. Yes, not all the routes incorporate all the features. S79 does not use artics or prepayment and priority signals has not been installed everywhere or anywhere yet? They all have exclusive lanes somewhere and changes have been made, but that doesn't mean there isn't an SBS program.

 

Can you tell me where on Forham/Pelham and First and Second Avenue where there are no exclusive lanes?

[bobtehpanda]

What do you mean there is no such thing as an SBS program?  Of course there is. Yes, not all the routes incorporate all the features. S79 does not use artics or prepayment and priority signals has not been installed everywhere or anywhere yet? They all have exclusive lanes somewhere and changes have been made, but that doesn't mean there isn't an SBS program.

 

Can you tell me where on Forham/Pelham and First and Second Avenue where there are no exclusive lanes?

 

Bx12 SBS: Fordham only has peak-hour lanes in both directions between the Bronx Zoo and Cedar Av, and peak-hour peak direction lanes between Broadway and 10th Av.

 

M15 SBS: Bus lanes only exist from Houston St to 125th St. The entire route south of Houston St has no bus lanes.

[Trainmaster5]

BTW the 1960 B46 SBS route had the " pay before boarding" option in the am rush n/b at Church Ave and Utica Ave. They had a Surface Dispatcher and a farebox located at the back door who would laugh at me because I had a bus pass and rode for free like he did. As BrooklynBus pointed out there was the same setup at Utica and Eastern Parkway for the s/b pm rush. Kings Highway on the Brighton line also had a farebox and a supervisor for subway riders in the am rush. It seems this " pay before boarding" setup isn't so innovative after all. Of course we didn't have these lowlife SOBs roaming around stealing the fareboxes either.

[BrooklynBus]

- You say you're being perfectly honest, but you keep dodging what I'm saying is inconsistent... I even linked you the post describing the stances that are inconsistent..... But if you don't want to directly address it, that's your prerogative... This has gone on long enough...

 

- It's not about liking any word..... and why are you telling me about an actual hierarchy existing, when that's not what's being questioned.... I'm not talking about from an agency's perspective.... It's your encouragement of it (which is your opinion) - and sending the message that in order to balance our system, a hierarchy should continue to exist (of which does have rail travel on top of the totem pole, which isn't being disputed)..... How in all the free world does encouraging riders ride a particular mode balance our transportation system....

 

You are trying to get people to ride the rails more, and are coming up with any & everything to get people to believe that you aren't.... Yet another instance of trying to play the middle man.... You say you're not against SBS, but go on & on about the negatives of it.... You say your positions regarding mass transit hasn't changed, but here you are bringing up & co-signing a hierarchy.... You say you're not trying to get people onto the rails more, but suggest the Rockaway RoW be built (of all things).....

 

Flat out, You can't appease everybody in your forum posts & your blogs, BrooklynBus...

 

 

- The concept of being enough routes is immaterial....

 

Alright, fine - So you think SBS on the Bx12 makes sense, you'd like to see SBS along Flatlands to JFK, and the SBS to LGA.... The rest of the ones you say you're for, I'm not counting because you have stipulations appended to them...

 

I didn't address the linked post because I don't understand it, not because I am trying to avoid answering something.

 

I don't know what you think a balanced transportation system means. It does not mean you want all modes to be used equally, so encouraging one mode over another has nothing to do with it.  A balanced system means you treat all modes equally, don't spend all your money on one and ignore one, (not saying they do that, but I do believe they give more attention to rails than buses, if you don't consider SBS which they currently favor. It means paying attention to coordination of modes with scheduling, fare policy like free transfers, etc.

 

I never said that I am not trying to get people onto rails more. People should ride the rails more.  Why is that bad? They also should use buses more? Are those two thoughts inconsistent?

 

I said people should use what works best for them, and the MTA should build what makes sense in a particular instance. I said I wanted the Rockaway ROW to be reactivated.  I did not rule out the possibility of reactivating the ROW with SBS.  It's one of the alternatives that needs to be studied in a feasibility study that two congressmen are trying to get. It makes no sense for an ROW to be left sitting there unused for mass transit when north south travel needs improvement.

 

I am not trying to appease everyone. You are free to disagree. I am just trying to make cohesive arguments.

[B35 via Church]

I didn't address the linked post because I don't understand it, not because I am trying to avoid answering something.

 

I don't know what you think a balanced transportation system means. It does not mean you want all modes to be used equally, so encouraging one mode over another has nothing to do with it.  A balanced system means you treat all modes equally, don't spend all your money on one and ignore one, (not saying they do that, but I do believe they give more attention to rails than buses, if you don't consider SBS which they currently favor. It means paying attention to coordination of modes with scheduling, fare policy like free transfers, etc.

 

I never said that I am not trying to get people onto rails more. People should ride the rails more.  Why is that bad? They also should use buses more? Are those two thoughts inconsistent?

 

I said people should use what works best for them, and the MTA should build what makes sense in a particular instance. I said I wanted the Rockaway ROW to be reactivated.  I did not rule out the possibility of reactivating the ROW with SBS.  It's one of the alternatives that needs to be studied in a feasibility study that two congressmen are trying to get. It makes no sense for an ROW to be left sitting there unused for mass transit when north south travel needs improvement.

 

I am not trying to appease everyone. You are free to disagree. I am just trying to make cohesive arguments.

Oh, now encouraging one mode over another has nothing to do with an imbalanced system... Lol.... Yeah right....

Trying to frontload public transportation users onto rails (or any other mode) isn't "treating all modes equally" - Going by your own definition....

 

It absolutely does mean that you should try to get people into utilizing the bus & utilizing the train equally, (which falls under treating modes equally), while not spending money on one & ignoring another, & co-ordinating one mode with the other....

 

"I never said that I am not trying to get people onto rails more."

Yeah, well explain this then - I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats

 

- What do you mean why is that bad.... In terms of a balance, it's advocating that people utilize one mode over another, that's why....

- Advocating people ride the rails more & advocating people ride the bus more aren't inconsistent....

- Advocating that more people should ride the rails, and also stating that people should take whatever mode works best for them, is inconsistent....

 

Exactly right, I most certainly will disagree with some of what you're laying out in this discussion... As such, you can do the same.....

[Trainmaster5]

Well yes, short term SBS makes more sense, but of course rail service makes sense in some cases for long term issues.  I also don't see why rail service can't be implemented later if SBS service comes into play if it is indeed needed and money isn't an issue.

I agree with your conclusion 100%. What I'm concerned with is that with what appears to be the current philosophy it comes down to an either or proposition and the ROW option will be off the table. I'd hate to see it come down to that. Express buses, SBS, LTD, and subway feeder routes don't really add up to the comprehensive bus network I think NYC needs. Maybe I'm a spoiled New Yorker but after seeing the bus "system"s in Charlotte and Fayetteville NC and Suffolk County Transit on Long Island I hope that's not where NYC is heading.

[BrooklynBus]

Bx12 SBS: Fordham only has peak-hour lanes in both directions between the Bronx Zoo and Cedar Av, and peak-hour peak direction lanes between Broadway and 10th Av.

 

M15 SBS: Bus lanes only exist from Houston St to 125th St. The entire route south of Houston St has no bus lanes.

 

The reason I asked is because you stated that Woodhaven won't necessarily have exclusive lanes for its entire length.  I believe it probably will, at least that is what they will try to get. In both instances you cite, where there are no exclusive lanes, it's because the street narrows. Woodhaven / Cross Bay is 8 to 10 lanes wide. It never gets less than 3 lanes in each direction.  Making an exclusive lane over the LIRR tracks would be a disaster.  (I wouldn't be surprised if they even try to stick bike lanes in there too taking even another lane from traffic.) 

 

They should consider adding a grade crossing there like on 88th Street since there are only two trains per day that use the line, I believe. 

 

Oh, now encouraging one mode over another has nothing to do with an imbalanced system... Lol.... Yeah right....

Trying to frontload public transportation users onto rails (or any other mode) isn't "treating all modes equally" - Going by your own definition....

 

It absolutely does mean that you should try to get people into utilizing the bus & utilizing the train equally, (which falls under treating modes equally), while not spending money on one & ignoring another, & co-ordinating one mode with the other....

 

"I never said that I am not trying to get people onto rails more."

Yeah, well explain this then - I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats

 

- What do you mean why is that bad.... In terms of a balance, it's advocating that people utilize one mode over another, that's why....

- Advocating people ride the rails more & advocating people ride the bus more aren't inconsistent....

- Advocating that more people should ride the rails, and also stating that people should take whatever mode works best for them, is inconsistent....

 

Exactly right, I most certainly will disagree with some of what you're laying out in this discussion... As such, you can do the same.....

 

When I said, "I never said that I am not trying to get more people onto the rails more", I meant more people should use the trains. That doesn't mean I am in favor of more crowded trains or that I want them to switch from bus to train. It could mean I want people to make more discretionary trips because the system is easier to use, among other meanings.  And "I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats" means I don't want to remove bus options so people are forced to use the rails. There  is nothing inconsistent with any of those thoughts. 

 

It sounds like when you speak of a "balanced system" you mean that for every train trip there should be a bus alternative so everyone could have a choice. That is not feasible and it is not what a balanced system means. There are trips where the train makes more sense and others where the bus makes more sense.  As I said before, we are just having trouble communicating with each other.

 

I agree with your conclusion 100%. What I'm concerned with is that with what appears to be the current philosophy it comes down to an either or proposition and the ROW option will be off the table. I'd hate to see it come down to that. Express buses, SBS, LTD, and subway feeder routes don't really add up to the comprehensive bus network I think NYC needs. Maybe I'm a spoiled New Yorker but after seeing the bus "system"s in Charlotte and Fayetteville NC and Suffolk County Transit on Long Island I hope that's not where NYC is heading.

 

Again, I fully agree with you.

[B35 via Church]

When I said, "I never said that I am not trying to get more people onto the rails more", I meant more people should use the trains. That doesn't mean I am in favor of more crowded trains or that I want them to switch from bus to train. It could mean I want people to make more discretionary trips because the system is easier to use, among other meanings.  And "I certainly don't want to ram trains down people's throats" means I don't want to remove bus options so people are forced to use the rails. There is nothing inconsistent with any of those thoughts.

 

 

It sounds like when you speak of a "balanced system" you mean that for every train trip there should be a bus alternative so everyone could have a choice. That is not feasible and it is not what a balanced system means. There are trips where the train makes more sense and others where the bus makes more sense.  As I said before, we are just having trouble communicating with each other.

For every train trip, there should be a bus alternative? What in the world.....

No, that's not what I'm saying at all... That would be advocating redundancy....

 

Yes, there are trips where the train makes more sense & trips where the bus makes more sense....

Which is why is doesn't make sense to get riders into taking one mode over the other....