Future SBS Routes

[checkmatechamp13]

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.

 

Ridership might not be high enough to support both. If you add SBS, they might say "Well, the marginal decrease in travel time won't be worth the cost to add rail". If you add rail from the beginning, it's a different story.

[BrooklynBus]

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....

Okay, so what do you mean by a balanced transportation system? I never said "get riders into taking one mode over the other". I said they shouldn't actively be engaging to encourage people from switching from the subway to the bus (which I have already explained), but that doesn't mean you don't improve bus service where the bus trip would be shorter and more direct than the train. Those thoughts are not inconsistant.

 

Ridership might not be high enough to support both. If you add SBS, they might say "Well, the marginal decrease in travel time won't be worth the cost to add rail". If you add rail from the beginning, it's a different story.

Exactly.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Ridership might not be high enough to support both. If you add SBS, they might say "Well, the marginal decrease in travel time won't be worth the cost to add rail". If you add rail from the beginning, it's a different story.

Did you read what I said??? I said IF it is needed.  Jesus Christ... 

 

Exactly.

You say "exactly" yet you cry about reactivating the old rail line, so then why are you making a stink about SBS service when the ridership may not be there to support rail service in that area??

[B35 via Church]

You say "exactly" yet you cry about reactivating the old rail line, so then why are you making a stink about SBS service when the ridership may not be there to support rail service in that area??

That's what I'd like to know....

 

If I were to take a stab at it.... Most likely the notion that if the rail service was there from the beginning (and running, present date), he wouldn't have to make a stink about SBS service along Woodhaven because the riders would already be on the LIRR.... To be honest, I can't picture ridership being too high enough to support bringing back the Rockaway RoW anyway, but that's neither here nor there.....

 

 

Okay, so what do you mean by a balanced transportation system? I never said "get riders into taking one mode over the other". I said they shouldn't actively be engaging to encourage people from switching from the subway to the bus (which I have already explained), but that doesn't mean you don't improve bus service where the bus trip would be shorter and more direct than the train. Those thoughts are not inconsistant.

You are not going to convince me that you weren't being inconsistent with what you're being inconsistent with..... Especially when you're being intentionally misleading in comparing two separate thoughts from which I'm saying your inconsistency lies & telling me they're not inconsistent.... With what I'm saying you're being inconsistent with, you "didn't address the linked post because I don't understand it, not because I am trying to avoid answering something.".... Yeah right, total dishonesty at it's finest.....

 

Oh no, you didn't say get riders into taking one mode over the other, verbatim (there wasn't a quote on that statement in that post implicating that's what you said anyway, since you wanna play that game) - because you never said more people should use the buses.... What you did say was "I meant more people should use the trains.".... Regarding buses, you're going off about this bit about "you don't improve bus service where the bus trip would be shorter and more direct than the train", and "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"....

 

^^ In case you still don't see it, the three quotes of yours in this paragraph is advocating that more people should use the trains & bus service shouldn't be marred to the point where they have to end up on trains.... All you're really saying with the quotes (in pink & red) is that people should continue using the buses at the rate they currently are, instead of advocating more people use buses as well.....

 

 

As far as what I mean about a balanced system, take the word alternative out of it... Our bus system is broken enough as it is & our subway system is incomplete..... BOTH problems should be rectified.... Also, the buses should be equally supported as the subways (and commuter rail).... You try to get people to utilize rapid transit just as much as you try to get people to utilize surface transit... Not this ridiculous notion of trying to get people to ride the trains more, and the bus being on some lower tier below it of a pecking order..... This is sending the message that the rails are more important than the buses, which they are not... This is the problem I have with the MTA now - The MTA doesn't seem to realize that there are trips that one mode is more suitable for over the other....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's what I'd like to know....

 

If I were to take a stab at it.... Most likely the notion that if the rail service was there from the beginning (and running, present date), he wouldn't have to make a stink about SBS service along Woodhaven because the riders would already be on the LIRR.... To be honest, I can't picture ridership being too high enough to support bringing back the Rockaway RoW anyway, but that's neither here nor there.....

Actually that last part is exactly my point... It's like doesn't he understand that just because a place can have rail service doesn't mean that it's necessary? Some places are simply better off with bus service and I think it would be a waste of service to have rail service out there if it isn't going to be utilized.  I mean really, if they were using the rail service like that in past, it wouldn't have been torn down.  The way I see it, it's almost as if he would be fine with half empty trains running, so long as they aren't buses.

[checkmatechamp13]

Did you read what I said??? I said IF it is needed.  Jesus Christ...

 

(**sigh**)

 

Let's say that the ideal ridership for the SBS line is 15,000 - 20,000 riders a day (just an arbitrary number). By "ideal", I mean buses aren't too crowded or too empty. And let's say the ideal ridership for the rail line is 30,000 - 35,000 riders a day (again, meaning trains aren't too crowded or too empty).

 

If you build the SBS line, and initially you get 20,000 riders a day, but eventually ridership increases to 30,000 riders a day, that means that the ridership would be sufficient to support the rail line. But the problem is that you already put up the SBS line, which means that if you build the rail line, ridership will drop to zero. So you're forced to decide whether you want to abandon the SBS and put up the rail line, or continue runing overcrowded SBS buses.

 

It's an oversimplified way of looking at it, but that's the main idea.

 

Actually that last part is exactly my point... It's like doesn't he understand that just because a place can have rail service doesn't mean that it's necessary? Some places are simply better off with bus service and I think it would be a waste of service to have rail service out there if it isn't going to be utilized.  I mean really, if they were using the rail service like that in past, it wouldn't have been torn down.  The way I see it, it's almost as if he would be fine with half empty trains running, so long as they aren't buses.

 

The population was different in the past, compared to the present. It was torn down in what? 1962. If the population has increased since 1962, the trains will likely be fuller.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

(**sigh**)

 

Let's say that the ideal ridership for the SBS line is 15,000 - 20,000 riders a day (just an arbitrary number). By "ideal", I mean buses aren't too crowded or too empty. And let's say the ideal ridership for the rail line is 30,000 - 35,000 riders a day (again, meaning trains aren't too crowded or too empty).

 

If you build the SBS line, and initially you get 20,000 riders a day, but eventually ridership increases to 30,000 riders a day, that means that the ridership would be sufficient to support the rail line. But the problem is that you already put up the SBS line, which means that if you build the rail line, ridership will drop to zero. So you're forced to decide whether you want to abandon the SBS and put up the rail line, or continue runing overcrowded SBS buses.

 

It's an oversimplified way of looking at it, but that's the main idea.

 

 

The population was different in the past, compared to the present. It was torn down in what? 1962. If the population has increased since 1962, the trains will likely be fuller.

I get all of that, but my point is what is the big f*cking deal if they only have SBS service? I mean so if they don't have a big enough population to support both, then they don't get both, but I see no point in essentially making it sound as if they don't have rail service it's the worst thing ever. Some communities just have bus service and they do just fine.  Rail service has its benefits and it also has its negatives, so just because a community gets rail service doesn't suddenly solve all of their transportation problems, just like SBS service doesn't solve all transportation problems.

 

If the community has enough political pull IF AND when they really need rail service they can pressure the to provide it and do studies that can show that there is indeed a need, so I'm not buying this argument that they can only get one or the other.  Both services can co-exist together just fine.  I know because I live in a community that has both and both are doing fine and have co-existed together for some time now.  

[BrooklynBus]

To B35 via Church:

 

You misread what I wrote.  Your quote in red is actually the opposite of what I said.  I didn't say you don't improve bus service where the bus trip would be shorter than the train trip... I said, "It doesn't mean that you don't improve bus service..."  It was a double negative meaning you should improve bus service in those cases.

 

As far as your last paragraph regarding a balanced system, I agree with you so there should be no argument.  The only thing I said that you didn't is that you shouldn't encourage bus use over train use if the train would be a better alternative. 

 

To via Garibaldi:

 

You also did not accurately read what I wrote in my support for reactivating the Rockaway ROW.  I didn't definitely state that there would be enough demand for rail service. I didn't rule out SBS on the Rockaway ROW. I stated that using the ROW for SBS (or BRT) is a possibility. I said that's why we need a feasibility study and why I am against SBS on Woodhaven. Because if it turns out after a study that a rail line would not be feasible, you could still have the benefits of SBS by reactivating the ROW without the negative effects of removing a lane for auto and truck traffic. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

To vVia Garibaldi:

 

You also did not accurately read what I wrote in my support for reactivating the Rockaway ROW.  I didn't definitely state that there would be enough demand for rail service. I didn't rule out SBS on the Rockaway ROW. I stated that using the ROW for SBS (or BRT) is a possibility. I said that's why we need a feasibility study and why I am against SBS on Woodhaven. Because if it turns out after a study that a rail line would not be feasible, you could still have the benefits of SBS by reactivating the ROW without the negative effects of removing a lane for auto and truck traffic. 

I read it very clearly... You support the Rockaway ROW over SBS.  That's fine, but my point still stands in that rail service may not be the best thing for the community and SBS may indeed be the best the option.  I say let them do the studies and see if they can provide both because IMO I think if there is demand for both they should have both and then let the people in that community decide what works best for them.  We have rail and express bus service in my community and sometimes MetroNorth works best for me and sometimes the express bus works best for me and I would not say that one is better over the other because each has its advantages and disadvantages.  Your article is written from a cost perspective.  I'm looking at from the commuter's perspective.  

[qjtransitmaster]

wanna make old rockaway line work simple make it a subway line known as the build stub tunnel into queens blvd linethen after 2nd ave subway is complete it will go to 125th via 2nd ave subway in manhattan in later phases have an elevated portion go to GWB terminal if feasible. If not DOT will have to let NJT go into LGA. The will connect upper manhattan and midtown with no long transfers nor walking and will give rockaway and howard beach folks more service. The can replace far rockaway service rerouting the to rockaway park. If gov gives tons of money and MTA loses their sanity a new line called can be used beyond shuttle service and tracks can be built between sheepshead bay on the brighton line directly to the rockaways with new stations at roxbury or flatbush ave then elevated near the belt with a knapp street stop then via brighton to CI then sea beach ultra express only serving kings hwy then 4th ave line to manhattan initionally via montegue tunnell then express on broadway near term. Long term via 2nd ave subway lower portion as it is 2nd ave express with being local or it merges with but 2nd ave would benefit more from local/express / .

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Oh boy... Here we go.... 

[qjtransitmaster]

Oh boy... Here we go.... 

most feasible was bobtehpanda's idea to link it to the QBL it will be called 2nd ave local QBL express rockaway line. via QBL and 2nd ave I made modifications to it.

[BrooklynBus]

I read it very clearly... You support the Rockaway ROW over SBS.  That's fine, but my point still stands in that rail service may not be the best thing for the community and SBS may indeed be the best the option.  I say let them do the studies and see if they can provide both because IMO I think if there is demand for both they should have both and then let the people in that community decide what works best for them.  We have rail and express bus service in my community and sometimes MetroNorth works best for me and sometimes the express bus works best for me and I would not say that one is better over the other because each has its advantages and disadvantages.  Your article is written from a cost perspective.  I'm looking at from the commuter's perspective.  

 

Not exactly.  I said I support the Rockaway ROW over Woodhaven SBS.  Initially, I didn't say anything about the possibility of SBS on the Rockwaway ROW, but added it later because everybody was focused on if I was anti-SBS or not. 

 

As for the second part of your statement, theoretically you are correct, but practically, I agree with Checkmate that if SBS is put on Woodhaven, reactivating the Rockaway ROW doesn't stand a chance.  Even if SBS turns out that it is so well utilized, that you also need reactivation, the MTA will find every excuse in the book not to reactivate the ROW, insisting the Woodhaven SBS works just fine even if it is crushloaded all the time.

 

You also cannot trust the MTA to do the feasibility study of reactivating the Rockaway Line, because they will do what they did for the SIRT North Shore Line, inflate the costs of Light Rail as some have accused them of doing, not study heavy rail or people movers, study some throw away alternative they have not intention of picking, then choosing SBS as the solution because it is the moderate cost solution.  The study needs to be impartial, not performed by an organization that first draws its conclusions,then tailors the data to support those conclusions.  They cannot be trusted,

 

The Transit Committee meets on Monday to approve the B84.  You could have attended the hearing or submitted your comments by e-mail.

The Staff Summary Sheet only summarizes comments from those attending the hearing and ignored all the e-mail comments so the Board will never see them.  That is just typical of them.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not exactly.  I said I support the Rockaway ROW over Woodhaven SBS.  Initially, I didn't say anything about the possibility of SBS on the Rockwaway ROW, but added it later because everybody was focused on if I was anti-SBS or not. 

 

As for the second part of your statement, theoretically you are correct, but practically, I agree with Checkmate that if SBS is put on Woodhaven, reactivating the Rockaway ROW doesn't stand a chance.  Even if SBS turns out that it is so well utilized, that you also need reactivation, the MTA will find every excuse in the book not to reactivate the ROW, insisting the Woodhaven SBS works just fine even if it is crushloaded all the time.

 

You also cannot trust the MTA to do the feasibility study of reactivating the Rockaway Line, because they will do what they did for the SIRT North Shore Line, inflate the costs of Light Rail as some have accused them of doing, not study heavy rail or people movers, study some throw away alternative they have not intention of picking, then choosing SBS as the solution because it is the moderate cost solution.  The study needs to be impartial, not performed by an organization that first draws its conclusions,then tailors the data to support those conclusions.  They cannot be trusted,

 

The Transit Committee meets on Monday to approve the B84.  You could have attended the hearing or submitted your comments by e-mail.

The Staff Summary Sheet only summarizes comments from those attending the hearing and ignored all the e-mail comments so the Board will never see them.  That is just typical of them.

Close enough... I get the big picture loud and clear... I agree that the study should be done by an impartial group.  However, I do not agree that the reactivation of the ROW doesn't stand a chance if it was needed if SBS were put into place.  We have received increased MetroNorth service and our express bus service has not been touched. Granted we here in Riverdale are very active and outspoken about our transportation and fiercely believe in protecting our neighborhood and its services, but I think if the folks down there did the same they would stand a chance. It all depends on how much pull their political leaders have and how involved they are.

[bobtehpanda]

(**sigh**)

 

Let's say that the ideal ridership for the SBS line is 15,000 - 20,000 riders a day (just an arbitrary number). By "ideal", I mean buses aren't too crowded or too empty. And let's say the ideal ridership for the rail line is 30,000 - 35,000 riders a day (again, meaning trains aren't too crowded or too empty).

 

If you build the SBS line, and initially you get 20,000 riders a day, but eventually ridership increases to 30,000 riders a day, that means that the ridership would be sufficient to support the rail line. But the problem is that you already put up the SBS line, which means that if you build the rail line, ridership will drop to zero. So you're forced to decide whether you want to abandon the SBS and put up the rail line, or continue runing overcrowded SBS buses.

 

It's an oversimplified way of looking at it, but that's the main idea.

 

 

The population was different in the past, compared to the present. It was torn down in what? 1962. If the population has increased since 1962, the trains will likely be fuller.

 

The Rockaway Branch was also much less frequent when it existed by virtue of being a LIRR line, and I think people would be pretty upset if subway service was running at LIRR-style frequencies down that ROW again.

 

The ROW is also far enough away from Woodhaven north of Yellowstone and south of Rockaway Blvd, that the SBS will still have a ridership base to work with. (I mean, it's great that the ROW is there, but it's so inconvenient, and Woodhaven such a big psychological barrier for pedestrians, that its utility is limited.)

 

To B35 via Church:

 

You misread what I wrote.  Your quote in red is actually the opposite of what I said.  I didn't say you don't improve bus service where the bus trip would be shorter than the train trip... I said, "It doesn't mean that you don't improve bus service..."  It was a double negative meaning you should improve bus service in those cases.

 

As far as your last paragraph regarding a balanced system, I agree with you so there should be no argument.  The only thing I said that you didn't is that you shouldn't encourage bus use over train use if the train would be a better alternative. 

 

To via Garibaldi:

 

You also did not accurately read what I wrote in my support for reactivating the Rockaway ROW.  I didn't definitely state that there would be enough demand for rail service. I didn't rule out SBS on the Rockaway ROW. I stated that using the ROW for SBS (or BRT) is a possibility. I said that's why we need a feasibility study and why I am against SBS on Woodhaven. Because if it turns out after a study that a rail line would not be feasible, you could still have the benefits of SBS by reactivating the ROW without the negative effects of removing a lane for auto and truck traffic. 

 

Using it as a busway might actually be more expensive (and more detrimental to the community, because now you have diesel fumes going into backyards).

 

As for your earlier comments regarding the MTA botching a study on purpose, it is probable that the study money might go to a firm like Parsons Brinkerhoff instead of the MTA. They just completed a 7 to Secaucus study for Bloomberg.

 

In addition, the flexibility of DOT with bus lanes may very well mean that it only installs bus lanes on the 10 and maybe the 8-lane segments. Keep in mind that despite its new grudging love for bus lanes, this is the same agency that didn't want even a peak-hour peak-direction bus lane on the Queensboro because it was too afraid that traffic would snarl.

 

most feasible was bobtehpanda's idea to link it to the QBL it will be called 2nd ave local QBL express rockaway line. via QBL and 2nd ave I made modifications to it.

 

Okay, here's the thing.

 

I never advocated for any sort of through service on the Rockaway ROW. In fact, I oppose it, because that's a lot of capacity mismatch right there (looking at existing Q52/53 ridership levels). That does not justify 10-minute service with 10-car trains, especially with the amount of capital investment involved. The most appropriate thing to do, in case it is reactivated, would be to extend the Rockaway Shuttle to a new platform at Woodhaven (the station is designed to accommodate additional services). But I don't support any extension there unless it must really be done (which it doesn't - Midtown already has two links to AirTrain and Lower Manhattan has one, so adding another one to an area with low demand is verging on the ridiculous), because there are better things we could spend that money on.

 

And even if I did support it, in no way would I ever suggest linking it to a subway line that won't be completed for another couple decades.

[Trainmaster5]

The Rockaway Branch was also much less frequent when it existed by virtue of being a LIRR line, and I think people would be pretty upset if subway service was running at LIRR-style frequencies down that ROW again.

 

The ROW is also far enough away from Woodhaven north of Yellowstone and south of Rockaway Blvd, that the SBS will still have a ridership base to work with. (I mean, it's great that the ROW is there, but it's so inconvenient, and Woodhaven such a big psychological barrier for pedestrians, that its utility is limited.)

 

 

Using it as a busway might actually be more expensive (and more detrimental to the community, because now you have diesel fumes going into backyards).

 

As for your earlier comments regarding the MTA botching a study on purpose, it is probable that the study money might go to a firm like Parsons Brinkerhoff instead of the MTA. They just completed a 7 to Secaucus study for Bloomberg.

 

In addition, the flexibility of DOT with bus lanes may very well mean that it only installs bus lanes on the 10 and maybe the 8-lane segments. Keep in mind that despite its new grudging love for bus lanes, this is the same agency that didn't want even a peak-hour peak-direction bus lane on the Queensboro because it was too afraid that traffic would snarl.

 

 

Okay, here's the thing.

 

I never advocated for any sort of through service on the Rockaway ROW. In fact, I oppose it, because that's a lot of capacity mismatch right there (looking at existing Q52/53 ridership levels). That does not justify 10-minute service with 10-car trains, especially with the amount of capital investment involved. The most appropriate thing to do, in case it is reactivated, would be to extend the Rockaway Shuttle to a new platform at Woodhaven (the station is designed to accommodate additional services). But I don't support any extension there unless it must really be done (which it doesn't - Midtown already has two links to AirTrain and Lower Manhattan has one, so adding another one to an area with low demand is verging on the ridiculous), because there are better things we could spend that money on.

 

And even if I did support it, in no way would I ever suggest linking it to a subway line that won't be completed for another couple decades.

I like the way you've thought out the whole Woodhaven Blvd question. I also think any re-activation of the ROW is premature but I do believe that the study of it should be a part of any evaluation of transit in that area. As you alluded to in your post the railroad line that was left over after the city took over the southern end didn't have a  sustainable ridership base and was abandoned after a few years. Unmentioned in this thread was that the Woodhaven station on the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR was also cut out. I don't know the reasoning behind this decision but perhaps there wasn't/isn't a ridership base in this particular area and maybe this should be taken into consideration in any study of the Woodhaven area concerning the SBS. I do know that the old LIRR stations are located a distance from Woodhaven Blvd itself but I don't know the local community board's boundaries and concerns. I will point out that in my personal experience Parsons-Brinckerhoff and the have been linked together for the last 30 years so it wouldn't matter who did the study. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[qjtransitmaster]

The Rockaway Branch was also much less frequent when it existed by virtue of being a LIRR line, and I think people would be pretty upset if subway service was running at LIRR-style frequencies down that ROW again.

 

The ROW is also far enough away from Woodhaven north of Yellowstone and south of Rockaway Blvd, that the SBS will still have a ridership base to work with. (I mean, it's great that the ROW is there, but it's so inconvenient, and Woodhaven such a big psychological barrier for pedestrians, that its utility is limited.)

 

 

 

Using it as a busway might actually be more expensive (and more detrimental to the community, because now you have diesel fumes going into backyards).

 

As for your earlier comments regarding the MTA botching a study on purpose, it is probable that the study money might go to a firm like Parsons Brinkerhoff instead of the MTA. They just completed a 7 to Secaucus study for Bloomberg.

 

In addition, the flexibility of DOT with bus lanes may very well mean that it only installs bus lanes on the 10 and maybe the 8-lane segments. Keep in mind that despite its new grudging love for bus lanes, this is the same agency that didn't want even a peak-hour peak-direction bus lane on the Queensboro because it was too afraid that traffic would snarl.

 

 

 

Okay, here's the thing.

 

I never advocated for any sort of through service on the Rockaway ROW. In fact, I oppose it, because that's a lot of capacity mismatch right there (looking at existing Q52/53 ridership levels). That does not justify 10-minute service with 10-car trains, especially with the amount of capital investment involved. The most appropriate thing to do, in case it is reactivated, would be to extend the Rockaway Shuttle to a new platform at Woodhaven (the station is designed to accommodate additional services). But I don't support any extension there unless it must really be done (which it doesn't - Midtown already has two links to AirTrain and Lower Manhattan has one, so adding another one to an area with low demand is verging on the ridiculous), because there are better things we could spend that money on.

 

And even if I did support it, in no way would I ever suggest linking it to a subway line that won't be completed for another couple decades.

I am not gonna lie my plan influenced by learning about the stub tunnel on QBL is meant to connect queens directly to UES and uptown manhattan yes it also links midtown too but main focus is UES. I will say that plan is LONG TERM if the shuttle extension to link the QBL is a sucess. The is dependant on demand for 2nd ave line and under extreme circumstances if the feds want to invest in it sort of.

[B35 via Church]

Here we go with this guy QJT talking about turning the old rockaway line into a subway line & bringing up K's, R's, A's, T's, and H's..... The same structural work is gonna have to be done to get any rail system up off the ground & in working order on that RoW..... Regardless if it's the subway or the LIRR.....

 

Inconceivable.....

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

 

 

As for BrooklynBus:

To B35 via Church:

 

You misread what I wrote.  Your quote in red is actually the opposite of what I said.  I didn't say you don't improve bus service where the bus trip would be shorter than the train trip... I said, "It doesn't mean that you don't improve bus service..."  It was a double negative meaning you should improve bus service in those cases.

 

As far as your last paragraph regarding a balanced system, I agree with you so there should be no argument.  

The only thing I said that you didn't is that you shouldn't encourage bus use over train use if the train would be a better alternative. 

Lol, double negative..... Still doesn't change the point that was being made in that post of mine...

You want to get more people onto trains.... It's still not saying you want to get more people onto buses......

 

Yeah, there should be no argument from you if you agree with what I said....

 

There is still an argument from me, because I'm saying BOTH modes should be encouraged equally, no pecking order or nothing like that... Telling me that you shouldn't encourage bus use over train use if the train would be a better alternative, means nothing to me when you hold the position that more people should use the trains & we should try to get riders onto the rails first.... Or did you not say that also? I'm not advocating people use anything over anything & I'm not siding with this notion that riders should be encouraged onto the rails (or any other mode) first.....

[bobtehpanda]

I like the way you've thought out the whole Woodhaven Blvd question. I also think any re-activation of the ROW is premature but I do believe that the study of it should be a part of any evaluation of transit in that area. As you alluded to in your post the railroad line that was left over after the city took over the southern end didn't have a  sustainable ridership base and was abandoned after a few years. Unmentioned in this thread was that the Woodhaven station on the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR was also cut out. I don't know the reasoning behind this decision but perhaps there wasn't/isn't a ridership base in this particular area and maybe this should be taken into consideration in any study of the Woodhaven area concerning the SBS. I do know that the old LIRR stations are located a distance from Woodhaven Blvd itself but I don't know the local community board's boundaries and concerns. I will point out that in my personal experience Parsons-Brinckerhoff and the have been linked together for the last 30 years so it wouldn't matter who did the study. Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

From what I understand, Woodhaven Junction was actually some distance away from Woodhaven, so most of the traffic at that station came from the Rockaway trains. When it got replaced by bus service, none of those passengers could connect anymore, so they just removed the station.

[BrooklynBus]

Here we go with this guy QJT talking about turning the old rockaway line into a subway line & bringing up K's, R's, A's, T's, and H's..... The same structural work is gonna have to be done to get any rail system up off the ground & in working order on that RoW..... Regardless if it's the subway or the LIRR.....

 

Inconceivable.....

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

 

 

As for BrooklynBus:

Lol, double negative..... Still doesn't change the point that was being made in that post of mine...

You want to get more people onto trains.... It's still not saying you want to get more people onto buses......

 

Yeah, there should be no argument from you if you agree with what I said....

 

There is still an argument from me, because I'm saying BOTH modes should be encouraged equally, no pecking order or nothing like that... Telling me that you shouldn't encourage bus use over train use if the train would be a better alternative, means nothing to me when you hold the position that more people should use the trains & we should try to get riders onto the rails first.... Or did you not say that also? I'm not advocating people use anything over anything & I'm not siding with this notion that riders should be encouraged onto the rails (or any other mode) first.....

 

Yes, both methods should be encouraged. Equally?  That I don't know about. Does that mean you spend equal amounts to promote each mode? I'm not really sure what equal means. There are times you want to encourage rail, and times you want to encourage buses. More people should use both modes.

 

Yes, more should use the trains because the trains hold more people and if not overcrowded can absorb more riders without increasing operating costs.  It doesn't take many more bus riders to cause the addition of extra buses. That's why if there is a choice for certain trips, management would rather they be on the train. I agree with that if the trip is just as direct. (That's where we disagree.) 

 

I think more than one bus transfer should be allowed. The current system promotes the use of two buses for a trip taking 90 minutes when two buses and a train taking 60 minutes might make more sense but costs an extra fare, so its not made by riders paying per ride.

 

Also, for bobtehpanda:  I don't think diesel fumes are that much of an issue any more with the new clean energy natural gas and hybrid electric buses.

[qjtransitmaster]

Here we go with this guy QJT talking about turning the old rockaway line into a subway line & bringing up K's, R's, A's, T's, and H's..... The same structural work is gonna have to be done to get any rail system up off the ground & in working order on that RoW..... Regardless if it's the subway or the LIRR.....

 

Inconceivable.....

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

 

 

As for BrooklynBus:

Lol, double negative..... Still doesn't change the point that was being made in that post of mine...

You want to get more people onto trains.... It's still not saying you want to get more people onto buses......

 

Yeah, there should be no argument from you if you agree with what I said....

 

There is still an argument from me, because I'm saying BOTH modes should be encouraged equally, no pecking order or nothing like that... Telling me that you shouldn't encourage bus use over train use if the train would be a better alternative, means nothing to me when you hold the position that more people should use the trains & we should try to get riders onto the rails first.... Or did you not say that also? I'm not advocating people use anything over anything & I'm not siding with this notion that riders should be encouraged onto the rails (or any other mode) first.....

 

You do realize that those ideas are experimental and take affect AFTER the woodhaven jct  extension is proven successful if not then ohh well there goes that idea. The is fantasy only if the feds got money to burn.

From what I understand, Woodhaven Junction was actually some distance away from Woodhaven, so most of the traffic at that station came from the Rockaway trains. When it got replaced by bus service, none of those passengers could connect anymore, so they just removed the station.

I like this idea best. @ brooklynbus I agree another transfer should be allowed people should use the fastest modes and combinations of routes possible rather than intentionally add extra time to their trip just to save a buck or fare.

[bobtehpanda]

You do realize that those ideas are experimental and take affect AFTER the woodhaven jct  extension is proven successful if not then ohh well there goes that idea. The is fantasy only if the feds got money to burn.

 

Even the ROW reactivation is a fantasy at this point, because it's doubtful as to whether or not it's useful or meets federal cost-effectiveness criteria. People have this attitude, "it's there, so we might as well use it", but it's really not that simple. Stop spouting nonsense.

 

 

I think more than one bus transfer should be allowed. The current system promotes the use of two buses for a trip taking 90 minutes when two buses and a train taking 60 minutes might make more sense but costs an extra fare, so its not made by riders paying per ride.

 

Also, for bobtehpanda:  I don't think diesel fumes are that much of an issue any more with the new clean energy natural gas and hybrid electric buses.

 

I agree - two transfers within two hours is not unreasonable, and covers pretty much all the transit trips one could reasonably make. (It also makes life easier for those in the outer reaches of the city, such as Eastern Queens and Staten Island, because there aren't that many places you can get to with a two-seat ride, and bus-train-bus or bus-bus-bus isn't that uncommon.)

 

Diesel's probably not as much of a problem as noise might be, but NIMBYs wlll definitely use that as one of a myriad of excuses to block use of the ROW.

[qjtransitmaster]

Even the ROW reactivation is a fantasy at this point, because it's doubtful as to whether or not it's useful or meets federal cost-effectiveness criteria. People have this attitude, "it's there, so we might as well use it", but it's really not that simple. Stop spouting nonsense.

 

 

I agree - two transfers within two hours is not unreasonable, and covers pretty much all the transit trips one could reasonably make. (It also makes life easier for those in the outer reaches of the city, such as Eastern Queens and Staten Island, because there aren't that many places you can get to with a two-seat ride, and bus-train-bus or bus-bus-bus isn't that uncommon.)

 

Diesel's probably not as much of a problem as noise might be, but NIMBYs wlll definitely use that as one of a myriad of excuses to block use of the ROW.

Err I know rockaway ROW is actually a low priority actually that is IF it becomes possible. Ohh I am not spouting nonsense it's called scenarios if something happens I know how low a priority it is to reactivate the old rockaway line just stop lets get back to SBS.

 

Like that Q70 SBS line and M60 SBS.

[Trainmaster5]

From what I understand, Woodhaven Junction was actually some distance away from Woodhaven, so most of the traffic at that station came from the Rockaway trains. When it got replaced by bus service, none of those passengers could connect anymore, so they just removed the station.

That's my understanding, also. That's actually what I was getting at. Woodhaven Jct (elevated) and Woodhaven underground didn't actually serve Woodhaven Blvd. That made me wonder about the boundaries of what's considered "Woodhaven" and if the old ROW would even be considered in any study. I can remember taking the LIRR from Nostrand Ave to the Woodhaven underground station to meet someone. When I went upstairs I saw the old Woodhaven Junction staircases boarded up back then. That was about 1965-66 and the area was pretty dead except for auto traffic on Atlantic Ave. The only bus service I can recall in the immediate area of the station was on Atlantic. That's why I never considered the immediate neighborhood in the same context as the area on Woodhaven Blvd.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, both methods should be encouraged. Equally?  That I don't know about. Does that mean you spend equal amounts to promote each mode? I'm not really sure what equal means. There are times you want to encourage rail, and times you want to encourage buses. More people should use both modes.

 

Yes, more should use the trains because the trains hold more people and if not overcrowded can absorb more riders without increasing operating costs.  It doesn't take many more bus riders to cause the addition of extra buses. That's why if there is a choice for certain trips, management would rather they be on the train. I agree with that if the trip is just as direct. (That's where we disagree.) 

 

I think more than one bus transfer should be allowed. The current system promotes the use of two buses for a trip taking 90 minutes when two buses and a train taking 60 minutes might make more sense but costs an extra fare, so its not made by riders paying per ride.

 

Let me ask you something because I'm a little confused here... How can you say on the one hand that we need people to use buses and that bus service should be increased in numerous articles, but then at the same time say that we should encourage people to use rail service before bus service and then sit here and write articles bashing the for cutting back on bus service when in essence you're advocating the same thing!?!?!?  If you're advocating rail service over bus service, then you can't expect bus service to do anything but decrease if you don't advocate it and run it poorly to boot.