Future SBS Routes

[BrooklynBus]

No i am not advocating the same thing. All I am saying is rail service over bus service if you have that choice which in most cases you don't. And I am not for rail service if it means an indirect trip say through downtown Brooklyn when your destination is nowhere near Downtown Brooklyn when you can have bus service to make the trip direct but you don't.

 

I am also saying don't put limited service on the B68 because it will cause some Brighton line riders to switch to the bus and the result will be emptier trains (the Brighton line is not one of the more overcrowded lines, though it's not underutilized like the F in lower Brooklyn either.) and cause you to run more buses and increase traffic on an already congested street increasing your operating costs without adding new passengers to the system. I think that makes sense.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No i am not advocating the same thing. All I am saying is rail service over bus service if you have that choice which in most cases you don't. And I am not for rail service if it means an indirect trip say through downtown Brooklyn when your destination is nowhere near Downtown Brooklyn when you can have bus service to make the trip direct but you don't.

 

I am also saying don't put limited service on the B68 because it will cause some Brighton line riders to switch to the bus and the result will be emptier trains (the Brighton line is not one of the more overcrowded lines, though it's not underutilized like the F in lower Brooklyn either.) and cause you to run more buses and increase traffic on an already congested street increasing your operating costs without adding new passengers to the system. I think that makes sense.

Well why do you keep pushing rail service down there when #1 it wasn't well utilized previously and #2 may be a more indirect route for those commuters? All you keep talking about is how SBS is no good down Woodhaven Blvd and how the rail line should be reactivated.  Maybe you should explore why that rail line performed so poorly.  Now we have express buses and rail service here and for most people MetroNorth is only good if they're going to or near the Grand Central vicinity, otherwise the amount of transfers needed eat up any time savings and the express bus then becomes much more attractive.  

[BrooklynBus]

Others know the history better than I do and could answer that question for you. I have already written to someone asking him to reply. It would not be indirect for riders going to midtown and would cut commuting times drastically, much more than SBS ever could.

[B35 via Church]

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.

Now you don't know what's being referred to by equal, give me a break - spending equal amounts to promote each mode....

 

You should encourage riders to take either mode at their discretion instead of this bit about there are times that you want to encourage rail & times that you want to encourage buses.....  Don't try to encourage buses when someone wants to take trains (let the riders make their own choice), don't try to encourage trains when someone wants to take buses (again, let the riders make their own choice)....

 

Both modes are under operation by MTA personnel anyway, so what does the MTA have to gain by encouraging people onto trains more if they're still operating the buses (or vice versa)... The whole notion is stupid... The thinning down & bastardizing of bus service the MTA's done to get more people onto trains is stupid (I'm NOT saying you agree to THIS particular point, but I'm still bringing it up)... It's like giving one child attention more & shunning the other... And don't bother telling me you don't understand the analogy, and don't tell me you're not shunning the other because you have done little to nothing to suggest throughout this whole discussion you want to try to get people onto buses more as much as you want to try to get people onto trains more....

 

I mean really, it's fool's gold out of you to say that more people should use both modes & continually emphasize that more people should use trains..... You're saying more people should use both modes only because you're being called out on your sudden focusing on encouraging that more people use trains.... I don't know who you think you're trying to fool here, but I'm supposed to believe that you're being perfectly honest.....

 

The message is loud & clear with you here... 40 years of the MTA not even listening regarding bus improvements, you're a little tired talking about buses (outside of your rants about SBS) - so let's make posts talking about getting more people onto trains now....

 

 

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.  

See above....

 

He's trying to sell us piss water & calling it quality beer.... His problem is, the 3 of us (threxx) see the piss water for what it is....

He wants us to believe that he wants more people to use the buses too, when he says that we should try to get riders onto the rails first.... You don't get to ride that train (lol) when you side with the notion that a pecking order/hierarchy should be followed, I'm sorry....

 

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.

.....is where fantasy becomes your reality.

[BrooklynBus]

You should encourage riders to take either mode at their discretion instead of this bit about there are times that you want to encourage rail & times that you want to encourage buses.....  Don't try to encourage buses when someone wants to take trains (let the riders make their own choice), don't try to encourage trains when someone wants to take buses (again, let the riders make their own choice)....

 

Both modes are under operation by MTA personnel anyway, so what does the MTA have to gain by encouraging people onto trains more if they're still operating the buses (or vice versa)...

 

That first paragraph I fully agree with. All I am saying if you got a direct subway running between places X and Y, and you also have a direct bus between X and Y, and X and Y are a long distance apart  like 5 or 10 miles, it makes more sense to have people use the train rather than the bus especially if you have large numbers of people making the trip. That's because you would need five times the amount of labor to serve them by bus since a train holds ten times the number or passengers. That's what the MTA has to gain. They might not need as much bus service.

 

Case in point. The B49 limited exists in the morning because of the large number of Kingsborough students who take the bus. I bet a survey would reveal that most of those students are transferring from other buses. The ones who don't require a transfer are already on the Brighton Line and only using the bus for the final mile. If those transferring could also use the Brighton Line, they could make the trip faster by taking a bus train and a bus and would do it if not for the fair impediment and you wouldn't have to run those extra limited buses lowering your operating costs.

[checkmatechamp13]

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.  

 

The Bx12 is the only SBS route in The Bronx. If you don't live near the Bx12, you don't live near an SBS route.

 

Don't sit there and try to compare an SBS route with an express route. As well-used as those express buses are, the ridership is nowhere near that of the Bx12 SBS.

 

I'm not saying that the rail should automatically be put in the area, or that the ROW should automatically be used. I'm saying that you shouldn't have the attitude of "Oh, just put the SBS down and you can always add the rail line later". Why? Because of the example I showed above. Ridership was too low to support both SBS and rail, but it was too high for the SBS alone to handle it.

 

If it looks like SBS is sufficient, and it doesn't look like there will be any real long-term growth for whatever reason, then go for it and bring the immediate relief.

 

In that example, if you need 15,000 - 20,000 riders for SBS, and 30,000 - 35,000 for rail, that means you need at least 45,000 riders to support both. What do you do if you have 30,000 riders, but you already put down the SBS? Wait for ridership to grow by another 15,000 people? Then you're doing the same thing, only further into the future, when costs are higher and the population will likely be higher.

[B35 via Church]

That first paragraph I fully agree with. All I am saying if you got a direct subway running between places X and Y, and you also have a direct bus between X and Y, and X and Y are a long distance apart  like 5 or 10 miles, it makes more sense to have people use the train rather than the bus especially if you have large numbers of people making the trip. That's because you would need five times the amount of labor to serve them by bus since a train holds ten times the number or passengers. That's what the MTA has to gain. They might not need as much bus service.

 

Case in point. The B49 limited exists in the morning because of the large number of Kingsborough students who take the bus. I bet a survey would reveal that most of those students are transferring from other buses. The ones who don't require a transfer are already on the Brighton Line and only using the bus for the final mile. If those transferring could also use the Brighton Line, they could make the trip faster by taking a bus train and a bus and would do it if not for the fair impediment and you wouldn't have to run those extra limited buses lowering your operating costs.

If you fully agree with that paragraph, then you're disagreeing with your own point.... How you're not able to see that, is anyone's guess....

 

And what I'm saying is, if you have a subway running between X & Y and a bus running between those same two points (X & Y), there shouldn't be any more of a focus of encouragement of getting more people onto trains, when service on buses are slowly going to pot - If we're talking about a balancement.... Regardless of what the distances are...

 

Your example of the B49 illustrates my point b/c you got the masses piling onto B's & Q's now (including patrons traveling between points X & Y if the distances are shorter), while usage (and apparently, service) on the B49 gradually lessens.... I mean, telling me about the existence of the B49 LTD & the majority of those students coming off other buses doesn't help your case - when you want to talk about getting riders onto rails first.... And it is that very imbalance of (encouragement of) usage of modes that's part of the problem with the MTA now..... I suppose that's what the MTA has to gain too....

 

I don't need you to iterate to me the benefits of rails over buses because I already know the advantages & disadvantages of one over the other.... If you're gonna argue manpower (labor) & operating costs, then apparently you don't want more people onto buses as much as you want more people onto rails.....

[bobtehpanda]

 

Anyways, since this thread is (or at least is titled like it's) about more than two SBS routes, how 'bout that Q43 SBS? I for one will certainly appreciate the sped up ride.

[BrooklynBus]

If you fully agree with that paragraph, then you're disagreeing with your own point.... How you're not able to see that, is anyone's guess....

 

And what I'm saying is, if you have a subway running between X & Y and a bus running between those same two points (X & Y), there shouldn't be any more of a focus of encouragement of getting more people onto trains, when service on buses are slowly going to pot - If we're talking about a balancement.... Regardless of what the distances are...

 

Your example of the B49 illustrates my point b/c you got the masses piling onto B's & Q's now (including patrons traveling between points X & Y if the distances are shorter), while usage (and apparently, service) on the B49 gradually lessens.... I mean, telling me about the existence of the B49 LTD & the majority of those students coming off other buses doesn't help your case - when you want to talk about getting riders onto rails first.... And it is that very imbalance of (encouragement of) usage of modes that's part of the problem with the MTA now..... I suppose that's what the MTA has to gain too....

 

I don't need you to iterate to me the benefits of rails over buses because I already know the advantages & disadvantages of one over the other.... If you're gonna argue manpower (labor) & operating costs, then apparently you don't want more people onto buses as much as you want more people onto rails.....

We are obviously not communicating so how about just calling it quits if we cant understand each other. In the case of the B49 vs the subway, does balancing of modes mean to you that the trains and buses be just as crowded? If so, that is the case currently. Both are pretty much jammed when classes are changing, so it s balanced. If you mean the buses should carry just as many passengers as the trains do, that is clearly not possible because a train can carry 2,000 passengers whereas a bus carries about 70. And please don't tell me that I know what you mean and am playing dumb and am being dishonest.

 

Yes, I don't want as many people onto buses as trains for certain trips because both modes are possible since the routes parallel each other. But that happens in such a small minority of trips (under 5%?) that it's not even worth discussing. For the remaining 95% of the trips mass transit should be encouraged regardless if it's bus or subway. They both should be encouraged equally.

 

 

Anyways, since this thread is (or at least is titled like it's) about more than two SBS routes, how 'bout that Q43 SBS? I for one will certainly appreciate the sped up ride.

I know nothing about the Q43 SBS. Therefore, I have no opinion on it specifically. Generally I will only say if the bus frequency is high enough to justify an exclusive lane, and other traffic is not severely impacted negatively, and average trip times are not very short, I would be in favor of it.

[B35 via Church]

We are obviously not communicating so how about just calling it quits if we cant understand each other. In the case of the B49 vs the subway, does balancing of modes mean to you that the trains and buses be just as crowded? If so, that is the case currently. Both are pretty much jammed when classes are changing, so it s balanced. If you mean the buses should carry just as many passengers as the trains do, that is clearly not possible because a train can carry 2,000 passengers whereas a bus carries about 70. And please don't tell me that I know what you mean and am playing dumb and am being dishonest.

 

Yes, I don't want as many people onto buses as trains for certain trips because both modes are possible since the routes parallel each other. But that happens in such a small minority of trips (under 5%?) that it's not even worth discussing. For the remaining 95% of the trips mass transit should be encouraged regardless if it's bus or subway. They both should be encouraged equally.

The trains & the buses are gonna be just as crowded either way - That's what you're gonna get with a city that's this transit dependent.... This doesn't mean that a hierarchy should be followed in terms of encouraging mode usage to passengers.... And I am absolutely gonna tell you that you're playing dumb & being dishonest when you blatantly post the notion that I'm possibly implicating that a bus can carry as much passengers as a goddamn train.....

 

Yeah, I suppose it would suit you to want to call it quits after what you've just said in this post...

[BrooklynBus]

The trains & the buses are gonna be just as crowded either way - That's what you're gonna get with a city that's this transit dependent.... This doesn't mean that a hierarchy should be followed in terms of encouraging mode usage to passengers.... And I am absolutely gonna tell you that you're playing dumb & being dishonest when you blatantly post the notion that I'm possibly implicating that a bus can carry as much passengers as a goddamn train.....

 

Yeah, I suppose it would suit you to want to call it quits after what you've just said in this post...

 

Just answer me this.  What does a balanced system mean to you?

[Rockaway Beach Line]

The Rockaway Beach Rail Line MUST be reactivated for the following reasons:

 

1. A train is always preferable to a bus because rail has its own right-of-way. Buses contend with other automobiles, pedestrians, and traffic lights.

 

2. A train is comprised of several cars that can carry many more people at one time than a bus could.

 

3. LIRR service on the ROW would transform the region. How? From Penn Stationand/or Grand Central, it could be 10 minutes to Rego Park, 15 minutes to Woodhaven, 20 minutes to Aqueduct/Ozone Park/Howard Beach, and 35 minutes to Rockaway Beach. Could SBS provide that service? No

 

4. Reactivating the RBRL would most likely increase property values, spur investment, and increase tax revenues.  New jobs in industries such as construction, hospitality, and retail could result.  High paying technology and financial services occupations may also follow suit.  Alternatives such as Select Bus Service along Woodhaven Boulevard would not have these advantages and would only worsen the traffic situation along Woodhaven Boulevard, not improve it.

 

5. The people who argue that rail could always be added later "if necessary" don't realize that a Queensway might be constructed along the ROW or, even worse, some other development could prevent rail service from ever returning. The time to reactivate rail service is NOW!

 

6.. The increase in Queens population since the trestle fire in the early 1950's and since 1962 (700,000 and 438,000 respectively)  No transit improvements have taken place during that period except for Select Bus Service and it does not meet the borough's needs.

 

7. The closer a neighborhood lies in proximity to “the city,” and the more accessible it is by public transportation, the more attractive it is for companies to open satellite offices there.  Brooklyn, Long Island City, and Jersey City have been huge beneficiaries of this development.  New York City’s unemployment rate, as of February 2013, is 9.1 percent.  Nationally, the figure is 7.7%; job creation in this region is desperately needed.

 

 

8. There are no other north-south train lines in Queens. This existing ROW links up with several subways lines and two LIRR lines. How expensive would it be to build a ROW like that from scratch today?

 

http://queenscourier.com/2012/what-is-white-pot-junction-and-why-should-i-care/

 

 

9. The city is looking to invest in Rockaway after Sandy (Article I emailed yesterday) It would be the WORST time to give up on the Rockaway line. Whitestone was coming into its own just as the Whitestone Branch was abandoned. The Kissena Corridor ceased service in 1879, and almost 135 years later, there is still no rail service in neighborhoods throughout northeastern Queens where the ROW had been located. A similar case could be made for the elevated lines in the Bronx and Manhattan that were demolished and never replaced.

 

10. If there is a need for rail service in the future and the RBL ROW is not available, would NY be willing, for example, to pay an extra $10 billion (or more) to build a subway under Woodhaven Blvd. (For inferior service to the LIRR I might add.)

 

11. Conventional wisdom says that the LIRR ceased service on the RBRL due to low ridership.  However, the issue is more complex. After a trestle fire over Jamaica Bay in the early 1950’s, the LIRR, not yet part of the MTA, was having serious financial difficulties and decided to sell the RBRL.  New York City purchased the right-of-way south of Ozone Park and annexed it to the New York City Subway System.  The LIRR continued to operate trains on the Rego Park to Ozone Park ROW until 1962, but the cash strapped agency just wanted out.  A link was never constructed to connect the RBRL to the Queens Blvd. subway lines either before 1962 or during the 1970’s when the Queens Super Bypass was proposed, although one was planned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrooklynIRT]

pretty intense debating going on here. LOL at bob's post #108. yeah, I would be in favor of a Q43 SBS. Q46 SBS also.

[B35 via Church]

Just answer me this.  What does a balanced system mean to you?

A system where rail transportation is encouraged right along with that of surface transportation.... A system where you have buses connect to other buses in a grid-like or mod. grid-like fashion, as well as buses connecting to nearby trains (subway & RR) in that same manner... A system where you have individual rail lines connect to other individual rail lines (at some point along their respective routes), as well as rail stations being placed as to where they can connect to many bus lines as possible along the course of their routes.... A system where said buses make timely connections to trains (and vice versa).... A system where adequate service is provided for the buses, and adequate service is provided for the subway & the RR..... A system where you have a set budget for rail service & a set budget for bus service (NO, I'm NOT saying those dollar amounts are to be equal either)....

[BrooklynBus]

A system where rail transportation is encouraged right along with that of surface transportation.... A system where you have buses connect to other buses in a grid-like or mod. grid-like fashion, as well as buses connecting to nearby trains (subway & RR) in that same manner... A system where you have individual rail lines connect to other individual rail lines (at some point along their respective routes), as well as rail stations being placed as to where they can connect to many bus lines as possible along the course of their routes.... A system where said buses make timely connections to trains (and vice versa).... A system where adequate service is provided for the buses, and adequate service is provided for the subway & the RR..... A system where you have a set budget for rail service & a set budget for bus service (NO, I'm NOT saying those dollar amounts are to be equal either)....

Would you say we have that already or close to it with the following exceptions? We don't have timely connections in most places and only SBS is being promoted. There is virtually no promotion for local bus. Heck, the bus shelters don't even have bus maps on them. I think subway service is pretty adequate but not local bus service in many cases. And of course we have holes in the grid or modified grid system. Don't we have set budgets for rail and bus service?

[bobtehpanda]

 

The Rockaway Beach Rail Line MUST be reactivated for the following reasons:

 

1. A train is always preferable to a bus because rail has its own right-of-way. Buses contend with other automobiles, pedestrians, and traffic lights.

 

2. A train is comprised of several cars that can carry many more people at one time than a bus could.

 

3. LIRR service on the ROW would transform the region. How? From Penn Stationand/or Grand Central, it could be 10 minutes to Rego Park, 15 minutes to Woodhaven, 20 minutes to Aqueduct/Ozone Park/Howard Beach, and 35 minutes to Rockaway Beach. Could SBS provide that service? No

 

4. Reactivating the RBRL would most likely increase property values, spur investment, and increase tax revenues.  New jobs in industries such as construction, hospitality, and retail could result.  High paying technology and financial services occupations may also follow suit.  Alternatives such as Select Bus Service along Woodhaven Boulevard would not have these advantages and would only worsen the traffic situation along Woodhaven Boulevard, not improve it.

 

5. The people who argue that rail could always be added later "if necessary" don't realize that a Queensway might be constructed along the ROW or, even worse, some other development could prevent rail service from ever returning. The time to reactivate rail service is NOW!

 

6.. The increase in Queens population since the trestle fire in the early 1950's and since 1962 (700,000 and 438,000 respectively)  No transit improvements have taken place during that period except for Select Bus Service and it does not meet the borough's needs.

 

7. The closer a neighborhood lies in proximity to “the city,” and the more accessible it is by public transportation, the more attractive it is for companies to open satellite offices there.  Brooklyn, Long Island City, and Jersey City have been huge beneficiaries of this development.  New York City’s unemployment rate, as of February 2013, is 9.1 percent.  Nationally, the figure is 7.7%; job creation in this region is desperately needed.

 

 

8. There are no other north-south train lines in Queens. This existing ROW links up with several subways lines and two LIRR lines. How expensive would it be to build a ROW like that from scratch today?

 

http://queenscourier.com/2012/what-is-white-pot-junction-and-why-should-i-care/

 

 

9. The city is looking to invest in Rockaway after Sandy (Article I emailed yesterday) It would be the WORST time to give up on the Rockaway line. Whitestone was coming into its own just as the Whitestone Branch was abandoned. The Kissena Corridor ceased service in 1879, and almost 135 years later, there is still no rail service in neighborhoods throughout northeastern Queens where the ROW had been located. A similar case could be made for the elevated lines in the Bronx and Manhattan that were demolished and never replaced.

 

10. If there is a need for rail service in the future and the RBL ROW is not available, would NY be willing, for example, to pay an extra $10 billion (or more) to build a subway under Woodhaven Blvd. (For inferior service to the LIRR I might add.)

 

11. Conventional wisdom says that the LIRR ceased service on the RBRL due to low ridership.  However, the issue is more complex. After a trestle fire over Jamaica Bay in the early 1950’s, the LIRR, not yet part of the MTA, was having serious financial difficulties and decided to sell the RBRL.  New York City purchased the right-of-way south of Ozone Park and annexed it to the New York City Subway System.  The LIRR continued to operate trains on the Rego Park to Ozone Park ROW until 1962, but the cash strapped agency just wanted out.  A link was never constructed to connect the RBRL to the Queens Blvd. subway lines either before 1962 or during the 1970’s when the Queens Super Bypass was proposed, although one was planned.

 

1. A bus lane with traffic signal priority, if it is physically separated (which really only requires either a small curb or plastic bollards), can be almost as effective.

 

2. I will address this later.

 

3. Unless you're connecting it to the LIRR again, this is a crock of BS if I ever saw one. The doesn't make that time from the Rego Park area today, so what makes you think it would be any better now?

 

4. The sharp rise in development that you see around new train lines in other cities is not applicable here, because there's so much undeveloped and underdeveloped land near subway stations already.

 

5. Addressed later.

 

6. Most of that has been in central and outer Queens, in areas such as Flushing, Bayside, Queens Village, SE Queens, and Elmhurst. The Woodhaven ROW runs along park for much of its length, which is also the reason why the Queensway is stupid (because there's so much park around the place.)

 

7. Office rezoning would require upzoning, and the people around the ROW don't even want a park in it. Again, there are more promising office hubs rising in Queens, around Flushing and Jamaica (due to easy airport access), and it is doubtful as to whether the borough can sustain any further office growth.

 

8. There's also no train that takes me directly from Nassau to Westchester, but you don't see me barking up that tree.

 

9. Three things.

a. Last I heard, the insurers aren't issuing new policies for Rockaway homes anymore, and the policies that are being issued are extremely prohibitive. Dumping a lot of money into a place that just got wiped out by a Category 1 storm sounds like a bad idea.

b. The Whitestone branch would've been impossible to keep due to the amount of grade crossings.

c. If you look at the Kissena Corridor park, you will realize that the reason it failed after a few years in operation was because it made no goddamn sense at all.

 

10. Addressed later.

 

11. Addressed later.

 

The one thing that pisses me off about any conversation involving the Rockaway Beach ROW is this idea that "it exists, so we might as well use it." This could not be farther from the truth. The ROW will need quite a bit of work, with only some of it listed here below.

 

• Digging of tunnels connecting to the existing QBL stubs, while not disrupting QBL and Main Line service.
• Legal fights involving the squatters currently using the ROW as parking lots and backyards.
• Shoring up the embankment and the bridges - the ROW has old-growth trees in it and dense vegetation, and ripping all of that out will destroy the embankment as it is. Plus, when you have trees growing on bridges, they're probably not structurally sound enough to carry trains anymore.
• Somehow shoehorning stations into the ROW.  In the 1800s, stops were wooden platforms, not very wide, and just had stairs leading to street levels. It is illegal to build stations like this now. Stations would need to, at the very least, have at least 10 feet of platform space (for side platforms), ADA-compliant elevators, stairwells, turnstiles, Metrocard TVMs, a station booth, wiring and lighting work, and Help Point intercoms, all in the footprint of two narrow side platforms and small stairwells.
• Even after all this is done, you need to rebuild the line so that trains can actually run on it. You need to redo the rails, install signals, install third rail, install substations, and somehow find yard space for the extra trains needed for this service.

I've also noticed that no one likes to talk about ridership and funding. Ridership on parallel bus lines is low - the 52/53 only get 16K riders a day, which you could shove into 9 8-car R160 sets and still have room. 16K is barely suitable for a light-rail line, let alone a full-fledged subway line. This is unlikely to increase significantly - most of the area is single-family housing hemmed in by parks and Woodhaven Blvd, which is so dangerous and wide that it forms a significant psychological barrier for any potential riders west of Woodhaven. (Before anyone mentions JFK as a hub, we already have the , the , and the LIRR connecting to AirTrain, and the LIRR+AirTrain combo will still be faster than any sort of local line connection to the Rockaway Branch. If you think that the MTA is going to divert one of the express lines to serve such a low-ridership area, you are out of your mind.) The FTA also funds projects based on cost-effectiveness (cost per rider), and already has an anti-New York bias due to the amount of capital money we've already taken - this is not a project likely to get funding approval. So, to summarize

 

• Ridership on existing bus lines is pitiful.
• The catchment area sucks.
• Because ridership will probably suck due to the points above, the FTA is not going to fund this, since it already is reluctant to fund any more New York projects besides the big-ticket items (SAS, ESA), and the failure of the ARC project.

 

There are already all these problems, and we haven't even discussed NIMBYs yet.

 

The Rockaway proposal is a fantasy that should not be placed above more pressing needs (like the hour+ commutes of those 100K riders transferring from buses to stations east of the Van Wyck).

 

Would you say we have that already or close to it with the following exceptions? We don't have timely connections in most places and only SBS is being promoted. There is virtually no promotion for local bus. Heck, the bus shelters don't even have bus maps on them. I think subway service is pretty adequate but not local bus service in many cases. Don't we have set budgets for rail and bus service?

 

If I remember correctly, maintaining the shelters is actually in CEMUSA's court, and they're doing a pretty bad job of it.

 

Timed connections exist in Eastern Queens in the off-peak, but most bus services run too frequently during the peak for timed transfers to be useful. In addition, traffic in the five boroughs has skyrocketed, so bus service has become more slow and unreliable due to traffic congestion.

[BrooklynBus]

I don't believe placing bus maps on the shelters would be a CEMUSA decision. I doubt that it is stipulated in their contract. The MTA would have to provide the maps and DOT would have to instruct CEMUSA to install them. As I said, most of the City does not ave timed connections and tey could exist at least at major transfer hubs. Perhaps, auto traffic has skyrocketed because buses have become less useful by their routes not keeping up with the land use changes of the past 70 years. A few new short routes running every 30 minutes is far from sufficient. The entire local bus system needs to be reviewed.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The Bx12 is the only SBS route in The Bronx. If you don't live near the Bx12, you don't live near an SBS route.

 

Don't sit there and try to compare an SBS route with an express route. As well-used as those express buses are, the ridership is nowhere near that of the Bx12 SBS.

 

I'm not saying that the rail should automatically be put in the area, or that the ROW should automatically be used. I'm saying that you shouldn't have the attitude of "Oh, just put the SBS down and you can always add the rail line later". Why? Because of the example I showed above. Ridership was too low to support both SBS and rail, but it was too high for the SBS alone to handle it.

 

If it looks like SBS is sufficient, and it doesn't look like there will be any real long-term growth for whatever reason, then go for it and bring the immediate relief.

 

In that example, if you need 15,000 - 20,000 riders for SBS, and 30,000 - 35,000 for rail, that means you need at least 45,000 riders to support both. What do you do if you have 30,000 riders, but you already put down the SBS? Wait for ridership to grow by another 15,000 people? Then you're doing the same thing, only further into the future, when costs are higher and the population will likely be higher.

I don't see where in that post I said anything about express buses or the Bx12SBS...

 

As for your attitude on the ROW it seems like you're changing course talking about how long ago the rail line was in existence and how the population should've grown... Just because X amount of years have passed does not mean that rail service is suddenly needed.  All they have to do is have an independent study done and call it a day.  Most of the lines that have SBS service already had limited stop service, and since the routes receive federal funding, I don't see the big deal.  That's like holding back SBS service on the M15 when it already has limited stop service and could benefit IMMEDIATELY from SBS service.  You act like if SBS service is created and then suddenly rail service is needed, everyone is going to shift to rail service.  My point is BOTH services CAN and DOES co-exist together.  Now Lexington Av doesn't have SBS per se, but it still has limited stop service and co-exists just fine with the Lexington Avenue line.  

 

It comes down to what the commuter NEEDS and what works best for the commuter.  Rail service does NOT suit everyone's needs and I wish you and BrooklynBus would get that through your heads and stop yacking about the damn costs as if they'd have empty buses running around. The has been extremely responsible with bus service (in fact downright stingy over the last few years), so I don't want to hear this BS about costs because it's over exaggerated just to suit your agenda that rail service carries more people and therefore we must force people onto the rails.  Screw that.  I would be one of those out there fighting tooth and nail to maintain bus service because dammit it's about what we the riding public need. Our taxes fund most of these services and we should not let some agency dictate what works best for us and our commutes!

[B35 via Church]

pretty intense debating going on here.....

I try my best... Lol.....

 

Would you say we have that already or close to it with the following exceptions? We don't have timely connections in most places and only SBS is being promoted. There is virtually no promotion for local bus. Heck, the bus shelters don't even have bus maps on them. I think subway service is pretty adequate but not local bus service in many cases. And of course we have holes in the grid or modified grid system. Don't we have set budgets for rail and bus service?

I wasn't trying to be contrasting (with the MTA) with my answer... I was answering your question.

 

But anyway.... We certainly don't have timely connections in most places (I'd say timely bus connections w/ the LIRR is horrid; I'd go as far as to say it's non-existent).... Yeah, the rails & SBS are being forced down riders' throats, while local bus service & express bus service is severely underpromoted....

 

While I'm for the rails, I'm against SBS - Outside of them being glorified LTD's, I truly do think that it's a way for the MTA to pick off local bus service & having leftover surface transit resemble rails (which is why I have a problem with mister so & so {QJT} having a fixation for having local buses run on highways) - to the point where you're gonna have more (of today's local bus) riders walking further distances just to get to a stop.... Just got through talking to TM5 about this very thing.....

 

I'll also agree that subway service is adequate for the most part; don't even have to mention the inadequacies of our locals & expresses....

 

As far as budgets, I don't know what so-called budgets the MTA has; Hell - they can't even get their own finances straight! It goes back to what you said earlier (in one of these more recent threads, if not this thread) about doing whatever the hell they want....

 

So all-in-all, our system is definitely imbalanced....

[bobtehpanda]

I don't believe placing bus maps on the shelters would be a CEMUSA decision. I doubt that it is stipulated in their contract. The MTA would have to provide the maps and DOT would have to instruct CEMUSA to install them. As I said, most of the City does not ave timed connections and tey could exist at least at major transfer hubs. Perhaps, auto traffic has skyrocketed because buses have become less useful by their routes not keeping up with the land use changes of the past 70 years. A few new short routes running every 30 minutes is far from sufficient. The entire local bus system needs to be reviewed.

 

I have a hard time believing it's a distribution issue on the MTA's parts, since the Guide-a-Ride maps and schedules are same as the ones on the CEMUSA shelters, and those are updated pretty frequently.

 

It's more an issue of the recent population growth and narrow roads, especially in and around the major transit hubs.

[qjtransitmaster]

I try my best... Lol.....

 

 

I wasn't trying to be contrasting (with the MTA) with my answer... I was answering your question.

 

But anyway.... We certainly don't have timely connections in most places (I'd say timely bus connections w/ the LIRR is horrid; I'd go as far as to say it's non-existent).... Yeah, the rails & SBS are being forced down riders' throats, while local bus service & express bus service is severely underpromoted....

 

While I'm for the rails, I'm against SBS - Outside of them being glorified LTD's, I truly do think that it's a way for the MTA to pick off local bus service & having leftover surface transit resemble rails (which is why I have a problem with mister so & so {QJT} having a fixation for having local buses run on highways) - to the point where you're gonna have more (of today's local bus) riders walking further distances just to get to a stop.... Just got through talking to TM5 about this very thing.....

 

I'll also agree that subway service is adequate for the most part; don't even have to mention the inadequacies of our locals & expresses....

 

As far as budgets, I don't know what so-called budgets the MTA has; Hell - they can't even get their own finances straight! It goes back to what you said earlier (in one of these more recent threads, if not this thread) about doing whatever the hell they want....

 

So all-in-all, our system is definitely imbalanced....

To be honest that isn't my intention my intention to to make transit through trips faster to the point it becomes feasible to use which means less cars and less cars means local buses become more reliable and more people use locals to link to these rapid lines if timed right bus ridership would increase. I don't advocate for bastardizing lines and only lines shorter than 20 mins in length can be point to point via extension I do prefer to keep this to a minimum and just make a new line altogether. The way they are designed they aren't meant to be done individually as you will soon find out. Sometimes consolidating express lines in a few cases is all you can do. But I admit some of them is low priority inm proposal due to the subway and other bus lines which was why my Q57 idea was able to get debunked I admit it was incomplete and not detailed. I understand and respect your stance and look foward to debating you again very soon.

[checkmatechamp13]

Ridership on existing bus lines is pitiful.

 

I wouldn't exactly call 16,000 riders a day "pitiful". That's more than every single bus line on Staten Island (plus the SIR). Ridership on the HBLR is only around 44,000 for the whole system, so for the individual lines, it's probably not much higher (probably something like 18,000 each for the 2 main lines, and 8,000 for the Hoboken-North Bergen shuttle). It's not B46-level or M15-level ridership, but it's far from pitiful. (And that's not even factoring in additional ridership that results from improved service)

 

Plus, there's also the local ridership to factor in, though of course, you're going to have to run local buses either way.

 

I don't see where in that post I said anything about express buses or the Bx12SBS...

 

As for your attitude on the ROW it seems like you're changing course talking about how long ago the rail line was in existence and how the population should've grown... Just because X amount of years have passed does not mean that rail service is suddenly needed.  All they have to do is have an independent study done and call it a day.  Most of the lines that have SBS service already had limited stop service, and since the routes receive federal funding, I don't see the big deal.  That's like holding back SBS service on the M15 when it already has limited stop service and could benefit IMMEDIATELY from SBS service.  You act like if SBS service is created and then suddenly rail service is needed, everyone is going to shift to rail service.  My point is BOTH services CAN and DOES co-exist together.  Now Lexington Av doesn't have SBS per se, but it still has limited stop service and co-exists just fine with the Lexington Avenue line.  

 

It comes down to what the commuter NEEDS and what works best for the commuter.  Rail service does NOT suit everyone's needs and I wish you and BrooklynBus would get that through your heads and stop yacking about the damn costs as if they'd have empty buses running around. The has been extremely responsible with bus service (in fact downright stingy over the last few years), so I don't want to hear this BS about costs because it's over exaggerated just to suit your agenda that rail service carries more people and therefore we must force people onto the rails.  Screw that.  I would be one of those out there fighting tooth and nail to maintain bus service because dammit it's about what we the riding public need. Our taxes fund most of these services and we should not let some agency dictate what works best for us and our commutes!

 

You said "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."

 

We're talking about SBS service vs. rail service. We're not talking about express service vs. rail service, or regular local bus service vs. rail service. Unless your community has both SBS service and rail service, it's not a valid comparison.

 

I'm not changing course on anything. I'm saying that the pros and cons have to be weighed. We shouldn't automatically go for the option that uses the ROW because the ROW is in a more inconvenient location than Woodhaven (not to mention that there's advantages to having the locals and limiteds on the same street, because they back each other up). At the same time, we shouldn't just have the attitude of "Oh, let's just add SBS service now and worry about rail service later", because the MTA may not give us that chance.

 

I didn't say anything about "rail service is suddenly needed". I said that we shouldn't just automatically think "Oh, well since the ridership was low when it was closed, it's going to be low now". Maybe it will, and maybe it won't, but we can't automatically assume that it will.

 

The Lexington Avenue is irrelevant to Woodhaven Blvd. You're talking about the busiest line in the country, in a super-dense corridor, and comparing it to a little line that would mostly serve residential areas in the outer boroughs? C'mon, now.

 

Yes, here we go again with this ridiculous oversimplification of my point. Where's the damn facepalm when you need one? You act like everything everybody said is to support some ridiculous "agenda". "Oh, you support farebeating", "Oh, you're biased against affluent people", "Oh, you're biased against suburban areas", "Oh, you're biased against buses and want to pack everybody onto the rails".

 

If I were so "biased" against buses and wanted to pack everybody onto the trains, I'd be asking for every single line that parallels a rail line to get cut. Say good-bye to the M10, B25, B63, and any bus line that remotely parallels a train line. Do you see me doing that? No, in fact when the MTA had those meetings about the North Shore Rail Line, I was one of the people who pointed out how ridiculous it was that they were leaving the entire northern portion of Mariners' Harbor without any sort of bus service at all (they'd just have the train line, and the stops would be spaced far apart, so some residents might not even have that). If I'm so anti-bus, why would I do such a thing? They wanted to spend a ton of money giving rail to the Teleport. If I'm so pro-rail, why would I be saying specifically that they shouldn't bother sending any rail to the Teleport?

 

Stop with this ridiculous nonsense of grouping people into these ridiculous categories of pro-urban, and pro-rail and all of that. Some people have different positions on different issues, but just because somebody supports a couple of rail line projects, rather than SBS in those corridors doesn't mean that they're out to cram everybody onto the subways. Different modes work better for different areas. In some cases, it's rail, in some cases it's buses, and in some cases, it's something else (for instance, Breezy Point with their little blue Goose shuttle or whatever). Just because SBS solves most of the problems in one neighborhood doesn't mean it'll do the same in another, and just because one neighborhood can support both SBS service and rail service doesn't mean another can. In some areas, you can put down the SBS service and be guaranteed that there will be enough ridership to support the rail service. In other cases, you can't.

[Vistausss]

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 / .

 

Seriously dude, how old are you? Because I'm starting to think that you were that crazy guy who drew the IND Second System back in the days lol.

[bobtehpanda]

I try my best... Lol.....

 

I wasn't trying to be contrasting (with the MTA) with my answer... I was answering your question.

 

But anyway.... We certainly don't have timely connections in most places (I'd say timely bus connections w/ the LIRR is horrid; I'd go as far as to say it's non-existent).... Yeah, the rails & SBS are being forced down riders' throats, while local bus service & express bus service is severely underpromoted....

 

While I'm for the rails, I'm against SBS - Outside of them being glorified LTD's, I truly do think that it's a way for the MTA to pick off local bus service & having leftover surface transit resemble rails (which is why I have a problem with mister so & so {QJT} having a fixation for having local buses run on highways) - to the point where you're gonna have more (of today's local bus) riders walking further distances just to get to a stop.... Just got through talking to TM5 about this very thing.....

 

I'll also agree that subway service is adequate for the most part; don't even have to mention the inadequacies of our locals & expresses....

 

As far as budgets, I don't know what so-called budgets the MTA has; Hell - they can't even get their own finances straight! It goes back to what you said earlier (in one of these more recent threads, if not this thread) about doing whatever the hell they want....

 

So all-in-all, our system is definitely imbalanced....

 

You could view SBS like this, but there is another precedent that is similar: Vancouver's B-Lines.

 

The B-Lines are very similar to the SBS routes here - some bus lanes, traffic signal priority, prepayment, and wrapped buses. (They have two features that we don't have: automated stop announcements and countdown clocks for buses, but that's irrelevant.) So far, there have been three operating B-Lines: the 97, 98, and 99.

 

The 97 connects Coquitlam to Lougheed. The Evergreen Line is currently being constructed to replace it.

 

The 98 connected Richmond to Downtown Vancouver. It was replaced by the Canada Line in 2009.

 

The 99 connects UBC and the Commercial-Broadway station of the Millenium line, and is North America's busiest bus route. There are various proposals being studied to bring rail to the corridor, using either LRT, SkyTrain, or a combination of the two.

 

What happened is that once the B-Lines were established, they put lines on the map. Now, we can say for a fact that politicians these days, with few exceptions, are not visionary. We will never have another Mayor Hylan steamrolling subway lines through the city, or a LaGuardia who finally melds the system together. These days, politicians only band around something big and shiny, and have zero creativity. The B-Lines created something for constituents and politicians to say, "This is good, but it could be better." Vancouver took the next logical step by improving the lines, which is even more shocking considering that in Canada, the feds pony up little to no money for local projects - the Canada Line was named such because the federal government decided to be gracious and fund 25% of costs, so 75% came from local and provincial sources of funding.

 

Granted, the political and transit culture in Vancouver is a lot more progressive, the unions are more inclined to help improve worker productivity, and they are much better at keeping construction costs low. However, the important takeaway is this - SBS gives citizens and politicians an idea of what to fight for. It puts lines on the map, and people start to think, "but what if this was more than a bus?" We focus a lot on the nuts and bolts of things here, but it is wise not to underestimate the power of ideas.

 

I'd also like to say that, if done right, there's nothing wrong with wider stop spacing on buses - especially in Manhattan, local buses stop extremely frequently. Limited stop spacing stops every 10 blocks or so out in the outer boroughs, which isn't an especially harsh distance to walk, but I've seen bus stops every block or two, which slows down service immensely for the benefit of relatively few. The Manhattan "limiteds" aren't really that much better either - they stop every four blocks, which is more than walkable for the great majority of people. There's a point when having more stops is going to make service, worse, not better, and the MTA has reached that limit with some of its lines.

[bobtehpanda]

I wouldn't exactly call 16,000 riders a day "pitiful". That's more than every single bus line on Staten Island (plus the SIR). Ridership on the HBLR is only around 44,000 for the whole system, so for the individual lines, it's probably not much higher (probably something like 18,000 each for the 2 main lines, and 8,000 for the Hoboken-North Bergen shuttle). It's not B46-level or M15-level ridership, but it's far from pitiful. (And that's not even factoring in additional ridership that results from improved service)

 

It's not pitiful for a bus, but assuming we're sending a Queens Blvd local train down the ROW, that's a lot of capacity mismatch (16k vs ~2k per 8-car R160 train). The catchment area also sucks, and the Rockaways isn't a particularly high-ridership area, so it doesn't seem like there's much scope for improvement. (It would certainly be a boon for the malls in Rego Park, however.)

 

SIR never runs any better than 15 minute frequencies, and shares similar problems with the Woodhaven ROW (poor pedestrian connectivity, far from the actual residential/corridor on Hylan).