Future SBS Routes

[BrooklynBus]

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.

 

The strip maps are definitely a CEMUSA issue.  I've often criticized DOT and CEMUSA for not posting strip maps on the shelters where they could easily be read at night.  Would be far superior to having them on the poles. When I was talking about "maps" I was referring to borough maps.  Why can't they be posted on the back wall of the shelters like they do in Chicago where they post a city map showing subways and rails also.  We can at least show borough bus maps.  It's nice to have them inside the buses, but it would be nice to have them on the shelters also, to better help you plan your trip and become more familiar with the system.

[B35 via Church]

....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.

There is most certainly something wrong with increased stop spacing on bus routes systemwide....  Say what you will, but I'd rather have local bus service with stops 2,3,4 blocks apart (and a LTD to correspond it, for the routes w/ high enough usage), than have SBS's have stops 1/2 mile apart or whatever w/ no local counterpart....

 

Hell, they're using SBS to antiquate LTD service, and I still honestly believe that they're gonna use it to eradicate local service also...

 

LTD's being "better" than SBS isn't the point; the point is SBS isn't that much different from LTD's.....

And who's advocating for more stops exactly.... that's something else that's besides the point....

 

Don't bother trying to get me to have a different POV of SBS' than the one I already have....

 

 

 

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. 

....right, by having more local buses use highways....

 

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.

Not that that post was directed at you anyway, but I'll still respond....

 

Your intent may not to be to bastardize lines, but a good portion of your ideas presented on this forum are suggestive of, quite frankly, f***ing up bus lines..... You have been giving us that line for months now; I don't want to hear about "as you will soon find out" - If you have these jaw-dropping, awe-inspiring ideas, then just post them already... Like anyone else on here does with their ideas.... This is why I believe you're full of it....

 

Lol, you look forward to debating me again - didn't know I was debating you in this thread to begin with....

As far as prior exchanges.... heh, there's no fun or nothing to be learned from you on my end if they're gonna keep being so one-sided in my favor.... You been on this forum long enough to have learned to hell of a lot more than what you display on here.... Step it up for christ's sake !

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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 know what we're talking about and I used my neighborhood as an example because there are very no comparisons since there are no communities that have both SBS service and rail service outside of some areas of Manhattan.

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said the other, outside of Manhattan there are no other places in the city really that have both SBS AND rail service together so that's why that comparison was made.  It goes to show how unique the situation is to begin with.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You were lumped into these things due to your comments on those issue so let's cut this proclaiming innocence rant.  You have said in the past that you support rail service over buses because trains can carry more people, so you are indeed pro-rail.  You don't have to agree with every single rail project to be pro-rail and the other topics I'm not even discussing because they have nothing to do with the topic at hand and I'm not rehashing them again.

[qjtransitmaster]

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.

Err dude not gonna lie those were fantasy.

[checkmatechamp13]

I know what we're talking about and I used my neighborhood as an example because there are very no comparisons since there are no communities that have both SBS service and rail service outside of some areas of Manhattan.

 

Like I said the other, outside of Manhattan there are no other places in the city really that have both SBS AND rail service together so that's why that comparison was made.  It goes to show how unique the situation is to begin with.

 

Well, if there's no comparison, then there's no comparison. That's it, there's no place in the city of a comparable density where an SBS route and subway line parallel each other, and both get good ridership. So you can't automatically assume "Oh, just add SBS service now, and add rail service later if necessary", especially when you're dealing with an agency like the MTA.

 

You were lumped into these things due to your comments on those issue so let's cut this proclaiming innocence rant.  You have said in the past that you support rail service over buses because trains can carry more people, so you are indeed pro-rail.  You don't have to agree with every single rail project to be pro-rail and the other topics I'm not even discussing because they have nothing to do with the topic at hand and I'm not rehashing them again.

 

Nope, you lumped me into those categories because of your interpretation of my comments on those issues. You take my words and twist them around so that my position ends up turning into whatever position you want it to. And then you take that convoluted interpretation and apply it to everything I say from that point on. "Oh, look, he wants that route extended. See, I told you he's obsessed with creating super-routes". "Oh, look, he wants rail service rather than SBS service. He must be on a mission to pack everybody onto the subway". "Oh, look, I (meaning you) want a bus taken away from a minority neighborhood. Since he wants it saved, he must want to take from the affluent suburban areas to give to the poor urban areas". (Even though my neighborhood is more suburban than 90% of those in the city). It can't possibly be just because he thinks it's a bad idea regardless of who lives there.

 

I'm not the only one you do this with either. You do this with a lot of people whenever you're backed into a corner. Remember that whole X17 extension argument? Because B35 thought the extension was a bad idea, he must have some sort of "double standard" for suburban areas, when he's advocated for a bunch of service improvements for suburban areas both inside and outside the city (hell, he takes express buses as part of a regular commute). So don't sit there and say that people say these things that cause them to be grouped into those categories, because that's an outright lie.

 

As far as being pro-rail, you act like I want to put rail lines all over the city. You've even made comments in the past about "Oh, you want subways all over Staten Island", and "Oh, you want light rail to areas like Gerritsen Beach". Whether you've convinced yourself of those things, or whether you're intentionally pulling crap out of your ass, those accusations are flat-out ridiculous.

 

In any case, if I were to fit this ridiculous category of pro-rail, then I would indeed want to take every single opportunity possible to force people onto rail lines. That's what I'm talking about with oversimplification, and unless somebody falls on the extreme end of the spectrum, you can't label them as pro- or anti-anything.

 

As for rail service, yes, rail has a higher capacity than buses. But I only support rail in instances where that capacity is needed. In some cases, you don't need the full capacity of rail, and so a bus is fine. NYC is a dense area, and so a lot of these corridors are going to require rail service eventually. That doesn't mean I want rail service running down every single major corridor. And for the corridors that do need rail service, that doesn't mean that they can't have improved bus service (SBS service or whatever) in the meantime, but you can't automatically go in with the attitude of "Oh, just give them SBS service, and worry about rail later". In some cases, like Second Avenue, there's plenty of ridership to go around, so you know that you can create the M15 SBS to provide some sort of short-term relief. In other cases, like Woodhaven Blvd, that might not be the case.

 

Re-read those last few sentences to make sure you're absolutely clear.

 

You're sitting here with the attitude of "Rail service does NOT suit everyone's needs and I wish you and BrooklynBus would get that through your heads". So that implies that you think that we're saying that rail service does suit everybody's needs, because we're supposedly these big pro-rail people. So then it comes back to my North Shore argument. If I were so pro-rail, why would I make the comments that I did? After all, I must be thinking that rail suits everybody's needs, right?

 

Aside from that, neither of us were saying "Oh, we must put rail in that area". I was talking about how Woodhaven is better situated than the ROW, and BrooklynBus said a busway along the ROW might be better than rail.

 

If I were so pro-rail (which apparently implies anti-bus, which is another reason I don't like those terms), why would I be telling QJT that buses in Manhattan are used for shorter trips, where it often works better than the subway? After all, a pro-rail person like me must try to encourage rail usage at all costs, right?

 

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).

 

For starters, there's generally going to be increased ridership whenever you make any sort of improvement. SBS often increases ridership by about 20%, so that'll bring you up to around 20,000 or so. There's generally a modal attraction towards rail over buses (because there is a stigma against buses, and rail generally is more comfortable than buses), and if you connected it directly to Manhattan, ridership would increase further.

 

In any case, if it makes much of a difference, I was just thinking a 4-car shuttle to Woodhaven Blvd. I don't like the idea of diverting the or out towards the Rockaways, because it would make it way too long. The might work, as far as connecting to an express train, and that's 4 cars anyway (it still looks a little roundabout, but I guess so does the current . It probably shouldn't go south of Howard Beach, though). In any case, you're probably talking a good 25,000 riders, divided over 4-car trains, which means you'll fill around 25 trains. But you have to consider that those trains don't necessarily have to be full. (I mean, 2,000 is the max capacity on an 8-car train, and most trains don't reach max capacity until they're close to Manhattan). I mean, the in Brooklyn usually doesn't have too many standees under normal circumstances. You have the riders transferring to the express lines, plus the other lines at Atlantic.

 

So if the standard is a seated load, then you could fill around 75 trains or so each day. If the standard is less than that, then you can obviously fill more. And if you have increased development, then ridership will likely increase further, making it easier to fill the trains. But I guess doing the math, it doesn't look like the frequencies would be particularly high. (They'd probably be comparable to the branches right now, which admittedly, isn't too great)

 

With the SIR, it's far from the main commercial area, but believe it or not, it's actually smack-dab in the middle of the residential area. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of actual commercial areas (other than just a few stores by the station, which can be found at most stations) in the immediate area, aside from Eltingville, New Dorp, and Tompkinsville, and then the lower-density housing contributes to the lower ridership.

[Vistausss]

@Via Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Harlem also has rail service (MNRR), subway service (IRT) and SBS (M15)? And that is within the city so there is a comparison...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

@Via Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Harlem also has rail service (MNRR), subway service (IRT) and SBS (M15)? And that is within the city so there is a comparison...

Yeah I said outside of Manhattan... 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, if there's no comparison, then there's no comparison. That's it, there's no place in the city of a comparable density where an SBS route and subway line parallel each other, and both get good ridership. So you can't automatically assume "Oh, just add SBS service now, and add rail service later if necessary", especially when you're dealing with an agency like the MTA.

 

 

Nope, you lumped me into those categories because of your interpretation of my comments on those issues. You take my words and twist them around so that my position ends up turning into whatever position you want it to. And then you take that convoluted interpretation and apply it to everything I say from that point on. "Oh, look, he wants that route extended. See, I told you he's obsessed with creating super-routes". "Oh, look, he wants rail service rather than SBS service. He must be on a mission to pack everybody onto the subway". "Oh, look, I (meaning you) want a bus taken away from a minority neighborhood. Since he wants it saved, he must want to take from the affluent suburban areas to give to the poor urban areas". (Even though my neighborhood is more suburban than 90% of those in the city). It can't possibly be just because he thinks it's a bad idea regardless of who lives there.

 

I'm not the only one you do this with either. You do this with a lot of people whenever you're backed into a corner. Remember that whole X17 extension argument? Because B35 thought the extension was a bad idea, he must have some sort of "double standard" for suburban areas, when he's advocated for a bunch of service improvements for suburban areas both inside and outside the city (hell, he takes express buses as part of a regular commute). So don't sit there and say that people say these things that cause them to be grouped into those categories, because that's an outright lie.

 

As far as being pro-rail, you act like I want to put rail lines all over the city. You've even made comments in the past about "Oh, you want subways all over Staten Island", and "Oh, you want light rail to areas like Gerritsen Beach". Whether you've convinced yourself of those things, or whether you're intentionally pulling crap out of your ass, those accusations are flat-out ridiculous.

 

In any case, if I were to fit this ridiculous category of pro-rail, then I would indeed want to take every single opportunity possible to force people onto rail lines. That's what I'm talking about with oversimplification, and unless somebody falls on the extreme end of the spectrum, you can't label them as pro- or anti-anything.

 

As for rail service, yes, rail has a higher capacity than buses. But I only support rail in instances where that capacity is needed. In some cases, you don't need the full capacity of rail, and so a bus is fine. NYC is a dense area, and so a lot of these corridors are going to require rail service eventually. That doesn't mean I want rail service running down every single major corridor. And for the corridors that do need rail service, that doesn't mean that they can't have improved bus service (SBS service or whatever) in the meantime, but you can't automatically go in with the attitude of "Oh, just give them SBS service, and worry about rail later". In some cases, like Second Avenue, there's plenty of ridership to go around, so you know that you can create the M15 SBS to provide some sort of short-term relief. In other cases, like Woodhaven Blvd, that might not be the case.

 

Re-read those last few sentences to make sure you're absolutely clear.

 

You're sitting here with the attitude of "Rail service does NOT suit everyone's needs and I wish you and BrooklynBus would get that through your heads". So that implies that you think that we're saying that rail service does suit everybody's needs, because we're supposedly these big pro-rail people. So then it comes back to my North Shore argument. If I were so pro-rail, why would I make the comments that I did? After all, I must be thinking that rail suits everybody's needs, right?

 

Aside from that, neither of us were saying "Oh, we must put rail in that area". I was talking about how Woodhaven is better situated than the ROW, and BrooklynBus said a busway along the ROW might be better than rail.

 

If I were so pro-rail (which apparently implies anti-bus, which is another reason I don't like those terms), why would I be telling QJT that buses in Manhattan are used for shorter trips, where it often works better than the subway? After all, a pro-rail person like me must try to encourage rail usage at all costs, right?

lol.... As I stated before you don't need to be support anything overwhelmingly to have a pro-stance on it, just like you don't have to be against everything have an anti-stance on something.  You stated that you support rail service over buses because they carry more people.  There is no need to "interpret" that because there's no interpretation needed.  Your stance is pretty clear.  You're not a QJ with his ridiculous, irrational ideas regarding bus service but you must be kidding if you don't think that you're pro-rail when you said that you support rail service over bus service.  That was a general statement made by you, which means that you're pro-rail.  Maybe not in all cases, but generally speaking that statement applies, so I don't see what you're going on and on about.  The shoe fits, so wear it.  A lot of folks are pro-rail.  I'm pro-bus and pro-rail but prefer buses generally speaking and I have no problem admitting that. That stance varies depending on the situation and what type of rail service.  I think both can co-exist together.

 

As for my comparison, I made a comparison that I felt was closest to the ones being discussed at hand because that's what I felt like doing, period.

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't see how you can compare local (unlimited) buses with local subways and limited buses with express subways. There is no comparison.

 

He's saying local/limited buses are analogous to local/express subways.

 

lol.... As I stated before you don't need to be support anything overwhelmingly to have a pro-stance on it, just like you don't have to be against everything have an anti-stance on something.  You stated that you support rail service over buses because they carry more people.  There is no need to "interpret" that because there's no interpretation needed.  Your stance is pretty clear.  You're not a QJ with his ridiculous, irrational ideas regarding bus service but you must be kidding if you don't think that you're pro-rail when you said that you support rail service over bus service.  That was a general statement made by you, which means that you're pro-rail.  Maybe not in all cases, but generally speaking that statement applies, so I don't see what you're going on and on about.  The shoe fits, so wear it.  A lot of folks are pro-rail.  I'm pro-bus and pro-rail but prefer buses generally speaking and I have no problem admitting that. That stance varies depending on the situation and what type of rail service.  I think both can co-exist together.

 

As for my comparison, I made a comparison that I felt was closest to the ones being discussed at hand because that's what I felt like doing, period.

 

For starters, that "interpretation" part applies to every stance (besides just rail vs. bus), and more members than just myself. Saying that you don't like to lump people into these categories would be a flat-out lie.

 

So let me get this straight. You're the only person who can be both pro-rail and pro-bus? (Boy, I really hate those terms) It's impossible for anybody else to advocate for both bus improvements and rail improvements? Well, I guess all these years of making proposals to improve different bus routes have been meaningless, then.

 

And you still said "You need to get it through your heads that rail doesn't always work". Well, aside from the fact that we weren't even necessarily advocating for rail in this particular instance, that still implies that we do think rail always works 100% of the time, which means that it would have to be more than just a "general statement". If you were just using it as a general statement, there would be no need for any comment like that whatsoever, because there would be nothing to get through our heads.

 

You talk about "I think both can co-exist together" like that's some sort of big eppiphany or something. Yes, the B25, Q56, Bx4, Q60, Bx1/2, and a bunch of Manhattan routes (plus some more I didn't feel like mentioning) weren't enough evidence of that.

 

I support rail as a long-term solution in select cases where it's needed. That doesn't mean I support rail service in every corner of the city, like you seemed to think with those Staten Island and Gerritsen Beach comments. For instance, I'd support a line down Hillside Avenue in Queens, and I'd support a line down Utica Avenue in Brooklyn. But that doesn't mean that I don't support bus improvements in the meantime (for starters, off-peak limited service on Hillside and better overnight headways on Utica, and probably some form of SBS on both), and that doesn't mean that as soon as that subway line was completed, I'd be looking to cut bus service left and right.

 

As for the comment, yeah, it was obvious that you thought it was the closest comparison (I mean, nobody's going to reach for the least relevant comparison, are they?), but it was still pretty far away. The East Side of Manhattan is an entirely different animal from Woodhaven Blvd. Period.

[LTA1992]

 

LA has more traffic than NYC and a better freeway network than NY which has a shitastic highway network. I understand the rockaway line would be much better than this so I somewhat agree but traffic won't get that much worse however if what you say is true this will negatively affect reliability on routes like the Q29 and Q10 as motorists would cram those roads right?

I do believe some Q11s should take BM5's route into brooklyn. and transfer south howard beach segment to Q112.

Hmm let's start with Q94 super LTD first and see how that works out have it serve jamacia then kew gardens express skips flushing then serves 

It's not that NYCs highways are shit,, it's just that it's network is of the first generation. Back when the Interstate System was first created. The further West you go, the newer and more "better" the highways. Where cloverleafs are replaced by complex junctions with no mixing of On/Off ramp traffic. But, due to the fact that Public Transport isn't as big over there as it is here, traffic is a tremendous problem and not even 10 lane highways help.