Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
BrooklynBus

The Need for Off-Street Bus Terminals

Recommended Posts

Great article!

 

Though I do believe Kings Plaza's terminal is sufficient enough at the moment.  As per your photo, I think the Junction would require a slight bigger one, but I'm only viewing that from a rush-hour; heading north assumption.

 

I'm all up for these bus terminals and I think it is viable in downtown Brooklyn.  The traffic there is horrible but also I don't think it's all on the buses unloading and loading in tight streets though.  If I recall that area has a lot of traffic from the road constructions that never seem to finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off street bus terminals....

 

I have long stated & still believe that a lot of that parkland around Cadman plaza (south of tillary) should be wiped out & turned into a major bus terminal for every route that terminates in downtown brooklyn.... none of this B26/38/52/41/103's having a separate terminal from B61's/65's, having a separate terminal from B45's, having a separate terminal from B62's.....  I was never fond of the way all those bus/routes line up along Cadman plaza west anyway.....

 

Cadman plaza east, south of tillary & johnson west of adams both shouldn't even exist.....

 

Speaking of not holding my breath, I won't do that for either of what I've mentioned above to happen either......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off street bus terminals....

 

I have long stated & still believe that a lot of that parkland around Cadman plaza (south of tillary) should be wiped out & turned into a major bus terminal for every route that terminates in downtown brooklyn.... none of this B26/38/52/41/103's having a separate terminal from B61's/65's, having a separate terminal from B45's, having a separate terminal from B62's.....  I was never fond of the way all those bus/routes line up along Cadman plaza west anyway.....

 

Cadman plaza east, south of tillary & johnson west of adams both shouldn't even exist.....

 

Speaking of not holding my breath, I won't do that for either of what I've mentioned above to happen either......

dude most people throughout the day are off those bus lines long before they get to Camden plaza except peak direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude most people throughout the day are off those bus lines long before they get to Camden plaza except peak direction.

Well no shit.... What was the point of even mentioning that....

 

The topic is involving "off street bus terminals", not what riders get off where before a particular point....

If that's the case, a lot of NYC's bus routes wouldn't have end terminals where they currently do....

 

The fact of the matter would be, it'd be an off street bus terminal in Downtown Brooklyn.

 

If you're not gonna use critical thinking skills, don't bother responding to my posts dude.... Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no shit.... What was the point of even mentioning that....

 

The topic is involving "off street bus terminals", not what riders get off where before a particular point....

If that's the case, a lot of NYC's bus routes wouldn't have end terminals where they currently do....

 

The fact of the matter would be, it'd be an off street bus terminal in Downtown Brooklyn.

 

If you're not gonna use critical thinking skills, don't bother responding to my posts dude.... Seriously.

okay I thought there already was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off street bus terminals....

 

I have long stated & still believe that a lot of that parkland around Cadman plaza (south of tillary) should be wiped out & turned into a major bus terminal for every route that terminates in downtown brooklyn.... none of this B26/38/52/41/103's having a separate terminal from B61's/65's, having a separate terminal from B45's, having a separate terminal from B62's.....  I was never fond of the way all those bus/routes line up along Cadman plaza west anyway.....

 

Cadman plaza east, south of tillary & johnson west of adams both shouldn't even exist.....

 

Speaking of not holding my breath, I won't do that for either of what I've mentioned above to happen either......

I would agree with you about Cadman Plaza, but I think Atlantic Terminal woud have been a better choice, but I'm not sure if there is enough empty land there now left, since we must fill every vacant lot with high rises. Unlike Seattle where half of downtown is parking lots and there is very little road congestion there even during rush hour. I just don't like the idea of splitting all those routes on Livingston and Fulton. Makes for a very complicated route system and as you pointed out each route has a separate terminus at Cadman Plaza. Without any buses on Livingston or Fulton, you could justify a multi-car light rail on the Fulton Mall at about 2 minute headways throughout the day. It would be so much simpler. And you wouldn't even have to charge fares (because most everyone would pay anyway at Atlantic Terminal) greatly speeding service). With a weather protected transfer and no fare penalty, I don't think anyone would even mind the extra transfer, since the light rail service would be virtually continuous. It woud also make it very easy to travel between stores on Fulton. It would also require much less labor if the east west bus routes were all truncated to Atlantic terminal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're correct on some points, but incorrect on others.

 

The merchants and neighborhoods' associaition was right - current MTA bus terminals as they are designed (open air bays with adjacent pedestrian islands and bus shelters) are "dead zones" on a neighborhood that blight what could otherwise be productive commercial and residential space, and suck in pedestrian activity from otherwise prosperous sections of a neighborhood. Since the blood and bones of retail is foot traffic, MTA bus terminals, as currently configured, detract from the neighborhood's vitality (165th St is a huge example of this, and Williamsburg Bridge Plaza didn't look that nice either.) An off-street bus terminal may not reduce congestion either - in fact, it may increase it. For example, Main St in Flushing currently does not permit left turns on the busiest segment from Northern to Kissena. A bus terminal would almost certainly require a massive number of left turn movements, increasing congestion.

 

There are currently four major examples of successful bus transfer facility configurations (I'm not going to say terminal, because in many cases not all the routes in a certain area terminate.) Note: by successful I mean they don't detract from the neighborhood.

 

In Hong Kong, there are many bus terminals by subway stations. Imagine the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza terminal was built with a shopping mall or office building above it, such that there was still enough room for a double decker bus. Imagine there was a taxi stand incorporated into the interchange. That's basically what it is - by allowing uses of space above it, the MTA can make money off the interchange, while simulatenously allowing for better integration with the neighborhood. However, it requires a certain amount of demand for it to work, and the enclosed bus terminals are often hot and stuffy. As a parallel, the municipal parking lot off Union St in Flushing could be turned into a bus terminal + shopping plaza, but you'd need to intervene in the existing development.

 

The second category is Brisbane's underground bus terminal stations - as part of its comprehensive busway network, portals were built on the surface leading to bus tunnels that emptied into a giant interchange facility, not unlike that of a tram station. It removes nearly all buses from the network, thus improving on-time reliability considerably. Fare control is also relatively easy to implement, cutting down on boarding time because buses do not have to wait for people paying at the farebox. The closest parallel I can think of is a bus tunnel under Main St with portals at Kissena/Sanford, Main/Sanford, Main/Northern, and Union/Northern. While being extremely efficient, it is also the most capital intensive, and involves extremely disruptive construction.

 

The third category is Portland's Pioneer Square. Buses terminate at a public square or park, with the door on the side of the street with the park. Thus, all transferring passengers are required to use the park as a place to transfer, providing lots of pedestrian activity in the neighborhood and activating the park as a public space. Usually provided with bus lanes on the side of the streets bordering the park.

 

The final category is a transit mall. New York already has one of these in Fulton St in Brooklyn, and it's basically a street where private vehicles are either banned or extremely restricted. Basically functions like a busway.

 

In the context of Queens, I think that camera-enforced transit malls are the best solution - for Jamaica, demolish 169th St terminal, and create a ring of median bus lanes on Hillside, Sutphin, Jamaica/Archer, and Merrick/168th St, bisected by lanes on Parsons. Instead of terminating where they currently do, all Jamaica routes would circle either clockwise or counterclockwise around the ring and return to their route of origin, similar to the function of Chicago's Loop service. This would increase thoroughput while reducing congestion. Buses would layover in areas just outside the ring, to prevent congestion in the central area.

 

For Flushing, I would advocate two solutions. One would be to construct an underground busway with a central station underneath the current (7) station, with portals at locations described above. This would allow buses to avoid congestion at the major bottleneck on Main St. The second solution would be a completely separated two-lane busway on the east side of Main St, similar to the original 34th St plans. Private vehicles would not be permitted on Kissena north of Sanford, and they would be banned in the northbound direction on Main north of Sanford - essentially, southbound traffic on Main would remain the same, while northbound traffic would be redirected onto Union St via Sanford (Union would be converted to a one-way northbound street). This would actually improve the general congestion in the area, since the main reason there is congestion today is that six lanes of traffic, not including buses, is attempting to squeeze into four.

 

Obviously these are quite radical policies and might be construed as "anti-car", but these are just my two cents, and I hope to have been able to add to this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with you about Cadman Plaza, but I think Atlantic Terminal woud have been a better choice, but I'm not sure if there is enough empty land there now left, since we must fill every vacant lot with high rises. Unlike Seattle where half of downtown is parking lots and there is very little road congestion there even during rush hour. I just don't like the idea of splitting all those routes on Livingston and Fulton. Makes for a very complicated route system and as you pointed out each route has a separate terminus at Cadman Plaza. Without any buses on Livingston or Fulton, you could justify a multi-car light rail on the Fulton Mall at about 2 minute headways throughout the day. It would be so much simpler. And you wouldn't even have to charge fares (because most everyone would pay anyway at Atlantic Terminal) greatly speeding service). With a weather protected transfer and no fare penalty, I don't think anyone would even mind the extra transfer, since the light rail service would be virtually continuous. It woud also make it very easy to travel between stores on Fulton. It would also require much less labor if the east west bus routes were all truncated to Atlantic terminal.

The splitting of routes on fulton & on livingston I can understand & aren't bothered by... Separate routes terminating all over the place is more my issue (in regards to this topic)..... And I get what you're saying about the area around Atlantic Terminal (especially before Barclays was propped up), space-wise, there was much more of an opportunity to prop up a bus terminal around there..... As it is now, yeah, they done built up condos over there around south portland, south oxford, south elliot, etc.....

 

Thing is though, as you know, people are trying to get to the heart of downtown brooklyn; Which includes fulton mall strip, the colleges/institutions/whatever you wanna call em, the court bldg's, etc etc.... Even the area binding atlantic/court/henry/montague have increasingly (I'd go as far as to say drastically) increased in pedestrian (and vehicular) activity.... I never remembered that area being near as active back in the 80's & early '90s (before the advent of the concept behind "metrotech" hitting Brooklynites)..... Folks may or may not be deterred by an extra xfer, but it's not a chance I'd be willing to take that would affect as many Brooklynites as it would.... So I would support a major terminal somewhere in the heart of downtown brooklyn, over one on the outskirts of it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Flushing, perhaps they could take some of the big municipal parking lot to use as a terminal.

 

At the Ridgewood terminal, I had thought they could do the same thing in the store parking lot along that western wall. 

Instead, they closed the street to traffic, but have not even fully used all the allotted space (including drop-offs). You still have several routes scattered (terminating or boarding on the other side of the dangerous three street junction). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're correct on some points, but incorrect on others.

 

The merchants and neighborhoods' associaition was right - current MTA bus terminals as they are designed (open air bays with adjacent pedestrian islands and bus shelters) are "dead zones" on a neighborhood that blight what could otherwise be productive commercial and residential space, and suck in pedestrian activity from otherwise prosperous sections of a neighborhood. Since the blood and bones of retail is foot traffic, MTA bus terminals, as currently configured, detract from the neighborhood's vitality (165th St is a huge example of this, and Williamsburg Bridge Plaza didn't look that nice either.) An off-street bus terminal may not reduce congestion either - in fact, it may increase it. For example, Main St in Flushing currently does not permit left turns on the busiest segment from Northern to Kissena. A bus terminal would almost certainly require a massive number of left turn movements, increasing congestion.

 

There are currently four major examples of successful bus transfer facility configurations (I'm not going to say terminal, because in many cases not all the routes in a certain area terminate.) Note: by successful I mean they don't detract from the neighborhood.

 

In Hong Kong, there are many bus terminals by subway stations. Imagine the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza terminal was built with a shopping mall or office building above it, such that there was still enough room for a double decker bus. Imagine there was a taxi stand incorporated into the interchange. That's basically what it is - by allowing uses of space above it, the MTA can make money off the interchange, while simulatenously allowing for better integration with the neighborhood. However, it requires a certain amount of demand for it to work, and the enclosed bus terminals are often hot and stuffy. As a parallel, the municipal parking lot off Union St in Flushing could be turned into a bus terminal + shopping plaza, but you'd need to intervene in the existing development.

 

The second category is Brisbane's underground bus terminal stations - as part of its comprehensive busway network, portals were built on the surface leading to bus tunnels that emptied into a giant interchange facility, not unlike that of a tram station. It removes nearly all buses from the network, thus improving on-time reliability considerably. Fare control is also relatively easy to implement, cutting down on boarding time because buses do not have to wait for people paying at the farebox. The closest parallel I can think of is a bus tunnel under Main St with portals at Kissena/Sanford, Main/Sanford, Main/Northern, and Union/Northern. While being extremely efficient, it is also the most capital intensive, and involves extremely disruptive construction.

 

The third category is Portland's Pioneer Square. Buses terminate at a public square or park, with the door on the side of the street with the park. Thus, all transferring passengers are required to use the park as a place to transfer, providing lots of pedestrian activity in the neighborhood and activating the park as a public space. Usually provided with bus lanes on the side of the streets bordering the park.

 

The final category is a transit mall. New York already has one of these in Fulton St in Brooklyn, and it's basically a street where private vehicles are either banned or extremely restricted. Basically functions like a busway.

 

In the context of Queens, I think that camera-enforced transit malls are the best solution - for Jamaica, demolish 169th St terminal, and create a ring of median bus lanes on Hillside, Sutphin, Jamaica/Archer, and Merrick/168th St, bisected by lanes on Parsons. Instead of terminating where they currently do, all Jamaica routes would circle either clockwise or counterclockwise around the ring and return to their route of origin, similar to the function of Chicago's Loop service. This would increase thoroughput while reducing congestion. Buses would layover in areas just outside the ring, to prevent congestion in the central area.

 

For Flushing, I would advocate two solutions. One would be to construct an underground busway with a central station underneath the current (7) station, with portals at locations described above. This would allow buses to avoid congestion at the major bottleneck on Main St. The second solution would be a completely separated two-lane busway on the east side of Main St, similar to the original 34th St plans. Private vehicles would not be permitted on Kissena north of Sanford, and they would be banned in the northbound direction on Main north of Sanford - essentially, southbound traffic on Main would remain the same, while northbound traffic would be redirected onto Union St via Sanford (Union would be converted to a one-way northbound street). This would actually improve the general congestion in the area, since the main reason there is congestion today is that six lanes of traffic, not including buses, is attempting to squeeze into four.

 

Obviously these are quite radical policies and might be construed as "anti-car", but these are just my two cents, and I hope to have been able to add to this debate.

When the 165 Street terminal was built,165 Street was a decent shopping street with a lot of quirky stores(Triboro records)and Macy's. The street just slid down with the rest of Jamaica. I think they should have kept Jamaica and Archer one way. Traffic would be faster. In Hong Kong it works because the MTR who runs the metro has air rights so they make a profit. All Hong Kong transit is privately owned by different companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main St Flushing definitely needs one. Main St is just one giant ass clusterf*ck

 

It had one:

 

http://www.subchat.com/buschat/readflat.asp?Id=276949

 

 

(276961)

view threaded

Re: Why there are few off-street terminals in NYC?

Posted by gbs on Tue Jun 11 23:44:23 2013, in response to Why there are few off-street terminals in NYC?, posted by RiverLINE3501 on Tue Jun 11 19:47:33 2013.

An old-time Flushing resident once told me that before the Gertz (then Stern's, now Macy's) department store was built mid-block on Roosevelt Av, east of Main St, there was an off-street bus depot there. I can't confirm that. The NYC map 1951 aerial photo view of the site seems to show a building there; I don't know when the department store was built. 

 

 

 

 

 

(276967)

view threaded

Re: Why there are few off-street terminals in NYC?

Posted by NorthShore on Wed Jun 12 06:51:55 2013, in response to Re: Why there are few off-street terminals in NYC?, posted by gbs on Tue Jun 11 23:44:23 2013.

It's true. It was called the Central Terminal operated by the North Shore Bus Co. It closed in 1950 after City takeover and the property was sold to Gertz. Gertz opened in 1952. 

 

 

Edited by GojiMet86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the 165 Street terminal was built,165 Street was a decent shopping street with a lot of quirky stores(Triboro records)and Macy's. The street just slid down with the rest of Jamaica. I think they should have kept Jamaica and Archer one way. Traffic would be faster. In Hong Kong it works because the MTR who runs the metro has air rights so they make a profit. All Hong Kong transit is privately owned by different companies.

 

The bus terminal definitely didn't make things any better, and walking down that street, it might be preventing anything special from happening.

 

For Flushing, perhaps they could take some of the big municipal parking lot to use as a terminal.

 

At the Ridgewood terminal, I had thought they could do the same thing in the store parking lot along that western wall. 

Instead, they closed the street to traffic, but have not even fully used all the allotted space (including drop-offs). You still have several routes scattered (terminating or boarding on the other side of the dangerous three street junction). 

 

A new shopping mall has already been approved for the site.

 

Main St Flushing definitely needs one. Main St is just one giant ass clusterf*ck

 

It most certainly does not. A bus terminal would make congestion worse because bus congestion from turning into a terminal would make the situation worse. Plus, it doesn't make things better, because the Q20, Q44, Q25, Q34, and Q65 do not terminate in Flushing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bus terminal definitely didn't make things any better, and walking down that street, it might be preventing anything special from happening.

 

 

 

A new shopping mall has already been approved for the site.

 

 

 

It most certainly does not. A bus terminal would make congestion worse because bus congestion from turning into a terminal would make the situation worse. Plus, it doesn't make things better, because the Q20, Q44, Q25, Q34, and Q65 do not terminate in Flushing.

How woud an underground bus terminal make congestion worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How woud an underground bus terminal make congestion worse?

 

Unless the approaches to such a terminal were underground and directly from the street, all the buses making turns would clog up the streets (once again, on the most congested segments, turning off of Main or Roosevelt is prohibited - that's why buses on Main turn past Roosevelt, and buses on Roosevelt turn past Main.) For a terminal configuration to work, it would require somehow moving turning movements away from the surface. Not to mention, the busiest routes wouldn't be able to use one, since they all run through Main St, and do not terminate.

 

An underground bus terminal with underground approaches would be an optimal solution, but it might be too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the approaches to such a terminal were underground and directly from the street, all the buses making turns would clog up the streets (once again, on the most congested segments, turning off of Main or Roosevelt is prohibited - that's why buses on Main turn past Roosevelt, and buses on Roosevelt turn past Main.) For a terminal configuration to work, it would require somehow moving turning movements away from the surface. Not to mention, the busiest routes wouldn't be able to use one, since they all run through Main St, and do not terminate.

 

An underground bus terminal with underground approaches would be an optimal solution, but it might be too expensive.

I don't see how the busiest routes are the ones that do not terminate near Main St. Twelve routes terminate, 7 of which have AM. rush hour frequencies under 10 minutes, while only seven routes run through, only two of which two of which operate more frequently than 10 minutes. I was thinking you would put the underground garage under where the municipal parking is. Its going to be ripped up anyway so I don't see why it would be cost prohibited if incorporated into whatever is planned there. You could have an underground walkway from the subway to the garage lined with shops, that woud help defray the cost of construction. Buses would enter and leave at least a block away from Main Street and Ther could be multiple entrances and exits also making it possible for trough buses to enter the terminal to stop there and leave from the other end. I really do not see why something like at could not work, except that it would require change to the existing plans, and face opposition from the merchants on the surface who want the congestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the busiest routes are the ones that do not terminate near Main St. Twelve routes terminate, 7 of which have AM. rush hour frequencies under 10 minutes, while only seven routes run through, only two of which two of which operate more frequently than 10 minutes. I was thinking you would put the underground garage under where the municipal parking is. Its going to be ripped up anyway so I don't see why it would be cost prohibited if incorporated into whatever is planned there. You could have an underground walkway from the subway to the garage lined with shops, that woud help defray the cost of construction. Buses would enter and leave at least a block away from Main Street and Ther could be multiple entrances and exits also making it possible for trough buses to enter the terminal to stop there and leave from the other end. I really do not see why something like at could not work, except that it would require change to the existing plans, and face opposition from the merchants on the surface who want the congestion.

 

Well, for starters, the blueprints were already approved by DCP, so any talk of incorporating it is far too late.

 

Even so, here are the list of routes in Flushing. Bolded routes denote a route that terminates in Flushing.

 

Q12

Q13

Q15

Q16

Q17

Q19

Q20

Q25

Q26

Q27

Q28

Q34

Q44

Q48

Q50

Q58

Q65

 

Of these, the Q12, Q13, Q15, Q16, Q26, Q28, and Q58 do not terminate on Main St itself, so they are currenlty unaffected by the congestion. (The Q13, Q16, and Q28 also come from the northeast, so they terminate by the parking garage.)

 

Now, let us look at frequency, during the PM peak.

 

Q17 - every 7 min on the local (~10 BPH), every 9 min on the limited (~6 BPH)

Q19 - every 20 min (3 BPH)

Q20 - every 10 min (6 BPH)

Q25 - every 10 min (6 BPH)

Q27 - every 4 min on the local (15 BPH), every 10 min on the limited (6 BPH) (Note: This doesn't seem to be true - the Q27 is frequent, yeah, but it always seems like there's a Q17 at the Q17 stop, but a Q27 isn't there quite as often.)

Q34 - every 18 min (~3 BPH)

Q44 - every 5 min (12 BPH)

Q48 - every 16 min (~4 BPH)

Q50 - every 15 min (4 BPH)

Q65 - every 10 min on the local (6 BPH), every 10 min on the limited (6 BPH)

 

What this totals out to - 87 BPH running through Main St. Of these 87, 48 BPH terminate in Flushing. So the maximum you could move off of Main St, the source of most of the congestion, would be about half the buses, which is pretty substantial. However, 35 BPH would still be moving on Main St, so Main St would still be congested. In addition, left turns from Union to Northern are prohibited to reduce congestion, so any route coming from the west would not be able to use it (the Q19, Q50, Q66). Union St is also not a through street - it only runs from Northern to Franklin, so any bus coming from Kissena would have to turn onto another street (presumably Sanford) to get to Union St, and westbound buses would be making left turns at a relatively sharp angle. This would actually increase congestion on Sanford and Kissena, since you would now have 37 BPH making left turns from Sanford to Union, and 37 BPH making left turns from Sanford to Kissena during the peak hour. It would also massively increase congestion on Union St, a street that is not currently congested, due to all the buses making manouevers to get in and out of the terminal. Finally, in relation to the neighborhood that it's in, it's in the worst location east of Main St possible - it faces the back of most retail buildings in the area, and although it might catalyze new development in the area currently blighted by a parking garage, it is more likely going to act as a drag on development, much as the 165th st terminal did, and does today,

 

A bus terminal will not solve the issue of bus congestion in Flushing - only dedicated bus lanes will, either on the surface or underground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People still park in the bus lanes anyway so it doesnt help. Dedicated bus terminals won't work these days because of how populated New York City is. Now lets say back in the 1950-1970's when the city was still developing it could work. Before that mini terminal at Archer Ave and Parsons all those buses had to terminate either at 179st or 169st and that was before the Jamaica Center Station was built. Imagine how it would be today if all those buses were still terminating at 169th or 179st. As far as places like Flushing, Midtown, Downtown Brooklyn and Flatbush the only way to ease traffic a little is to have buses terminate on different streets which still will cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

#10 Eric B

 

Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:51 AM

 

"For Flushing, perhaps they could take some of the big municipal parking lot to use as a terminal.

 

At the Ridgewood terminal, I had thought they could do the same thing in the store parking lot along that western wall. 

Instead, they closed the street to traffic, but have not even fully used all the allotted space (including drop-offs). You still have several routes scattered (terminating or boarding on the other side of the dangerous three street junction). "

 

 

I'm not familiar with Ridgewood. It is a moot point now to speak of adding a bus terminal to the existing municipal lot in Flushing, when they will get rid of that entire lot and replace it with several stores of commercial development probably including coops also. The municipal parking will become an underground garage probably and cost three times what it presently costs to park there. If people realized that woud happen, they would be protesting in the streets. And nothing will be done to improve transit.

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said afterward that that would become retail space.

Perhaps there might still be some space somewhere that could be used. Like the underground parking (if it's not the kind with the really low ceilings). I'm thinking something like the new Mineola terminal.

Or maybe some space outside the perimeter of the building. Perhaps this should even be worked into the building plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.