Could the B6 LT be SBS?

[Grand Concourse]

If you look at Brooklyn history I'd venture a guess that it's not Flatbush Avenue  doing the accomodating but it's the street grid that was laid out after Flatbush Avenue already existed.

It's the same problem with Broadway in Manhattan. But at least even there they still had a sensible grid structure. In Brooklyn, even if they 'pedestrian malled' the hell out of FB av, you still have streets that won't line up properly if connected especially east of Nostrand av where everything is 'fractured' by as much as a few feet or even a full 'block'. If it were me, I'd have just bulldozed FB av (at least south of Nostrand) and stuck with a rigid grid line and made every 10 blocks the major thruway. Nostrand (30th st), a 40th st (which would be a replacement for FB av), and then Utica (50th st). Yes it's just this ocd part of me that hates how disordered Brooklyn is. I know Mcdonald av practically splits the borough into two, but I can accept that.

 

Marine Park is my biggest peeve where the roads just follows it's own pattern bw Gerritson av and FB av and then the odd connected roads that I pointed out along FB av. You have av N split into two ending and then starting again. Av M, you can't drive strait thru it without having to make a turn onto Flatlands av due to a school built where the road would've continued on to... etc.

 

I admit it shows my ignorance to history, but I like things being orderly and easily navigateable.

[bobtehpanda]

It's the same problem with Broadway in Manhattan. But at least even there they still had a sensible grid structure. In Brooklyn, even if they 'pedestrian malled' the hell out of FB av, you still have streets that won't line up properly if connected especially east of Nostrand av where everything is 'fractured' by as much as a few feet or even a full 'block'. If it were me, I'd have just bulldozed FB av (at least south of Nostrand) and stuck with a rigid grid line and made every 10 blocks the major thruway. Nostrand (30th st), a 40th st (which would be a replacement for FB av), and then Utica (50th st). Yes it's just this ocd part of me that hates how disordered Brooklyn is. I know Mcdonald av practically splits the borough into two, but I can accept that.

 

Marine Park is my biggest peeve where the roads just follows it's own pattern bw Gerritson av and FB av and then the odd connected roads that I pointed out along FB av. You have av N split into two ending and then starting again. Av M, you can't drive strait thru it without having to make a turn onto Flatlands av due to a school built where the road would've continued on to... etc.

 

I admit it shows my ignorance to history, but I like things being orderly and easily navigateable.

 

Just be very, very glad you're not in Boston. New York's grid system is decent, and is a hell lot better than the monolithic, almost statewide grids of Michigan.

[Grand Concourse]

I don't mind a few intersecting roads going diagonally, but I hate it when there are whole areas that are more or less severed because of the road. I don't mind everything being gridded. It would make navigation so much simpler without having to find out some road is cut off and needing alternative roads to continue on. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't mind a few intersecting roads going diagonally, but I hate it when there are whole areas that are more or less severed because of the road. I don't mind everything being gridded. It would make navigation so much simpler without having to find out some road is cut off and needing alternative roads to continue on. 

In the case of Gerritsen Beach, you have to realize that there is the old section and the newer section.  The older section is certainly more isolated than the newer part of Gerritsen Beach since that area was built like a bungaloo/vacation area originally, so Gerritsen Avenue is really the main road out of the neighborhood, particularly the older section, aside for the little street off of Knapp Street which you can take to lead you into Gerritsen Beach. In fact when visiting friends in Gerritsen Beach when I lived in Sheepshead Bay, we would meet over by Knapp Street by the border and walk over from there.  If you think that's bad, you should see Riverdale, which was designed to not have a street grid on purpose to flow better with the natural layout of the neighborhood.  People are constantly lost all the time up here. I always see people driving on my block trying to figure out where they're going.  It's quite comical to say the least.  I have cabbies asking me how to get to the Bronx or how to get to the expressway to get back to Manhattan.  The fact that we're tucked away up in these steep hills and only a few roads lead you out of the neighborhood doesn't help either.  The only part of Riverdale that has a street grid is the part along Broadway away from the hills that is near the train.

 

I still remember the first time I came up to visit and couldn't understand how after 239th street there's 246th street...

[BrooklynIRT]

It's the same problem with Broadway in Manhattan. But at least even there they still had a sensible grid structure. In Brooklyn, even if they 'pedestrian malled' the hell out of FB av, you still have streets that won't line up properly if connected especially east of Nostrand av where everything is 'fractured' by as much as a few feet or even a full 'block'. If it were me, I'd have just bulldozed FB av (at least south of Nostrand) and stuck with a rigid grid line and made every 10 blocks the major thruway. Nostrand (30th st), a 40th st (which would be a replacement for FB av), and then Utica (50th st). Yes it's just this ocd part of me that hates how disordered Brooklyn is. I know Mcdonald av practically splits the borough into two, but I can accept that.

 

Marine Park is my biggest peeve where the roads just follows it's own pattern bw Gerritson av and FB av and then the odd connected roads that I pointed out along FB av. You have av N split into two ending and then starting again. Av M, you can't drive strait thru it without having to make a turn onto Flatlands av due to a school built where the road would've continued on to... etc.

 

I admit it shows my ignorance to history, but I like things being orderly and easily navigateable.

 

the street grid would not be nearly as 'problematic' as it is now if there were a lot fewer personal automobiles on these roads. redoing the street grid without drastically reducing the number of personal autos on these roads would be equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (see induced demand).

 

you hate how disordered Brooklyn is. LOL. I appreciate the fact that, unlike the Bronx which has so many highways running through it that blighted its neighborhoods and encouraged/encourage travel by personal automobile, Brooklyn only has three highways, two of which run along its edges and one of which starts at Bway JCT and goes away from Brooklyn.

 

any mass transit advocate who cares about the socioeconomic well-being of Brooklyn would endure serious mental torture if Brooklyn had any more highways or traffic (because of induced demand, there probably would be more traffic and the same amount of congestion that there is now if the street grid were made more easily navigable without restricting private vehicle access to the arterial roads of Brooklyn) than it does now.

[Grand Concourse]

Not to derail this thread any further, but I'd like to add how badly they botched Queens when it was still mostly farmland. I get they wanted a suburban feel, but I think they could've been a little more competent with a more orderly street system instead of adding a 'road' designation and the interchangeable av/st naming. They have roads that also ends and starts from no where and even worse they have some roads (barely wide enough for a 2 lane road) as a 2 way street. why not make the next parallel street run the other way? God help any cabbie that has to navigate that area too. I think I can understand in part why they don't want to go outside of Manhattan now, lol (not counting the ones based at the airports, that's a different matter).

[qjtransitmaster]

Just be very, very glad you're not in Boston. New York's grid system is decent, and is a hell lot better than the monolithic, almost statewide grids of Michigan.

You live in Boston?

[B35 via Church]

I do not think it is possible for us to see eye to eye on the JFK 15/JFK 6 SBS thing.

 

you said waiting 10 minutes for the JFK 15 after exiting the 8/35 is a common occurrence, yet the less common occurrence of making a quick connection from the 8/35 to the JFK 15 defeats the purpose of a B6 SBS to JFK...even though it is the less common occurrence. I suppose you are saying it does not deal a crushing blow to a B6 SBS proposal but is just one reason (among several others you have) not to have a B6 SBS to JFK or extend the 8/35.

 

I have no comment on any of the other issues.

No, dude...... I Never said waiting 10 minutes for the JFK 15's is a common occurrence....

I said, verbatim - "No JFK 15 being in sight is a common occurrence"

 

The occurrences of which one would have to wait 10+ mins for a bus or whatever, is part of the common occurrence of B15's not being in sight once you reach church/E. 98th after getting off a B8/35..... The point was, the chances of seeing a bus you're looking to xfer to, is always gonna be less likely than not.... From you, it's a convenient (IMO, silly) argument to bring up, to support B8/B35 riders not xferring to B15's for JFK - to ride out to your B6 SBS instead..... You maybe confused here with all this, I'm not.

 

So the inconsistency you're trying to paint like I'm making (with the 1st statement of that 2nd paragraph), doesn't exist.... Good try though.

 

To bottom line this.... 

- I've been saying (in so many words) that it is the JFK part of your B6 proposal I find to be rather outlandish, on top of the fact that you need to extend the B8 and the B35 to Canarsie to support it......

- Again, probably the only thing I'll grant you (as far as seeing eye to eye or w/e) is that you likely would save time w/ said B6 SBS' from [Canarsie to JFK], compared to the current B15 b/w [E. 98th/church to JFK]...

 

 

 

Us oldtimers from Erasmus Hall had that Brooklyn towns history drummed into our heads. Flatbush Avenue and the King's Highway are two of the present day streets that pre-date the street grid. Each town of Brooklyn, and the landowners laid out their own grids. The speculators of the 19th century also added to the confusion. When all of the towns were finally consolidated into the City of Brooklyn is where the problem became apparent. West Brooklyn and SW Brooklyn's grid is not aligned with the part of the borough east of Flatbush or Prospect Park streetwise. Look at Ralph Avenue, a street that disappears on maps and pops up again miles away. Try Flatlands Avenue addresses from west to east. The numbers on houses east of Williams Ave are made up because the street was originally named Fairfield Avenue in that area yet they continued the same numbering scheme used on the western end. BTW that's why you have the same street names popping up across the borough. Sometimes the spelling changes, Van Siclen-Van Sicklen, or Lefferts Place-Lefferts Avenue, named by different towns in Brooklyn. Eastern Parkway ran from Flatbush Avenue to Ralph Ave originally which followed the grid. The eastern end was named Eastern Parkway and it follows no grid. History from Erasmus Hall ( 911 Flatbush), LOL. Back to the topic at hand. Carry on.

 Like the suburbs......

[Trainmaster5]

I'm really curious about the need for a B6 or anything else running to JFK. Perhaps the B20? I lived in ENY and used the B6 a lot. I was based at NL Yard for years. The only people I saw using the B15 on a regular basis were TSA and other airport workers. Air travelers were pretty much non-existant IMO. Weekdays, weekends, there really wasn't much difference. For a cross Brooklyn run from west Brooklyn to JFK via the B6 wouldn't gather enough ridership to justify the extension, IMO. Gotta remember JFK is considered international while most people I know in Brooklyn travel through LGA on domestic flights. There used to be 2 car services below New Lots , station and the drivers used to make more LGA trips even before the B15 was extended to JFK. If anything is to be done out there it would probably have to include the B15, B20, or B84. AFAIC leave the B6,B8, and B35 alone. Carry on.

[B35 via Church]

I admit it shows my ignorance to history, but I like things being orderly and easily navigateable.

I'm with you on the orderly aspect, but the navigability part of it, I dunno.... I don't think I like the idea of every street in a city being all that wide (which is what being easily navigable suggests).... In residential streets at least, I'd rather have narrow(er) streets (than that of the width of a lot of major roads)....

 

For example, Compare the width of Troy av to any of the streets in the E. 40's....

AFAIC, Troy av is too damn wide for its own good.... To this day, I don't know why it's like that....

 

I'm really curious about the need for a B6 or anything else running to JFK. Perhaps the B20? I lived in ENY and used the B6 a lot. I was based at NL Yard for years. The only people I saw using the B15 on a regular basis were TSA and other airport workers. Air travelers were pretty much non-existant IMO. Weekdays, weekends, there really wasn't much difference. For a cross Brooklyn run from west Brooklyn to JFK via the B6 wouldn't gather enough ridership to justify the extension, IMO. Gotta remember JFK is considered international while most people I know in Brooklyn travel through LGA on domestic flights. There used to be 2 car services below New Lots , station and the drivers used to make more LGA trips even before the B15 was extended to JFK. If anything is to be done out there it would probably have to include the B15, B20, or B84. AFAIC leave the B6,B8, and B35 alone. Carry on.

Funny you mention this.... I would send a (restructured) B20 to Lefferts AIRtrain, but not all the way to the main terminals....

Not sure how it would be divvyed up, but overall I would also have more JFK bound B15's & a little less short turn B15's throughout the day....

So for simply getting to the AIRTrain (from the ENY/City Line area at least), it would be divided into:

- B15's [which would continue to serve T5], and....

- B20's which would end at the airtrain station.....

 

Instead of having to be at the mercy of having to wait for a JFK 15 only......

 

Yeah man, the B6/B8/B35 gets more than enough overall ridership on their current routes... The 6 & the 35 are in the top 10 in the entire city, and the 8 is probably in the top 20-30 in the entire city..... These are not routes that need (significant) ridership boosts..... Speaking for the 35 specifically, this area (E. Flatbush) is already oversaturated - now that the area is slowly being gentrified, ridership is gonna increase even more as it is....

[BrooklynIRT]

I'm really curious about the need for a B6 or anything else running to JFK. Perhaps the B20? I lived in ENY and used the B6 a lot. I was based at NL Yard for years. The only people I saw using the B15 on a regular basis were TSA and other airport workers. Air travelers were pretty much non-existant IMO. Weekdays, weekends, there really wasn't much difference. For a cross Brooklyn run from west Brooklyn to JFK via the B6 wouldn't gather enough ridership to justify the extension, IMO. Gotta remember JFK is considered international while most people I know in Brooklyn travel through LGA on domestic flights. There used to be 2 car services below New Lots , station and the drivers used to make more LGA trips even before the B15 was extended to JFK. If anything is to be done out there it would probably have to include the B15, B20, or B84. AFAIC leave the B6,B8, and B35 alone. Carry on.

 

why do they go to LGA and not JFK for domestic flights? I would go to JFK (with the current situation with the wait for the JFK 15) since JFK takes the same or less time to reach from most of Brooklyn than LGA if using only mass transit to reach an airport. I was told that the prices for domestic flights to/from JFK are not much different from those for LGA.

Funny you mention this.... I would send a (restructured) B20 to Lefferts AIRtrain, but not all the way to the main terminals....

Not sure how it would be divvyed up, but overall I would also have more JFK bound B15's & a little less short turn B15's throughout the day....

So for simply getting to the AIRTrain (from the ENY/City Line area at least), it would be divided into:

- B15's [which would continue to serve T5], and....

- B20's which would end at the airtrain station.....

 

Instead of having to be at the mercy of having to wait for a JFK 15 only......

 

Yeah man, the B6/B8/B35 gets more than enough overall ridership on their current routes... The 6 & the 35 are in the top 10 in the entire city, and the 8 is probably in the top 20-30 in the entire city..... These are not routes that need (significant) ridership boosts..... Speaking for the 35 specifically, this area (E. Flatbush) is already oversaturated - now that the area is slowly being gentrified, ridership is gonna increase even more as it is....

 

I get the impression that your stance is that to drastically reduce travel times on these trips from central/western Brooklyn to JFK, they will have to build a rail line from Flatbush or somewhere further west in Brooklyn to JFK (which probably will not happen for another 200 years or so).

[Trainmaster5]

why do they go to LGA and not JFK for domestic flights? I would go to JFK (with the current situation with the wait for the JFK 15) since JFK takes the same or less time to reach from most of Brooklyn than LGA if using only mass transit to reach an airport. I was told that the prices for domestic flights to/from JFK are not much different from those for LGA.

 

 

You have more domestic airlines, hence more choice, at LGA than JFK. I think even Newark(EWR) has more domestic flights than JFK. I know that when I pass through Charlotte airport itt's LGA, EWR, then JFK destinations on the departing board.

[BrooklynIRT]

touché.

 

unless the demand for JFK increases any time soon I think I will use what I said I think B35's stance is as my own stance: to drastically reduce travel times on these trips from central/western Brooklyn to JFK, they will have to build a rail line from Flatbush or somewhere further west in Brooklyn to JFK (which probably will not happen for another 200 years or so).

 

actually I might be interested in figuring out how to make mass transit trips from Brooklyn to EWR faster now that you said EWR has more domestic flights than JFK. LGA trips could be sped up kind of easily if there were a Triboro (RX).

[B35 via Church]

I get the impression that your stance is that to drastically reduce travel times on these trips from central/western Brooklyn to JFK, they will have to build a rail line from Flatbush or somewhere further west in Brooklyn to JFK (which probably will not happen for another 200 years or so).

Wait, what is this now....

 

There is no impression to get - especially to the point where you're bringing up rail travel to blatantly exaggerate what my stance is, because I'm not exactly agreeing w/ this whole B6 to JFK bit....

 

aye man, I wasn't the one that came on here complaining about trips being too long b/w Flatbush & JFK.....

 

"I see a problem with the fact that taking the 6/8/35 from Flatbush to the 15 to go to JFK takes like 1:10 to 1:20 due to the slowness of these lines and the fact that 15 service to its eastern terminals is like service to its southern terminals much of the time (infrequent)."

 

I've said it enough times in this discussion... I get where you're coming from with this whole B15 is too slow bit...

Still though, Your immediate issue here (as far as the JFK part of your overall SBS plan) is not my issue...

 

 

 

why do they go to LGA and not JFK for domestic flights? I would go to JFK (with the current situation with the wait for the JFK 15) since JFK takes the same or less time to reach from most of Brooklyn than LGA if using only mass transit to reach an airport. I was told that the prices for domestic flights to/from JFK are not much different from those for LGA.

Well, LGA & JFK don't have the same amount of domestic carriers... So it may not be as easy as saying, Oh, I would just go to JFK....

 

Trainmaster is right (although airline goers won't shut up about it), the fact of the matter is that LGA offers more domestic flights.... I have been hearing bitching about LGA's problems (much moreso than JFK) back since the 90's - and a lot of the complaints are centered around having to travel "all the way" to JFK.... The fact that Marine Air is as separated as it is from the rest of LGA's terminals is another added complaint.....

 

Anyway, when you have as many tourists coming into NYC, you're gonna continue to hear folks coming from all over the world, basically w/ the viewpoint of JFK >>>> LGA.....

 

I think even Newark(EWR) has more domestic flights than JFK.

Easily.... and that is another complaint that those traveling w/i the USA have - having to come into NYC after touching down in NJ....

Man, them yellow cabs for sure are makin a god damn killing with ripping ppl off from EWR seeking NYC.....

 

 

 

....actually I might be interested in figuring out how to make mass transit trips from Brooklyn to EWR faster now that you said EWR has more domestic flights than JFK. LGA trips could be sped up kind of easily if there were a Triboro (RX).

Well if you do, good luck with that....

 

I remember reading on one of the other older transit forums (not here, not straphangers, not subchat) where someone had planned out a LIRR Flatbush av (now Atlantic Terminal) - EWR bus route.... I don't recall the exact stops, but it had a couple stops in lower manhattan before utilizing the holland.....

[BrooklynIRT]

yes, my apologies for exaggerating your stance. I will agree that that is not your stance and just use it as mine: to drastically reduce travel times on these trips from central/western Brooklyn to JFK, they will have to build a rail line from Flatbush or somewhere further west in Brooklyn to JFK due to the fact that it appears that no changes can be made to the bus system to accomplish this.

 

rail line can include light rail/trolleys by the way.

 

and focusing on speeding up trips b/w Brooklyn and EWR might be a better idea. I will not think of anything now though.

[Grand Concourse]

I'm with you on the orderly aspect, but the navigability part of it, I dunno.... I don't think I like the idea of every street in a city being all that wide (which is what being easily navigable suggests).... In residential streets at least, I'd rather have narrow(er) streets (than that of the width of a lot of major roads)....

 

For example, Compare the width of Troy av to any of the streets in the E. 40's....

AFAIC, Troy av is too damn wide for its own good.... To this day, I don't know why it's like that....

Funny you bring up Troy av. I believe it's at flatlands ave or near it where it becomes 1 way going south. I sometimes walk along av M when walking the dog and hardly see many cars driving down and they have a traffic light at that intersection. Meanwhile, at schenectady or 47th st as i call it for short, that road can be pretty busy at times and only has a stop sign. That's where they really need a traffic light as some people I know that live there have reported a few car crashes happening there over the years.

 

As for my ideal layout: every 10 blocks is 2 way traffic with 3 lanes per direction (an extra for parking). Maybe have islands in the middle to allow for left hand turns. Every 5 blocks it is 2 lanes per direction each 2 way streets. Then all the streets in between would be the standard single lane road with parking on both sides. All avenues would be alternating directions at 3 lanes each (and an addition 2 for parking) every 3rd av (av C, av F, etc) would be 2 way and 3 lanes per direction (similar to the 10th street layout). Streets like Flatbush and Kings Highway would get the'Broadway treatment': cut up before a major intersection allowing the main roads to remain intact. For example Av P would be reconnected and traffic would have to turn onto ocean av, run on av P and turn on Bedford if they want to remain along Kings highway. I never liked how it snakes thru the borough. 

 

Nostrand was just a mistake being how it was built too narrow. They don't really need bus dedicated lanes, they just need to enforce the no double parking rule.

[BrooklynIRT]

Nostrand was just a mistake being how it was built too narrow.

 

Really? If it had another lane of traffic, that would just encourage private auto travel even more! Do you care that much about the welfare of the personal automobile and making accommodations for its users, many of whom abuse their driving privileges and screw over other road users (bus riders in particular) constantly? Do you care about car-independence?

 

They don't really need bus dedicated lanes, they just need to enforce the no double parking rule.

 

If you think they will ever enforce the laws 100% of the time such that no double parking ever occurred on Nostrand or any of these other roads ever again, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

The last thing we need to do in a place like this is encourage private auto travel, which is what would happen if they enforced the laws like that and put no bus lane on Nostrand. Letting buses deal with mixed traffic when the option to give them a bus lane just marginalizes (surface) mass transit and makes people think surface mass transit is not important since it sits in mixed traffic with everybody else. And we have to go with solutions like the bus lanes/SBS due to the fact that we cannot build rail lines for the economic and political reasons I mentioned in post #43. And encouraging personal automobile use makes it even harder for us to see surface rail in the future.

 

(Eventually the trolley probably should come back (for whatever it is worth) and, for the most part, replace the bus because the fact that the people who operate the buses needed to know how to operate cars first is an impediment to making society personal auto-independent, which is important in dense places like this one due to the fact that so many people cannot stop themselves from causing so many problems when they use personal autos, such as double parking on streets where buses run. The mere presence of personal automobiles on these roads with all their different travel patterns causes problems due to the fact that random traffic signal patterns are created in an often futile attempt to handle them properly and the sheer volume of cars on the road slows down the buses/trolleys etc.)

 

You cannot encourage private auto travel in dense areas like this one because there are too many people for cars to make much sense here. You make concessions to these people, all they want is more, more, more. You create more legal parking spaces, there will still be double parking unless they physically separate (for example) the middle two lanes of unidirectional Nostrand and the people realize that double parking will make it physically impossible for anybody to go through in one of the lanes.

 

And as induced demand will tell you, you make it easier to drive around here, all that will do is increase traffic and discourage (surface) mass transit use. Roads beget roads. Build a new road to increase capacity and it ain't enough. The people want more, more, more. All part of capitalism and/r human nature thanks to the fact that personal autos have been so entrenched in our society while rail transport (passenger and freight) has declined for the last 60 years. (See GM Streetcar Conspiracy.) Again, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

The private automobile has to be fought in dense areas like this one, not accommodated, because it can never be accommodated enough as long as people continue liking cars. Unfortunately the auto industry has done a damn good job of persuading people who did not initially have strong opinions against the personal auto to like cars so much, which is why you can never have enough accommodations for the personal auto. Making more accommodations for it is just a recipe for disaster in areas with a lot of people.

 

What makes you think that making the accommodations you propose will make things better? Would it make sense to spend more taxpayer money on traffic law enforcement to guarantee that nobody remains double parked on any bus road for longer than 2 seconds (at which point tickets may not even be part of the corrective action, which means less revenue to pay traffic agent salaries; the double parked people would just drive away upon seeing the traffic agent, and the sooner they drive away the better anyway since I am sure people prefer not to have to drive around them than to have to drive around them while they get ticketed)? The only way I can think of to make this happen is to have traffic agents stationed on every block of the street in question, and even then they would probably have to leave their posts to respond to real crimes, leaving whatever block unwatched so double parking can occur without punishment until the post is occupied by an officer again.

 

About taxpayer money..that also gets used to maintain roads. If there were not so many personal autos on these roads (again this is about most of NYC, not some rural area), the roads would not have to be repaved as much.

 

Buses also damage the roads; I am not sure if (for example) Nostrand would experience less wear and tear if not a single personal auto traveled on it again and they put one additional bus on that road for roughly every 30 personal autos that used to be there. But again because the fact that the people who operate the buses needed to know how to operate cars first is an impediment to making society personal auto-independent and because operating a bus means sitting down all day while rail vehicle operators do not have to sit down while operating and streetcars tend to have more interior room than buses (this is for the passengers and the cargo they are carrying), buses should probably be replaced by streetcars eventually.

[bobtehpanda]

If you think they will ever enforce the laws 100% of the time such that no double parking ever occurred on Nostrand or any of these other roads ever again, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

The last thing we need to do in a place like this is encourage private auto travel, which is what would happen if they enforced the laws like that and put no bus lane on Nostrand. Letting buses deal with mixed traffic when the option to give them a bus lane just marginalizes (surface) mass transit and makes people think surface mass transit is not important since it sits in mixed traffic with everybody else. And we have to go with solutions like the bus lanes/SBS due to the fact that we cannot build rail lines for the economic and political reasons I mentioned in post #43. And encouraging personal automobile use makes it even harder for us to see surface rail in the future.

 

(Eventually the trolley probably should come back (for whatever it is worth) and, for the most part, replace the bus because the fact that the people who operate the buses needed to know how to operate cars first is an impediment to making society personal auto-independent, which is important in dense places like this one due to the fact that so many people cannot stop themselves from causing so many problems when they use personal autos, such as double parking on streets where buses run. The mere presence of personal automobiles on these roads with all their different travel patterns causes problems due to the fact that random traffic signal patterns are created in an often futile attempt to handle them properly and the sheer volume of cars on the road slows down the buses/trolleys etc.)

 

You cannot encourage private auto travel in dense areas like this one because there are too many people for cars to make much sense here. You make concessions to these people, all they want is more, more, more. You create more legal parking spaces, there will still be double parking unless they physically separate (for example) the middle two lanes of unidirectional Nostrand and the people realize that double parking will make it physically impossible for anybody to go through in one of the lanes.

 

And as induced demand will tell you, you make it easier to drive around here, all that will do is increase traffic and discourage (surface) mass transit use. Roads beget roads. Build a new road to increase capacity and it ain't enough. The people want more, more, more. All part of capitalism and/r human nature thanks to the fact that personal autos have been so entrenched in our society while rail transport (passenger and freight) has declined for the last 60 years. (See GM Streetcar Conspiracy.) Again, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

The private automobile has to be fought in dense areas like this one, not accommodated, because it can never be accommodated enough as long as people continue liking cars. Unfortunately the auto industry has done a damn good job of persuading people who did not initially have strong opinions against the personal auto to like cars so much, which is why you can never have enough accommodations for the personal auto. Making more accommodations for it is just a recipe for disaster in areas with a lot of people.

 

What makes you think that making the accommodations you propose will make things better? Would it make sense to spend more taxpayer money on traffic law enforcement to guarantee that nobody remains double parked on any bus road for longer than 2 seconds (at which point tickets may not even be part of the corrective action, which means less revenue to pay traffic agent salaries; the double parked people would just drive away upon seeing the traffic agent, and the sooner they drive away the better anyway since I am sure people prefer not to have to drive around them than to have to drive around them while they get ticketed)? The only way I can think of to make this happen is to have traffic agents stationed on every block of the street in question, and even then they would probably have to leave their posts to respond to real crimes, leaving whatever block unwatched so double parking can occur without punishment until the post is occupied by an officer again.

 

About taxpayer money..that also gets used to maintain roads. If there were not so many personal autos on these roads (again this is about most of NYC, not some rural area), the roads would not have to be repaved as much.

 

Buses also damage the roads; I am not sure if (for example) Nostrand would experience less wear and tear if not a single personal auto traveled on it again and they put one additional bus on that road for roughly every 30 personal autos that used to be there. But again because the fact that the people who operate the buses needed to know how to operate cars first is an impediment to making society personal auto-independent and because operating a bus means sitting down all day while rail vehicle operators do not have to sit down while operating and streetcars tend to have more interior room than buses (this is for the passengers and the cargo they are carrying), buses should probably be replaced by streetcars eventually.

 

Why is there always this assumption that traffic enforcement has to be done by people?

 

Also, the trolleys were sort of a problem in their heyday. No major city with a tram system does deliveries with a tram because for the most part, it's not very effective. Not only that, but the trolley system was extremely outdated - buses stopping every two blocks is an artifact of the old trolley system, which was very, very slow. Modern light rail is much better for riders, but Nostrand simply is not suitable for light rail - lots of intersections that probably can't be closed off (unlike Minneapolis or Los Angeles, which have very long blocks and close off through routes passing through the light rail).

 

And what's this BS about light rail/tram operators not having to sit down while the vehicle is operating? It's exactly the same as it would be if they were operating a bus - no aspect of light rail operation can be automated since you have to deal with pedestrians, cyclists, and other issues.

 

Easing traffic congestion does not have to involve widening a road - Flushing actually narrowed the road and restricted turns, and Main St & Roosevelt had a lot of congestion cleared up. This does not mean that the solution to congestion is to penalize car drivers as much as possible - each mode of travel has its benefits.

[BrooklynIRT]

Never said automation, friend. I also meant when the trolley is stopped at a station the operator can stand up.

 

When you operate a motor vehicle, you have to sit down and they have to have a seat there that the operator has to use because it is not safe to use the pedals while standing up and operating at relatively high speeds. And there is the steering wheel which is in the way if you even want to stand.

 

With rail vehicles this is not an issue since the controls are hand-operated. (Or control (singular); they could just set it up like anything R142 and later with the brake and accelerator in the same handle.) And no steering wheel.

 

It may not be possible to make deliveries using trolleys at the moment, but this does not mean trolleys should not be used to carry passengers. Bringing back more rail transport has to start somewhere.

 

When I mentioned cargo I really meant people carrying large packages. A bus operator not letting a person on the bus the other day because her shopping cart was too big comes to mind. Giving that person a reason to use a car to make the trip. Which has external impacts. No rail vehicle could have been used to make that trip. I do not think she could have walked it either. If the bus had been a trolley, this may not have been a problem. On the subway, this would not have been a problem. But like so many other things, it was what it was.

 

The trolleys do not have to stop every two blocks. They can start by making the LT/SBS line a trolley line and keep the local line a bus line.

 

If you do traffic enforcement with cameras, it does not completely stop people from double parking for more than 2 seconds. Although it does help a lot. Assuming every single person who breaks the law receives a ticket..for whatever that is worth.

 

Yes, each mode of travel has its benefits. Driving a personal vehicle also has lots of external impacts in cities like this one. Like authorities creating random traffic signal patterns (this is really on bidirectional Nostrand, not unidirectional Nostrand although Linden Blvd really sucks) that screw over the surface mass transit vehicles that have to make multiple stops to pick up/drop off multiple people and must stay on fixed routes.

[bobtehpanda]

touché.

 

unless the demand for JFK increases any time soon I think I will use what I said I think B35's stance is as my own stance: to drastically reduce travel times on these trips from central/western Brooklyn to JFK, they will have to build a rail line from Flatbush or somewhere further west in Brooklyn to JFK (which probably will not happen for another 200 years or so).

 

actually I might be interested in figuring out how to make mass transit trips from Brooklyn to EWR faster now that you said EWR has more domestic flights than JFK. LGA trips could be sped up kind of easily if there were a Triboro (RX).

 

Really, the only way to do it would be a PATH extension (which I believe PANYNJ is looking into).

 

In the long-term, something is going to have to be done about the serious airport capacity problem in New York. You could theoretically solve all of the flight path conflicts in the area by closing LaGuardia, but since that will never, ever happen, maybe one of the mayors will decide to consolidate the airports into one mega-airport on an artificial island or something (done before in many other countries)

[Grand Concourse]

Bkirt: A bus can always drive around an obstruction. If something is on the tracks, the train is stuck (unless they have permission to ram the obstruction out of the way, which i highly doubt). My point about nostrand is that sure you give the sbs its own lane, but they could also do the same thing by making sure people don't double park or ticket them with the cameras along the road. There is no need to remove a parking lane (at least i think that is or was the idea) if the bus can just run thru without dealing with double parked cars and ban some left hand turns on some roads. There is no way you are going to close off a road just for a bus. You'd create a big uproar and protest over it.

[bobtehpanda]

Never said automation, friend. I also meant when the trolley is stopped at a station the operator can stand up.

 

When you operate a motor vehicle, you have to sit down and they have to have a seat there that the operator has to use because it is not safe to use the pedals while standing up and operating at relatively high speeds. And there is the steering wheel which is in the way if you even want to stand.

 

With rail vehicles this is not an issue since the controls are hand-operated. (Or control (singular); they could just set it up like anything R142 and later with the brake and accelerator in the same handle.) And no steering wheel.

 

While this is technically true, in actual practice tram operators do not have the same freedom of movement as rail operators. The reason they and bus operators must stay in their seats is because unlike a railway, which operates in a completely grade-separated right of way, trams run in mixed traffic. Even if you banned every single car in existence, drivers would have to remain in their seats to watch out for pedestrians and cyclists. (Trams in pedestrian-only zones also tend to be much slower, since cyclists and pedestrians will usually use the tram lanes as paths to walk on or cross.)

 

Even at stations, operating while standing up is not feasible - I don't know if you have ever seen them, but most trams' operating 'cabs' give you only enough room to swivel a chair and stand up to get out. Some of them don't even have enclosed cabs, and operate in the same restricted space that passengers do. These layouts, while space consuming, end up providing the most passenger capacity.

 

When I mentioned cargo I really meant people carrying large packages. A bus operator not letting a person on the bus the other day because her shopping cart was too big comes to mind. Giving that person a reason to use a car to make the trip. Which has external impacts. No rail vehicle could have been used to make that trip. I do not think she could have walked it either. If the bus had been a trolley, this may not have been a problem. On the subway, this would not have been a problem. But like so many other things, it was what it was.

 

Out of complete curiosity, was this a high floor RTS or something? Most of the newer buses have extremely large double-leaf doors. In any case, we are not about to encourage people shopping at IKEA to bring their crap on the bus - the trains have significantly more circulation space than any tram or bus will have, so that's less of an issue.

 

It is perfectly okay to use a car for extremely large deliveries that would otherwise prolong dwell time during boarding and alighting, and take up the space of several fare-paying customers.

 

The trolleys do not have to stop every two blocks. They can start by making the LT/SBS line a trolley line and keep the local line a bus line.

 

Hey! Let's confuse the crap out of everyone by having a bus make the same route as a tram, while doubling or tripling capital costs and reducing operational flexibility!

 

You don't half-ass something like this (and in any case, the bus would be reduced to a less useful version of its tram counterpart, and headways would be cut to the point of uselessness.)

 

If you do traffic enforcement with cameras, it does not completely stop people from double parking for more than 2 seconds. Although it does help a lot. Assuming every single person who breaks the law receives a ticket..for whatever that is worth.

 

According to traffic law, it's not double parking unless it's done past a certain amount of time (which I *believe* is something like one to three minutes). In any case, the point of enforcement is not to get rid of 100% of violations, it's to discourage the vast majority of people from attempting to violate in the first place.

 

Take Chicago. Chicago is installing 50 speed camera zones around schools, and projected $30M in revenues from fines. However, after the violations from a one month 'trial run' were in (no speeding tickets, but warnings), the program is expected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in fines in its first year. With these kinds of price signals (and camera technology that effectively captures license plates), motorists will learn through price signals that speeding is not tolerated, and will actually slow down not only in the targeted areas, but for several blocks around them (this has been studied extensively with red light and speed cameras). Cameras are an extremely effective tool - just because a certain cancer treatment only has a 50% success rate does not make it useless. (Cameras are much more effective than that, for the record.)

 

 

Yes, each mode of travel has its benefits. Driving a personal vehicle also has lots of external impacts in cities like this one. Like authorities creating random traffic signal patterns (this is really on bidirectional Nostrand, not unidirectional Nostrand although Linden Blvd really sucks) that screw over the surface mass transit vehicles that have to make multiple stops to pick up/drop off multiple people and must stay on fixed routes.

 

What on earth are you talking about? The current signals are timed for 'green waves' at certain speeds so that drivers driving safely will hit green lights nonstop in the peak direction of travel. Of course transit vehicles will not benefit from this, since they stop every two blocks (unless it's a limited), but a very cheap, easy solution is outfitting vehicles with transit signal priority (and don't ask me why it's currently marketed as an SBS special goodie, because it should really be done on the whole network). It would be a problem even if there weren't cars, since you'd then be timing for cyclists and pedestrians.

Bkirt: A bus can always drive around an obstruction. If something is on the tracks, the train is stuck (unless they have permission to ram the obstruction out of the way, which i highly doubt). My point about nostrand is that sure you give the sbs its own lane, but they could also do the same thing by making sure people don't double park or ticket them with the cameras along the road. There is no need to remove a parking lane (at least i think that is or was the idea) if the bus can just run thru without dealing with double parked cars and ban some left hand turns on some roads. There is no way you are going to close off a road just for a bus. You'd create a big uproar and protest over it.

 

Well, there was Fulton St, but Nostrand definitely does not see the volume of buses that the Fulton Street Mall sees.

[BrooklynIRT]

It was an Orion VII NG HEV. I thought it was important to reduce the number of reasons people have for using cars. The cargo in question was not extremely large and if the bus had been a trolley, there would have been no problem in that particular case. I would not encourage combining Ikea with mass transit either. for whatever it is worth.

 

so you think that it is more important to discourage the vast majority of people from attempting to violate than it is to get rid of 100% of violations. well, it is what it is then. (not sure if I can agree with you.)

 

yes GC, a bus can just go around an obstacle. how do you know how frequent the delays a trolley would experience from any kind of obstacle on the track (which does not have to stop trolleys completely; it could just slow them a bit) would be compared to those experienced by buses when the buses are on a two-lane road full of traffic that should be in two lanes but can only be in one due to an obstruction?

 

My point about needing to know how to operate a car before knowing how to operate a bus and the fact that this is an impediment to auto-independence still stands. Although I appreciate what bob said about sitting down while operating. but what was said was "most" trams, not "all." what about flipping the cab seat up, the way you can on a subway car?

 

bob, you should ride a bus eastbound on E Fordham Rd on a Saturday and see how the signals behave b/w about Cambreleng and Southern Blvd and then ask me what on earth I am talking about. (I know this is not Nostrand; it is just another example.)

 

also when was the last time you rode the B44 and on which sections of the route and how long ago? I last rode the Bx12 SBS a week ago and the signals were not all that helpful on Isham, Sherman, and W 207..and there is also that section of E Fordham I mentioned above.

 

headways cut to the point of uselessness..does this depend on the carrying capacity of the vehicle? would they initially have to use surface rail vehicles that are that much bigger than what is on the road now?

 

crossed out b/c I misread your post.

[BrooklynIRT]

well they could start using 30 foot buses for the local instead of 40 footers to keep headways the same. but then you will say something along the lines of too many different buses to maintain or something.

 

honestly I think it is a problem that the people who operate the buses had to know how to operate cars first; I do not think it is helpful to have all of these reasons for people to use cars. the fewer reasons there are, the better. the roads have too much traffic and too many lawbreakers behind the wheel adding insult to injury (not necessarily in that order), people say they need cars for this reason and that reason, they say they need cars for that reason and this reason, they say do not make it harder to drive for this reason and that reason, and they say do not make it more costly to drive for that reason and this reason. there are too many reasons. and thus too many cars. and thus too much money being spent to accommodate them (infrastructure/road repairs) when the money might be spent elsewhere, like the transit system (dirty subway stations come to mind).

 

well, it is what it is. thank goodness for this:

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

bob, you should ride a bus eastbound on E Fordham Rd on a Saturday and see how the signals behave b/w about Cambreleng and Southern Blvd and then ask me what on earth I am talking about. (I know this is not Nostrand; it is just another example.)

 

 

also when was the last time you rode the B44 and on which sections of the route and how long ago? I last rode the Bx12 SBS a week ago and the signals were not all that helpful on Isham, Sherman, and W 207..and there is also that section of E Fordham I mentioned above.

 

I did not say that the current signals are suitable for the buses - I am saying that with Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) technology, buses can receive extended greens and shorter reds (which is also included in most light rail lines and SBS lines). Fordham Rd does not have special "green waves" in the same way that Queens Blvd or the avenues in Manhattan do because it is a crosstown road, with no particular "peak" direction of travel.

 

 

yes GC, a bus can just go around an obstacle. how do you know how frequent the delays a trolley would experience from any kind of obstacle on the track (which does not have to stop trolleys completely; it could just slow them a bit) would be compared to those experienced by buses when the buses are on a two-lane road full of traffic that should be in two lanes but can only be in one due to an obstruction?

 

In the event that a tram breaks down along the route, other trams will not be able to pass it. In the event that this happens on a bus route, buses can bypass it - even on a two lane road, you can temporarily drive in the wrong direction (as has happened many times in my bus riding experience.)

 

so you think that it is more important to discourage the vast majority of people from attempting to violate than it is to get rid of 100% of violations. well, it is what it is then. (not sure if I can agree with you.)

 

It's not that it's more important - it's that it's more feasible. At some point, the costs of getting another violator caught exceeds the benefits of doing so.

 

See, the difference between you and I is that I am looking at this in the context of expanding mobility for all users, whereas you want to completely discourage auto use at all. Cars are not inherently bad and have their own purpose, and with EVs and hybrids and clean diesels, the environmental impact of cars can be minimized. It's only when you plan primarily for cars that you get bad results.