Editorial: Bus BS on our boulevards

[LTA1992]

It's a better option for riders that use the Woodhaven Corridor. This city has made mistakes before in prioritizing the automobile when transit is still the primary mode. When you improve transit in an area, the area itself becomes more attractive. Then there is a domino effect from there. That is more important than drivers that have the luxury of taking alternate routes. If one day they decide transit would be easier for them, they can make the switch. Why should overall progress be delayed for motorists who would likely never use the service?

 

All I ever see from a lot of people are complaints upon complaints. Culver does have a point that I have stated before. Better transit means less cars on the road. Less cars make extra room that over time, would negate the negative effects of lane loss.

 

With proper enforcement and a change in traffic light patterns, along with signal priority on buses, the overall flow of traffic on the corridor can be streamlined to minimize the negative effects further. People are too worried about the loss of lanes, that the ideas of possible solutions are escaping them.

[Trainmaster5]

I've followed this thread since it's inception. I'm neither pro nor anti automobile as I can see both sides of the argument. Throw in the fact that I'm probably older than most posters and I've seen firsthand some obvious misconceptions  surrounding some SBS proposals. I personally believe the DOT folks who brought forth this Woodhaven idea are either incompetent or outright liars. Look at the cost estimates. Look at them again. BrooklynBus and I grew up in the Watergate era. The mantra back then was "follow the money trail". Nothing has changed since then. Once again look at the cost estimates for this project. To me it appears that the backers of this proposal have labeled Mr & Mrs John Q Public as uneducated, to say the least, as anyone with half a brain would question the cost estimate's ever increasing numbers. Where is the cost/benefit analysis and whom is determining whether those numbers are realistic or not? It seems that many of you are arguing about street widths, traffic lanes and the like. What about the residents who live along Woodhaven Boulevard and the neighboring streets? Are some of you saying "screw them" because the SBS is for some greater good? It's astonishing to me that many posters fail to point out the reason Woodhaven/Cross Bay was constructed in the first place. It was an automobile route with bus routes added to different segments later. Think Eastern Parkway or Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn for example. They were not constructed with rapid transit in mind. It's my personal opinion that this Woodhaven proposal, with it's outlandish cost, will do little for the majority while destroying a major thoroughfare in Queens. I don't believe any SBS service is going to take any riders out of their cars or their existing bus transportation along this corridor. I do think it will make things worse for the transit and auto folks who already use Woodhaven Blvd. Quite frankly I believe that the DOT and are using this proposal as a money grab from the federal government and nothing more. Exactly what are the numbers for the bus ridership and auto usage for people traveling along this corridor. Give me Monday-Friday rush hour and off peak data for both modes of transit. Give me the DOT- guesstimate of how much new bus ridership they expect to gain with SBS and how many people they expect to give up their private autos. Now figure if those numbers justify whatever price tag the DOT is putting out. Without a true, realistic set of numbers IMO many people are being played big time. I mean people on both sides of this issue. I'm still waiting for the B44SBS proponents to highlght the "success" of that route. I'm aware that every SBS route is different but when the supporters can't even get their numbers straight that "greater good" for mass transit mantra begins to look rather naive, IMO. Carry on.

[BrooklynBus]

I've followed this thread since it's inception. I'm neither pro nor anti automobile as I can see both sides of the argument. Throw in the fact that I'm probably older than most posters and I've seen firsthand some obvious misconceptions surrounding some SBS proposals. I personally believe the DOT folks who brought forth this Woodhaven idea are either incompetent or outright liars. Look at the cost estimates. Look at them again. BrooklynBus and I grew up in the Watergate era. The mantra back then was "follow the money trail". Nothing has changed since then. Once again look at the cost estimates for this project. To me it appears that the backers of this proposal have labeled Mr & Mrs John Q Public as uneducated, to say the least, as anyone with half a brain would question the cost estimate's ever increasing numbers. Where is the cost/benefit analysis and whom is determining whether those numbers are realistic or not? It seems that many of you are arguing about street widths, traffic lanes and the like. What about the residents who live along Woodhaven Boulevard and the neighboring streets? Are some of you saying "screw them" because the SBS is for some greater good? It's astonishing to me that many posters fail to point out the reason Woodhaven/Cross Bay was constructed in the first place. It was an automobile route with bus routes added to different segments later. Think Eastern Parkway or Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn for example. They were not constructed with rapid transit in mind. It's my personal opinion that this Woodhaven proposal, with it's outlandish cost, will do little for the majority while destroying a major thoroughfare in Queens. I don't believe any SBS service is going to take any riders out of their cars or their existing bus transportation along this corridor. I do think it will make things worse for the transit and auto folks who already use Woodhaven Blvd. Quite frankly I believe that the DOT and are using this proposal as a money grab from the federal government and nothing more. Exactly what are the numbers for the bus ridership and auto usage for people traveling along this corridor. Give me Monday-Friday rush hour and off peak data for both modes of transit. Give me the DOT- guesstimate of how much new bus ridership they expect to gain with SBS and how many people they expect to give up their private autos. Now figure if those numbers justify whatever price tag the DOT is putting out. Without a true, realistic set of numbers IMO many people are being played big time. I mean people on both sides of this issue. I'm still waiting for the B44SBS proponents to highlght the "success" of that route. I'm aware that every SBS route is different but when the supporters can't even get their numbers straight that "greater good" for mass transit mantra begins to look rather naive, IMO. Carry on.

Thank you so much for your intelligent response. Most people here believe that so-called professionals could not possibly be so dumb because it is too incomprehensible. But they can be and they are. I have seen the MTA confuse a "passenger" making a one-way trip with a "customer" making a round trip in two side by side tables. So they can and do make obvious mistakes all the time but no one knows since they reveal minimal data and all their calculations go unchecked.

 

On anther forum, someone from MTA Bus stated that the only reason they want BRT is to be able to use federal funds to replace buses reaching the end of their lifetime with Federal funds which they would have to replace anyway. It's about getting Federal funds and killing any chance to reactivate the Rockaway Beach line so that the very organized proposal can move forward. it's no coincidence that every single group supporting BRT also supports Queensway. It's not at all about helping bus passengers who would only minimally be helped. If they lower the speed limit from 35 mph to 25 mph, off-peak bs trips will take even longer after BRT, and not be speeded up in the slightest and only about ten minutes wil be gained in the rush hour for the 33% of the road's users who are bus passengers.

[B35 via Church]

....It seems that many of you are arguing about street widths, traffic lanes and the like. What about the residents who live along Woodhaven Boulevard and the neighboring streets? Are some of you saying "screw them" because the SBS is for some greater good? It's astonishing to me that many posters fail to point out the reason Woodhaven/Cross Bay was constructed in the first place. It was an automobile route with bus routes added to different segments later. Think Eastern Parkway or Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn for example. 

I don't see your point with this part of your post... At all.

 

The argument that arose from BrooklynBus' belief regarding the DOT's intentions with that 160 foot stat & what I think about SBS along Woodhaven have absolutely no correlation whatsoever - As I don't believe there's a need for the thing along Woodhaven anyway... The LTD's are enough.... They took some service away from the Q53 to give to the Q52, and now here we are talking about SBS.....

 

I wasn't arguing this whole 160ft vs 125ft bit because I supposedly could care less about the folks along & around Woodhaven - with the belief that "SBS is for some greater good" on top of it....

[Trainmaster5]

I don't see your point with this part of your post... At all.

 

The argument that arose from BrooklynBus' belief regarding the DOT's intentions with that 160 foot stat & what I think about SBS along Woodhaven have absolutely no correlation whatsoever - As I don't believe there's a need for the thing along Woodhaven anyway... The LTD's are enough.... They took some service away from the Q53 to give to the Q52, and now here we are talking about SBS.....

 

I wasn't arguing this whole 160ft vs 125ft bit because I supposedly could care less about the folks along & around Woodhaven - with the belief that "SBS is for some greater good" on top of it....

I wasn't including your stance in my rather long post because I'd already guessed where you stood on the whole topic. What I was alluding to was the apparent nitpicking over street footage or left hand turns while the DOT/ combine was coming up with this wasteful boondogle. I'm truly sorry if I wasn't clear about that in the whole post. I would point out to some of you who do support the idea of Woodhaven SBS that it's my personal conviction that there are locations within the city where SBS is necessary. Woodhaven doesn't warrant it at any cost, $20 million or $200 million.. That money would be better spent somewhere else in the city.Is there a stigma against LTD  these days? B35 I'm sure you remember another thread where you and I tried to convince a gung-ho mass transit advocate that it was unrealistic to think that one could ever come up with a mass transit system, be it subway, bus, or railroad that would convert auto users into mass transit advocates.on a large scale. The goal may be admirable, even utopian, to take cars off the road and move them onto mass transit. The problem, as I see it, is the existing infrastructure doesn't lend itself toward achieving that result without extremely costly retrofitting of streets, highways, bridges, tunnels, and railroad/subway trackage. My point is that it's easy to call oneself a mass transit advocate, whether pro or anti auto, but who is actually willing to bear the cost and disruption achieving this Utopia will surely entail? I await any responses, pro or con.Carry on

[BrooklynBus]

What is particularly annoying is the one sided coverage by the citywide media. Not only is it one-sided. It is also inaccurate. Virtually everything in this Daily News article is incorrect including when the project will be completed. It's actually billed as a way to better move traffic. Read it and weep.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/innovative-bus-system-alleviate-traffic-queens-article-1.1319494

[Theorem Ox]

If New York City is fortunate enough not to experience major catastrophic events (to the extent where tabula rasa might be possible or there's a substantial depopulation) and lifestyle + technology does not change in a way that's not even conceived today, I suspect near future residents will have to spend a lot of time and money just undoing some of the mistakes being introduced now.

 

And from my prior frequent travelling experience,  I agree that the proposed Woodhaven/Cross Bay changes is looking likely to be one of them. I feel that the status quo is serviceable enough (maybe some further concessions can be made to better accomodate pedestrians and bicyclists in some spots).

 

The transit planners (at least for those who actually care about their public remit and not living off of their own hubris) will definitely be in a tough spot, though to some extent caused by their own previous decisions and actions. They're trying to drive progress on the reliability/speed of the bus service by stepping on the accelerator (enforced bus lanes, off-board payments, etc.) while slamming the brakes at the same time (Vision Zero rules come into play as they're operating on the same roadway - intentional poorly sync'ed traffic lights, build-up of vehicular traffic from reduced driving lanes which there will be inevitable spillovers, etc.). They'll certainly succeed in generating loud noise from the engine, burning rubber and wasting gas. Now, I don't suppose there will be surprised individuals on why there's no substantial improvements despite the "investments" 

 

 

Theorem Ox, please reread the downvote policy and stop downvoting posts simply because they present information or opinions you do not endorse. That lowers the maturity of discussion for all of us.

 

It's a slightly different system from the few other discussion boards I tend to participate in. I'm still calling you out:

 

I didn't junk your post because I disagreed with what you wrote. There is no argument from me that BrooklynBus can be quite the contrarian at times and sometimes can dwell on being critical with certain things longer than I think is necessary. That said, he does regularly bring up interesting points and angles on transit issues - sometimes "unpopular" viewpoints at that and things that some of us (at least those who do not automatically believe the party line on everything) might not have the courage to say so openly. And you know what, I tend to find merit in much of what he says even if I don't necessarily agree with everything line-by-line.

 

I took exception with you (and a few other commentators here) attacking the OP more and not so much on the idea(s). Now that's what really lowers the maturity and progress of discussion. If you're interested in raising the level of discussion, I have an idea for you: How about adding your own thoughts related to those raised by BrooklynBus or refuting specifics with what you think he got wrong instead of harping on the author's (recent) past and broad attacks that trivializes any merits of the thought presented?  Mind you, I know we're not writing academic research papers - no need for comprehensive citations, numbers and formal writing to make a fair point. I look forward to reading better stuff from you going forward, as I have in the past (as a lurker)