The Proposed SBS in Queens Could Delay Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

Since when do you need to evict people to build a subway? The Second Avenue Subway only uses land takings for a few ventilation towers and subway entrances. This isn't the 1900s, where we rip up a street wall-to-wall to build a four-track line.

 

Our subway system isn't expensive to operate. In fact, in terms of cost per rider it is the cheapest part of the MTA system. As for investment, plenty of other major cities are dropping billions of dollars on new capacity expansions and lines, and there are tons of places in which subway service is definitely feasible to extend to. Currently the subway network in Queens would be like having all the subway lines in Brooklyn end at Church Avenue, or all the lines in the Bronx ending at the Cross Bronx. I'm all for fiscal responsibility when it comes to planning (the MTA is too extravagant building its subways), but saying we have to avoid subway expansion is like a menopausal suburban mom insisting that she can fit in a size 00. The network is at capacity, and there is no feasible way to expand ferry or bus services in the numbers required to alleviate crowding and provide for future growth.

 

(More subway coverage than any other city on earth isn't true either. We're actually number 4, behind Shanghai, Beijing, and London, but Paris is also bigger if you count their express RER system.)

Bold- That's happening in cities where the costs are nowhere near as absurd as they are here in the Big Apple and also where the money was made available for expansion to happen. When any kind of money is available to expand the subway beyond the SAS we're dealing with now we can revisit this discussion. Also subway expansion in many cases is done as a last resort because buses (even BRT lines) cannot handle the ridership or projected ridership along the corridors that become subway lines. This is far from the case in NYC where the most highly used bus routes are our most cost-efficient. If ridership was so high on buses subways would need to take their place the routes in question would have so much service running on them the bus is no longer cost efficient. 

 

Italics- Here's where the case for subway expansion gets weak. If the subway network is at capacity expansion doesn't do shit about that because it either adds riders or moves riders over to a more accessible line. If we're talking about expansion like extensions to the outer reaches of Queens then we're only dividing the ridership that enters at Flushing and Jamaica among more stops. How does that make any sense? The and will still be entering Manhattan as crowded as they are now if not more crowded if ridership rises due to the more convenient access. If we're talking expansion like added coverage in Manhattan (cough cough SAS) we're just further saturating Manhattan to avoid the real causes of crowding. There aren't enough trips being taken solely within Manhattan to overcrowd all of the subway lines that run in it. When you add the fact that most outer-borough riders are seeking major points in Manhattan then you get the crowding that's such a complaint. The real solution to subway crowding is to have riders from the outer boroughs stop taking the subway into Manhattan. That is not a practical idea at all so the thought that we can get our at capacity subway network under that any time soon is ridiculous regardless of how far it reaches. 

 

Underline- Those networks cover more unique track mileage than NYC. In terms of stations NYC has the most on earth. Coverage means access and the NYC subway provides more access points than any on earth. Whether more stations over less miles is a good thing can be a subject for debate but I won't comment on that here. Although I would be more than open to taking a Paris like approach and have the LIRR/MNRR function as a super express subway in addition to providing their usual commuter service. 

 

Transit systems are meant to transport the masses and that will involve some crowding. Name a major city that doesn't have crowding issues in it's system and I have a bridge to sell you. What we need to do is make sure our most crowded services (bus and subway) are running with as few delays as possible and are at optimal cost-efficiency. Last time I checked I don't have to queue up just to get on a subway platform (major issue in Beijing) or pass up 4 or 5 buses before one shows up with room for me get on (major issue in Sao Paulo and other Latin American cities).

[BrooklynBus]

Driving in NYC should be a crime.  Sorry but if people who can drive can make sacrifices and take public transit, why can't others?   I spent almost two hours stuck in traffic today, mainly due to gas guzzlers in their cars alone who are too cute to use public transit like the rest of us and I sure as hell didn't care for it.  I strongly support congestion pricing for this reason, and it's only a matter of time before that is put back on the table.  

 

I understand that some people don't like taking the dirty subways or subpar local buses, which is why there should be transit tiers similar to the ones that exist in Europe.  We need more premium services such as the express bus, LIRR and Metro-North.

So you believe someone who can get where he is going by car in 20 or 30 minutes, should leave his car at home and instead opt for a 60 or 90 minute subway and bus trip?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So you believe someone who can get where he is going by car in 20 or 30 minutes, should leave his car at home and instead opt for a 60 or 90 minute subway and bus trip?

Oh please.  I don't buy that excuse that so many people have to use their cars because the alternatives are so poor.  I think many people on the road just don't want to use public transit, which is fine, but we know how much congestion there is in this city and selfish people adding to it doesn't help.  I have no problem imposing high fees for people who must drive into or through Manhattan.  I would also impose some sort of fee on people who have two and three cars.  Look at Staten Island and how they're expanding the SIE and it's still a parking lot because every Joe Schmoe must have two or three cars in their driveway and can't be seen using public transit (even the express buses are below them).  

 

We also need to seriously look at having trucks deliver at other times or being more proactive about ticketing delivery trucks. The double parking in some parts is just insane.  I sometimes see three UPS trucks double parked along Lexington Avenue in a 10 block radius, clogging up traffic beyond belief.

 

Believe me when I say this.  I've been actively pressing for more transit and traffic improvements to speed up commutes for those of us using the express buses or other services such as the MNRR.  For example I strongly support a HOV lane on the Major Deegan and have proposed that idea to some of my elected officials on a number of occasions.

[BrooklynBus]

Oh please.  I don't buy that excuse that so many people have to use their cars because the alternatives are so poor.  I think many people on the road just don't want to use public transit, which is fine, but we know how much congestion there is in this city and selfish people adding to it doesn't help.  I have no problem imposing high fees for people who must drive into or through Manhattan.  I would also impose some sort of fee on people who have two and three cars.  Look at Staten Island and how they're expanding the SIE and it's still a parking lot because every Joe Schmoe must have two or three cars in their driveway and can't be seen using public transit (even the express buses are below them).  

 

We also need to seriously look at having trucks deliver at other times or being more proactive about ticketing delivery trucks. The double parking in some parts is just insane.  I sometimes see three UPS trucks double parked along Lexington Avenue in a 10 block radius, clogging up traffic beyond belief.

 

Believe me when I say this.  I've been actively pressing for more transit and traffic improvements to speed up commutes for those of us using the express buses or other services such as the MNRR.  For example I strongly support a HOV lane on the Major Deegan and have proposed that idea to some of my elected officials on a number of occasions.

I fully agree with you about deliveries.

 

We have also had this discussion before about selfish drivers who wouldn't be caught dead on mass transit and I agree with you about those people also. But I firmly believe they are in the minority . Someone should do a study of why people drive and if they know how long it woud take if they used mass transit and why they didn't use it to determine if extra commute time was the major reason or not. I am surprised this hasn't been done in our area or has it been done?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I fully agree with you about deliveries.

 

We have also had this discussion before about selfish drivers who wouldn't be caught dead on mass transit and I agree with you about those people also. But I firmly believe they are in the minority . Someone should do a study of why people drive and if they know how long it woud take if they used mass transit and why they didn't use it to determine if extra commute time was the major reason or not. I am surprised this hasn't been done in our area or has it been done?

I'm not to sure be honest, but at the same time, it's hard to get people to use the system when it has so many problems.  I know plenty of people that simply won't step foot in the subway because of the growing amount of homeless people, constant delays and other issues.  I only use the subway when necessary, even if that means that my trip will be longer on the express bus or local bus.

[BrooklynBus]

I'm not to sure be honest, but at the same time, it's hard to get people to use the system when it has so many problems. I know plenty of people that simply won't step foot in the subway because of the growing amount of homeless people, constant delays and other issues. I only use the subway when necessary, even if that means that my trip will be longer on the express bus or local bus.

It used to be that people would avoid the subways during rush hours because of the crowding. Now I am sure some also avoid it on the weekends too because of the non-stop construction delays and reroutes. Not to mention the problems you mentioned. That's why it annoys me when some say that no one has a reason to drive and those who do are just selfish polluters. You don't want people to drive then you have to give them other alternatives now. It's not enough to say put in congestion pricing today and in 30 years the subways will be great. What are people supposed to do in the meantime, assuming you can even trust the politicians not to divert the funds? Even now the proposal is to use only 75% of the funds for mass transit. I bet you that number would be lowered in the future or diverted to paying off the debt and calling that a mass transit improvement.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It used to be that people would avoid the subways during rush hours because of the crowding. Now I am sure some also avoid it on the weekends too because of the non-stop construction delays and reroutes. Not to mention the problems you mentioned. That's why it annoys me when some say that no one has a reason to drive and those who do are just selfish polluters. You don't want people to drive then you have to give them other alternatives now. It's not enough to say put in congestion pricing today and in 30 years the subways will be great. What are people supposed to do in the meantime, assuming you can even trust the politicians not to divert the funds? Even now the proposal is to use only 75% of the funds for mass transit. I bet you that number would be lowered in the future or diverted to paying off the debt and calling that a mass transit improvement.

I think the problem is that if you want choices now, subways won't be the way to go short-term.  Long-term yes, but alternatives that can be implemented quickly need to be studied accordingly.

[bobtehpanda]

Bold- That's happening in cities where the costs are nowhere near as absurd as they are here in the Big Apple and also where the money was made available for expansion to happen. When any kind of money is available to expand the subway beyond the SAS we're dealing with now we can revisit this discussion. Also subway expansion in many cases is done as a last resort because buses (even BRT lines) cannot handle the ridership or projected ridership along the corridors that become subway lines. This is far from the case in NYC where the most highly used bus routes are our most cost-efficient. If ridership was so high on buses subways would need to take their place the routes in question would have so much service running on them the bus is no longer cost efficient. 

 

Italics- Here's where the case for subway expansion gets weak. If the subway network is at capacity expansion doesn't do shit about that because it either adds riders or moves riders over to a more accessible line. If we're talking about expansion like extensions to the outer reaches of Queens then we're only dividing the ridership that enters at Flushing and Jamaica among more stops. How does that make any sense? The and will still be entering Manhattan as crowded as they are now if not more crowded if ridership rises due to the more convenient access. If we're talking expansion like added coverage in Manhattan (cough cough SAS) we're just further saturating Manhattan to avoid the real causes of crowding. There aren't enough trips being taken solely within Manhattan to overcrowd all of the subway lines that run in it. When you add the fact that most outer-borough riders are seeking major points in Manhattan then you get the crowding that's such a complaint. The real solution to subway crowding is to have riders from the outer boroughs stop taking the subway into Manhattan. That is not a practical idea at all so the thought that we can get our at capacity subway network under that any time soon is ridiculous regardless of how far it reaches. 

 

Underline- Those networks cover more unique track mileage than NYC. In terms of stations NYC has the most on earth. Coverage means access and the NYC subway provides more access points than any on earth. Whether more stations over less miles is a good thing can be a subject for debate but I won't comment on that here. Although I would be more than open to taking a Paris like approach and have the LIRR/MNRR function as a super express subway in addition to providing their usual commuter service. 

 

Transit systems are meant to transport the masses and that will involve some crowding. Name a major city that doesn't have crowding issues in it's system and I have a bridge to sell you. What we need to do is make sure our most crowded services (bus and subway) are running with as few delays as possible and are at optimal cost-efficiency. Last time I checked I don't have to queue up just to get on a subway platform (major issue in Beijing) or pass up 4 or 5 buses before one shows up with room for me get on (major issue in Sao Paulo and other Latin American cities).

 

Crossrail is just as expensive as the Second Avenue Subway in terms of cost per mile, so it's not as if peer cities aren't spending that kind of money on massive transportation networks. As for the other point, that's a bunch of crap about semantics. Expansion is the building of additional capacity, whether it's in the core or in the outer reaches of the borough. The Second Avenue Subway is in itself a core expansion that can have extensions tacked onto this new core capacity. This quick diagram shows how, in conjunction with other projects that have been proposed in the past like the Queens Blvd Bypass, the SAS can allow for more core capacity and thus more expansion in the outer boroughs. (30 TPH is the assumed maximum on this map, since the Queens Blvd lines run that today, but the CBTC technology on the is used in other cities to run 40 TPH.)

 

Subways are not just useful in high ridership places; they are useful as part of a larger network. For example, every bus in Eastern Queens currently diverts to Flushing or Jamaica because those are where the subways end, and the stations that those buses feed represent about 7% of subway ridership in the city. Extending outwards allows the bus network to be more rationalized and efficient, instead of being forced into roads that travel at a good 6MPH during the rush hour just to reach the subway. The routes that feed into the subway in Eastern Queens are very busy (at points in the morning the Q46 is scheduled to arrive at Kew Gardens every two minutes), but they're not cost efficient, because they are long routes with ridership that takes long rides. The most cost-efficient routes are crosstowns like the M86, where you have large amounts of people taking short trips and lots of people getting on and off at every stop.

 

I get passed up on Q43s in Jamaica. I get passed up taking the 2/3 downtown from Penn during the morning rush. I've gotten passed up transferring from the 7 to a Queens Blvd train at Roosevelt Av, and I've gotten passed up many times on the Lexington Avenue Lines. Maybe your specific commute is bearably overcrowded, but it's not as if there aren't people being passed up on trains and buses.

 

As for redirecting the people to other modes, how the hell do you expect that to work? Buses need dedicated lanes to travel into Manhattan quickly and efficiently, but that's not happening, and even then it's not enough; remember how ridiculous the Sandy bus-bridge was, and how that didn't even begin to make up for the subway capacity with all the long lines for buses? Bikes are only useful up to a point, since there's a practical limit to how far a commuter is willing to ride a bike every day, and even then that option is congested as well; they're proposing doubling the Brooklyn Bridge bike/ped paths because there's not enough room on the current one. Ferries are only useful if one end of your trip is close to the water; no one is going to take a bus to a ferry to a bus, or a train to a ferry to a bus, or any two-transfer combination of those modes. And commuter rail is far too expensive for it to be a realistic alternative for many people; besides, trains are often standing-room only when they arrive at Jamaica from the east. The right long-term choices are expensive, but that doesn't mean they're not solutions worth looking at or doing.

[bobtehpanda]

I fully agree with you about deliveries.

 

We have also had this discussion before about selfish drivers who wouldn't be caught dead on mass transit and I agree with you about those people also. But I firmly believe they are in the minority . Someone should do a study of why people drive and if they know how long it woud take if they used mass transit and why they didn't use it to determine if extra commute time was the major reason or not. I am surprised this hasn't been done in our area or has it been done?

 

The issue is the cost and trying to find a sample that is both big and representative enough. People's commutes vary so wildly even within a household; a house in Bayside could have a student going to high school in Manhattan, a little child attending kindergarten across the street, a grandparent going to a senior center in Flushing, a dad working in Wall Street, and a mother selling real estate in Great Neck. Finding a sample that would accurately reflect travel along a corridor or in a neighborhood is hard enough; doing it on a very long corridor like Woodhaven or borough or city-wide would be extremely difficult. Then there's how you actually collect the data; DOT can't exactly send people to intersections and ask drivers to roll down the window to answer a few questions, and we don't track drivers around the city by license plate like a more totalitarian state like Singapore. Transportation modelling is also ridiculously difficult, and not particularly accurate; transit ridership consistently exceeds expectations, toll road forecasts are often too optimistic, and USDOT has predicted large increases in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) nationally every year for the past few decades, when the rate has been stable or decreasing every year since 2006.

 

Then there's the debatable validity of using the work commute as an actual guide to traffic patterns. If I take the subway to Midtown for work, bike to a friend's house a few miles away, walk to the grocery store, and drive to visit my grandparents, only the subway commute counts, even though all of those trips affect congestion levels on various transportation networks. If it were possible to model the transportation of the City, it would've been done already, but the quality of the data is too poor for a question that is too narrowly defined.

[B35 via Church]

I try to write about what is in the news and have been following the Woodhaven story closely because I am familiar with the area and am personally affected by it. If I was purely against SBS, I would be criticizing every SBS route. The M86 SBS started last week and I haven't said a word about it because the changes are so minor, they won't make much of a difference anyway. It may be somewhat of a plus. I also write about what is not in the news, like the missing B44 SBS first annual assessment. What annoys me is that none of the pro-SBSers out there are asking where is the assessment? Isn't it funny that the first SBS route without a ridership increase after the first year isn't assesse?. You can't pick and choose the data you want to present and call yourself fair as the MTA and DOT are doing. As I have said numerous times before, the problem isn't with the SBS concept but with the execution and the pro-SBSers who get annoyed if anyone criticizes their precious SBS panacea to curing all transit ills.

 

I have decided to exercise my pro-cardem because of all the harm the chosen plan by DOT will have on cars, trucks, and emergency vehicles and how in off peak hours it won't even help bus passengers. They chose te worst of the three possible options.

 

They already lowered the speed limit to 30 mph. When they institute SBS, I guarantee you with the narrower lanes, it will be lowered again to 25 mph. During the off-peak buses used to travels fast as cars, 35 mph. After SBS their top speed will be 25 mph after they lower the speed limit. The cars will ignore 25 mph just as they now do on Queens Blvd. But the buses won't be able to. So at best after SBS, for 20 hours a day, buses won't be traveling any faster, and the ten minutes they might save during the peak hours at the expense of adding 20 minutes to the other two thirds of the corridors' users will end up costing over $231 million in initial costs plus about $4 million a year in future operating costs. Does that make any sense?

 

Pro SBS /anti car people won't see things my way because they don't want a rational discussion. They are operating from 1) being unfamiliar with the road, 2) talking theoretics like more people will go out and buy more cars unless we make driving more inconvenient so that is what we have to do, 3) they only know about the SBS plan from DOT's website which doesn't explain the entire plan or any of its negatives.

 

On the other hand I believe a plan is only a success if it helps more than it hurts, regardless of who it hurts. I would also oppose a plan that hurts more bus riders than drivers who would be helped, if there were such a plan. So it has nothing to do with being pro-car or pro-transit, but being fair to everyone. SBS supporters don't care about being fair to everyone. I do.

Bold statement #1: That logic is just false.... The both of us criticize certain SBS routes over others, and the both of us do not believe the SBS concept & the execution is the problem.... That is my stance, and I don't sit up here & criticize every SBS route either.... See, you are trying to paint yourself as someone who doesn't have a problem with SBS & criticize certain SBS routes at the same time.... That's the issue I have when it comes to whenever you talk about SBS.... I don't know if you have or haven't, but off top, I don't remember you ever making a positive comment when it comes to SBS.....

 

Bold statement #2: I don't disagree with the general point you're outputting here, but you're gonna continue being annoyed then, because those same folks don't care about any assessments.... The pro-SBS folks believe that whatever (new service) the MTA throws at them is the best thing since sliced bread.... I call it the something new & different craze, which is all it is IMO....

 

Furthermore, the MTA isn't in it to be fair.... Matter fact, when have they ever put it out there that they were trying to be so? They do what's in their best interests, not for the interest of the commuter.....

 

Bold statements #3 & 4: Your opinion doesn't somehow automatically quantify as being one part of a rational discussion....

 

Anyway, this pro-cardom coming from you (on these forums at least) didn't exist before the advent of SBS.... That's what I was getting at.... Yes, the MTA & the DOT are exacerbating driving on NYC's roads moreso than ever & we've had discussion(s) on that before, but the pro-cardom you exude on here & the pro-cardom hardcore advocates exude are very different... To be honest, yours doesn't come off as genuine to me.... I mean, I don't think you're against cars, but I get the sense that you're saying you're pro-car just so that you don't come off as someone that's only/solely pro-transit with your whole, I'm trying to be balanced mindset.... Someone that's a staunch pro-car advocate wouldn't side with your views......

 

I can see where the pro-SBS people wouldn't buy into you being fair....

 

So you believe someone who can get where he is going by car in 20 or 30 minutes, should leave his car at home and instead opt for a 60 or 90 minute subway and bus trip?

By that logic, there should actually be more cars on the road

 

....but we know how much congestion there is in this city and selfish people adding to it doesn't help......

Sure, but how would you determine who gets to utilize their cars & who shouldn't? Suburbanites for example aren't giving up their cars, and I do not blame them one bit......

 

As for inter-city urbanites.... Well, I ask this because I remember someone proposed having outerboro residents barred from using cars to enter Manhattan.... Even if that could be enforced, even if that pipe dream were to come to fruition, there is no way in hell the MTA would (or, could, TBH) muster near as much subway service to transport as many people that currently drive.... You're not going to get these same people en masse to start taking express buses, especially when the express bus system in this city (esp. in Brooklyn) isn't all that expansive......

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

Crossrail is just as expensive as the Second Avenue Subway in terms of cost per mile, so it's not as if peer cities aren't spending that kind of money on massive transportation networks. As for the other point, that's a bunch of crap about semantics. Expansion is the building of additional capacity, whether it's in the core or in the outer reaches of the borough. The Second Avenue Subway is in itself a core expansion that can have extensions tacked onto this new core capacity. This quick diagram shows how, in conjunction with other projects that have been proposed in the past like the Queens Blvd Bypass, the SAS can allow for more core capacity and thus more expansion in the outer boroughs. (30 TPH is the assumed maximum on this map, since the Queens Blvd lines run that today, but the CBTC technology on the is used in other cities to run 40 TPH.)

 

Subways are not just useful in high ridership places; they are useful as part of a larger network. For example, every bus in Eastern Queens currently diverts to Flushing or Jamaica because those are where the subways end, and the stations that those buses feed represent about 7% of subway ridership in the city. Extending outwards allows the bus network to be more rationalized and efficient, instead of being forced into roads that travel at a good 6MPH during the rush hour just to reach the subway. The routes that feed into the subway in Eastern Queens are very busy (at points in the morning the Q46 is scheduled to arrive at Kew Gardens every two minutes), but they're not cost efficient, because they are long routes with ridership that takes long rides. The most cost-efficient routes are crosstowns like the M86, where you have large amounts of people taking short trips and lots of people getting on and off at every stop.

 

I get passed up on Q43s in Jamaica. I get passed up taking the 2/3 downtown from Penn during the morning rush. I've gotten passed up transferring from the 7 to a Queens Blvd train at Roosevelt Av, and I've gotten passed up many times on the Lexington Avenue Lines. Maybe your specific commute is bearably overcrowded, but it's not as if there aren't people being passed up on trains and buses.

 

As for redirecting the people to other modes, how the hell do you expect that to work? Buses need dedicated lanes to travel into Manhattan quickly and efficiently, but that's not happening, and even then it's not enough; remember how ridiculous the Sandy bus-bridge was, and how that didn't even begin to make up for the subway capacity with all the long lines for buses? Bikes are only useful up to a point, since there's a practical limit to how far a commuter is willing to ride a bike every day, and even then that option is congested as well; they're proposing doubling the Brooklyn Bridge bike/ped paths because there's not enough room on the current one. Ferries are only useful if one end of your trip is close to the water; no one is going to take a bus to a ferry to a bus, or a train to a ferry to a bus, or any two-transfer combination of those modes. And commuter rail is far too expensive for it to be a realistic alternative for many people; besides, trains are often standing-room only when they arrive at Jamaica from the east. The right long-term choices are expensive, but that doesn't mean they're not solutions worth looking at or doing.

 

All this you talk about usefulness makes it seem like you're trying to do commuters' thinking for them. In any transit network perfect or not a commuter takes the most useful option available to them and said commuters would not even consider taking commutes that failed to serve their needs. If we're so coverage starved that expansion is necessary riders would be speaking with their feet and shunning the subway due to it's inability to serve them. We have to consider that no line in the system is at their maximum carrying capacity. Quite a few may be at the maximum capacity currently allowable but things like CBTC or cars with open gangways (articulated trains) can serve to increase that capacity significantly. Both of which are far less expensive than new subway lines and will be needed at some point anyway. If commuters are using our current subway lines at the rate to overcrowd them there's obviously a high degree of usefulness to them and saturating the network with more coverage would be adding deadweight since the ridership for the added portions would have to be captured from trips already being made on other lines. 

 

You give this diagram about added capacity from SAS into the outer boroughs but it's all moot if that capacity doesn't provide any usefulness. Given the direction of SAS it's safe to say that any extension into the Bronx would be N/S likely along Third Av. The problem is that N/S is not where the coverage deficit is in the Bronx and crowding on Bronx trains is caused by the accumulation of riders going down the respective lines (something that will always occur as long as the trains are heading to Manhattan). That added capacity would be highly misplaced and would serve to only benefit riders proximate to Third Av (too narrow of a market in our current system). 

 

You mentioned having been passed up by buses and trains (I have as well) but did such limit the usefulness of the routes involved? When I had to the let trains pass I just waited 1 or 2 minutes for the next one to come so the added time did almost nothing to impact my commute. There was overcrowding but the commute was still worth making. You're not entitled to have room to board the first bus or train that you lay eyes on and it shouldn't be much of an issue if the route in question has headways comparable to peak hour Lex service. Getting passed up on a route like the Q50 bus (which has happened to me as well) is highly problematic but on that route such crowding is an exception instead of the rule. If trains being over capacity was such an issue ridership would decrease resulting in less trains being over capacity. People won't use a line that is not useful in any way and a line that results in waiting past buses or trains would not be useful if crowding is as big of an issue as you portray. Expanding the subway system doesn't create usefulness out of thin air (especially if the goal is to siphon ridership off of existing lines) and a line has to be useful to commuters to have high ridership. 

 

No world class city has a transit system free of overcrowding and i'm sure all have tried ways to manage it. Dropping billions on subway lines works when we've exhausted all of our options. We haven't even tried any real options to exhaust them. A rational transit network is supposed to try things like bus rapid transit, light rail and automating the subways before claiming extra lines are needed to solve crowding. The fact that there's no willingness to try them and jump straight to more subways is nothing short of ridiculous. Subways aren't the only transit mode in existence and it's ability to carry higher capacities becomes a detriment once enough of it has been built. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Sure, but how would you determine who gets to utilize their cars & who shouldn't? Suburbanites for example aren't giving up their cars, and I do not blame them one bit......

 

As for inter-city urbanites.... Well, I ask this because I remember someone proposed having outerboro residents barred from using cars to enter Manhattan.... Even if that could be enforced, even if that pipe dream were to come to fruition, there is no way in hell the MTA would (or, could, TBH) muster near as much subway service to transport as many people that currently drive.... You're not going to get these same people en masse to start taking express buses, especially when the express bus system in this city (esp. in Brooklyn) isn't all that expansive......

There's no question that the transportation would have to be put in place in order for something like this to work.  You would have to expand various transportation options to make it feasible.

[bobtehpanda]

All this you talk about usefulness makes it seem like you're trying to do commuters' thinking for them. In any transit network perfect or not a commuter takes the most useful option available to them and said commuters would not even consider taking commutes that failed to serve their needs. If we're so coverage starved that expansion is necessary riders would be speaking with their feet and shunning the subway due to it's inability to serve them. We have to consider that no line in the system is at their maximum carrying capacity. Quite a few may be at the maximum capacity currently allowable but things like CBTC or cars with open gangways (articulated trains) can serve to increase that capacity significantly. Both of which are far less expensive than new subway lines and will be needed at some point anyway. If commuters are using our current subway lines at the rate to overcrowd them there's obviously a high degree of usefulness to them and saturating the network with more coverage would be adding deadweight since the ridership for the added portions would have to be captured from trips already being made on other lines. 

 

You give this diagram about added capacity from SAS into the outer boroughs but it's all moot if that capacity doesn't provide any usefulness. Given the direction of SAS it's safe to say that any extension into the Bronx would be N/S likely along Third Av. The problem is that N/S is not where the coverage deficit is in the Bronx and crowding on Bronx trains is caused by the accumulation of riders going down the respective lines (something that will always occur as long as the trains are heading to Manhattan). That added capacity would be highly misplaced and would serve to only benefit riders proximate to Third Av (too narrow of a market in our current system). 

 

You mentioned having been passed up by buses and trains (I have as well) but did such limit the usefulness of the routes involved? When I had to the let trains pass I just waited 1 or 2 minutes for the next one to come so the added time did almost nothing to impact my commute. There was overcrowding but the commute was still worth making. You're not entitled to have room to board the first bus or train that you lay eyes on and it shouldn't be much of an issue if the route in question has headways comparable to peak hour Lex service. Getting passed up on a route like the Q50 bus (which has happened to me as well) is highly problematic but on that route such crowding is an exception instead of the rule. If trains being over capacity was such an issue ridership would decrease resulting in less trains being over capacity. People won't use a line that is not useful in any way and a line that results in waiting past buses or trains would not be useful if crowding is as big of an issue as you portray. Expanding the subway system doesn't create usefulness out of thin air (especially if the goal is to siphon ridership off of existing lines) and a line has to be useful to commuters to have high ridership. 

 

No world class city has a transit system free of overcrowding and i'm sure all have tried ways to manage it. Dropping billions on subway lines works when we've exhausted all of our options. We haven't even tried any real options to exhaust them. A rational transit network is supposed to try things like bus rapid transit, light rail and automating the subways before claiming extra lines are needed to solve crowding. The fact that there's no willingness to try them and jump straight to more subways is nothing short of ridiculous. Subways aren't the only transit mode in existence and it's ability to carry higher capacities becomes a detriment once enough of it has been built. 

 

The alternatives aren't too good. Bus rapid transit, where it's gold standard, costs just about as much as a new rail line and also needs lots of lanes on busy roads, something which is not readily available in New York; plus to actually relieve the subway you'd need bus lanes to bring it into the core, but none of the current East River crossings can currently handle that. Light rail and BRT have the same issue in very constricted areas that are congested, like Flushing (in which all N/S traffic converges on a single four lane road), and in such cases grade separating would be necessary; but bus tunnels are so expensive that you might as well build subway instead, and light rail is also capital-intensive.

 

Subway automation is not happening in our lifetimes, particularly since even in the most optimistic of timelines we cannot get the whole subway under CBTC control, since the technology has not been used on four-track trunk lines with a lot of branching into non-CBTC areas and service change options. Open gangways would be nice, but so much of our fleet has already been replaced that we cannot bring open gangway cars to all subway lines for another 40 years. And even then the cost of Queens Blvd CBTC is $500M, which is "cheap", but building a line parallel to it wouldn't be particularly expensive either since the LIRR Main Line is a six-track row that already exists. And we have plenty of cheap subway expansions that could be done; to SE Queens, where the track portal and ROW already exist, Rockaway Beach Branch, where the track portal and ROW already exist, and Triboro RX, which has fully functioning rail tracks and in most cases space for two freight and two subway tracks.

 

It was very inconvenient. Taking the third or fourth train out of Penn added about eight minutes to my commute. Taking the second or third bus out of 179th St is ridiculous if the bus runs every six minutes, because that's 12 or 18 minutes added to my commute. And this is before we resolve the issue of the fact that this bus is forced to crawl into Jamaica on slow roads that it wouldn't otherwise have to take, all because the subway stopped a little bit short. People don't vote with their feet because the other options suck even more. Driving and finding parking sucks, taking a bus across the East River is slow, biking from many neighborhoods into the City is likely to get you killed, and the ferry system isn't fare integrated and also requires schlepping to and from the ferry. A subway is more useful simply because it is faster and makes transfers more optimal; the running local in Queens does so at 18MPH, and citywide average bus speeds are 7MPH. That is almost a tripling of speed, and considering areas like Flushing, Jamaica, where many bus routes feed into are very slow, the impact would be even greater.

 

Let's look at some graphics put out by DOT:

 

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the Third Avenue corridor is very clearly marked as a dense, underserved neighborhood. Sure, east-west travel is difficult, but that could be solved using light rail, better BRT, or even a subway line (since the idea has now been suggested to extend the to Fordham Plaza.)

 

If you look at the vast majority of these areas, most of these are corridors in which extending the subway system makes more sense than building new facilities for other modes and forcing a transfer at existing terminals. Aside from 2, 3, maybe 4, and 5, all of them have existing rights of way or previously planned extensions that could be used to extend subway service down. And then we have this graphic:

 

 

The Second Avenue Subway will fix issues on the Lex. Extension north would help redistribute riders from the Concourse and Jerome Av Lines. The connection to the 63 St tunnel going east could be used to relieve the , , , and .

 

I agree that light rail, BRT, and subway are all tools that should be used, but the reality of the situation is that light rail and BRT are different kinds of hammers, but not every capacity and coverage problem is a nail. Unless something radically changes light rail and BRT are not going to be brought into the core on dedicated rights of way, so at the most they should be used as crosstown routes that link to the subway, which is always going to be the network for traveling into the core.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

All this you talk about usefulness makes it seem like you're trying to do commuters' thinking for them. In any transit network perfect or not a commuter takes the most useful option available to them and said commuters would not even consider taking commutes that failed to serve their needs. If we're so coverage starved that expansion is necessary riders would be speaking with their feet and shunning the subway due to it's inability to serve them. We have to consider that no line in the system is at their maximum carrying capacity. Quite a few may be at the maximum capacity currently allowable but things like CBTC or cars with open gangways (articulated trains) can serve to increase that capacity significantly. Both of which are far less expensive than new subway lines and will be needed at some point anyway. If commuters are using our current subway lines at the rate to overcrowd them there's obviously a high degree of usefulness to them and saturating the network with more coverage would be adding deadweight since the ridership for the added portions would have to be captured from trips already being made on other lines. 

 

You give this diagram about added capacity from SAS into the outer boroughs but it's all moot if that capacity doesn't provide any usefulness. Given the direction of SAS it's safe to say that any extension into the Bronx would be N/S likely along Third Av. The problem is that N/S is not where the coverage deficit is in the Bronx and crowding on Bronx trains is caused by the accumulation of riders going down the respective lines (something that will always occur as long as the trains are heading to Manhattan). That added capacity would be highly misplaced and would serve to only benefit riders proximate to Third Av (too narrow of a market in our current system). 

 

You mentioned having been passed up by buses and trains (I have as well) but did such limit the usefulness of the routes involved? When I had to the let trains pass I just waited 1 or 2 minutes for the next one to come so the added time did almost nothing to impact my commute. There was overcrowding but the commute was still worth making. You're not entitled to have room to board the first bus or train that you lay eyes on and it shouldn't be much of an issue if the route in question has headways comparable to peak hour Lex service. Getting passed up on a route like the Q50 bus (which has happened to me as well) is highly problematic but on that route such crowding is an exception instead of the rule. If trains being over capacity was such an issue ridership would decrease resulting in less trains being over capacity. People won't use a line that is not useful in any way and a line that results in waiting past buses or trains would not be useful if crowding is as big of an issue as you portray. Expanding the subway system doesn't create usefulness out of thin air (especially if the goal is to siphon ridership off of existing lines) and a line has to be useful to commuters to have high ridership. 

 

No world class city has a transit system free of overcrowding and i'm sure all have tried ways to manage it. Dropping billions on subway lines works when we've exhausted all of our options. We haven't even tried any real options to exhaust them. A rational transit network is supposed to try things like bus rapid transit, light rail and automating the subways before claiming extra lines are needed to solve crowding. The fact that there's no willingness to try them and jump straight to more subways is nothing short of ridiculous. Subways aren't the only transit mode in existence and it's ability to carry higher capacities becomes a detriment once enough of it has been built. 

Subways are expensive to build and take a long time to finish. We first need to examine where we can increase capacity without spending massive amounts of money, while improving the current infrastructure to support and sustain more service.

[BrooklynBus]

The issue is the cost and trying to find a sample that is both big and representative enough. People's commutes vary so wildly even within a household; a house in Bayside could have a student going to high school in Manhattan, a little child attending kindergarten across the street, a grandparent going to a senior center in Flushing, a dad working in Wall Street, and a mother selling real estate in Great Neck. Finding a sample that would accurately reflect travel along a corridor or in a neighborhood is hard enough; doing it on a very long corridor like Woodhaven or borough or city-wide would be extremely difficult. Then there's how you actually collect the data; DOT can't exactly send people to intersections and ask drivers to roll down the window to answer a few questions, and we don't track drivers around the city by license plate like a more totalitarian state like Singapore. Transportation modelling is also ridiculously difficult, and not particularly accurate; transit ridership consistently exceeds expectations, toll road forecasts are often too optimistic, and USDOT has predicted large increases in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) nationally every year for the past few decades, when the rate has been stable or decreasing every year since 2006.

 

Then there's the debatable validity of using the work commute as an actual guide to traffic patterns. If I take the subway to Midtown for work, bike to a friend's house a few miles away, walk to the grocery store, and drive to visit my grandparents, only the subway commute counts, even though all of those trips affect congestion levels on various transportation networks. If it were possible to model the transportation of the City, it would've been done already, but the quality of the data is too poor for a question that is too narrowly defined.

I think you are making this overly complex. Of course you couldn't get answers with absolute certainty about everyone's trip in every household. And yes it would be difficult and expensive to do this citywide in every corridor. However, if you are looking for general answers why people choose the mode that they do, that isn't difficult to determine. Look how the MTA does their biased satisfaction surveys. They call a couple hundred people like a point 02 sample and draw broadbased conclusions. They don't try to survey every bus rider.

 

A similar but unbiased phone survey could be done for this purpose by selecting random households and asking them to focus on one particular trip that household makes regularly and ask them questions about just that trip. This an attitudinal survey, not one that seeks to determine the number trips made by various modes,

 

I will tell you why it is not done. Because officials won't like the answers and are not willing to solve the problems. You will hear about inadequate parking which no one wants to address, dirty and overcrowded trains, road congestion, etc. All they want to do is increase congestion with overdevelopment, sell off municipal parking lots for more development, slow speeds, install SBS, not do anything about bus reliability, etc. Now they even want Google to give directions without left turns to make trips even longer and cause further congestion, all in the name of safety which they don't even care aout.

 

If they did, there wouldn't be misleading and poor signage due to road construction on the Gowanus at the Belt Parkway exit where the sign for the exit is actually placed after the lanes diverge requiring you to go through traffic cones if you are in the wrong lane. DOT knows about the probles and just said motorists would have to adjust during the next few months until the construction is completed. What will they say if someone is killed because so many motorists are confused, and are making last minute decisions? If they cared about safety, there wouldn't be dark stretches on the Belt Parkway without street lights for over five years now. Lane markings wouldn't be restriped after they totally disappear.

 

So why do a survey if you have no intention of correcting the mass transit or road problems anyway? Who cares why people choose the modes they do. It's just easier to always blame the motorist and insist safety is your number one priority when it isn't.

[BrooklynBus]

Bold statement #1: That logic is just false.... The both of us criticize certain SBS routes over others, and the both of us do not believe the SBS concept & the execution is the problem.... That is my stance, and I don't sit up here & criticize every SBS route either.... See, you are trying to paint yourself as someone who doesn't have a problem with SBS & criticize certain SBS routes at the same time.... That's the issue I have when it comes to whenever you talk about SBS.... I don't know if you have or haven't, but off top, I don't remember you ever making a positive comment when it comes to SBS.....

 

Bold statement #2: I don't disagree with the general point you're outputting here, but you're gonna continue being annoyed then, because those same folks don't care about any assessments.... The pro-SBS folks believe that whatever (new service) the MTA throws at them is the best thing since sliced bread.... I call it the something new & different craze, which is all it is IMO....

 

Furthermore, the MTA isn't in it to be fair.... Matter fact, when have they ever put it out there that they were trying to be so? They do what's in their best interests, not for the interest of the commuter.....

 

Bold statements #3 & 4: Your opinion doesn't somehow automatically quantify as being one part of a rational discussion....

 

Anyway, this pro-cardom coming from you (on these forums at least) didn't exist before the advent of SBS.... That's what I was getting at.... Yes, the MTA & the DOT are exacerbating driving on NYC's roads moreso than ever & we've had discussion(s) on that before, but the pro-cardom you exude on here & the pro-cardom hardcore advocates exude are very different... To be honest, yours doesn't come off as genuine to me.... I mean, I don't think you're against cars, but I get the sense that you're saying you're pro-car just so that you don't come off as someone that's only/solely pro-transit with your whole, I'm trying to be balanced mindset.... Someone that's a staunch pro-car advocate wouldn't side with your views......

 

I can see where the pro-SBS people wouldn't buy into you being fair....

 

 

By that logic, there should actually be more cars on the road

 

 

Sure, but how would you determine who gets to utilize their cars & who shouldn't? Suburbanites for example aren't giving up their cars, and I do not blame them one bit......

 

As for inter-city urbanites.... Well, I ask this because I remember someone proposed having outerboro residents barred from using cars to enter Manhattan.... Even if that could be enforced, even if that pipe dream were to come to fruition, there is no way in hell the MTA would (or, could, TBH) muster near as much subway service to transport as many people that currently drive.... You're not going to get these same people en masse to start taking express buses, especially when the express bus system in this city (esp. in Brooklyn) isn't all that expansive......

I am just going to generally address your comments rather than point by point.

 

I don't believe I am using any faulty logic. This is my position and always has been my position. I first heard about SBS in 2003 and was initially for it. It was presented as a supplemental service to Limited, not as a replacement. I did question however te number of routes tat actually could justify a new layer of service like that. The idea was to put out the extra new service in hopes of attracting riders from their cars. Also they said where possible, parking lanes would become the bus lanes and in rare cases they woud take a lane of traffic away.

 

We all know that is not what happened. Anyway in 2008 when the Bx12 began, I was for that also because I had no reason to oppose it and believed what DOT and the MTA told me. I started to get suspicious that they weren't doing everything correctly when I learned all the fare machines had to be replaced after three years when the warranty wore out because no one thought of providing weather protection. At $50,000 per machine, how much did that oversight cost? The MTA never told us but we can easily figure it out.

 

When I saw that bus lanes on the M15 were not increasing reliability, my suspicions increased. Then came the M34 which I also thought was a great idea before it was implemented. When I learned it only saves three minutes, I realized it was a waste. I have used the S79 about a dozen times having previously used the local S78. It made my trip worse, buti can see how it helps some.

 

But when I realized the MTA only was focusing on end to end bus travel savings without analyzing how much passengers were actually saving, that's when I started criticizing them for lack of data showing more were helped than hurt. But when they proposed the B44 SBS, that's when I really became critical because I could see so many things wrong with it. I started attending the workshops and saw how misleading their presentations were. NEVER DID THEY EVER STATE THAT THEY WERE REMOVING A TRAFFIC LANE! It was up to you to know the roadway and parking restrictions, and figure out what they were doing from inspecting the diagrams. I stated the B44 was unlike any previous SBS route and it was unfair to assume it would be successful as previous routes supposedly were.

 

Because I am also very familiar with Woodhaven, I was able to predict what would happen when they instated SBS there. But I did believe it could still work with combined HOV exclusive bus lanes, which they refused to consider. Then they came up with up with three alternatives and increased the cost ten fold without any accounting. Finally, they chose the option with the worst traffic impact and one where SBS and express buses won't even be able to pass stopped local buses during rush hours. That's when my anger greatly increased and I started writing numerous articles about SBS on Woodhaven.

 

Yes if I was purely pro-car I would be advocating for more highways and more parking which I am not. I do realize that would increase the demand for autos. But I am advocating reduction of bottlenecks to keep traffic moving and not a general lowering of the speed limit. I am against overdevelopment without infrastructure improvement, and selling off of municipal parking lots for more development. All that does is further traffic congestion and increase the need for better mass transit which is not being provided.

 

I don't follow your logic about there being more cars on the road under the scenario I posed.

[bobtehpanda]

I think you are making this overly complex. Of course you couldn't get answers with absolute certainty about everyone's trip in every household. And yes it would be difficult and expensive to do this citywide in every corridor. However, if you are looking for general answers why people choose the mode that they do, that isn't difficult to determine. Look how the MTA does their biased satisfaction surveys. They call a couple hundred people like a point 02 sample and draw broadbased conclusions. They don't try to survey every bus rider.

 

A similar but unbiased phone survey could be done for this purpose by selecting random households and asking them to focus on one particular trip that household makes regularly and ask them questions about just that trip. This an attitudinal survey, not one that seeks to determine the number trips made by various modes,

 

I will tell you why it is not done. Because officials won't like the answers and are not willing to solve the problems. You will hear about inadequate parking which no one wants to address, dirty and overcrowded trains, road congestion, etc. All they want to do is increase congestion with overdevelopment, sell off municipal parking lots for more development, slow speeds, install SBS, not do anything about bus reliability, etc. Now they even want Google to give directions without left turns to make trips even longer and cause further congestion, all in the name of safety which they don't even care aout.

 

If they did, there wouldn't be misleading and poor signage due to road construction on the Gowanus at the Belt Parkway exit where the sign for the exit is actually placed after the lanes diverge requiring you to go through traffic cones if you are in the wrong lane. DOT knows about the probles and just said motorists would have to adjust during the next few months until the construction is completed. What will they say if someone is killed because so many motorists are confused, and are making last minute decisions? If they cared about safety, there wouldn't be dark stretches on the Belt Parkway without street lights for over five years now. Lane markings wouldn't be restriped after they totally disappear.

 

So why do a survey if you have no intention of correcting the mass transit or road problems anyway? Who cares why people choose the modes they do. It's just easier to always blame the motorist and insist safety is your number one priority when it isn't.

 

Then who would you call? Lots of people use Woodhaven, motorist and transit and bike and pedestrian alike, simply because it's one of the few big roads going north-south in that area. Lots of those trips also don't originate or end anywhere near Woodhaven, so you can't just call phone numbers around those areas. In addition (and this has become a problem for all sorts of polls and surveys), lots of households are going cordless because cell phones are so commonplace now. So in the end you're always going to have some level of selection bias.

 

I'm just going to point out that streetlights aren't exactly necessary for anything - if you go outside of the five boroughs, streetlights are the exception and not the rule, even on big, busy roads.

[BrooklynBus]

Then who would you call? Lots of people use Woodhaven, motorist and transit and bike and pedestrian alike, simply because it's one of the few big roads going north-south in that area. Lots of those trips also don't originate or end anywhere near Woodhaven, so you can't just call phone numbers around those areas. In addition (and this has become a problem for all sorts of polls and surveys), lots of households are going cordless because cell phones are so commonplace now. So in the end you're always going to have some level of selection bias.

 

I'm just going to point out that streetlights aren't exactly necessary for anything - if you go outside of the five boroughs, streetlights are the exception and not the rule, even on big, busy roads.

Who would you call? That depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I thought we were talking about why people chose the modes they do in general, not specific to Woodhaven.

 

If you are looking just for Woodhaven users, a random phone survey probably would not be the best way. Rather you could place prominent ads soliciting corridor users to call a number to particpate in a phone survey informing them that te area is being studied to make improvements and their help is needed. They need to see a reason to participate. You could also ask them for their ideas and solutions to problems.

 

At least you recognize tat Woodhaven users come from all over. That's more than DOT and the MTA realize. They thought it was only necessary to inform existing bus riders of the workshops and meetings ignoring motorists all together who to this day have no idea what is in store for them unless they read the local newspapers or check the DOT website regularly and decide to do their own investigation rather than believe the DOT lies.

 

As for streetlights you are wrong about that too. If they weren't necessary for safety, they woudn't exist. The reason they exist in cities is because the volume of cars here justifies the expense to improve safety. The fact is on rural roads it would just cost too much considering the road volume. It is the same reason why railroad rights of way are fenced off in urban areas and not across the US in rural areas. The cost woud just be prohibitive considering the number of people you would be protecting.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

Subways are expensive to build and take a long time to finish. We first need to examine where we can increase capacity without spending massive amounts of money, while improving the current infrastructure to support and sustain more service.

That's basically what I've been trying to tell the guy but since that would fly over his head I'm instead writing essay like responses.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's basically what I've been trying to tell the guy but since that would fly over his head I'm instead writing essay like responses.

I don't mind SBS provided that efforts are made to improve bus service on all lines.  I think part of the issue rests with B/Os.  I think it's total BS that a B/O can be late and there are no incentives for drivers to be on-time.  That should change.  I wouldn't necessarily fire B/Os are who constantly late, but I would certainly note that and see if they are purposely late to milk overtime. 

 

For example, I get this lady on the BxM1 that is very nice, but sometimes I wonder what in the hell she's thinking.  By now she has to know for example that there is a ton of construction between Lexington and 116th down to 106th, and that traffic moves MUCH better on 2nd Avenue, so WHY does she keep taking that way each day forcing us to sit in traffic for an endless amount of time when she has other options?  She could take 2nd down to 96th, turn there and come on to Lex that way.  Things that like kills ridership unnecessarily because it's excessive lateness that can be prevented.

[BrooklynBus]

That's basically what I've been trying to tell the guy but since that would fly over his head I'm instead writing essay like responses.

Nothing is going over my head. What is going over your head is the fact that DOT and the MTA cannot be trusted by only telling the positives of BS and ignoring the negatives, that the SBS process is totally unfair where motorists who are also affected are not involved, that questions are not being responded to, that SBS is planned in isolation from other local bus routes as was done with the B44, that it was never shown that SBS helps more people than it hurts by looking at passenger trip times instead of bus travel times from one end of the route to the other, that first year assessments are only issued when ridership goes up, that there is know fiscal accountability where costs can increae tenfold without explanation, etc. All my SBS criticisms are perfectly valid. Yet you dismiss them all out of hand.

[BrooklynBus]

I don't mind SBS provided that efforts are made to improve bus service on all lines.  I think part of the issue rests with B/Os.  I think it's total BS that a B/O can be late and there are no incentives for drivers to be on-time.  That should change.  I wouldn't necessarily fire B/Os are who constantly late, but I would certainly note that and see if they are purposely late to milk overtime. 

 

For example, I get this lady on the BxM1 that is very nice, but sometimes I wonder what in the hell she's thinking.  By now she has to know for example that there is a ton of construction between Lexington and 116th down to 106th, and that traffic moves MUCH better on 2nd Avenue, so WHY does she keep taking that way each day forcing us to sit in traffic for an endless amount of time when she has other options?  She could take 2nd down to 96th, turn there and come on to Lex that way.  Things that like kills ridership unnecessarily because it's excessive lateness that can be prevented.

Bus drivers do have an incentive to be on time. That's why they bypass intending passengers or go through red lights jeopeordizing safety. You need to blame supervision and management not the B/O. For unrealistic route running times, for not better managing bus bunching. A driver cannot choose any route he wants. He needs approval from supervision. If he does not seek approval, then you can blame him. As for milking overtime, I firmly believe that is done in conjunction with the knowledge and approval of dispatchers because I have seen it. And when I told MTA management what was happening, they ignored me.

 

The MTA is ignoring local and express service and devoting all their resources to SBS which I already wrote about. Dinky half hour routes are only done to give the impression they are keeping the network up to date when route changes tat were needed 70 years ago still are not made.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Bus drivers do have an incentive to be on time. That's why they bypass intending passengers or go through red lights jeopeordizing safety. You need to blame supervision and management not the B/O. For unrealistic route running times, for not better managing bus bunching. A driver cannot choose any route he wants. He needs approval from supervision. If he does not seek approval, then you can blame him. As for milking overtime, I firmly believe that is done in conjunction with the knowledge and approval of dispatchers because I have seen it. And when I told MTA management what was happening, they ignored me.

 

The MTA is ignoring local and express service and devoting all their resources to SBS which I already wrote about. Dinky half hour routes are only done to give the impression they are keeping the network up to date when route changes tat were needed 70 years ago still are not made.

Express buses can go off of the route, at least with some depots during non pick-up segments.

[bobtehpanda]

That's basically what I've been trying to tell the guy but since that would fly over his head I'm instead writing essay like responses.

 

Should we look into other improvements? Yes. Should we categorically just rule out subway expansion outside of our current commitments? No, because that's ridiculously short-sighted. "Penny wise and pound foolish".

 

New York is certainly capable of stumping up its own money when it really wants to, but the issue is that no one is having a serious discussion about what a future integrated transit network would look like in the first place, instead just categorically dismissing entire categories of travel and promoting a single one as the singular solution. (Something also needs to be said about overselling whatever the flavor of the month transit expansion is, because every mode does have disadvantages that need to be talked about in an ideal rational discussion.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Should we look into other improvements? Yes. Should we categorically just rule out subway expansion outside of our current commitments? No, because that's ridiculously short-sighted. "Penny wise and pound foolish".

 

New York is certainly capable of stumping up its own money when it really wants to, but the issue is that no one is having a serious discussion about what a future integrated transit network would look like in the first place, instead just categorically dismissing entire categories of travel and promoting a single one as the singular solution. (Something also needs to be said about overselling whatever the flavor of the month transit expansion is, because every mode does have disadvantages that need to be talked about in an ideal rational discussion.)

Sorry, but we can't afford it.  We can barely afford SAS as it is, and we need massive amounts of money for infrastructure.  I'm not sure what good it does us to  have one bloody subway line that isn't even complete when our streets look like third world countries.  I would much rather have monies be dedicated to rehabbing subways across the board and maximizing service on the current lines before we go considering any more massive subway expansions.

 

I'm more in favor of improved express bus service, new ferry service, more reliable LIRR AND MNRR service, along with better local bus service and more SBS service over subway expansions.  All of those services would provide more bang for the buck than spending billions of a segment of a new subway line.