Woodhaven Blvd. Q52/53 SBS Discussion

[BrooklynBus]

I am really interested to know what that would look like. An advertisement in Car & Driver Magazine? Including a pamphlet in AAA mailings? Or, I guess they could, you know, go to Community Board meetings since they're populated almost solely by drivers and fighters for the superior rights of automobiles everywhere, right?

They did go to the Community Boards and merchants but that is not enough.

 

And no to Car and Driver the AAA. There is one easy way. There is a gigantic billboard on Cross Bay and Liberty Avenue. Renting that space for three months woud have guaranteed that most drivers on Woodhaven would have seen the plans. All they needed to do was post a direct link to the Woodhaven SBS website like Go to NYC.gov/SBS for more info. If drivers don't pass that point on the road, enough drivers woud know about it as to tell their friends the website they need to go to. They could also provide a phone number to find out when the next meeting will be or for questions.

 

Of course none of that means anything if the website doesn't adequately explain what will happen to the roadway and only lists advantages of the plan without properly describing it like clearly listing where all left turns will be banned.

[BrooklynBus]

At the same token, you can't blame them for that either because if car riders or motorists really wanted to be informed of such plans, they could've gone to the meetings, no?

I mean, that's what those meetings are for, for them to address their concerns, right?

Both parties are to blame. Not one or the other.

You are assuming drivers knew about those meetings. Signs were only placed on buses ten days prior. Internet notice occurred only five days before each meeting. Do you expect everyone to check DOT's website every five days to find out if there are any meetings that interest them?

 

I signed up with DOT on Facebook to be notified when they would be having an event. The problem is they only notify you of events they want you to go to. I received notices about cycling events all over the city but not a single one about SBS events (B46, B82, or Woodhaven). The fact is they only want bus riders at SBS meetings.

[Cait Sith]

You are assuming drivers knew about those meetings. Signs were only placed on buses ten days prior. Internet notice occurred only five days before each meeting. Do you expect everyone to check DOT's website every five days to find out if there are any meetings that interest them?

 

I signed up with DOT on Facebook to be notified when they would be having an event. The problem is they only notify you of events they want you to go to. I received notices about cycling events all over the city but not a single one about SBS events (B46, B82, or Woodhaven). The fact is they only want bus riders at SBS meetings.

 

I've seen ads/signs at various spots along Woodhaven and Cross Bay about meetings, so its not just the buses. Also, I know quite a few people who are aware of those meetings, both drivers and car riders, so yes, some do.

 

How do you expect them to get in contact/reach out to each and every car rider and motorist? Because that's a pretty steep task to do so. They can't call them, they can't go door to door, they can't really do much about it.

 

Unless they can telepathically contact each and every one of them, then I'll agree that they're putting in little to no effort in reaching out. But at the same time, that's a hard crowd to reach out to specifically because that crowd spans far and wide....

[BrooklynBus]

I've seen ads/signs at various spots along Woodhaven and Cross Bay about meetings, so its not just the buses. Also, I know quite a few people who are aware of those meetings, both drivers and car riders, so yes, some do.

 

How do you expect them to get in contact/reach out to each and every car rider and motorist? Because that's a pretty steep task to do so. They can't call them, they can't go door to door, they can't really do much about it.

 

Unless they can telepathically contact each and every one of them, then I'll agree that they're putting in little to no effort in reaching out. But at the same time, that's a hard crowd to reach out to specifically because that crowd spans far and wide....

 

I already stated, they could have bought space on the large billboard on the el near Liberty Avenue.

[JerBear]

There is a gigantic billboard on Cross Bay and Liberty Avenue. Renting that space for three months woud have guaranteed that most drivers on Woodhaven would have seen the plans.

Has any other city agency done this? Is there a precedent? I don't ever expect government agencies to think outside the box, least of all when it comes to spending money. Too bad US DOT doesn’t have a grant fund specifically for outreach to include billboards.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Has any other city agency done this? Is there a precedent? I don't ever expect government agencies to think outside the box, least of all when it comes to spending money. Too bad US DOT doesn’t have a grant fund specifically for outreach to include billboards.

It has happened before actually just not here yet.

[BrooklynBus]

It has happened before actually just not here yet.

It certainly would have been the most effective way of informing drivers, but they didn't think of it because they were only interested in informing bus riders thinking they would all support it, but many have not. They informed Community Boards and merchants associations because they had to. They knew drivers would oppose it so why increase the opposition? It is in their interests to keep drivers in the dark. What I do not understand is why the AAA has said nothing.

[BrooklynBus]

Trottenberg vs. Rosen

 

 

Trottenberg:

 

http://rockawaytimes.com/2016/02/11/ideas-for-smarter-transportation-select-bus-service-is-a-bad-idea-trottenberg-vs-rosen/

 

Rosen:

 

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/sbs-is-the-transportation-alternative-queens-needs/article_2e17c929-ad24-5cc7-9f54-734575422713.html

[DetSMART45]

Trottenberg vs. Rosen

 

 

Trottenberg:

 

http://rockawaytimes.com/2016/02/11/ideas-for-smarter-transportation-select-bus-service-is-a-bad-idea-trottenberg-vs-rosen/

 

Rosen:

 

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/sbs-is-the-transportation-alternative-queens-needs/article_2e17c929-ad24-5cc7-9f54-734575422713.html

Those links may be mixed up, but anyways:

 

Ms. Trottenberg obviously doesn't know what she's talking about if she's got to begin her piece with talking points from the Mayor.  That is the biggest "tell" ever.

 

But, she's got a job to do:  Tell people that the NYC government knows much, much more than what local, community people do when it comes to their own neighborhood.

 

TBH, I stopped reading after that first paragraph, and wrote her off as a total dolt.

 

I'd waste my time doing some Googling of her to see how much of a ballwasher/flack she is but that wouldn't be as satisfying as looking at p0rn.

[BrooklynBus]

Yes, of course the links are backwards. I apologize. I was having a lot of trouble trying to cut and paste on this site. I had to do it about six times. Cutting and pasting on this cite wasn't even possible with Windows 10. I tried with two different browsers. I guess after a half dozen tries doing over and over, I finally did it on my IPad, but that wasn't easy either. After I pasted one link, I would get signed out and had to start over again.

 

Back to the subject, I don't really blame Trottenberg. I once met her and spoke to her. She struck me as intelligent and willing to listen. The one I blame is de Blasio. He tells her to jump and she says "how far?" She just does whatever he instructs. She is still better than her predecessor. He is the real problem. I hope voters remember that.

[DS4Ever]

As the q44 went SBS the q53 won't take long to become an SBS

[JerBear]

Trottenberg vs. Rosen

 

Goosing the Gander:

 

BrooklynBus: "How does Trottenberg know that when no other alternatives have been considered?"

How does BrooklynBus know that no other alternatives have been considered? I am sure someone in DOT or the MTA has at some point thought about what it would take to reactivate the line, but in the absence of any political support whatsoever from a politician that can influence the MTA's capital plan, why would they waste their professional reputation to propose a project that will never get built?

 

BrooklynBus: "Shouldn’t those alternatives be studied before jumping to the conclusion that SBS is the alternative Queens needs?"

Trottenberg specifically calls it "the Woodhaven project" in her article. I don't think anyone is mistaking this as the be-all-and-end-all of solutions to all of Queens' woes. She is only talking about alternatives for changes to Woodhaven Boulevard and Cross Bay Boulevard. While the QPTC has suggested reactivating the rail line, have they proposed any changes to Woodhaven Boulevard or Cross Bay Boulevard? Should those roads remain the same? Should changes be made to the roads to coincide with any proposed rail line running nearby? Should ramps be built to allow a busway on the inactive right-of-way? Should new bus bulbs be created so that bus lines currently intersecting the RBL will have a better transfer setup? Shouldn’t those alternatives be studied before jumping to the conclusion that QueensRail is the alternative Queens needs?

 

Brooklyn Bus: "Those signing petitions were merely promised better bus service. Who would oppose that?"

How many of the 100-or-so people at the Woodhaven Residents’ Block Association meeting in November were scared by the promise of worse driving conditions? What car drivers would favor that? What was the ratio of truly-informed people with open minds about future possibilities signing the petition versus the ratio of those at the November meeting? One thing I hear often, like at the Q44 SBS planning meetings, were the questions like "but what if the machine is broken" and "but how could you even have the local and the SBS stop together" that are issues already worked out in the previous SBS routes. People in the Bronx have figured out how to deal with no paper in the machines for years. Yes, some people get snagged inappropriately when paper is out. But how many? Is it 1%? Is it 2% Is it within a margin of error of reporting? The idea that all of those 100-or-so people in the room actually know what was proposed is ludicrous. I have been to a couple of the Woodhaven SBS meetings, and I still have to look at the DOT website to figure stuff out. Everybody does. There's no way all those people in that meeting knew what they were there to yell about. Somebody tells them that traffic will get worse because of what DOT is planning, and they come out with pitchforks. How about that Covey idea: "Seek first to understand and then to be understood."? From what I saw of the video, people weren't looking for answers, they were looking to attack.

 

Brooklyn Bus: "She is equating bus travel time savings with passenger trip times, which are two separate entities. To determine the latter, one must also include walking to and from the bus, transfers, as well as waiting times, all of which DOT and the MTA have failed to do."

When listing the benefits of QueensRail, the QPTC writes: "...achieve comparable time savings in comparison to local buses..." To determine passenger trip times, one must also include walking to and from the QueensRail, transfers, as well as waiting times, all of which QPTC has failed to do.

 

BrooklynBus: "However, DOT’s biggest deception is to deliberately confuse their initial SBS plan for Woodhaven, which would cost $15 to $20 million to implement with their current BRT plan costing $231 million."

Who other than you is confused by this? When I went to some meetings last year about SBS on Woodhaven, I got the impression that the final price tag had not yet been set because we were still discussing what the SBS should look like. Did anyone think that center-running lanes rebuilt from the ground up were only going to cost $20 million? Is there a single article where anyone, BrooklynBus included, wrote "Soon we will have SBS on Woodhaven, and the project will cost a total of $20 million."? Everybody else seems to understand that SBS is New York City's version of BRT. I don't know anyone else that keeps calling median bus lanes "BRT" while calling regular-curb bus lanes "SBS". People use SBS and BRT interchangeably, and that I understand. Is there a reference to the budget for the Woodhaven project other than the one you've shown that someone pointed out was labeled as "preliminary engineering"? I just went Googling, and found no references to a cost for Woodhaven SBS until you started claiming that the price increased. I looked back at all of the presentations available on DOT's website from 2014 when they were first rolling it out, and I never found a single cost estimate. No video of that Trottenberg statement in front of City Council that you keep mentioning is available. So what is your source for that initial cost estimate? Did anyone other than you think that it was only going to cost $20 million to do SBS on Woodhaven?

 

BrooklynBus: "No one would refer to I-95 as “the northeast corridor.” That term also includes Washington DC to Boston Amtrak service as well."

Nope. It doesn't "also include" the train line. It is just the train line. I-95 is not involved. It is not included. It is left out. Where is your source for the road being included in "The Northeast Corridor"? Here is the first line of Wikipedia's entry for "The Northeast Corridor": "The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is an electrified railway line in the Northeast megalopolis of the United States." Just a railway line. No roads.

 

BrooklynBus: "Similarly, the Woodhaven “Corridor” includes the inactive Rockaway Beach line, now referred to as QueensRail."

Should say "now referred to as QueensRail by the QPTC and nobody else." I still call it the RBB because that's how I learned it. Some people call it the RBL. Of course the QPTC is itself somewhat confused. The website says "The QueensRail™ (Rockaway Beach Line) is a north-south rail corridor between Rego Park and Ozone Park." but the map shows the green line representing the QueensRail as heading north through Elmhurst towards Woodside. So is QueensRail an abandoned right-of-way that has some metal rails still sitting around amongst the trees, or is it a rail line that is part of a rail system?

But, really, who said that the Woodhaven corridor includes the inactive right-of-way? Not DOT. If you look at the Congested Corridors website, it seems pretty clear in all of the maps that the red line indicating "The Woodhaven Corridor" is just Woodhaven Boulevard. There is a map of a study area that includes some of the RBL, but even then it's just a big oval that was drawn without any specific intention and clearly not based on anything other than whatever drawing program they had available. Especially since it was the "Congested Corridors" study and an empty right-of-way cannot be congested. So DOT always meant "just Woodhaven Boulevard".

Let's look for some other sources. In the Gotham Gazette, July 8, 2015, a writer wrote: "...safety problems in the Woodhaven corridor have been greatly exaggerated." Surely the author isn't talking about kids snapping an ankle while trying to climb over the tree trunks strewn across the inactive right-of-way, but is rather referring to safety problems on Woodhaven Boulevard, or in this writer's words, the Woodhaven corridor, right? On Sheepshead Bites on March 18, 2013, a writer wrote: "To make matters worse, the MTA website contains no information at all about the Woodhaven Corridor..." and spends a lot of time talking about Woodhaven Boulevard under the section called "Future Corridors", though the writer never mentions the inactive right-of-way. Another article on Sheepshead Bites from March 9, 2015 includes: "In fact, the Woodhaven Corridor was not even listed as a potential SBS route." Since no one has discussed having an SBS route on the RBL, surely the writer means Woodhaven Boulevard when he writes "the Woodhaven Corridor", right? A Queens Chronicle article from December 18, 2014 discusses "...357,000 daily users of the Woodhaven corridor..." which I can probably guess are the number of people using Woodhaven Boulevard and does not include the number of kids going up on the RBL to make out, though some of those kids might be included in that number. Actually, it's a good example of excess ambiguity: is that number all people (whether in a car, bus, walking, or on a bike) that use Woodhaven Boulevard, or is that just number of times a car drives past a certain point on Woodhaven Boulevard? A Rockaway Times article from February 11, 2016 says "They [DOT] are proposing to redesign the entire corridor..." and here the writer must be referencing Woodhaven Boulevard because I'm pretty sure that DOT has not in any way proposed to redesign the inactive right-of-way along the RBL. So no, according to the writers of the articles shown here, plus DOT, Woodhaven corridor just means Woodhaven Boulevard and not an inactive right-of-way some few hundred feet away.

 

BrooklynBus: "According to Assemblyman Goldfeder, State money is available to study the rail line. So why won’t the MTA apply for the funds?"

You have still not addressed the question as to why Assemblyman Goldfeder or any other politician has not written a law and/or dedicated money to mandate that someone study reactivating the rail line. I gave you the example of Senator Tony Avella writing the law and finding the money to order the MTA to study North East Queens Bus service, specifically the routes that had been eliminated. Why hasn't any politician stepped up to do anything similar for the RBL? The mayor would love to spend $2.5 billion on a streetcar along the East River, but not a single dollar on the RBL reactivation. The governor would love to spend $100 billion on lots of various transit-related capital projects, but not a single dollar on the RBL reactivation. When does the state legislative session start again? Has anyone written a draft bill that they could hand to Assemblyman Goldfeder to force the MTA and DOT to accept even just $500,000 to study reactivation of the RBL? Even if you just copied Senator Avella's bill and changed some words...

[BrooklynBus]

My comments are in bold

 

Goosing the Gander:

 

BrooklynBus: "How does Trottenberg know that when no other alternatives have been considered?"

How does BrooklynBus know that no other alternatives have been considered? I am sure someone in DOT or the MTA has at some point thought about what it would take to reactivate the line, but in the absence of any political support whatsoever from a politician that can influence the MTA's capital plan, why would they waste their professional reputation to propose a project that will never get built?

 

DOT stated the only alternatives they looked at were the three concepts under study. They also stated that reactivating the Rockaway Line was not considered. Assemblyman Goldfeder has been pushing for the Rockaway Line for years. So has Congressman Jeffries and several other politicians as well. It has political support. So what you are saying is untrue. 

 

BrooklynBus: "Shouldn’t those alternatives be studied before jumping to the conclusion that SBS is the alternative Queens needs?"

Trottenberg specifically calls it "the Woodhaven project" in her article. I don't think anyone is mistaking this as the be-all-and-end-all of solutions to all of Queens' woes. She is only talking about alternatives for changes to Woodhaven Boulevard and Cross Bay Boulevard. While the QPTC has suggested reactivating the rail line, have they proposed any changes to Woodhaven Boulevard or Cross Bay Boulevard? Should those roads remain the same? Should changes be made to the roads to coincide with any proposed rail line running nearby? Should ramps be built to allow a busway on the inactive right-of-way? Should new bus bulbs be created so that bus lines currently intersecting the RBL will have a better transfer setup? Shouldn’t those alternatives be studied before jumping to the conclusion that QueensRail is the alternative Queens needs?

 

   No one is jumping to the conclusion that QueensRail is the alternative Queens needs. The QPTC favors the rail line but believes it is one of many alternatives that need to be studied for the rail line.  DOT and the MTA have no future plans for the corridor after SBS so they are envisioning it  as an end all solution. The QPTC proposed if DOT really insists on SBS, they do curbside lanes and allow HOV vehicles in the bus lane and have them in effect only during peak hours.  ​

 

Brooklyn Bus: "Those signing petitions were merely promised better bus service. Who would oppose that?"

How many of the 100-or-so people at the Woodhaven Residents’ Block Association meeting in November were scared by the promise of worse driving conditions? What car drivers would favor that? What was the ratio of truly-informed people with open minds about future possibilities signing the petition versus the ratio of those at the November meeting? One thing I hear often, like at the Q44 SBS planning meetings, were the questions like "but what if the machine is broken" and "but how could you even have the local and the SBS stop together" that are issues already worked out in the previous SBS routes. People in the Bronx have figured out how to deal with no paper in the machines for years. Yes, some people get snagged inappropriately when paper is out. But how many? Is it 1%? Is it 2% Is it within a margin of error of reporting? The idea that all of those 100-or-so people in the room actually know what was proposed is ludicrous. I have been to a couple of the Woodhaven SBS meetings, and I still have to look at the DOT website to figure stuff out. Everybody does. There's no way all those people in that meeting knew what they were there to yell about. Somebody tells them that traffic will get worse because of what DOT is planning, and they come out with pitchforks. How about that Covey idea: "Seek first to understand and then to be understood."? From what I saw of the video, people weren't looking for answers, they were looking to attack.

 

No one told them traffic will get worse. They have already experienced worsened traffic from the existing bus lanes during rush hours like 25 to 45 minutes added to their trips. If extended to weekends, travel times will be worsened by 15 minutes. In other words they will double with average travel speeds cut in half.  And you are minimizing the problems with the fare machines. Power problems have kept Q44 machines out for over three weeks according to a recent NY 1 story.

 

Brooklyn Bus: "She is equating bus travel time savings with passenger trip times, which are two separate entities. To determine the latter, one must also include walking to and from the bus, transfers, as well as waiting times, all of which DOT and the MTA have failed to do."

When listing the benefits of QueensRail, the QPTC writes: "...achieve comparable time savings in comparison to local buses..." To determine passenger trip times, one must also include walking to and from the QueensRail, transfers, as well as waiting times, all of which QPTC has failed to do.

 

Not counting walking, waiting, and transfers in both cases, QueensRail would be 33% quicker than SBS. So the savings would be similar if walking, waiting and transfer times were counted for each project. While some would have a shorter walking distance to Woodhaven, others would have a shorter walking distance to QueensRail, so it balances out. It is not as if Woodhaven is lined with high rises. Most of it is low rise developments.

 

BrooklynBus: "However, DOT’s biggest deception is to deliberately confuse their initial SBS plan for Woodhaven, which would cost $15 to $20 million to implement with their current BRT plan costing $231 million."

Who other than you is confused by this? When I went to some meetings last year about SBS on Woodhaven, I got the impression that the final price tag had not yet been set because we were still discussing what the SBS should look like. Did anyone think that center-running lanes rebuilt from the ground up were only going to cost $20 million? Is there a single article where anyone, BrooklynBus included, wrote "Soon we will have SBS on Woodhaven, and the project will cost a total of $20 million."? Everybody else seems to understand that SBS is New York City's version of BRT. I don't know anyone else that keeps calling median bus lanes "BRT" while calling regular-curb bus lanes "SBS". People use SBS and BRT interchangeably, and that I understand. Is there a reference to the budget for the Woodhaven project other than the one you've shown that someone pointed out was labeled as "preliminary engineering"? I just went Googling, and found no references to a cost for Woodhaven SBS until you started claiming that the price increased. I looked back at all of the presentations available on DOT's website from 2014 when they were first rolling it out, and I never found a single cost estimate. No video of that Trottenberg statement in front of City Council that you keep mentioning is available. So what is your source for that initial cost estimate? Did anyone other than you think that it was only going to cost $20 million to do SBS on Woodhaven?

 

The price tag for the B44 which is about ten miles long cost $20 million plus $3 million per year in additional operating costs. The remaining portion of exclusive lanes for Woodhaven is no more than ten miles, probably less. So if there is only one type of SBS, why should the B44 cost $20 million and Woodhaven cost between $100 and $231 million or more depending on the amount of work done.  It looks like the feds will not fund more than $100 million which is why the entire road. probably will not get the full BRT treatment, but only SBS. Trottenberg stated at the City Hall hearing in 2014 that what is being proposed for Woodhaven will not be traditional SBS because we have the opportunity to make it bigger and better. That means instead of only installing bus lanes, the entire roadway will be reconstructed meaning ripping out existing islands and trees and replacing them. By calling it BRT, they also get $40 million for new buses they would soon have to replace anyway. That is why the MTA is going along with it, to get free buses.

 

BrooklynBus: "No one would refer to I-95 as “the northeast corridor.” That term also includes Washington DC to Boston Amtrak service as well."

Nope. It doesn't "also include" the train line. It is just the train line. I-95 is not involved. It is not included. It is left out. Where is your source for the road being included in "The Northeast Corridor"? Here is the first line of Wikipedia's entry for "The Northeast Corridor": "The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is an electrified railway line in the Northeast megalopolis of the United States." Just a railway line. No roads.

 

BrooklynBus: "Similarly, the Woodhaven “Corridor” includes the inactive Rockaway Beach line, now referred to as QueensRail."

Should say "now referred to as QueensRail by the QPTC and nobody else." I still call it the RBB because that's how I learned it. Some people call it the RBL. Of course the QPTC is itself somewhat confused. The website says "The QueensRail™ (Rockaway Beach Line) is a north-south rail corridor between Rego Park and Ozone Park." but the map shows the green line representing the QueensRail as heading north through Elmhurst towards Woodside. So is QueensRail an abandoned right-of-way that has some metal rails still sitting around amongst the trees, or is it a rail line that is part of a rail system?

But, really, who said that the Woodhaven corridor includes the inactive right-of-way? Not DOT. If you look at the Congested Corridors website, it seems pretty clear in all of the maps that the red line indicating "The Woodhaven Corridor" is just Woodhaven Boulevard. There is a map of a study area that includes some of the RBL, but even then it's just a big oval that was drawn without any specific intention and clearly not based on anything other than whatever drawing program they had available. Especially since it was the "Congested Corridors" study and an empty right-of-way cannot be congested. So DOT always meant "just Woodhaven Boulevard".\

Let's look for some other sources. In the Gotham Gazette, July 8, 2015, a writer wrote: "...safety problems in the Woodhaven corridor have been greatly exaggerated." Surely the author isn't talking about kids snapping an ankle while trying to climb over the tree trunks strewn across the inactive right-of-way, but is rather referring to safety problems on Woodhaven Boulevard, or in this writer's words, the Woodhaven corridor, right? On Sheepshead Bites on March 18, 2013, a writer wrote: "To make matters worse, the MTA website contains no information at all about the Woodhaven Corridor..." and spends a lot of time talking about Woodhaven Boulevard under the section called "Future Corridors", though the writer never mentions the inactive right-of-way. Another article on Sheepshead Bites from March 9, 2015 includes: "In fact, the Woodhaven Corridor was not even listed as a potential SBS route." Since no one has discussed having an SBS route on the RBL, surely the writer means Woodhaven Boulevard when he writes "the Woodhaven Corridor", right? A Queens Chronicle article from December 18, 2014 discusses "...357,000 daily users of the Woodhaven corridor..." which I can probably guess are the number of people using Woodhaven Boulevard and does not include the number of kids going up on the RBL to make out, though some of those kids might be included in that number. Actually, it's a good example of excess ambiguity: is that number all people (whether in a car, bus, walking, or on a bike) that use Woodhaven Boulevard, or is that just number of times a car drives past a certain point on Woodhaven Boulevard? A Rockaway Times article from February 11, 2016 says "They [DOT] are proposing to redesign the entire corridor..." and here the writer must be referencing Woodhaven Boulevard because I'm pretty sure that DOT has not in any way proposed to redesign the inactive right-of-way along the RBL. So no, according to the writers of the articles shown here, plus DOT, Woodhaven corridor just means Woodhaven Boulevard and not an inactive right-of-way some few hundred feet away.

 

There was once a time when you went to the library to do research and you would check multiple sources. Now you just go to Wikipedia, and we all know if Wikipedia says something it has to be complete and accurate. Wrong. When I went to Planning School, we were taught the Northeast Corridor referred to both I-95 and Amtrak, so I did a  search and look what I came up with. Multiple references to I-95 and Amtrak being referred to as the Northeast Corridor. Here is just one referring to the weather for the I-95 Northeast Corridor. "AccuWeather LIVE: Weekend Snowstorm May Impact I-95 Northeast Corridor."                   http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-video/video-accuweather-live-weekend-snowstorm-may-impact-i-95-northeast-corridor/4002523383001  

 

BrooklynBus: "According to Assemblyman Goldfeder, State money is available to study the rail line. So why won’t the MTA apply for the funds?"

You have still not addressed the question as to why Assemblyman Goldfeder or any other politician has not written a law and/or dedicated money to mandate that someone study reactivating the rail line. I gave you the example of Senator Tony Avella writing the law and finding the money to order the MTA to study North East Queens Bus service, specifically the routes that had been eliminated. Why hasn't any politician stepped up to do anything similar for the RBL? The mayor would love to spend $2.5 billion on a streetcar along the East River, but not a single dollar on the RBL reactivation. The governor would love to spend $100 billion on lots of various transit-related capital projects, but not a single dollar on the RBL reactivation. When does the state legislative session start again? Has anyone written a draft bill that they could hand to Assemblyman Goldfeder to force the MTA and DOT to accept even just $500,000 to study reactivation of the RBL? Even if you just copied Senator Avella's bill and changed some words...

 

Assemblymen and Senators do not write laws. They write bills which have to be passed by both houses and then signed by the governor. How do you know Goldfeder has not written such bills? Maybe he wrote the law making money available to study rights of ways. I don't think a single politician has the power to "force" the MTA to apply for the funding to study the rail line. He is trying his best.

[JerBear]

DOT stated the only alternatives they looked at were the three concepts under study. They also stated that reactivating the Rockaway Line was not considered.

 

All of DOT and the MTA told you this? Even if Eric and other DOT staff at a community meeting answered a question about this project that doesn't mean that no one else ever considered it. It just means that the people assigned to work on the "Woodhaven project" never considered anything beyond Woodhaven. Huge surprise. Even if Trottenberg told you personally it doesn't mean there's not some guy in long-range planning at the MTA designing something in case this gets popular. You can't state absolutely unless you're just fond of hyperbole.

 

 

 

Assemblyman Goldfeder has been pushing for the Rockaway Line for years. So has Congressman Jeffries and several other politicians as well. It has political support. So what you are saying is untrue.

 

The proof is in the putting: show me where it is in a capital plan.

 

 

 

DOT and the MTA have no future plans for the corridor after SBS so they are envisioning it as an end all solution. The QPTC proposed if DOT really insists on SBS, they do curbside lanes and allow HOV vehicles in the bus lane and have them in effect only during peak hours.

 

While I absolutely agree with you on the hour limitations for the bus lanes, it doesn't matter if anyone considers it an end-all solution for Woodhaven. Just doing the project will change things and cause new unplanned differences that will create other unanticipated changes. But curbside lanes are poor transit, and center-running lanes are better transit. You can't claim to be transit advocates and support poor transit.

 

 

 

And you are minimizing the problems with the fare machines. Power problems have kept Q44 machines out for over three weeks according to a recent NY 1 story.

 

And based on that, how many people have been given erroneous tickets? Just because the system doesn't operate perfectly doesn’t mean you abandon it. People adapt.

 

 

 

Not counting walking, waiting, and transfers in both cases, QueensRail would be 33% quicker than SBS.

 

Here's where you're stretching way too far. Which of all the various possible iterations of QueensRail are you talking about here? You gotta nail down a precise model for evaluations, otherwise it's just conjecture.

 

 

 

So if there is only one type of SBS...

 

Who said that there was only one type of SBS? DOT said at the meetings that I attended that it's a toolbox and not all tools are used on each line.

 

 

 

"... why should the B44 cost $20 million and Woodhaven cost between $100 and $231 million or more..."

 

You answer that question immediately: "depending on the amount of work done... instead of only installing bus lanes, the entire roadway will be reconstructed meaning ripping out existing islands and trees and replacing them." Of course this costs more. How could it not cost more?

 

 

 

It looks like the feds will not fund more than $100 million which is why the entire road. probably will not get the full BRT treatment, but only SBS.

 

If you mean "will not get center-running bus lanes but only curb lanes" then say that. But I am pretty sure that the June plans I saw for Howard Beach had no center lanes anyway, so I am lost as to what you think think the long-term plan has changed from the plans released in June. A couple of small areas changed, but the main change was short-term vs long-term build out, not which areas are getting bus lanes in the center.

 

 

 

By calling it BRT, they also get $40 million for new buses they would soon have to replace anyway.

 

I thought they needed new buses because the Q52 and 53 are currently short buses and need to be accordion buses when they go to SBS. And if they can get the feds to pay for more stuff, isn't that exactly what DeBlas promised to do while hiring (up-to-that-moment a fed) Trottenberg?

 

 

 

There was once a time when you went to the library to do research and you would check multiple sources. Now you just go to Wikipedia, and we all know if Wikipedia says something it has to be complete and accurate. Wrong. When I went to Planning School, we were taught the Northeast Corridor referred to both I-95 and Amtrak, so I did a search and look what I came up with. Multiple references to I-95 and Amtrak being referred to as the Northeast Corridor. Here is just one referring to the weather for the I-95 Northeast Corridor. "AccuWeather LIVE: Weekend Snowstorm May Impact I-95 Northeast Corridor."

 

I never went to planning school, but I was at least taught that things change. Maybe "The Northeast Corridor" meant what you mean back then, but not today. That link you put up was sloppy headline writing. The video used "I-95", "the northeast", and "the I-95 corridor". Show me a transportation or planning professional like Trottenberg or Sam Schwartz that uses "The Northeast Corridor" to mean including I-95.

 

 

 

How do you know Goldfeder has not written such bills? Maybe he wrote the law making money available to study rights of ways. I don't think a single politician has the power to "force" the MTA to apply for the funding to study the rail line.

 

Again, Senator Avella wrote a bill and then got others to support it that said: "The MTA will conduct a study..." He didn't ask the MTA what they thought of the idea or whether they were interested or not. He didn't ask their permission before writing the bill. I like Tony Avella and all but I don't think he has any magical powers or called in all available markers in order to get that bill passed. He legislated. He lead.

[BrooklynBus]

My comments are in italics.

 

All of DOT and the MTA told you this? Even if Eric and other DOT staff at a community meeting answered a question about this project that doesn't mean that no one else ever considered it. It just means that the people assigned to work on the "Woodhaven project" never considered anything beyond Woodhaven. Huge surprise. Even if Trottenberg told you personally it doesn't mean there's not some guy in long-range planning at the MTA designing something in case this gets popular. You can't state absolutely unless you're just fond of hyperbole.

 

And you are purely speculating. You have absolutely no proof that anything besides SBS was looked at. When someone at the Woodhaven meeting on 11/30 suggested zone express service, as an alternative to SBS, the Brooklyn Commissioner didn't say that was something DOT or the MTA looked at and ruled out. That is only on of the alternatives that should have ben considered.

 

The proof is in the putting: show me where it is in a capital plan.

 

While I absolutely agree with you on the hour limitations for the bus lanes, it doesn't matter if anyone considers it an end-all solution for Woodhaven. Just doing the project will change things and cause new unplanned differences that will create other unanticipated changes. But curbside lanes are poor transit, and center-running lanes are better transit. You can't claim to be transit advocates and support poor transit.

 

According to you, anyone who doesn't support SBS is supporting "poor transit." And yes there are unanticipated changes, like using Alderton northbound as an alternative to Woodhaven because it has become so slow. No the residents of that street are pushing to make it a one-way southbound to eliminate that option. Others have switched to the more indirect and already congested Van Wyck which takes them 15 minutes longer than Woodhaven used to take, but it is still a better alternative than Woodhaven which now takes 25 to 45 minutes extra. None of these unanticipated changes are good.

 

And if curbside lanes are poor transit, did you oppose the Hylan Blvd SBS which uses curbside lanes saying it is a poor idea? 

 

And based on that, how many people have been given erroneous tickets? Just because the system doesn't operate perfectly doesn’t mean you abandon it. People adapt.

 

It's not only a question of being given erroneous tickets. Why should someone have to break the law and take a chance? Some said they are no longer using the Q44 but walking further to other routes because they don't want the inconvenience of getting off and having to wait for the next bus or being given a ticket. Ticket machines out for over three weeks with no assurances it won't happen elsewhere is a little more serious than not operating "perfectly."

 

 

Here's where you're stretching way too far. Which of all the various possible iterations of QueensRail are you talking about here? You gotta nail down a precise model for evaluations, otherwise it's just conjecture.

 

 

 

SBS from B 116 St. plus LIRR (not counting walking and waiting) takes 75 minutes. 16 minutes from B 116 to Howard Beach via subway plus 19 minutes via QueensRail plus 15 min via LIRR would take 50 minutes (also not counting walking and waiting), a 33 percent savings. There is no conjecture.

 

Who said that there was only one type of SBS? DOT said at the meetings that I attended that it's a toolbox and not all tools are used on each line.

 

 

You answer that question immediately: "depending on the amount of work done... instead of only installing bus lanes, the entire roadway will be reconstructed meaning ripping out existing islands and trees and replacing them." Of course this costs more. How could it not cost more?

 

Of course, there is more than one type of SBS. The questions are what is worth doing for a particular route? That is why SI riders pay on board. There aren't enough of them to warrant fare machines or articulated buses. So the question is how does ripping out median islands and mature trees and replacing them in the same place with new trees improve transportation? Also, when a street is reconstructed, DOT checks with DEP to make sure new sewers are not needed so that the street is not ripped up again in the near future. DOT has not said anything regarding the extent of street reconstruction or if BRT includes new sewers. It probably doesn't because I doubt if the feds would pay for that under a transportation improvement project. We deserve to know exactly how DOT intends tro spend the money, not be given vague plans. 

 

 

If you mean "will not get center-running bus lanes but only curb lanes" then say that. But I am pretty sure that the June plans I saw for Howard Beach had no center lanes anyway, so I am lost as to what you think think the long-term plan has changed from the plans released in June. A couple of small areas changed, but the main change was short-term vs long-term build out, not which areas are getting bus lanes in the center.

 

[/i]  DOT stated at Community Advisory Meeting Number 5 and in the FAQ answers that the plan has changed. Howard Beach never had center lanes proposed, so that is immaterial. North of Metropolitan, DOT planned to rip out the bus lanes and move them one lane over even before they were installed. Now they state, most likely, the lanes will stay where they are and new service roads will not be built. Nothing they say now is definite. All they are doing is throwing out possibilities which is only causing more confusion. They have changed the proposed left turn bans without specifically stating they have changed. [/i]

 

I thought they needed new buses because the Q52 and 53 are currently short buses and need to be accordion buses when they go to SBS. And if they can get the feds to pay for more stuff, isn't that exactly what DeBlas promised to do while hiring (up-to-that-moment a fed) Trottenberg?

 

They need new buses because they have buses that have reached the end of their useful life. The new longer buses to be put on Woodhaven will release the current buses to be used on other routes where buses will be retired. They only want the longer buses for Woodhaven because over time that permits them to operate fewer buses increasing the headways since service levels are based on crowding. Without additional passengers, most likely service during the off-peak will be reduced to every 20 minutes from every 15. Of course they won't tell you that.  They only say that initially the same headways will be maintained but do not mention the future.  Of course the city and MTA wants to get the feds to pay for as much as possible. That is perfectly logical, but does not justify poorly thought out plans.

 

I never went to planning school, but I was at least taught that things change. Maybe "The Northeast Corridor" meant what you mean back then, but not today. That link you put up was sloppy headline writing. The video used "I-95", "the northeast", and "the I-95 corridor". Show me a transportation or planning professional like Trottenberg or Sam Schwartz that uses "The Northeast Corridor" to mean including I-95.

 

 

Interesting that when someone has their mind made up, no amount of evidence will change their mind. I showed you a headline dated January 21, 2015 that specifically uses the term "Northeast Corridor" in relation to I-95, "Weekend Snowstorm May Impact I-95 Northeast Corridor." and you dismiss it as "sloppy headline writing" and out of date. So here is another one: "See I-95 Travel Guide to Northeast Corridor." http://seei95.net/. Are you going to dismiss that also?

 

Just because Trottenberg and Sam Schwartz are transit professionals, doesn't make them good at what they do. I have never been impressed with Sam Schwartz and neither has an engineering friend of mine who works for a prominent engineering consulting firm. And Trottenberg has proven she doesn't know the meaning of the words "transportation corridor."  So now you are asking me to show you that she includes I-95 as part of the Northeast Coirridor?  Why would she?

 

The fact is that the term "Corridor" as it relates to transportation refers to any area where there is heavy travel. If someone is only talking about a roadway, they use the name of the roadway. If they are speaking about a railway line, they use the name of the line. The term "corridor' came into use when more than a single roadway, like two parallel roadways, two rail lines, or a rail and a railway operated nearby and parallel to each other, so that one term would describe both so both names would not have to be repeated each time. If DOT was not going to include the RBL, the correct term would have been the "Woodhaven/Cross Bay Blvd corridor, not the Woodhaven Corridor which refers to the neighborhood not the street.

 

Again, Senator Avella wrote a bill and then got others to support it that said: "The MTA will conduct a study..." He didn't ask the MTA what they thought of the idea or whether they were interested or not. He didn't ask their permission before writing the bill. I like Tony Avella and all but I don't think he has any magical powers or called in all available markers in order to get that bill passed. He legislated. He lead.

 

No he played politics which is what he is getting paid to do, not to knock him. You don't know what concessions he had to make to get it passed. Goldfeder may not have the same type of power. I don't know what committees either are on, or who has more seniority. Goldfeder is not on the MTA Board, he has no power over their Capital budget and he certainly can't force the MTA to apply for funding for a something they don't want to study, although they did include the importance of looking at new uses for existing railroad rights of way in their 2013 report "Looking Ahead." That shows how hypocritical the MTA is. Someone got them to include that phrase in their report, but they have no interest in following through because they already made their deals to push SBS through and studying the rail line jeopardizes that.

 

[JerBear]

And you are purely speculating.

Absolutely. I can speculate that someone within two huge organizations studied it without you ever hearing of it. That has more of a chance than your hyperbolic claim that no one in either organization ever studied it. Since your claim is absolute it only takes one person to have studied it for you to be false, and it's possible that that is true without you knowing. For my claim to be false, no one in either organization can have ever studied it. It takes a lot for mine to be false, it doesn't take a lot for yours to be false. I am playing the odds.

 

zone express service

Is this something like the limited zone service that was discussed in the North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study?

 

the Brooklyn Commissioner

I assume you meant Borough Commissioner.

 

didn't say

Did she not say or did she say not? One allows for it to be true because it was not denied, the other outright tests the question.

 

That is only one of the alternatives that should have been considered.

That seems to be an MTA-only alternative. This SBS plan is a DOT project that the MTA participates in. If DOT were to address the problem and their solution was entirely an MTA policy/procedure/practice change, I would be amazed. Has that ever happened? DOT studied a road and their only solution was solely in the hands of the MTA?

According to you, anyone who doesn't support SBS is supporting "poor transit."

Anyone who supports curbside bus lanes and boarding islands when center-running bus lanes and boarding islands are another feasible solution is anti-transit.

 

And if curbside lanes are poor transit, did you oppose the Hylan Blvd SBS which uses curbside lanes saying it is a poor idea?

I don't make it out to Staten Island much, and have been known to refer to it as part of New Jersey. I don't pay much attention to their issues. I don't think I have driven down there since the SBS started.

 

Ticket machines out for over three weeks with no assurances it won't happen elsewhere is a little more serious than not operating "perfectly."

What is the proper metric? Up-time as measured by minutes throughout the year that at least one machine at a stop worked and had paper? What is an acceptable up-time percentage? 90%? 95%?

[JerBear]

BrooklynBus: "SBS from B 116 St. plus LIRR (not counting walking and waiting) takes 75 minutes."

 

 

You mean that the Q53 from Beach 116th Street plus LIRR currently takes 75 minutes. Have DOT and the MTA produced timetables for SBS yet?

 

BrooklynBus: "16 minutes from B 116 to Howard Beach via subway plus 19 minutes via QueensRail plus 15 min via LIRR would take 50 minutes (also not counting walking and waiting), a 33 percent savings. There is no conjecture."

 

 

There is conjecture because it assumes a certain speed which may or may not be seen based on what would get built. And that's one origin. To claim a 33 percent savings you need multiple origins comparing the two modes after actual running scenarios have been set out.

 

BrooklynBus: "We deserve to know exactly how DOT intends to spend the money, not be given vague plans."

 

 

Now you're playing the chicken-and-egg game. We want a say in the planning process, but we want to see fully-developed plans and budgets that have figured every little thing out before you talk to us, as we then give our planning input and change the whole project. You can't expect that they have this all figured out yet. Or you can't also accuse them of not listening.

 

BrooklynBus: "Nothing they say now is definite. All they are doing is throwing out possibilities..."

 

 

Don't they have to in order to be listening and responding to community concerns?

 

BrooklynBus: "Interesting that when someone has their mind made up, no amount of evidence will change their mind."

 

Can't this accusation be leveled at anyone in the middle of a debate?

 

BrooklynBus: "Are you going to dismiss that also?"

 

Absolutely. That is an amateur attempt at a website. I could totally build something better and I am not fluent in http. I judge things based on the quality of the thing. If I tell you that cars can't accelerate very fast and try to show you by flooring it in an old jalopy, you should be skeptical.

 

 

BrooklynBus: "The fact is that the term "Corridor" as it relates to transportation refers to any area where there is heavy travel. If someone is only talking about a roadway, they use the name of the roadway. If they are speaking about a railway line, they use the name of the line. The term "corridor' came into use when more than a single roadway, like two parallel roadways, two rail lines, or a rail and a railway operated nearby and parallel to each other, so that one term would describe both so both names would not have to be repeated each time."

 

 

It may have in the past and it may still be used by some in some circumstances, but "The Northeast Corridor" does not include I-95 and "The Woodhaven Corridor" does not include the RBL. How about instead of Trottenberg or Schwartz, you find any other transportation professional, especially one that works at MTA or DOT, that says "When we say Woodhaven Corridor we mean any parallel rights-of-way. Anybody. Eric, Commissioner Garcia, Kevin Ortiz at the MTA. Any of those kinds of people. If the only people that use the phrase that way are ones that have a specific agenda, it is not general use.

 

 

BrooklynBus: "If DOT was not going to include the RBL, the correct term would have been the "Woodhaven/Cross Bay Blvd corridor, not the Woodhaven Corridor which refers to the neighborhood not the street."

 

 

No, because the Cross Bay portion was not included in the Congested Corridors study, based on the maps I looked at. So then without Cross Bay in there, take what you just wrote, and it reads: "the correct term would have been the "Woodhaven corridor."

[BrooklynBus]

Okay, so you can speculate, but I can't. Play the odds in Las Vegas not here.

 

I do not know what was discussed in the Northeast Queens study. What was discussed at thus meeting was the possibility of Rockaway buses making no further stops between Liberty Avenue and Rego Park in the morning rush since buses leave Liberty ham packed anyway. The commissioner did not address that. She didn't say if they looked at that or if they would look at it. Only that they still will be getting SBS. The odds are that either she has no idea what us going on or SBS is the only "option" being considered. I can play the odds too.

 

The project was initially introduced as a joint DOT/MTA project. However, the MTA has since pulled back letting DOT take the lead. They knew this was going to be a hostile meeting. That's why they did not send a representative. Therefore it was up to DOT to come with all the facts. They did not even state they would request the MTA answer questions they could not answer. They were just unprepared. They just figured the meeting would be forgotten about. They did not know it was going to be recorded for all to see.

 

In the past DOT and the MTA have often shifted the responsibility to the other party line who is in charge of maintaining the overpass along the Brighton Line over the Belt Parkwayor who is responsible for cleaning under an MTA overpass. So I don't agree that one agency will never say the solution lies with the other agency. It happens all the time.

 

Did you know that the DOT originally proposed center boarding for the S79, but the communities preferred curbside lanes. So I guess they are also anti-transit. You just can't seem to accept that perhaps it is the better alternative. Curbside lanes still screwed up traffic but not as much as center lanes would have.

 

I do not know what an acceptable metric is but both machines out at multiple stops for three weeks definitely is not acceptable. Machines should be repaired in a matter of hours, especially if both are out at a particular stop. Both machines at one stop were out for over a month last year on Astoria Blvd. if the current number of machines cannot be promptly repaired, what will happen after four more SBS routes are instituted? It will not get worse if the problems are not addressed.

 

All DOT has stated is that buses will be able to meet their scheduled running times during peak hours after SBS. I took five minutes off the schedule for SBS. I doubt it if any more time will be saved with lower speed limits and the inability for buses to pass each other at many stops.

 

The time savings are based on past LIRR schedules when service was in operation. Multiple destinations would incur similar time savings.

 

It is not chicken and egg. We want a say in the planning process, but for input to be meaningful, we need to know what is being proposed. When options 1, 2 and 3 was proposed, that was specific. When it was narrowed down to just option 2, that was more specific. Now it's part option 2, part option 1 and 2 or maybe still only option 2 or option 2 plus no change in the bus lanes in places or maybe no bus lanes at all plus elimination of left turns or maybe not and parts of the plan being put into effect at different times, etc. You can't comment on something when you no longer have any idea of what is being proposed. The only thing they gave not changed is that the bus lanes where they are implemented will be in effect 24/7 and that is one of the things they need to change because they have not shown why that is necessary.

 

Yes they have to through out possibilities to consider community input. But those possibilities have to be specific. For example, for x section of the roadway the possibilities are the following. They gave not done that. What they gave said is we may or may not do x in y section and may or may not do z in the w section. We no longer have a good idea of what they are even considering so how can anyone make intelligent comments now? They will know come back and say we considered the alternatives and decided the following without sharing what they studied and why they ruled out what they ruled out if the past is any indication of the future.

 

So you dismiss my second reference where the I-95 northeast corridor is referred to because you find fault with the website design. How many more references do I have find for you to admit that the northeast corridor is both Amtrak and I-95. Not only that, it includes parallel roadways as well. There is a difference between a road and a corridor. If there wasn't there would not be a need for the term.

 

You are asking me to find a reference that the term is being referred to correctly by those who I am accusing of misdefining the term. If they defend it correctly, we would not be having this discussion. Not considering the railroad right of way in a transportation solution to travel between Rego Park and Ozone Park is just as dumb as planning a Second Avenue Subway would be without considering overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue Line insisting Lexington Avenue / Third Avenue above and below ground was a different corridor from First and Second Avenues above and below ground.

 

Even if the Congested Corridors Study only included Woodhaven Blvd, the correct term would be the Woodhaven Blvd Corridor since parallel streets (meaning bypass routes) were not considered. I know they weren't because DOT had no idea that 88 Street was used as a bypass route when the Montauk Overpass was overcrowded. They also weren't concerned that increasing numbers of cars were using Alderton Street as an alternative as they implemented measures to slow down traffic on Woodhaven. They were only concerned with the Boulevard so they should not have even used the term corridor. Do you know what other congested corridors were studied as part of the Congested Corridors Study?

[JerBear]

I keep meaning to ask about your references to Transportation Alternatives. I am a member, and I haven't seen anything from them regarding Woodhaven Boulevard. I have seen things from them about Queens Boulevard. I don't go to the little local groups they have focusing on Queens, so maybe that small group is addressing it. But I don't recall any emails from them about Woodhaven Boulevard at all. Have they come out publicly in support of SBS on Woodhaven? I haven't seen any Transportation Alternatives staff at Queens SBS meetings.

I definitely have seen a lot of Riders Alliance people at these SBS meetings. I know I have seen them refer to BRT when talking about SBS, but I am pretty sure that the one meeting I went to in June, they were happy with Option 2. Trottenberg said in the Queens Chronicle interview that those transportation advocates are some of their harshest critics. Based on the fact that they didn’t scream for DOT to pick Option 3, I wouldn't call them very critical and only one kind of advocate. They're advocates for equality of transit, and not efficiency of transit. I have read a lot about designing bus networks to run like a private business versus trying to stop at every block to pick up every old lady who can't walk far to the bus stop. So my question, BrooklynBus, is: as a transit planner, when you were doing those Brooklyn routes all those years ago, were you designing for efficiency, equality, or a little bit of both?

And are you happy that Trottenberg finally admitted at the end of that interview that SBS really is a done deal?

[BrooklynBus]

I am pretty sure that at the first Woodhaven SBS meeting both Transportation Alternatives and Riders Allliance were present. After that meeting, I only saw Riders Alliance. But I also remember that when there is a press release from DOT or the City Council mentioning SBS anywhere, Transportation Alternatives and Riders Alliance are usually mentioned. Those advocates were only critical of DOT when they announced there would be a delay in completing the project. They also were unhappy when DOT initially lowered the Queens Blvd speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph when Transportation Alternatives wanted 20 or 25 mph which they said was the proper speed limit for every street in the city.

 

I cannot recall either of those groups ever disagreeing with any other DOT proposal. So her saying those groups are her biggest critics is just untrue.

 

I have no idea what you mean when you say those groups are for "equality of transit". They never opposed bus stop elmination requiring riders to walk further to bus stops if that is what you mean by equality of transit.

 

No, I am not at all happy that Trottenberg admitted SBS is a done deal. Garcia already admitted that. And it has been obvious from the beginning although DOT kept denying it saying "SBS is only one option we are considering". If that was true why have they not discussed with the communities all the other options they considered and eliminated. And when I say "considered" I mean did some sort of analysis with data, not looking at a map and saying we won't do it or taking the costs to build the Second Avenue subway and concluding a subway on Woodhaven would be too expensive. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT BY CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVES.

 

Interesting that you define equality of transit as "stopping every block to pick up every old lady" as if old ladies do not matter. Tell that to all the "old ladies who choose buses in Manhattan over subways to avoid the stairs and subway overcrowding. I guess you consider someone on crutches or in a wheelchair as even less worthy of transit than "old ladies". When designing transit, everyone is important, not only able bodied individuals. Funny how so few were fighting for handicapped rights before they themselves became handicapped. Similarly when you become an old man or lady and are less mobile than you are today, you will see the purpose of transit a little different than you see it today. IT IS TO SERVE EVERYONE. It also never meant that buses stop every single block unless you are talking about avenue blocks which is certainly not too close when you consider that the service area includes blocks up to a quarter mile or more from the bus route.

 

I don't think you really mean "equality" anyway. My Masters Thesis was entitled the "Inefficiency and Inneffectiveness of Bus Service in Brooklyn." I added the "effective" part when I realize we don't want a purely "efficient" system. We want one that is effective as well. The most "efficient" system is one where all the buses are always crowded all the time. The only way to achieve that is to make sure the numbers of passengers waiting is so high that there are always passengers waiting to fill up the buses. "Efficiency" doesn't care about how many buses you have to first miss until one cones that has room for you to board. The Lexington Avenue Subway line is probably the most efficient transit line in the US when you consider the numbers of passengers carried and distance traveled per vehicle mile. I would guess it's efficiency may be exceeded in India where you can also ride on the roofs of trains. So I am sure you can see how efficiency must not be the only consideration.

 

I designed for efficiency and also for effectiveness.

[JerBear]

I should have used quotation marks for the "old ladies" comment because I know many women over 60 who are quite spry, and whenever I have heard anyone object to removing bus stops in the name of the "little old ladies", it was never actually said by a little old lady. I sometimes get passed by an old woman walking with a cane, especially in Flushing. I think of the distance between Flushing High School and the 7 train. I have seen lots of people of every age and ability decide to walk instead of waiting either because the buses aren't coming or the high school kids are rough-housing around the stop. That distance seems far until the 10th time you've walked it.

 

For the efficiency thing, I mean that if you have a bus-only city/region like, say, Boise Idaho, that for the same amount of money you could have either a spread-out service where everybody gets a bus at their stop within a quarter-mile of them every half-hour, versus a system where everybody has a bus stop within a half-mile, and the rural areas get a bus only once an hour but major corridors get a bus every 10 minutes.

 

And you're right, equality was the wrong word. Equity is the word some use to promote improved bus service in lower-income areas as a means of social justice. Instead of building capital-intensive rail lines, spend the money on operations-intensive bus lines. Some, like Joan Byron, believe BRT (and SBS) are the key to transit equity because people in transit deserts can get better transit service without having to wait 20 years for a rail line. What I have never seen addressed by a transit equity plea is the issue that capital costs and operating costs are rarely addressed through the same process. If the city doesn’t spend $2.5 billion to build the BQX, it's not like that money would ever be used as $2.5 billion in operating funds for buses, right?

 

Is your Masters Thesis online anywhere to read?

[BrooklynBus]

People like Joan Byron are wrong. You don't build a rail line in a transit desert. All you need is a bus line for the desert not to exist. The problem is the MTA does not want to provide service in transit deserts. For example when the B44 Nostrand Avenue SBS was created, the transit desert between Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue should have been filled with a new bus route. The SBS only made the desert worse by removing half the service from New York Avenue. That was one of the reasons I opposed that SBS line. It wasn't planned in conjunction with the rest of the bus system but in a vacuum. You can provide transit equity simply by filling the many service gaps. But the MTA's goal is not to better connect neighborhoods. It is to provide the least amount of service they can get away with politically. They are more likely to reduce service in an area where they know the people will not  speak up, specifically the areas you want them to provide more service.

 

As far as which of the two systems you propose, it depends on the density of the area. I wouldn't provide ten minute service in a corridor unless it was justified, especially if it means other areas will have hourly service. But if they currently have 30 minute service and it is barely used, then I would make it hourly service to provide better service where it is needed more.

 

Regarding the $2,5 billion, if it is not spent on the BQX, it won't be spent on operating costs, but it could be spent on another more worthy capital project instead of going back into the general fund which is what will happen where it will just disappear.

 

My Masters Thesis is on file at the Avery Library in Avery Hall at Columbia University. You would have to ask a librarian for access since theses were never put on the open shelves. If you do go and inspect it, you will probably be the second person to have looked at it since 1973 when it was written. I once went back a few years later to look at it, and saw that no one else had asked to see it. But the cards are now all gone so there is probably no way telling. The paper must be very brittle by now since my copy at home is all turning yellow especially the fold out maps which you would have to be very careful with.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

A system that relies on buses being always crowded all the time is actually inefficient. Efficiency in any operation is about maximizing output as a function of input. In a transit system the output is ridership (or fare revenue from a pure cost perspective) and the input is the operating cost of the service. If the goal is for buses to be crowded all the time then I the operator will want buses to get crowded very early in the trip (perhaps from the first pick up) because any minute the bus runs with room for more riders I'm considering inefficient. The problem is that if I am getting that kind of efficiency riders boarding from later stops will need another bus to serve them so I have to increase my input costs to generate that extra output. In some cases (depending on a routes ridership patterns) full buses may show effectiveness at generating demand but unless those full buses are generating high turnover they're hardly efficient. The reason why I threw in turnover is because that's where you get efficiency. If I can get a healthy load on the bus early and drop those riders off well before the end of the trip I can refill the bus with a healthy load and thus maximize the number of boardings and thus revenue on a single trip as opposed to a bus that's sardine packed and can only take a limited number of riders if any beyond the crush point. If I can get 80 paid fares on 1 trip of a high turnover route where the bus is never above a fully seated load and get 70 paid fares on 1 trip of a low turnover route that was packed to the rafters most of the trip, it's obvious which by the dictionary definition is more efficient but also sadly obvious which the MTA would see as more efficient. I can give real life examples using Los Angeles to show that sardine crowding isn't where you get efficiency but I think this post has enough for now.

 

P.S. For your curiosity look up Metro L.A's Route Performance Index and then compare the 720 to the 754 while in the process looking at both routes' schedules. This can be a springboard to a discussion we need to have with our system.

[BrooklynBus]

I appreciate your input. I was not considering turnover. Of course from a revenue viewpoint, a route with high turnover is more efficient than a route with low turnover. But the amount of turnover has to do with passenger origins and destinations and not with the service provided. Express routes have no turnover at all since all are destined from an outer borough to Manhattan. Does that make the route inefficient? No, if it has a seated load for most of the route. It's just the nature with that type of service.

 

You say that a bus that is sardine packed is inefficient. I disagree because it is filled. It would only be considered inefficient if you include the number of passengers that want to be served but aren't. Yes, of course that is important, but I consider that as part of the effectiveness of the service, not its efficiency. If the bus is operating at maximum capacity for its entire route, it is efficient even if there is zero turnover. Turnover increases revenue but not effuciency unless you are talking about efficiency from a revenue point of view which is a separate measure.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

IDK, but what about having a different bus and subway fare. Lets say for a theoretical service increase, the subway fare would be 25 cents higher than the local bus. It could help to move some subway riders to the bus, even if it is just a little bit. Even with the offset of people taking the bus over the subway, the subway would be even more efficient, and the bus as well. I don't expect those going long distances to take the bus, they would just take the subway as they currently do.