Woodhaven Blvd. Q52/53 SBS Discussion

[DetSMART45]

From BusChat:

Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 12 19:38:18 2016:

DOT spells the word "Glossary" as GLOSSERY in big bold print because they are too lazy to even use spell check.

 

 

How you gonna hate on DOT for that mistake and then put up a link where 'rebuttal' is misspelled in the link itself?

Really?  That's an important issue?  Well, since you brought it up ...

 

There's a big difference with a handful (if that) of people doing a teeny website, and an agency full of people who, according to their training/resumes/salaries should KNOW better, and I'm sure the publication did not just get passed through one set of hands (i.e. the typist/compiler) before being available to the public.  YES, those "smart" people -- in much, much too many professions -- don't do something so simple.  I'm not a Grammar/Spelling Nazi all the time, but if you're in a position or business, such as the DOT, things like that grate me to no end -- purely BECAUSE it's sooooo simple to just click a button, but even THAT must be too taxing for their superior intellects.  Let alone printing out a copy and having someone else proofread, so that the professionalism is maintained.

 

I know this thread has veered off, but your retort sure isn't going to help bring it back on course.

[BrooklynBus]

From BusChat:

Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 12 19:38:18 2016:

DOT spells the word "Glossary" as GLOSSERY in big bold print because they are too lazy to even use spell check.

 

 

How you gonna hate on DOT for that mistake and then put up a link where 'rebuttal' is misspelled in the link itself?

 

For your information, the link was not part of the report or press release and you can call a file name anything you want. There is no such thing as a misspelling in a filename. If we wanted to, we could have called the filename "F-U".

[BrooklynBus]

Really?  That's an important issue?  Well, since you brought it up ...

 

There's a big difference with a handful (if that) of people doing a teeny website, and an agency full of people who, according to their training/resumes/salaries should KNOW better, and I'm sure the publication did not just get passed through one set of hands (i.e. the typist/compiler) before being available to the public.  YES, those "smart" people -- in much, much too many professions -- don't do something so simple.  I'm not a Grammar/Spelling Nazi all the time, but if you're in a position or business, such as the DOT, things like that grate me to no end -- purely BECAUSE it's sooooo simple to just click a button, but even THAT must be too taxing for their superior intellects.  Let alone printing out a copy and having someone else proofread, so that the professionalism is maintained.

 

I know this thread has veered off, but your retort sure isn't going to help bring it back on course.

 

Okay, so let's get it back on course. The misspelling was pointed out not only because it was misspelled in the text which could easily have been overlooked without spellcheck, but in a big black headline it signifies something else.  It means no one at DOT who reviewed the report knows how to spell or more importantly didn't even care enough to correct an obvious error because they do sloppy work. So as the QPTC report asked, how can we trust their traffic analyses? How much effort went into those?

 

Let's examine DOT's planning process. Someone looks at Google map, sees a street wider than all the others in the area and concludes without any analysis it could benefit from a bus lane. Then they propose 23 left turn bans without even doing any traffic counts and then try to hide the fact all those left turns are being banned by disclosing only about four of them at each of the six community meetings, hoping so one will notice the totality of the proposal.

 

When I pointed out to them at an early meeting that because of their left turn ban at Metropolitan Avenue, tractor trailers could not make the proposed alternative 270 degree left turn from Cooper to Metropolitan except with extreme difficulty and doing it from the right lane, they first decide to go back and study it concluding I am correct. So instead they revise their proposal to turn the narrow residential Trotting Course Lane into a two-way street to replace one of the the left turn bans from Woodhaven to Metropolitan.

 

Then the communities start criticizing DOT for rerouting truck and car traffic to residential streets. So what do they do now?  They change the proposal again by no longer proposing Trotting Course be a two-lane roadway or forget to include the new left turn in their answer to the question where left turns restrictions will be changed. 

 

Then they first decide to re-evaluate all the left turn bans by doing the analysis they should have done before releasing the initial proposal. And when asked by the communities for over a year how many vehicles are using Woodhaven daily, they finally respond with the daily number of bus passengers and the number of vehicles passing five selected intersections. That does not answer the question because they insist on hiding the fact that bus passengers only account for 20% of the motorized users of the boulevard. They just harp on the fact that 30,000 daily bus riders would be helped when many of them would only save a negligible minute or two because they are riding the bus for under a mile. They won't tell you about the 120,000 to 150,000 daily drivers and passengers in cars and trucks who would lose many minutes daily, insisting that traffic would move faster after the changes or at least move "at a reasonable rate." But when asked what they consider a reasonable rate of speed, again they refuse to answer the question.

[BrooklynBus]

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/03/8592546/price-tag-fast-bus-project-queens-doubles

 

Cost for SBS doubles although DOT stated at the Community Advisory meeting #5 that the already installed bus lanes will not be moved. Why is the project doubling for half the work?

[BreeddekalbL]

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/03/8592546/price-tag-fast-bus-project-queens-doubles

 

Cost for SBS doubles although DOT stated at the Community Advisory meeting #5 that the already installed bus lanes will not be moved. Why is the project doubling for half the work?

 

is it proving my theory right that they are trying to ram sbs in there?

[JerBear]

I just saw the Queens Chronicle article about Goldfeder putting millions into the state budget to force the MTA to study reactivating the RBL.

 

BrooklynBus: did you get this done?

 

Tony Avella got the MTA half a million state dollars to do the North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study. Can you and Phil get a legislator to put up the same to study reactivating the rail?

 

 

[JerBear]

And Goldfeder's state website described a hearing last month, including: "Prendergast responded by saying that the agency has been reviewing additional resiliency and expansion opportunities, including the Rockaway line..."

So the answer is, we were talking about whether DOT was studying reactivation but we missed whether or not the MTA was studying reactivation.

I just read through Goldfeder's press release. I really wish he had given a longer period of time to allow for the feasibility study. How real of a feasibility study can they do in 10 months? The North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study wasn't released until 18 months after Senator Avella got the law approved to tell them to do the study. The Staten Island Comprehensive Bus Study is slated to take longer than a year. BrooklynBus: what can we expect from the MTA with only 10 months to procure a consultant, do millions of dollars worth of study activities, and write up the report?

[JerBear]

Really? That's an important issue?

I don't personally think it's a big deal that some lackey at DOT was too busy taking liberal arts classes instead of technical writing and therefore made a professional mistake. I hope that he was given a stern talking to. But for me this issue is one of "do unto others as you would have done unto you", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "don't point out the splinter in your neighbor's eye but miss the log in yours", "judge not lest ye be judged", and "for however you judge others it shall be judged against you." You can't make a spelling mistake in a document where you mockingly point out someone else's spelling mistake.

Not to be pedantic, but I noticed while reading through the rebutal the missing space in Mayor de Blasio's last name and the superfluous comma in the sentence: "DOT's failure to understand such a basic transportation concept, casts doubt on their ability to perform a competent transportation study." The sentence "One has to ask why Myrtle Avenue was chosen as the typical business location along Woodhaven Boulevard when there are only a handful of business there?" needs either a colon after the first four words or a period at the end. And the second-to-last word in that sentence should be plural. So there's spelling and more... My personal favorite sentence is: "DOT switched plans using a bait and switch after once communities showed interest in their original plan."

 

... I'm sure the publication did not just get passed through one set of hands...

I am used to many people touching the meat of a report/study/document, with just one or two responsible for adding on front matter and back matter like an appendix or a glossery.

 

... it's sooooo simple to just click a button...

There are definitely many software programs that one can use to create documents that don't do spell check, especially if it's software specifically meant to be a pretty published visual, much better than the crap look of MS Word. So you make it look good but lose the spell check.

 

... Let alone printing out a copy and having someone else proofread, so that the professionalism is maintained.

I can't believe how much gets published that hasn't been proofread, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

For your information, the link was not part of the report or press release...

Yes it was. Both, actually. In the press release, bottom of the first page: " QPTC explained which questions were and were not answered in their own 35-page document available on the QPTC website at http://www.qptc.org/rebutal.html." In the rebutal itself, second page: " This document is available on the internet at: http://www.qptc.org/rebutal.html"

 

and you can call a file name anything you want... If we wanted to, we could have called the filename "F-U".

Absolutely. But it's not like it was something like THX1138. It's clearly just a misspelling of 'rebuttal'.

[BrooklynBus]

And Goldfeder's state website described a hearing last month, including: "Prendergast responded by saying that the agency has been reviewing additional resiliency and expansion opportunities, including the Rockaway line..."

So the answer is, we were talking about whether DOT was studying reactivation but we missed whether or not the MTA was studying reactivation.

I just read through Goldfeder's press release. I really wish he had given a longer period of time to allow for the feasibility study. How real of a feasibility study can they do in 10 months? The North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study wasn't released until 18 months after Senator Avella got the law approved to tell them to do the study. The Staten Island Comprehensive Bus Study is slated to take longer than a year. BrooklynBus: what can we expect from the MTA with only 10 months to procure a consultant, do millions of dollars worth of study activities, and write up the report?

In 2013, the MTA said it was interested in the Rockaway Line in its report "Looking Ahead". But when Goldfeder got state money to study underused or unutilized rail lines last year, the MTA wouldn't apply for it. A spokesman told the press they haven't decided to apply because the MT does not own the right of way. That seems contradictory to Prendergast's that the MTA is looking into it.

 

I just saw the Queens Chronicle article about Goldfeder putting millions into the state budget to force the MTA to study reactivating the RBL.

BrooklynBus: did you get this done?

 

I had absolutely nothing to do with this. Goldfeder was working on his own. Maybe he reads this forum.

 

Regarding the timeframe, I agree it may not be enough time for a real complete study, but if he allowed more time, the SBS proposal may be so far along that the agency would not want to do both. So there is an urgency to get some results soon. If the study at least shows the condition is not as deteriorated as some fear, we would at least have a better idea as to how much we would need to rebuild it. I think that is all he may be looking for from this study.

 

There could perhaps be a further study to determine if it should be LIRR or subway. If the study shows the ROW is so far gone that it would cost many billions to just to restore and no money is available for it, there really wouldn't be a reason to do a more in depth study.

 

Regarding the DOT report, do you really thing DOT used anything else besides Microsoft Word? I didn't see anything in their report that couldn't have been done in Word. Not doing a spell check was inexcusable. Especially to have the mistake in such big bold print, not to mention transposing letters in the word "December".

 

As far as the rebuttal spelled wrong in the QPTC report, I actually picked that up before it was put on the website, but the person who was putting together the website, didn't believe it was important enough to change since it was a file name and not a word in the report. We wanted to get this out, and I was told there was too much programming involved to fix it.

 

I really don't believe the two mistakes, if you want to even call the QPTC filename a mistake comparable, especially since there was a conscious decision made not to fix it. I really doubt that someone in DOT noticed that "glossary" was misspelled and decided to leave it. If that was the case, it would even be worse. And as I stated, what is most troublesome is not that the word was misspelled, but that taking the shortcut of not performing a spell check questions how well thorough their technical analyses were and what other shortcuts were taken there?

 

And you say you read the QPTC report. So let me ask you, is your entire criticism of our entire 34 page report, just a couple of spelling errors and the omission of a space in de Blasio's name? If you can't find any substantive criticism, I would say we did a god job then. Or are you dismissing our entire report based on a couple of spelling errors?

 

The QPTC criticism of the DOT report was much more than the one spelling error we pointed out. It was a failure to even address half the questions they were claiming to have answered and not adequately responding to many of the questions they did answer.

[JerBear]

And you say you read the QPTC report. So let me ask you, is your entire criticism of our entire 34 page report, just a couple of spelling errors and the omission of a space in de Blasio's name? If you can't find any substantive criticism, I would say we did a god job then. Or are you dismissing our entire report based on a couple of spelling errors?

 

I didn't see anything new in the report. Most of it is stuff that is just accusations with no ability to work through because they're too vague or generalized (any mention of DOT addresses it as an organization but assigns it the cohesive thinking and motivation of an individual, when any organization is going to have internal conflicts and lack of vigorous alignment) or the definitions and level of detail are getting in the way (you and I have a different understanding of what DOT means by 'corridor' and I still don't understand why you insist on confusing SBS with BRT, as everyone else I have talked to about it knows that that the $400 million plan is not BRT and the reason for it costing more than the initial plan is that the initial plan didn’t involve ripping up every inch of asphalt over a 10+ mile stretch of road). There are things I agree with you on like no reason for 24-hour bus lanes.

But overall the rebutal doesn’t convince me of anything other than that the QPTC can't move from an interesting idea to a solid detailed plan or strategy and are instead just detractors. If it was just a bunch of citizens crying outrage, that would be one thing. But with a strong force like you, a former director of bus planning, I then expect a plan. I want to see drawings, I want to see sketches. I have read a fair amount on these boards and other websites about what it would take to reactivate the RBB, but some of it seems beyond me because I am not an engineer or a pure transit enthusiast who knows how train switches work and what a bellmouth is. So I would expect an organization like the QPTC to put together a well-thought-out, comprehensive, detailed analysis that would lay the ground work for future studies like the upcoming feasibility study.

You said that the MTA Bus Company has been speaking with you about some of your ideas lately. What if you and Phil could sit with the Rail Planning division and hand them a document and say: "Now that Goldfeder has required you to do this study, we want you to get as much done as you can in 10 months, so we've put together this document with all the pertinent issues covered in great detail. Read it, learn from it, check our work. Hire an engineering firm to go do the physical inspection of the state of the right-of-way, but as far as programming and planning, we have a solid first draft right here and we will do whatever we can to help you prove that this reactivation is feasible."

[BrooklynBus]

I have a few questions for you.

 

1) I am not even going to try to comprehend your first run on sentence since you don't want to even be bothered to take the few minutes that would be required to write something that is comprehensible, but is quite quick to make general criticisms of others. I also know that you didn't even bother to criticize one specific point of the document which leads me to conclude you really didn't bother to read it but just glanced at it. Because if you actually read it, you would see how the DOT falls short of proving its case.

 

2) I can't help but wonder after the big deal you made out of "rebutal", if you intentionhgally misspelled it here.

 

Being a former director of planning didn't come with a lifetime staff to produce drawings and sketches. But there are conceptual maps on the QPTC.Org website.

 

I never said anything about speaking with the "MTA Bus Company." I have been speaking with Road Operations from NYC Transit about Brooklyn problems.

 

As for Goldfeder and the MTA, I am sure the Goldfeder would like to closely work with the MTA, but knowing the MTA like I do, I am sure they will want to be the ones calling the shots and will try to keep their contact with Goldfeder minimal, rather than work with him cooperatively.

 

I also have no idea who the "Rail Planning Division" of the MTA is. I have never heard of them and aus far as I know they don't exist. At the NYCT and MTA bus level, you have Operations Planning for subway and bus. And LiIRR has their own planning unit as does MNR. Then there is the capital end of planning like for new rail lines and facilities such as depots. That is done at the MTA level. I think it is called Strategic Planning or something like that. There is no unit looking into how to expand the subway or rail system which is what a "Rail Planning Division" implies.

 

And please don't blame me "for confusing SBS and BRT". Put the blame where it belongs with DOT and the MTA who keep using both terms interchangeably as if they were one and the same.

[JerBear]

... you really didn't bother to read it but just glanced at it.

I did read it when you first posted it a few weeks ago, but then got too busy to respond, then I glanced back at it recently.

 

Because if you actually read it, you would see how the DOT falls short of proving its case.

I don't care if anyone thinks DOT proves a case or not. I liked the BRT I rode in Cleveland, and until DOT does something like that, their buses are always going to fall short of my desires. So they can't prove their case to me. And I want to believe that the RBB can be reactivated. It feels like you and the QPTC put a lot of effort into convincing anyone reading your stuff that SBS on Woodhaven is going to be a disaster, but it's just not very compelling.

 

I can't help but wonder after the big deal you made out of "rebutal", if you intentionhgally misspelled it here.

But of course.

 

I never said anything about speaking with the "MTA Bus Company." I have been speaking with Road Operations from NYC Transit about Brooklyn problems.

 

I also have no idea who the "Rail Planning Division" of the MTA is. I have never heard of them and aus far as I know they don't exist. At the NYCT and MTA bus level, you have Operations Planning for subway and bus. And LiIRR has their own planning unit as does MNR. Then there is the capital end of planning like for new rail lines and facilities such as depots. That is done at the MTA level. I think it is called Strategic Planning or something like that. There is no unit looking into how to expand the subway or rail system which is what a "Rail Planning Division" implies.

I've never seen an actual organization chart, I guess I just assume that there's a big floor full of planners, engineers, and designers split into groups of subways and buses and trains and bridges and tunnels. But yeah, Strategic Planning sounds like they would do what I am thinking. Did they write the reinvention report from a couple years back?

[BrooklynBus]

You hit the problem on the head when you said you didn't care if the MTA proved its case  or not. That is the MTA's and DOT's job. It is not sufficient to say since it works elsewhere, it will also work on Woodhaven. But that is essentially what they have done.

 

Even DOT admits each corridor is different.  Liking BRT in Cleveland is irrelevant. I hated the streetcars in Toronto. That doesn't mean I will be against every streetcar proposal.

 

You are entitled to your opinion that you don't feel our case that Woodhaven will be a disaster is compelling. We feel that DOT's case is even less compelling that it will be a success without any model results.

 

As far the MTA is concerned, you obviously have no idea how the agency is structured. It is really seven separate organizations that rarely interface with each other. You have the five parts each with their own structures and the MTA headquarters. Then you have the MTA Capital Construction Company where the big projects like the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access are done. Then within Buses you have the routes operated by and planned by NYCT's Department of Buses and the ones operated and planned and scheduled by the MTA Bus Company. Only Road Operations is the same for both. Not to mention some differences that still exist between NYCT and MaBSTOA buses which do not share depots. The MTA Bus Company Depots are also separate. 

 

All this leads to a very complex and inefficient organizational structure. So it is very easy for problems to fall between the cracks like how to tie together the NYCT routes and the MTA Bus Company routes to make them function better together since there is no planning group that currently does this.

 

The Reinvention Report was put together by a group of so-called experts chosen by the MTA under the direction of the governor who really runs the MTA not the Chairman. Case in point. The governor chose the routing for the proposed LGA rail route, not the MTA's Strategic Planning, the MTA Capital Construction Company, or any planning unit within NYCT. Furthermore, a route was chosen that is no quicker than current routings unless you are coming from Long Island while the need is to improve travel times from midtown. And the Reinvention Commission missed many of the problems with the MTA. So your notion about a single floor where everyone is together and functions the way things should function is a myth.

[JerBear]

I am waiting with baited breath to see if Senator Addabbo was able to keep the millions in the budget as deals were made. We should know tomorrow, right? I assume since the deals were just reached and they have to sign it on (or is it before?) Friday. But then one article mentioned that the Governor can do something like a line-item veto. It would be really interesting if the Governor were to kill the study. Then we could find out if everytime we talk about "The MTA did this..." and "The MTA said that..." if we really mean "The Governor decided...". I am still irked that he vetoed the 2-free-transfers bill.

[Around the Horn]

But then one article mentioned that the Governor can do something like a line-item veto. It would be really interesting if the Governor were to kill the study. Then we could find out if everytime we talk about "The MTA did this..." and "The MTA said that..." if we really mean "The Governor decided...". I am still irked that he vetoed the 2-free-transfers bill.

Even if he doesn't want the QueensRail, I doubt Cuomo is stupid enough to make it that public. I means that's political suicide!

 

If he kills QueensRail it would be something backdoor like messing around with the study to make QueensRail look bad.

[JerBear]

Now we got ourselves a ball game! One of the articles I read said that the MTA would study heavy rail and other modes like a busway. And they have 14 months, not 10, to complete it. The North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study only had one public workshop, but I heard that the MTA also talked to the transportation committees of the community boards. But for Queensrail/Queensbusway they're going to need to have multiple meetings. They should start scheduling them already. Do a couple of different kinds. One about rail. One about buses. One about station placement.

[BrooklynBus]

Now we got ourselves a ball game! One of the articles I read said that the MTA would study heavy rail and other modes like a busway. And they have 14 months, not 10, to complete it. The North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study only had one public workshop, but I heard that the MTA also talked to the transportation committees of the community boards. But for Queensrail/Queensbusway they're going to need to have multiple meetings. They should start scheduling them already. Do a couple of different kinds. One about rail. One about buses. One about station placement.

I don't see why they would or should hold any public workshops unless that is a requirement of the legislation. This is not like the Northeast Queens Study or the SBS study where changes are imminent. The purpose of this study is to see what shape the right of way is in and the costs would for various alternatives and how feasible reactivation would be. It isn't to assess how popular different ideas are. It would be nice if the public were consulted to suggest different options to be studied but I wonder how many options can really be studied within the time and financial constraints.

[checkmatechamp13]

I am waiting with baited breath to see if Senator Addabbo was able to keep the millions in the budget as deals were made. We should know tomorrow, right? I assume since the deals were just reached and they have to sign it on (or is it before?) Friday. But then one article mentioned that the Governor can do something like a line-item veto. It would be really interesting if the Governor were to kill the study. Then we could find out if everytime we talk about "The MTA did this..." and "The MTA said that..." if we really mean "The Governor decided...". I am still irked that he vetoed the 2-free-transfers bill.

 

Hold on, there was a bill that would've mandated the MTA offer 2 free transfers? When was this, and why am I not shocked that our idiot governor vetoed it? 

[JerBear]

http://nypost.com/2015/11/23/riders-snubbed-as-cuomo-vetoes-metrocard-expansion/

[bobtehpanda]

Hold on, there was a bill that would've mandated the MTA offer 2 free transfers? When was this, and why am I not shocked that our idiot governor vetoed it? 

 

I mean, the last time the government dictated the fare policy for subways and buses, the IRT and BMT went bankrupt, so I don't know if a second try is a good idea.

[checkmatechamp13]

I mean, the last time the government dictated the fare policy for subways and buses, the IRT and BMT went bankrupt, so I don't know if a second try is a good idea.

 

Sometimes the MTA needs to be made to "eat their vegetables" so to speak. That's a common-sense policy which would actually save them money in some cases (for example, BrooklynBus's example of people being able to take the B35--B1 instead of the B35-B49 and forcing them to run more full-length B49s).

[Far rockaway]

by reading the spring 2016 newsletter for the q52/53 SBS. It looks like SBS won't start until Fall 2017.

[BreeddekalbL]

https://twitter.com/AlexBlenkinsopp/status/786626512636313600?s=04

 

looks like their expanding the median for the bus stop after the community board voted it down. Can't they sue?

[bobtehpanda]

https://twitter.com/AlexBlenkinsopp/status/786626512636313600?s=04

 

looks like their expanding the median for the bus stop after the community board voted it down. Can't they sue?

 

Community boards are 1. advisory, and 2. not elected, so from a legal standpoint a CB's opinion is jack s***.

 

They are more than welcome to file a civil suit similar to that for the PPW bike lane, but that ended in failure, so your mileage may vary.

[BrooklynBus]

Community boards are 1. advisory, and 2. not elected, so from a legal standpoint a CB's opinion is jack s***.

 

They are more than welcome to file a civil suit similar to that for the PPW bike lane, but that ended in failure, so your mileage may vary.

See my response here:

 

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/49492-queens-fighting-dot-sbs/page-3