Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Cait Sith

Queens Boulevard Will See Linear Park, Q60 Bus to Run on Median Under DOT’s Ambitious Plan

Recommended Posts

As an Occasional rider of the Q60 (whenever I'm not taking any QBL subway line) I agree with it being SBS, but if it were SBS, it would have to planned and implemented correctly to get the most effectiveness out of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

You're too busy trying to be argumentative instead of reading what's being said....

Nobody said you said anything about this change having negative effects on the Q60.... The point being made with what I said there, is that you're lumping those of us that have that very viewpoint (like myself) in with those in this thread here talking about Q60 SBS' (which I don't agree with in any facet).... That is what you're doing with that "All of you obviously don't care about the effect on cars'" statement of yours....

You now say you were responding to that comment about the Q60 should be SBS... You obviously knew that upon making such a response, so what was the purpose of making a sweeping generalization that we all don't care about cars for? That's what I have a "real problem" with...

Did you or did you not say "Talking about the negative effects that this change'll have on the Q60 doesn't automatically equate to *we don't care about cars*....."?

Now you say that nobody ever said anything about negative effects on the Q60. So are you saying I do not know how to read? It is very clear what you said. 

As for me saying "all of you" I was talking about those who have no regard for cars. I know you oppose SBS and are not one of those. Sorry if I offended you. I was making a generalization. I should have said "most of you." All that aside, I take offense to you calling me "anti-bus". This obviously is not true since I suggested an alternate way to speed up the Q60 which is to return the traffic lane DOT stole in 2001, which you conveniently ignore in your response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

As an Occasional rider of the Q60 (whenever I'm not taking any QBL subway line) I agree with it being SBS, but if it were SBS, it would have to planned and implemented correctly to get the most effectiveness out of it

And how would you correctly plan and implement it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

And how would you correctly plan and implement it? 

Well, in order to correctly Implement it, you must find a way to get rid of the obstacles, (example of this would be double parking). First, I would make a law that would prohibit double parking on Queens Blvd. Next, there should be designated spots on the boulevard for trucks that load and unload. Once you have that out of the way. Then you can start putting bus lanes. As for the linear park plan on the boulevard, if there's one thing that we can all agree on is that they could be at least used for some pedestrian purpose (and even that would need to be planned correctly in order for it to be effective. and if you can encourage people to use this Q60 SBS then you might as well have an improved bus route

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Q60 needs SBS, but it needs to be more reliable. Maybe off-board payment at several stops (like 2 Avenue, Woodhaven Boulevard, Union Turnpike, and Archer Avenue) so that boarding isn't much of an issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Well, in order to correctly Implement it, you must find a way to get rid of the obstacles, (example of this would be double parking). First, I would make a law that would prohibit double parking on Queens Blvd. Next, there should be designated spots on the boulevard for trucks that load and unload. Once you have that out of the way. Then you can start putting bus lanes. As for the linear park plan on the boulevard, if there's one thing that we can all agree on is that they could be at least used for some pedestrian purpose (and even that would need to be planned correctly in order for it to be effective. and if you can encourage people to use this Q60 SBS then you might as well have an improved bus route

I agree with you about double parking. The city is trying a pilot program at a few locations which has already met with resistance from merchants and politicians have jumped on the bandwagon. Merchants are also against more delivery zones because that limits parking. 

So if you are for a linear park and you are for SBS and bus lanes, do you think Queens Blvd can work with only one lane in the main road for cars and one lane in the service road for cars in each direction? Or how would you plan it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

obviously off board collection will happen once we get tap cards etc, i also agree with enforcing double parking i also forgot to add encourage cops to enforce, not make them gunshy to where writing a ticket  and whatnot lands them infront of the ccrb

Edited by BreeddekalbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Did you or did you not say "Talking about the negative effects that this change'll have on the Q60 doesn't automatically equate to *we don't care about cars*....."?

Now you say that nobody ever said anything about negative effects on the Q60. So are you saying I do not know how to read? It is very clear what you said. 

Yes, I made that statement..... What you're not answering is, where in that statement did I say that YOU made that statement?

...and what is this now, about me (supposedly) saying that nobody ever said anything about negative effects on the Q60....
How in the hell did you interpret that from "Nobody said you said anything about this change having negative effects on the Q60..." (which is what I actually said)

Again, too busy trying to be retaliatory, instead of reading what's being said.

5 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

As for me saying "all of you" I was talking about those who have no regard for cars. I know you oppose SBS and are not one of those. Sorry if I offended you. I was making a generalization. I should have said "most of you." All that aside, I take offense to you calling me "anti-bus". This obviously is not true since I suggested an alternate way to speed up the Q60 which is to return the traffic lane DOT stole in 2001, which you conveniently ignore in your response. 

The million dollar question is, all of who (or, most of who)?..... There isn't a consensus of anyone in this discussion that conveyed a disregard for cars..... The disregard that was/is being shown in this thread is for bicycles & the bike lanes....

Furthermore, you say you're sorry if you offended me, then follow that up with an outright lie? Way to nullify your apology there....

BrooklynBus, where were you called "anti-bus" by me in this thread? Where?

This has gotten stupid at this point.

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To B35. 

I suggest you reread the discussion. This isn't the first time you have misinterpreted what I said then misquoted me and we have gotten into an unnecessary argument.

You say "talking about the negative effects that this change'll have on the Q60 doesn't automatically equate to *we don't care about cars*. 

First of all, neither I or anyone else ever spoke about negative effects on the Q60. Second, the statement immediately following is "with that type of statement, it's as if you're miffed..." So you are accusing me of making a statement I never made. 

Then when I pointed out to you that I never made that statement, you responded:  "Nobody said you said anything about thus change having negative effects on he Q60..." Which is exactly what you said when you said I was "miffed." 

Then you claim to never have said I was "anti-bus". That is correct. You did not use the term "ant-bus". You said people were accusing me of pushing a pro-car agenda because I am miffed why the discussion is more focused on the Q60 than it is over cars. 

So I guess I can now conclude you don't agree with them and do not think I am pro-car or anti-bus. Or do you think I am pro-car?

Just because I have added to the discussion by talking about the negative effects this proposal will have on general traffic does not make me pro-car or "miffed." If I was pro-car, I would be talking about increasing the number of lanes for cars. But I wasn't. I was talking about returning the number of lanes in the service road from one lane to two lanes to help both cars and buses. Doing that would help the Q60 more than moving it to the center roadway with fewer stops as DOT is proposing. 

Then you say that no one conveyed a disregard for cars. Reducing the main roadway to one lane for cars in each direction with the creation of an SBS lane which is implied by suggesting a Q60 SBS and leaving one lane for cars in the service road is a disregard for cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

To B35. 

I suggest you reread the discussion. This isn't the first time you have misinterpreted what I said then misquoted me and we have gotten into an unnecessary argument.

This is funny to me, because you're projecting here - You're misinterpreting what I'm saying here & misquoting me on top of it....

The fact of the matter is that you threw out a sweeping generalization, got called out on it, and are trying everything under the sun to divert attention away from it....

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

You say "talking about the negative effects that this change'll have on the Q60 doesn't automatically equate to *we don't care about cars*. 

First of all, neither I or anyone else ever spoke about negative effects on the Q60. Second, the statement immediately following is "with that type of statement, it's as if you're miffed..." So you are accusing me of making a statement I never made.

Again, I didn't say you spoke about any negative effects on the Q60 & I'm not going to keep repeating that..... You now say that nobody else spoke about this plan having negative effects on the Q60? I suggest you read the 1st page of this discussion then, because that is simply not true..... As for that particular statement of mine that you're harping on - Well listen, you clearly feel some sort of way that cars aren't being talked about enough on here - enough for you to resorted to making that broad generalization that All of us obviously don't care about the effect on cars if buses were moved to the main road.....

Where I said "....with that type of statement" in that same snippet of mine you're harping on, I'm referring to your sweeping generalization !!

So I'm not accusing you of making a statement you never made, because that's the very basis of what I took issue with - your sweeping generalization.

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Then when I pointed out to you that I never made that statement, you responded:  "Nobody said you said anything about thus change having negative effects on he Q60..."

Which is exactly what you said when you said I was "miffed."

Oh, I still say that you're "miffed"....

The whole misinterpretation on your part, surrounding [those of us that believe that this plan will affect the Q60 negatively] & [your claim that I supposedly said that you made that statement] though, has nothing to do with that quip....

'aye, I don't care that you do it, but you are making more of an issue about cars than about the Q60 when it comes to this plan..... You want to illustrate/convey how this plan will negatively affect cars, have at it - But to expect folks on a transit forum to be on that same wavelength that you are, is a little far-fetched..... Those that do or don't can speak for themselves, but (aside from the kids on here) I get the sense that not too many on here drive.....

They're not going to go in-depth as you do, when it comes to how cars will be affected with these plans....

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Then you claim to never have said I was "anti-bus". That is correct. You did not use the term "ant-bus". You said people were accusing me of pushing a pro-car agenda because I am miffed why the discussion is more focused on the Q60 than it is over cars.

I know it's correct & I don't know why you put anti-bus in quotes (in your previous reply) in the first place.....

What I said verbatim was "With that type of a statement, it's as if you're miffed that the discussion here is more focused on the Q60, over that of cars...."
(Again, the "type of a statement" - being your sweeping generalization of us all not caring about the effect this QB plan will have on cars....)

That underlined statement, in no way, shape, or form, is alluding to you being anti-bus, so stop it.....

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

So I guess I can now conclude you don't agree with them and do not think I am pro-car or anti-bus. Or do you think I am pro-car?

Not that it matters at this point, but I do think you're more pro-car than you are pro-bus these days..... I don't think you're anti-bus & I've said that in at least one post on this forum before.....

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Just because I have added to the discussion by talking about the negative effects this proposal will have on general traffic does not make me pro-car or "miffed." If I was pro-car, I would be talking about increasing the number of lanes for cars. But I wasn't. I was talking about returning the number of lanes in the service road from one lane to two lanes to help both cars and buses. Doing that would help the Q60 more than moving it to the center roadway with fewer stops as DOT is proposing.

Your actual points in that regard isn't what I have a problem with... It was your sweeping generalization....

Why did it have to be, we all don't care about the effects of cars...

6 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Then you say that no one conveyed a disregard for cars. Reducing the main roadway to one lane for cars in each direction with the creation of an SBS lane which is implied by suggesting a Q60 SBS and leaving one lane for cars in the service road is a disregard for cars.

More misquoting..... It's like you're reading what you want to read....

I said verbatim that "There isn't a consensus of anyone in this discussion that conveyed a disregard for cars".... A consensus man, a consensus, a general agreement amongst those that have participated in this thread so far.... Not that nobody conveyed a disregard for cars.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I don't think the Q60 needs SBS, but it needs to be more reliable. Maybe off-board payment at several stops (like 2 Avenue, Woodhaven Boulevard, Union Turnpike, and Archer Avenue) so that boarding isn't much of an issue.

Having some intra-borough only Q60 trips during the rush could be a good start.....,

Not that I think that POP at certain stops wouldn't be of any help, but I'd say that the double-parking on the service road has a little more of a negative effect on the route's performance & it's only gotten worse as the years progress..... Those taxi's that sometimes loiter at QCM (Queens blvd side) for instance, has got to go..... Bus lanes in general in this city are very loosely enforced & taxi drivers (and other motorists as well) stop at nothing to exploit it!! Also, there has also been an influx of taxi's alighting people from the service road on the southern side of QB (meaning, eastbound direction) over in Forest Hills; anywhere from around 71st to Union Tpke. itself.....

SBS being the cure-all for some bus route's issue{s}, apparently is the MTA's M.O. nowadays.... Although I don't think the route needs SBS (either) & while I (also) don't think this QB plan is setting up for an eventual Q60 SBS, the fact that TJ Trainman brought it up as a possibility says enough....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

This is funny to me, because you're projecting here - You're misinterpreting what I'm saying here & misquoting me on top of it....

The fact of the matter is that you threw out a sweeping generalization, got called out on it, and are trying everything under the sun to divert attention away from it....

Again, I didn't say you spoke about any negative effects on the Q60 & I'm not going to keep repeating that..... You now say that nobody else spoke about this plan having negative effects on the Q60? I suggest you read the 1st page of this discussion then, because that is simply not true..... As for that particular statement of mine that you're harping on - Well listen, you clearly feel some sort of way that cars aren't being talked about enough on here - enough for you to resorted to making that broad generalization that All of us obviously don't care about the effect on cars if buses were moved to the main road.....

Where I said "....with that type of statement" in that same snippet of mine you're harping on, I'm referring to your sweeping generalization !!

So I'm not accusing you of making a statement you never made, because that's the very basis of what I took issue with - your sweeping generalization.

Oh, I still say that you're "miffed"....

The whole misinterpretation on your part, surrounding [those of us that believe that this plan will affect the Q60 negatively] & [your claim that I supposedly said that you made that statement] though, has nothing to do with that quip....

'aye, I don't care that you do it, but you are making more of an issue about cars than about the Q60 when it comes to this plan..... You want to illustrate/convey how this plan will negatively affect cars, have at it - But to expect folks on a transit forum to be on that same wavelength that you are, is a little far-fetched..... Those that do or don't can speak for themselves, but (aside from the kids on here) I get the sense that not too many on here drive.....

They're not going to go in-depth as you do, when it comes to how cars will be affected with these plans....

I know it's correct & I don't know why you put anti-bus in quotes (in your previous reply) in the first place.....

What I said verbatim was "With that type of a statement, it's as if you're miffed that the discussion here is more focused on the Q60, over that of cars...."
(Again, the "type of a statement" - being your sweeping generalization of us all not caring about the effect this QB plan will have on cars....)

That underlined statement, in no way, shape, or form, is alluding to you being anti-bus, so stop it.....

Not that it matters at this point, but I do think you're more pro-car than you are pro-bus these days..... I don't think you're anti-bus & I've said that in at least one post on this forum before.....

Your actual points in that regard isn't what I have a problem with... It was your sweeping generalization....

Why did it have to be, we all don't care about the effects of cars...

More misquoting..... It's like you're reading what you want to read....

I said verbatim that "There isn't a consensus of anyone in this discussion that conveyed a disregard for cars".... A consensus man, a consensus, a general agreement amongst those that have participated in this thread so far.... Not that nobody conveyed a disregard for cars.....

You keep harping on that generalization I made even after I admitted I was wrong and should not have said "all of you." And yes, you are misrepresenting what I said and am misquoting me but I am not going to repeat myself again. I'm also not gong to mention anti-bus, pro-bus, anti or pro car, because that discussion is also getting ridiculous. 

And I did reread the first page of this discussion and couldn't find one single comment about this proposal having a negative effect on the Q60 as you claim. There was a statement which I agree with that this plan will not help the Q60. That is not the same thing as someone claiming negative effects. 

There also were statements made that the DOT plan calls for an exclusive bus lane. I did not see that in their proposal. Their diagram even shows cars behind the buses in the same lane. 

And I don't think it is at all far fetched to believe that once people realize their plan calls for reducing a traffic lane and if a bus lane is installed, there will only be two lanes left for cars in each direction, that SBS just could not work on Queens Blvd without terrible consequences for this in cars. Anyone who does realize that and still believes SBS is a good idea would definitely be anti-car unless they believe the cars would just magically disappear. Then they would just be naive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

You keep harping on that generalization I made even after I admitted I was wrong and should not have said "all of you." And yes, you are misrepresenting what I said and am misquoting me but I am not going to repeat myself again. I'm also not gong to mention anti-bus, pro-bus, anti or pro car, because that discussion is also getting ridiculous. 

And I did reread the first page of this discussion and couldn't find one single comment about this proposal having a negative effect on the Q60 as you claim. There was a statement which I agree with that this plan will not help the Q60. That is not the same thing as someone claiming negative effects. 

There also were statements made that the DOT plan calls for an exclusive bus lane. I did not see that in their proposal. Their diagram even shows cars behind the buses in the same lane. 

And I don't think it is at all far fetched to believe that once people realize their plan calls for reducing a traffic lane and if a bus lane is installed, there will only be two lanes left for cars in each direction, that SBS just could not work on Queens Blvd without terrible consequences for this in cars. Anyone who does realize that and still believes SBS is a good idea would definitely be anti-car unless they believe the cars would just magically disappear. Then they would just be naive. 

I was addressing your subsequent post after that admission of yours... You resorted to blatantly misquoting me in that last post of yours on several occasions..... As for that generalization, well you should have never said that crap to begin with.... There was nothing to suggest that all, or even most, of those of us that replied in this thread up to that point, somehow don't care about the effect this plan will have on cars....

Interesting assessment; So having the Q60 on the main road, predisposed to more traffic, slowing buses down, isn't a negative effect? The OP & the last post on that page (both authored by CaitSith) said enough in that regard....

Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm not disagreeing with your actual points.... I don't want to hear anyone trying to sell me on how a Q60 SBS is a good idea (speaking of something that's ridiculous)......

 

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

You keep harping on that generalization I made even after I admitted I was wrong and should not have said "all of you." And yes, you are misrepresenting what I said and am misquoting me but I am not going to repeat myself again. I'm also not gong to mention anti-bus, pro-bus, anti or pro car, because that discussion is also getting ridiculous. 

And I did reread the first page of this discussion and couldn't find one single comment about this proposal having a negative effect on the Q60 as you claim. There was a statement which I agree with that this plan will not help the Q60. That is not the same thing as someone claiming negative effects. 

There also were statements made that the DOT plan calls for an exclusive bus lane. I did not see that in their proposal. Their diagram even shows cars behind the buses in the same lane. 

And I don't think it is at all far fetched to believe that once people realize their plan calls for reducing a traffic lane and if a bus lane is installed, there will only be two lanes left for cars in each direction, that SBS just could not work on Queens Blvd without terrible consequences for this in cars. Anyone who does realize that and still believes SBS is a good idea would definitely be anti-car unless they believe the cars would just magically disappear. Then they would just be naive. 

The reality though, is that one bus lane - when you take into account the Q60 bus, as well as the many express routes that would use it during rush hours - is capable of transporting many more people than one car lane, and does so more efficiently. Our use of road space should reflect that. There is no inherent problem with taking space away from cars; it is the general direction in which most cities are heading and the one in which this city should head as well. Yes, it will represent a huge cultural and habitual change for many people, but it is for the better of the city as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The reality though, is that one bus lane - when you take into account the Q60 bus, as well as the many express routes that would use it during rush hours - is capable of transporting many more people than one car lane, and does so more efficiently. Our use of road space should reflect that. There is no inherent problem with taking space away from cars; it is the general direction in which most cities are heading and the one in which this city should head as well. Yes, it will represent a huge cultural and habitual change for many people, but it is for the better of the city as a whole.

You are talking theory not reality. The reality is that virtually everyone who drives on Queens Blvd cannot take the Q60 or an express bus because it doesn't take them where they need to go. The reality is increased traffic, increased pollution, more people getting sick from air pollution, more money spent on health care, longer travel times for mist, increased costs for deliveries resulting in higher prices for goods and more of the middle class leaving the city to move to places that doesn't look to intentionally make it more difficult to travel. People will also have to walk further to a Q60 bus stop making it less attractive for short trips which is its primary purpose. The bus and car traffic could be speed up by returning the traffic lane in the service road that was converted to parking in 2001. So now we have a problem of slow buses that was created by the city and a solution to cure that problem that will make it worse for everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

There is no inherent problem with taking space away from cars. 

Have you heard of the concept called "traffic congestion"?

And if you don't think it's a problem, open your eyes. This is a car-centric country. Sure if you stay in the NYC bubble you can get most things done via transit, but there's no reason to harm the most prevalent mode of transportation in the country.

Personally, other than for going to places next to the thoroughfare, I wouldn't recommend using Queens Blvd at all via car. Instead of sitting at red lights, take a parkway or freeway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophy of reducing the amount of traffic lanes, in the name of traffic calming, works for Manhattan, because it is an island, and, therefore, can only hold a finite amount of traffic at once.

But this isn't true for the outer boroughs; it requires a different set of solutions.  Traffic calming works if and only if auto use decreases, with the goal of reducing pedestrian deaths.  Otherwise, traffic increases.  And, so does pollution.

Yes, pedestrian areas must be made more hospitable, e.g., Times Square and Herald Square in Manhattan.  But if the NYCDOT really wishes to eliminate pedestrian deaths, it must proactively discourage jaywalking.  A good example is Queens Boulevard.  Initially, when Michael Bloomberg was Mayor, physical barriers that actively discouraged jaywalking were installed, and the traffic lights were retimed in order to give pedestrians sufficient time to cross.   These actions reduced pedestrian deaths to almost zero, according to the NYCDOT, and the changes were well-received throughout Queens.

But when Bill DeBlasio became Mayor, the NYCDOT decided that these changes weren’t enough.  Queens Boulevard had to be “redesigned”.  This did not yield a significant decrease in auto use for the area.  The result is more traffic, and, therefore, more pollution.  One example is when motor vehicles wish to turn from westbound Queens Boulevard to the southbound Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.  Before the “redesign”, a queue would develop only during the weekday rush.  Now, there is a queue all times except late at night.

How did the “redesign” affect local bus service?  Currently, local bus service via Queens Boulevard operates on the service road.  Lanes on the service road have been reduced from two to one.  This has significantly reduced the chance for traffic, in general, to bypass unexpected bottlenecks.  Hence, local bus service is slower and less reliable, discouraging public transit use.

So what should be done?  Encouraging people to use the Subway is impractical, as that there is no Subway via Queens Boulevard between Roosevelt Avenue and Broadway.  One solution is to shift bus service to the main road, like at Pelham Parkway in the Bronx.  But traffic lanes, to the best of my knowledge, weren't reduced for Pelham Parkway.

Corey Johnson, the Speaker of the City Council, represents my district in Manhattan.  He could withhold capital funds for the "new" redesign of Queens Boulevard until NYCDOT releases a report that analyzes and details all of the positive impacts AND all of the negative impacts, and ways to mitigate them.  Another is to divert the capital funds the Mayor earmarked for the BQX as an initial down payment to fixing the Rockaway Cutoff in order for train service to be restored.

For the short term, however, NYCT and MTA Bus could restructure bus routes in the area in order to make them more useful.  Most bus routes near Queens Boulevard do not reflect current ridership patterns and trends.

I have ideas on how to do this, but that's another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.