Q22/Q35 Rockaways Open House

[dkupf]

I also attended the Open House.

There was, indeed, an evaluation done by the NYCDOT between Beach 116 Street and Beach 169 Street in order to study the impacts of the proposed Q35 route shift from Newport Avenue to Rockaway Beach Boulevard, according to one of the NYCDOT people who attended.

He said to me, for weekday riders, 380 people would have to walk further, and, therefore, would also have an increase in travel time.  But 240 people would have a shorter distance to walk, hence, would also have a decrease in travel time.  In other words, the Q35 shift would, generally, make bus service worse for current riders.

Of course, this evaluation didn't take into account the bus stops that would also be eliminated not only in the area, but for the rest of the Rockaways.

I, with a lady who attended that lives in the Rockaways and uses the Q22 often, debated with another NYCDOT person regarding the "minimum guideline" distance between bus stops.  The lady and I agreed that 750 feet was too long, and should be lowered to somewhere between 600 feet and 650 feet inclusive.  And, that this is not bus stop "consolidation", but elimination.

Other boards showed Q22 percentage average ridership levels, and another showed average Q22 riders per trip.  85% of all Q22 riders use the service between Far Rockaway and Beach 116 Street.  West of this point, ridership levels and riders per trip significantly drops.

The goal should be not to minimize operating costs, but to maximize operating efficiency.  So yes, except for the summer months in order to accommodate Jacob Riis Park riders, every other Q22 trip, during most hours, should operate between Far Rockaway and Beach 116 Street.  Of course, the times in which there should be such short trips should occur only when the Q22 trunk line frequency is every 15 minutes or less.

BTW, MTA Bus service planner Mark Holmes was also there.  Nice guy.

[BrooklynBus]

8 hours ago, dkupf said:

I also attended the Open House.

There was, indeed, an evaluation done by the NYCDOT between Beach 116 Street and Beach 169 Street in order to study the impacts of the proposed Q35 route shift from Newport Avenue to Rockaway Beach Boulevard, according to one of the NYCDOT people who attended.

He said to me, for weekday riders, 380 people would have to walk further, and, therefore, would also have an increase in travel time.  But 240 people would have a shorter distance to walk, hence, would also have a decrease in travel time.  In other words, the Q35 shift would, generally, make bus service worse for current riders.

Of course, this evaluation didn't take into account the bus stops that would also be eliminated not only in the area, but for the rest of the Rockaways.

I, with a lady who attended that lives in the Rockaways and uses the Q22 often, debated with another NYCDOT person regarding the "minimum guideline" distance between bus stops.  The lady and I agreed that 750 feet was too long, and should be lowered to somewhere between 600 feet and 650 feet inclusive.  And, that this is not bus stop "consolidation", but elimination.

Other boards showed Q22 percentage average ridership levels, and another showed average Q22 riders per trip.  85% of all Q22 riders use the service between Far Rockaway and Beach 116 Street.  West of this point, ridership levels and riders per trip significantly drops.

The goal should be not to minimize operating costs, but to maximize operating efficiency.  So yes, except for the summer months in order to accommodate Jacob Riis Park riders, every other Q22 trip, during most hours, should operate between Far Rockaway and Beach 116 Street.  Of course, the times in which there should be such short trips should occur only when the Q22 trunk line frequency is every 15 minutes or less.

BTW, MTA Bus service planner Mark Holmes was also there.  Nice guy.

Okay, so let me understand how the MTA does its service Planning. It takes a hypothesis that it would be better if the Q35 operates on Rockaway Beach Boulevard instead of Newport Avenue so they take it to the community board for discussion. The Board tells them this us a bad idea and shouldn't be done. The MTA's own analysis shows more people would be harmed than helped. They then take this bad idea, combine it with another bad idea to elimiminate bus stops that makes the plan even worse. They decide these changes should be done anyway and announce it to the public by posting a few signs at bus stops without even posting signs on the buses themselves. More people MTA people show up at the Open House than bus riders themselves, because most are unaware of the plan. And all the elected officials remain silent as this goes forward? Did I get this right? 

[JeremiahC99]

7 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Okay, so let me understand how the MTA does its service Planning. It takes a hypothesis that it would be better if the Q35 operates on Rockaway Beach Boulevard instead of Newport Avenue so they take it to the community board for discussion. The Board tells them this us a bad idea and shouldn't be done. The MTA's own analysis shows more people would be harmed than helped. They then take this bad idea, combine it with another bad idea to elimiminate bus stops that makes the plan even worse. They decide these changes should be done anyway and announce it to the public by posting a few signs at bus stops without even posting signs on the buses themselves. More people MTA people show up at the Open House than bus riders themselves, because most are unaware of the plan. And all the elected officials remain silent as this goes forward? Did I get this right? 

Looks like you did. By this logic, it looks like the MTA planners are really stupid. If this is part of President Byford’s plan to fix the bus and subway system, then I sense disaster when they do their 5 borough bus restructuring in Queens. His Fast Forward plan should’ve included firing all of the MTA planners and replacing them with people who know how to ride and plan bus routes. 

[NewFlyer 230]

With the MTA’s logic bus service will only continue to grow more unattractive to riders. It’s crazy because they want to make cuts that will hurt more riders than help them. Despite even realizing the possible outcome, they would still do it, which is absolutely absurd.

However there are plenty of routes that could be modified or even combined elsewhere in the system that could help save money. 

[LTA1992]

Aren't bus stops already 600-650 feet apart?

I actually support increasing the distance to every 750 feet. That's about every three short blocks instead of two. That's not much of an increase really. But it may well help bus speeds.

[BrooklynBus]

49 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

Aren't bus stops already 600-650 feet apart?

I actually support increasing the distance to every 750 feet. That's about every three short blocks instead of two. That's not much of an increase really. But it may well help bus speeds.

Many stops are already every three blocks, not every two. Every bus stop elimination must be done on a case by case basis. You can't just assume every bus stop elimibation will save buses time which is exactly what the MTA is doing. Let's sa you have stops every three blocks, then two blocks later there is a school, hospital, park, or subway entrance. Shouldn't that last stop remain at a two block spacing instead of moving it a block so everyone has to walk more? Who would that help anyway? It would just make travel more inconvenient knowing that you have a long walk at both ends of your trip, or maybe in the middle of the trip too.  

[LTA1992]

Okay, so the desired minim distance between stops is already 750 feet. Fine, you got me there. Secondly, an extra 150 feet is literally two R68s. That's not much at all. I'd totally advocate for extending stop distance to a minimum of 900 feet or around 275 meters. The generally accepted standard around the world (and in the US as well) is 400 meters or around 1300 feet. People are NOT going to die if the spacing is extended by the equivalent of a Franklin Shuttle train.

To your other question, the solution is simple. Even out the stops, prioritizing major streets, institutions, and points of interest. In areas where these things are clustered, split the difference. Center the stop so it hits both or place two stops at the ends since many of these places are quite large.

A little extra walking would do wonders for the overall health of everyone using the bus specifically BECAUSE they have to walk a little more. It also opens up parking spaces for those babies in cars.

Come on people.

 

[BrooklynBus]

33 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

Okay, so the desired minim distance between stops is already 750 feet. Fine, you got me there. Secondly, an extra 150 feet is literally two R68s. That's not much at all. I'd totally advocate for extending stop distance to a minimum of 900 feet or around 275 meters. The generally accepted standard around the world (and in the US as well) is 400 meters or around 1300 feet. People are NOT going to die if the spacing is extended by the equivalent of a Franklin Shuttle train.

To your other question, the solution is simple. Even out the stops, prioritizing major streets, institutions, and points of interest. In areas where these things are clustered, split the difference. Center the stop so it hits both or place two stops at the ends since many of these places are quite large.

A little extra walking would do wonders for the overall health of everyone using the bus specifically BECAUSE they have to walk a little more. It also opens up parking spaces for those babies in cars.

Come on people.

 

You have got to remember that city blocks are every 250 feet apart while Avenue blocks are already 750 feet apart. You say you want a minimum of every 900 feet. That would mean you would have buses stopping every 1,000 feet where there are city blocks or once every four blocks, and where there are Avenue blocks, they would be stopping every other Avenue block or once every 1,500 feet. So if routes are spaced every half mile, someone would have to first walk a quarter mile to access the bus route and another 500 feet to access the bus stop. That's a total of 1,820 feet at each end of the trip and maybe another 600 feet in the middle if a transfer is required. So a bus trip could require a total walk of over 4,000 feet which is over three quarters of a mile. If the routes are greater than a half mile apart, the walk is even greater and could be up to a mile when you add up walking at each end and at the middle. A little ridiculous when the average bus trip is only 2.3 miles to begin with. Many more people would abandon buses altogether which would result in reduced service levels and reduced incentive to ride the bus. 

What about routes like the Q22 where the bus stop usage is very light and buses won't save any time with fewer bus stops. Would you apply your rules to routes like that also? 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Looks like you did. By this logic, it looks like the MTA planners are really stupid. If this is part of President Byford’s plan to fix the bus and subway system, then I sense disaster when they do their 5 borough bus restructuring in Queens. His Fast Forward plan should’ve included firing all of the MTA planners and replacing them with people who know how to ride and plan bus routes. 

Firing all the current MTA planners won't solve a thing.... You do what you're told, or else you're out of a job.

This agency's complacency starts at the top.

4 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

More people MTA people show up at the Open House than bus riders themselves, because most are unaware of the plan.

This is true, however, It's all a catch-22 AFAIC.....

More power to whoever goes to any of those hearings they hold.... I'm not wasting my time - Especially realizing that it isn't so much the number of people (commuters) that staunchly disapproves of whatever plan is being presented, that influences any possibility overturning of it - as much as it is the "right" people disapproving of said plan...... Analogous to how refs in the NHL tend to only value/consider the claims/retorts of a team captain... All the other players may as well be speaking gibberish as far as NHL officials are concerned....

[JeremiahC99]

32 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Firing all the current MTA planners won't solve a thing.... You do what you're told, or else you're out of a job.

 This agency's complacency starts at the top.

In that case, I hope that Byfords Fast Forward plan restructures top management to make them not complacent. This will allow them to encourage the planners to make meaningful changes.

 

And getting back to the topic of the Q22 and Q35 routes, I wonder why anyone is not cosidering this does to improve service:

 

Extending the Q35 from Beach 116th Street to the Mott Avenue subway station via Beach Channel Drive. It would make the following stops from Beach 116th Street ti Beach 73rd Street:

 

• Beach 108th Street
• Beach 104th Street
• Beach 101st Street
• Beach 98th Street
• Beach 91st Street
• Beach 87th Street
• Beach 84th Street
• Freeway Dog Run between Beach 80th and 84th Streets.
• Beach 79th Street
• Beach 75th Street

Note that between Beach 98th and 91st Streets the bus will not stop there due to the presence of the Cross Bay Bridge.

From there, it would make Limited stops along the Q22 route along Beach Channel and Seagirt Blvd, particularly at transfer points, major points of interest, and near subway stations. The Q35 would be scheduled as part of the Q22.

 

Benefits if this plan would include better serving Scholars Academy at Beach 104th Street, Channel School of Research and Beach 101st Street, the Rockaway Ferry at Beach 108th Street, and improving walking distances to the buses, especially those living north of the Rockaway Freeway.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Firing all the current MTA planners won't solve a thing.... You do what you're told, or else you're out of a job.

This agency's complacency starts at the top.

This is true, however, It's all a catch-22 AFAIC.....

More power to whoever goes to any of those hearings they hold.... I'm not wasting my time - Especially realizing that it isn't so much the number of people (commuters) that staunchly disapproves of whatever plan is being presented, that influences any possibility overturning of it - as much as it is the "right" people disapproving of said plan...... Analogous to how refs in the NHL tend to only value/consider the claims/retorts of a team captain... All the other players may as well be speaking gibberish as far as NHL officials are concerned....

The thing is these are not hearings. They are Open Houses or notifications of what will happen, pretty much like DOT says it will be installing bike lanes or SBS. They are there to inform not listen. The decisions have already been made. At a hearing, theoretically, the agency has the option of killing the plan. 

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And getting back to the topic of the Q22 and Q35 routes, I wonder why anyone is not cosidering this does to improve service:

Extending the Q35 from Beach 116th Street to the Mott Avenue subway station via Beach Channel Drive. It would make the following stops from Beach 116th Street ti Beach 73rd Street:

• Beach 108th Street
• Beach 104th Street
• Beach 101st Street
• Beach 98th Street
• Beach 91st Street
• Beach 87th Street
• Beach 84th Street
• Freeway Dog Run between Beach 80th and 84th Streets.
• Beach 79th Street
• Beach 75th Street

Note that between Beach 98th and 91st Streets the bus will not stop there due to the presence of the Cross Bay Bridge.

From there, it would make Limited stops along the Q22 route along Beach Channel and Seagirt Blvd, particularly at transfer points, major points of interest, and near subway stations. The Q35 would be scheduled as part of the Q22.

 

Benefits if this plan would include better serving Scholars Academy at Beach 104th Street, Channel School of Research and Beach 101st Street, the Rockaway Ferry at Beach 108th Street, and improving walking distances to the buses, especially those living north of the Rockaway Freeway.

I would honestly keep the Q35 terminating at 116 for the most part, extending it would be worse for the services reliability and frequency of buses in Brooklyn since it has to go all the way to Mott. Running a bus between 108th st and 75st on Bch. Channel would be air filled as most people who run through or live in the area already have cars. The Rockaway Ferry already has a shuttle bus service and I dont know who would benefit from a limited bus service east of 75st to Mott, seeing as the Q22 would only be a few minutes slower and serve much more people. The only people who would benefit from this are the people at Scholars' or Channel View since many ride the route to Brooklyn or Mott Av., but considering they mostly ride the bus for free with student metrocards, and only would populate the bus at school hours, the route would lose the MTA money by just running it and it wouldn't be for everyone's benefit either.

Id rather improve service on the Q22 and make buses more frequent (especially during rush and school hours) before we can talk about extending the Q35.

[JeremiahC99]

39 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I would honestly keep the Q35 terminating at 116 for the most part, extending it would be worse for the services reliability and frequency of buses in Brooklyn since it has to go all the way to Mott. Running a bus between 108th st and 75st on Bch. Channel would be air filled as most people who run through or live in the area already have cars. The Rockaway Ferry already has a shuttle bus service and I dont know who would benefit from a limited bus service east of 75st to Mott, seeing as the Q22 would only be a few minutes slower and serve much more people. The only people who would benefit from this are the people at Scholars' or Channel View since many ride the route to Brooklyn or Mott Av., but considering they mostly ride the bus for free with student metrocards, and only would populate the bus at school hours, the route would lose the MTA money by just running it and it wouldn't be for everyone's benefit either.

Id rather improve service on the Q22 and make buses more frequent (especially during rush and school hours) before we can talk about extending the Q35.

But what if the people along Beach Channel use their cars to go to Brooklyn? Wouldn’t a new bus route on that street encourage them to leave their cars at home?

 

Also, to minimize reliability issues, service would be increased to double it current frequency and every other bus would go to Mott. Since the Q35 operates every 10 to 24 minutes, service would operate every 5 minutes all day and every other bus would go to Mott Avenue (this would translate to a bus every 10-24 minutes for passengers between Beach 116th and 72nd Street). At night, all Q35 service would be unchanged, while there would be no Mott Avenue service.

[B35 via Church]

6 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

The thing is these are not hearings. They are Open Houses or notifications of what will happen, pretty much like DOT says it will be installing bike lanes or SBS. They are there to inform not listen. The decisions have already been made. At a hearing, theoretically, the agency has the option of killing the plan. 

...which is funny, because the decisions are already made either way.... Which is what I'm ultimately driving at.

[checkmatechamp13]

11 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

You have got to remember that city blocks are every 250 feet apart while Avenue blocks are already 750 feet apart. You say you want a minimum of every 900 feet. That would mean you would have buses stopping every 1,000 feet where there are city blocks or once every four blocks, and where there are Avenue blocks, they would be stopping every other Avenue block or once every 1,500 feet. So if routes are spaced every half mile, someone would have to first walk a quarter mile to access the bus route and another 500 feet to access the bus stop. That's a total of 1,820 feet at each end of the trip and maybe another 600 feet in the middle if a transfer is required. So a bus trip could require a total walk of over 4,000 feet which is over three quarters of a mile. If the routes are greater than a half mile apart, the walk is even greater and could be up to a mile when you add up walking at each end and at the middle. A little ridiculous when the average bus trip is only 2.3 miles to begin with. Many more people would abandon buses altogether which would result in reduced service levels and reduced incentive to ride the bus. 

What about routes like the Q22 where the bus stop usage is very light and buses won't save any time with fewer bus stops. Would you apply your rules to routes like that also? 

That's the maximum distance not the avwage distance, and it would be stupid to not have the bus stops directly at the transfer points.

[B35 via Church]

6 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's the maximum distance not the avwage distance....

you alright over there? lol.....

15 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I would honestly keep the Q35 terminating at 116 for the most part, extending it would be worse for the services reliability and frequency of buses in Brooklyn since it has to go all the way to Mott. Running a bus between 108th st and 75st on Bch. Channel would be air filled as most people who run through or live in the area already have cars. The Rockaway Ferry already has a shuttle bus service and I dont know who would benefit from a limited bus service east of 75st to Mott, seeing as the Q22 would only be a few minutes slower and serve much more people. The only people who would benefit from this are the people at Scholars' or Channel View since many ride the route to Brooklyn or Mott Av., but considering they mostly ride the bus for free with student metrocards, and only would populate the bus at school hours, the route would lose the MTA money by just running it and it wouldn't be for everyone's benefit either.

Id rather improve service on the Q22 and make buses more frequent (especially during rush and school hours) before we can talk about extending the Q35.

Completely glossed over this....  These are pretty much my sentiments when it comes to the Q22 & the Q35, except I wouldn't under any circumstances consider extending the Q35..... Over the years, I've read numerous posts across different forums regarding either combining the 2 routes somehow or extending the Q35 somewhere eastward past 116th..... Few have even suggested running the Q22 to Kings Plaza..... I would leave the Q35 alone, truncate the Q22 at B. 116th (except for summers only) & call it a day.....

What I'm a little worried about is the MTA possibly taking away service from the Q22 to supply it to the Q52, to have that route extended to Far Rockaway (A).... I don't agree with that any more or less than I do extending Q35's past 116th...... The ultimate plan should not be to have Rockaway service almost completely reliant on routes that leave the peninsula (which I believe to be the end goal).....

[BrooklynBus]

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's the maximum distance not the avwage distance, and it would be stupid to not have the bus stops directly at the transfer points.

I didn't say average walking distance. The only average I used was the 2.3 miles for an average bus trip. I think that applies to unlinked trips. 

 

19 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

you alright over there? lol.....

Completely glossed over this....  These are pretty much my sentiments when it comes to the Q22 & the Q35, except I wouldn't under any circumstances consider extending the Q35..... Over the years, I've read numerous posts across different forums regarding either combining the 2 routes somehow or extending the Q35 somewhere eastward past 116th..... Few have even suggested running the Q22 to Kings Plaza..... I would leave the Q35 alone, truncate the Q22 at B. 116th (except for summers only) & call it a day.....

What I'm a little worried about is the MTA possibly taking away service from the Q22 to supply it to the Q52, to have that route extended to Far Rockaway (A).... I don't agree with that any more or less than I do extending Q35's past 116th...... The ultimate plan should not be to have Rockaway service almost completely reliant on routes that leave the peninsula (which I believe to be the end goal).....

I don't know about combining any routes. But I can tell you one thing. Two weeks ago I used the beach at Riis Park during the week and the parking lot was 95 percent empty. I can't. Imagine that during peak season on a weekday it's more than 50 percent full. It can easily be used aa a park and ride lot at the end furthest from the beach. The Q35 could stop there, and as I previously recommended, a new route to Sheepshead Bay Station. There could be a special commuter parking rate of less than $10 per day (which is the beach rate) which could be paid monthly, preferably no more than $2 or a day. They could experiment with the pricing, lowering it if is not attractive enough. 

It is ridiculous that a 20 minute car trip from Sheepshead Bay should require three buses and a double fare and take up to 2 hours by bus. 

[B35 via Church]

On 6/8/2018 at 8:10 AM, BrooklynBus said:

I don't know about combining any routes. But I can tell you one thing. Two weeks ago I used the beach at Riis Park during the week and the parking lot was 95 percent empty. I can't. Imagine that during peak season on a weekday it's more than 50 percent full. It can easily be used aa a park and ride lot at the end furthest from the beach. The Q35 could stop there, and as I previously recommended, a new route to Sheepshead Bay Station. There could be a special commuter parking rate of less than $10 per day (which is the beach rate) which could be paid monthly, preferably no more than $2 or a day. They could experiment with the pricing, lowering it if is not attractive enough. 

It is ridiculous that a 20 minute car trip from Sheepshead Bay should require three buses and a double fare and take up to 2 hours by bus. 

That lot is an immense waste of space... Funny how they turned that old municipal lot over by the Junction into a mall, but that lot just sits there, having weeds grow up from under the ground in it.... I'd be more in favor of propping up businesses, or even a mall (much like what was done with the Throgs Neck Shopping ctr, over there along Lafayette av by the Hutch) around the northern-most part of that lot......

There's too much *nothing* between B. 149th & B. 169th.....

[BrooklynBus]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

That lot is an immense waste of space... Funny how they turned that old municipal lot over by the Junction into a mall, but that lot just sits there, having weeds grow up from under the ground in it.... I'd be more in favor of propping up businesses, or even a mall (much like what was done with the Throgs Neck Shopping ctr, over there along Lafayette av by the Hutch) around the northern-most part of that lot......

There's too much *nothing* between B. 149th & B. 169th.....

The lot is crowded on summer weekends and is needed for the beach.

I was suggesting better use of it during the week for the entire year and that you didn't comment on. 

Why must all open space be developed in this city? So we can have congestion everywhere? There is nothing between B149 and B169 because it is federal parkland. Would you also suggest building co-ops in Central Park? I am sure they will sell. 

[bobtehpanda]

30 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

The lot is crowded on summer weekends and is needed for the beach.

I was suggesting better use of it during the week for the entire year and that you didn't comment on. 

Why must all open space be developed in this city? So we can have congestion everywhere? There is nothing between B149 and B169 because it is federal parkland. Would you also suggest building co-ops in Central Park? I am sure they will sell. 

A well-used parking lot is still a blight; there's no activity in the street and very few eyes in the parking lot, so they deaden the immediate surroundings and make it a haven for crime. And more crime and less eyes on the street is terrible for all occupants of a neighborhood.

I'm very glad that the parking lots in Flushing and Jamaica are going away or starting to do so, because they've blighted their immediate surroundings for so long. 

[B35 via Church]

50 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

The lot is crowded on summer weekends and is needed for the beach.

I was suggesting better use of it during the week for the entire year and that you didn't comment on. 

Why must all open space be developed in this city? So we can have congestion everywhere? There is nothing between B149 and B169 because it is federal parkland. Would you also suggest building co-ops in Central Park? I am sure they will sell. 

I didn't comment on your grand idea because the lot is already being used for a park & ride now (albeit, on the side closest to the Bath House); that's why the QM16 got extended over there "for the entire year"..... I'm not sure how much more useful you expect it to be by having a park & ride setup on the northern side of the lot... I also didn't comment on it because you also used said suggestion for that parking lot as a means of pushing that Sheepshead - Rockaways bus route idea you won't shut up about.... Try to avoid a(nother) back & forth disagreement of that & apparently, it's some sort of problem....

As far as your snide ass mentioning of Central Park, well look, I don't see you or anyone else complaining about its land use to the tune of, oh "....the parking lot was 95 percent empty. I can't. Imagine that during peak season on a weekday it's more than 50 percent full."... Apparently, it's okay for you to complain about something, but the solution must be within the parameters you set? Pfft, please......

Now don't bother me with this park & ride idea any further, as that's all I have to say about it.....

42 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

A well-used parking lot is still a blight; there's no activity in the street and very few eyes in the parking lot, so they deaden the immediate surroundings and make it a haven for crime. And more crime and less eyes on the street is terrible for all occupants of a neighborhood.

I'm very glad that the parking lots in Flushing and Jamaica are going away or starting to do so, because they've blighted their immediate surroundings for so long. 

Interesting point about crime, because that's what was happening inside that old municipal lot where the Triangle Junction (mall) is situated at now, after all those years of neglect.... From assaults, to illegal dumping, it was to the point where they had a police car or two stationed either inside the lot itself, or somewhere along the perimeter of it (While going to Bulletproof [comic book store] way back when, I usually saw cops inside the lot itself, or along Av. H b/w Flatbush & Nostrand - interestingly enough, the same exact side of the street the Q35 terminates at).....

[checkmatechamp13]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:12 AM, dkupf said:

He said to me, for weekday riders, 380 people would have to walk further, and, therefore, would also have an increase in travel time.  But 240 people would have a shorter distance to walk, hence, would also have a decrease in travel time.  In other words, the Q35 shift would, generally, make bus service worse for current riders.

Of course, this evaluation didn't take into account the bus stops that would also be eliminated not only in the area, but for the rest of the Rockaways.

The goal should be not to minimize operating costs, but to maximize operating efficiency.  So yes, except for the summer months in order to accommodate Jacob Riis Park riders, every other Q22 trip, during most hours, should operate between Far Rockaway and Beach 116 Street.  Of course, the times in which there should be such short trips should occur only when the Q22 trunk line frequency is every 15 minutes or less.

1

Yes, but you're not taking into account the fact that Q22 service on Rockaway Beach Blvd would be reduced/eliminated, so some current Q22 riders would benefit from having the Q35 on Rockaway Beach Blvd. (Also, did they show how many people would benefit from the increased service they would supposedly be providing on the Q22 east of Beach 116th Street, using the money they saved from the reduction west of Beach 116th Street?)

On 6/7/2018 at 9:02 AM, BrooklynBus said:

Okay, so let me understand how the MTA does its service Planning. It takes a hypothesis that it would be better if the Q35 operates on Rockaway Beach Boulevard instead of Newport Avenue so they take it to the community board for discussion. The Board tells them this us a bad idea and shouldn't be done. The MTA's own analysis shows more people would be harmed than helped. They then take this bad idea, combine it with another bad idea to elimiminate bus stops that makes the plan even worse. They decide these changes should be done anyway and announce it to the public by posting a few signs at bus stops without even posting signs on the buses themselves. More people MTA people show up at the Open House than bus riders themselves, because most are unaware of the plan. And all the elected officials remain silent as this goes forward? Did I get this right? 

See above.

On 6/7/2018 at 2:31 PM, BrooklynBus said:

The thing is these are not hearings. They are Open Houses or notifications of what will happen, pretty much like DOT says it will be installing bike lanes or SBS. They are there to inform not listen. The decisions have already been made. At a hearing, theoretically, the agency has the option of killing the plan. 

 

For the SI express study, the open houses actually resulted in a lot of changes. In June 2017, they released their original proposal for the SI express network (and some of us said it wasn't going to work, but those were just people who happened to attend the CB meeting). They pushed forward and had an actual open house in October 2017, where the public reaction wasn't favorable, so they revised the plan and presented it again in March 2018, where the reaction was generally more favorable, and then they made some tweaks before presenting it at the April 2018 committee meeting as a request for public hearing.

On 6/8/2018 at 7:42 AM, B35 via Church said:

you alright over there? lol.....

 

Autocorrect lol

[BrooklynBus]

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

A well-used parking lot is still a blight; there's no activity in the street and very few eyes in the parking lot, so they deaden the immediate surroundings and make it a haven for crime. And more crime and less eyes on the street is terrible for all occupants of a neighborhood.

I'm very glad that the parking lots in Flushing and Jamaica are going away or starting to do so, because they've blighted their immediate surroundings for so long. 

Why is traffic congestion increasing? It's not because more people are driving. Fewer are driving and fewer are buying cars. It is increasing because parking spaces are constantly being reduced through fewer parking lots and less on-street parking so more time is spent looking for scarce parking spaces while public transportation is sliding downhill. Because speed limits are constantly being lowered,  traffic lanes are being reduced with fewer turns being permitted so you have to drive around longer. Because we have increasing overdevelopment without proper infrastructure improvements. Then we want to punish those who must drive by having congestion pricing which advocates claim would reduce congestion, but will not only result in more fees for the politicians to squander. 

So I don't want to hear you complaining about traffic congestion because your ideas are partially what is responsible for it. 

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Yes, but you're not taking into account the fact that Q22 service on Rockaway Beach Blvd would be reduced/eliminated, so some current Q22 riders would benefit from having the Q35 on Rockaway Beach Blvd. (Also, did they show how many people would benefit from the increased service they would supposedly be providing on the Q22 east of Beach 116th Street, using the money they saved from the reduction west of Beach 116th Street?)

For the SI express study, the open houses actually resulted in a lot of changes. In June 2017, they released their original proposal for the SI express network (and some of us said it wasn't going to work, but those were just people who happened to attend the CB meeting). They pushed forward and had an actual open house in October 2017, where the public reaction wasn't favorable, so they revised the plan and presented it again in March 2018, where the reaction was generally more favorable, and then they made some tweaks before presenting it at the April 2018 committee meeting as a request for public hearing.

 

How many Q22 riders would benefit from the Q35 being rerouted? Practically none. Because there are few Q22 riders to begin with west of B116 Street and even fewer who board in Rockaway and get off west of B116 St. And I doubt it if there will be any increased service east of B116 St because they haven't stated what the increased service levels will be that I have seen. And they can provide those increased levels anyway by having more buses turn at B116 Street which I do not oppose. 

Mabe the Open Houses did result in changes to the SI Express Bus study. But the changes for the Woodhaven SBS were minimal other than them changing their minds about many of the left turn restrictions which I was responsible fo publIcizing. At each Open House only five different restrictions where mentioned, but in total they were proposing 26. As if people only needed to know about the ones I n their own Board as if no one traveled outside their own board. 

As for Rockaway, they made it clear, the changes weren't negotiable. 

[checkmatechamp13]

59 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

How many Q22 riders would benefit from the Q35 being rerouted? Practically none. Because there are few Q22 riders to begin with west of B116 Street and even fewer who board in Rockaway and get off west of B116 St. And I doubt it if there will be any increased service east of B116 St because they haven't stated what the increased service levels will be that I have seen. And they can provide those increased levels anyway by having more buses turn at B116 Street which I do not oppose. 

Mabe the Open Houses did result in changes to the SI Express Bus study. But the changes for the Woodhaven SBS were minimal other than them changing their minds about many of the left turn restrictions which I was responsible fo publIcizing. At each Open House only five different restrictions where mentioned, but in total they were proposing 26. As if people only needed to know about the ones I n their own Board as if no one traveled outside their own board. 

As for Rockaway, they made it clear, the changes weren't negotiable. 

6

Practically none is not the same as none. At the end of the day, it's a relatively small amount of riders being affected overall (which is probably why it's being used as a test to see how well these types of ideas work throughout the rest of the city, though to me, it doesn't seem much different from a standard service restructuring). We're talking about 240 riders who would benefit from the reroute vs. 380 riders who are negatively affected (presumably they meant passenger trips). And if 85% of Q22 riders remain east of Beach 116th, that means 15% travel west of Beach 116th, and since the Q22 has about 7,000 trips made per weekday, that equals 1,000 trips. They should've published what the proposed frequencies are east of Beach 116th Street to show how many people would actually benefit. And yes, if, out of those 1,000 trips, 140 trips saw a decrease in travel time that made up for the fact that 140 people would have a longer walk and increased travel time, then it would be neutral in those terms (and an overall benefit if riders east of Beach 116th saw a benefit).

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Why is traffic congestion increasing? It's not because more people are driving. Fewer are driving and fewer are buying cars. It is increasing because parking spaces are constantly being reduced through fewer parking lots and less on-street parking so more time is spent looking for scarce parking spaces while public transportation is sliding downhill. Because speed limits are constantly being lowered,  traffic lanes are being reduced with fewer turns being permitted so you have to drive around longer. Because we have increasing overdevelopment without proper infrastructure improvements. Then we want to punish those who must drive by having congestion pricing which advocates claim would reduce congestion, but will not only result in more fees for the politicians to squander. 

Sure. You can reduce congestion by building and maintaining parking lots that destroy and blight entire neighborhoods with crime. The Robert Moses "urban renewal" approach that led to Detroit, St. Louis, and all those other dead, crime-ridden American downtowns.

Parking is a privilege, not a right, and somebody has to pay. In a city where half of all households do not even own a car, asking the general taxpayer to do so is absurd. And with parking lots enough is not enough; even if we were to destroy ourselves to Nassau or Suffolk level density, the parking there is still not enough. It's because parking is free that we need so much of it.