Select Bus Service Discussion Thread

[bobtehpanda]

On 2/8/2018 at 3:47 PM, BrooklynBus said:

As far as getting more drivers to drive half way and take the subway the rest of the way, the way to do that is by providing Park and Ride like they do on the railroads. What we have for the subways is a joke. In Sheepshead Bay, there are like 20 long term parking spaces which are filled before 7 AM. We need several hundred spaces. Instead all we get is more development. 

Park and ride is the least efficient form of encouraging people to get to the subway, because they take up a lot of land, end up blighting the neighborhood, and on top of that have very little usage, since most of those spots are occupied most of the day (and those spots ain't cheap to build, something like $30,000 a space and a few hundred million for a garage). Those several hundred spaces you call for will only ever serve several hundred riders during commute hours, barely enough to fill half a train.

Two examples prove the point; Flushing, despite having almost no usable park-and-ride parking, is probably the busiest intermodal transit hub in the city, and is a lively bustling neighborhood. Flushing sees nearly 60,000 riders a day, multiples of the ridership of the massive Ronkonkoma station (17,000 weekday riders in 2006, the latest year for which per-station ridership data is available.)

Conversely, Jamaica has a lot of structured parking surrounding it, and each parking space is one less business or apartment building livening up the neighborhood and providing eyeballs on the street. P&Rs are a waste of some of the most valuable land that we have right next to the station.

We get all development because you can't legislate away demand short of making your neighborhood more shitty. Restricting development really didn't help the East VIllage, or Park Slope, or the UWS remain affordable; all that happened was the rich people outbid existing residents instead of buying new apartments. If you're lucky enough to have rent control you might be able to hang on, but otherwise you're SOL. It is literally impossible to be young in New York and have reasonable expectation of actually owning property at some point because development demand is not being met.

[checkmatechamp13]

On 2/8/2018 at 6:47 PM, BrooklynBus said:

As far as getting more drivers to drive half way and take the subway the rest of the way, the way to do that is by providing Park and Ride like they do on the railroads. What we have for the subways is a joke. In Sheepshead Bay, there are like 20 long term parking spaces which are filled before 7 AM. We need several hundred spaces. Instead all we get is more development. 

2

You can do that with good feeder bus service as well. The B36 is the only one that really runs on good frequencies (and even that has a tendency to bunch and flag people). There's some coverage gaps in the neighborhood (e.g. Knapp Street corridor, arguably Avenue X as well) That, and also, the BM3 also serves the general neighborhood, so if service were improved, people could also use that so they wouldn't necessarily have to drive to the Sheepshead Bay subway station for transit service to Manhattan. 

56 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Park and ride is the least efficient form of encouraging people to get to the subway, because they take up a lot of land, end up blighting the neighborhood, and on top of that have very little usage, since most of those spots are occupied most of the day (and those spots ain't cheap to build, something like $30,000 a space and a few hundred million for a garage). Those several hundred spaces you call for will only ever serve several hundred riders during commute hours, barely enough to fill half a train.

Two examples prove the point; Flushing, despite having almost no usable park-and-ride parking, is probably the busiest intermodal transit hub in the city, and is a lively bustling neighborhood. Flushing sees nearly 60,000 riders a day, multiples of the ridership of the massive Ronkonkoma station (17,000 weekday riders in 2006, the latest year for which per-station ridership data is available.)

Conversely, Jamaica has a lot of structured parking surrounding it, and each parking space is one less business or apartment building livening up the neighborhood and providing eyeballs on the street. P&Rs are a waste of some of the most valuable land that we have right next to the station.

We get all development because you can't legislate away demand short of making your neighborhood more shitty. Restricting development really didn't help the East VIllage, or Park Slope, or the UWS remain affordable; all that happened was the rich people outbid existing residents instead of buying new apartments. If you're lucky enough to have rent control you might be able to hang on, but otherwise you're SOL. It is literally impossible to be young in New York and have reasonable expectation of actually owning property at some point because development demand is not being met.

You have a point, but at the same time it's apples to oranges. It costs $391 per month to travel to Penn Station, versus $121 per month on the subway (and getting anywhere besides Penn or Atlantic is even more time and money). The off-peak frequency is crappy, there's no reverse-peak service at the height of rush hour, and on top of that, most intermediate stops are in car-oriented areas, so you can find parking on both ends of your trip, whereas most areas along the  are other urban areas with limited parking and low rates of car ownership (so you have a higher percentage of non-Manhattan bound riders getting on at Flushing compared to Ronkonkoma). Also, travel time to Manhattan is shorter from Flushing than Ronkonkoma, and being so far from NYC, Suffolk has fewer people commuting to Manhattan in general.

[BrooklynBus]

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Park and ride is the least efficient form of encouraging people to get to the subway, because they take up a lot of land, end up blighting the neighborhood, and on top of that have very little usage, since most of those spots are occupied most of the day (and those spots ain't cheap to build, something like $30,000 a space and a few hundred million for a garage). Those several hundred spaces you call for will only ever serve several hundred riders during commute hours, barely enough to fill half a train.

Two examples prove the point; Flushing, despite having almost no usable park-and-ride parking, is probably the busiest intermodal transit hub in the city, and is a lively bustling neighborhood. Flushing sees nearly 60,000 riders a day, multiples of the ridership of the massive Ronkonkoma station (17,000 weekday riders in 2006, the latest year for which per-station ridership data is available.)

Conversely, Jamaica has a lot of structured parking surrounding it, and each parking space is one less business or apartment building livening up the neighborhood and providing eyeballs on the street. P&Rs are a waste of some of the most valuable land that we have right next to the station.

We get all development because you can't legislate away demand short of making your neighborhood more shitty. Restricting development really didn't help the East VIllage, or Park Slope, or the UWS remain affordable; all that happened was the rich people outbid existing residents instead of buying new apartments. If you're lucky enough to have rent control you might be able to hang on, but otherwise you're SOL. It is literally impossible to be young in New York and have reasonable expectation of actually owning property at some point because development demand is not being met.

I guess the city is just doing everything right. Every vacant piece of land must be developed and any three story structures should be replaced by six or 20 story structures. And all this overdevelopment in no way taxes our money overtaxed subway system or causes any increased traffic congestion.

And Flushing is the perfect utopia with no traffic problems whatsoever. No I'm not saying development is necessarily bad, but if you are going to develop, better make sure you have the infrastructure to support that development. In Flushing, when they replaced that large municipal parking lot (which I believe did have some commuter parking) with high rise development, they easily could have built a bus terminal below ground and removed all those buses from the street which would have done much to ease congestion. They also could have provided some Park and ride also. 

In Sheepshead Bay, there are hundreds of Park and Ride spots that could be provided under the el by the Belt Parkway unless you want to develop that area also. Instead all we get is luxury development starting at $1 million + for a condo. How many in that 28 story monstrosity just built by the Sheepshead Bay Station do you suppose will be taking the already overcrowded subway to work since the MTA is so reluctant to provide additional service? Or will they be crowding the streets further by driving to work? My guess it is the latter. 

What we need is more affordable housing. When was the last time you saw a sign saying "Affordable housing being built here" or "low cost housing being built here? More likely the sign said "luxury condos coming." 

 

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

You can do that with good feeder bus service as well. The B36 is the only one that really runs on good frequencies (and even that has a tendency to bunch and flag people). There's some coverage gaps in the neighborhood (e.g. Knapp Street corridor, arguably Avenue X as well) That, and also, the BM3 also serves the general neighborhood, so if service were improved, people could also use that so they wouldn't necessarily have to drive to the Sheepshead Bay subway station for transit service to Manhattan. 

You have a point, but at the same time it's apples to oranges. It costs $391 per month to travel to Penn Station, versus $121 per month on the subway (and getting anywhere besides Penn or Atlantic is even more time and money). The off-peak frequency is crappy, there's no reverse-peak service at the height of rush hour, and on top of that, most intermediate stops are in car-oriented areas, so you can find parking on both ends of your trip, whereas most areas along the  are other urban areas with limited parking and low rates of car ownership (so you have a higher percentage of non-Manhattan bound riders getting on at Flushing compared to Ronkonkoma). Also, travel time to Manhattan is shorter from Flushing than Ronkonkoma, and being so far from NYC, Suffolk has fewer people commuting to Manhattan in general.

You make good points but as long as the MTA won't improve frequencies on routes such as the B4, something else needs to be done. As I stated, there is unused space by the Belt Parkway that could accommodate 100 or so Park and ride spaces. Also, I was thinking more of Rockaway folk like Breezy Point and Belle Harbor rather than people from Sheepshead Bay for those spaces. And yes, you certainly could provide bus service from Rockaway to the Brighton line, but the MTA does not want to come nine times new neighborhoods by adding service. Their goal is to provide the least possible Bus and subway service they can get away with politically. Until we can change that, I see Park and ride as the only alternative to getting fewer to drive into Manhattan. Congestion pricing will just make them pay more, but won't significantly reduce traffic. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by BrooklynBus

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

I guess the city is just doing everything right. Every vacant piece of land must be developed and any three story structures should be replaced by six or 20 story structures. And all this overdevelopment in no way taxes our money overtaxed subway system or causes any increased traffic congestion.

And Flushing is the perfect utopia with no traffic problems whatsoever. No I'm not saying development is necessarily bad, but if you are going to develop, better make sure you have the infrastructure to support that development. In Flushing, when they replaced that large municipal parking lot (which I believe did have some commuter parking) with high rise development, they easily could have built a bus terminal below ground and removed all those buses from the street which would have done much to ease congestion. They also could have provided some Park and ride also. 

In Sheepshead Bay, there are hundreds of Park and Ride spots that could be provided under the el by the Belt Parkway unless you want to develop that area also. Instead all we get is luxury development starting at $1 million + for a condo. How many in that 28 story monstrosity just built by the Sheepshead Bay Station do you suppose will be taking the already overcrowded subway to work since the MTA is so reluctant to provide additional service? Or will they be crowding the streets further by driving to work? My guess it is the latter. 

What we need is more affordable housing. When was the last time you saw a sign saying "Affordable housing being built here" or "low cost housing being built here? More likely the sign said "luxury condos coming." 

Hell, how many people are even in that 28 story monstrosity (taking your word for it) to begin with..... Same deal with 300 Ashland.... Same deal with 626 Flatbush av (The Parkline, I believe it's called)... I could keep going....

All these high rise condo's/apartments are being built for an IDEA of the types of people that are "supposed" to move into them & the common man does not fit that bill.... You're not gonna get a bunch of Rockefeller's, Hilton's, & Kardashian's filling up these places..... People are struggling out here, even the ones w/ barely enough income to move into any of these places... Just to say they're in a "trendy" area.... I refuse to do it...

Millennials are being given a raw deal out here.... This trend of overbuilding w/ all these luxe apt's keeps up & homelessness in this city is going to skyrocket.....

LOFL at "affordable housing built here"... Yeah right

[Via Garibaldi 8]

59 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Hell, how many people are even in that 28 story monstrosity (taking your word for it) to begin with..... Same deal with 300 Ashland.... Same deal with 626 Flatbush av (The Parkline, I believe it's called)... I could keep going....

All these high rise condo's/apartments are being built for an IDEA of the types of people that are "supposed" to move into them & the common man does not fit that bill.... You're not gonna get a bunch of Rockefeller's, Hilton's, & Kardashian's filling up these places..... People are struggling out here, even the ones w/ barely enough income to move into any of these places... Just to say they're in a "trendy" area.... I refuse to do it...

Millennials are being given a raw deal out here.... This trend of overbuilding w/ all these luxe apt's keeps up & homelessness in this city is going to skyrocket.....

LOFL at "affordable housing built here"... Yeah right

Actually a lot of these luxury high rises are being bought by foreigners as investment properties or pied-à-terre arrangements.  I plan on buying sooner rather than later.  I am not paying someone's mortgage, but yes I agree.  There has to be a breaking point eventually. Salaries have not risen that much, so you have to wonder where people are getting this money from.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I guess the city is just doing everything right. Every vacant piece of land must be developed and any three story structures should be replaced by six or 20 story structures. And all this overdevelopment in no way taxes our money overtaxed subway system or causes any increased traffic congestion.

And Flushing is the perfect utopia with no traffic problems whatsoever. No I'm not saying development is necessarily bad, but if you are going to develop, better make sure you have the infrastructure to support that development. In Flushing, when they replaced that large municipal parking lot (which I believe did have some commuter parking) with high rise development, they easily could have built a bus terminal below ground and removed all those buses from the street which would have done much to ease congestion. They also could have provided some Park and ride also. 

In Sheepshead Bay, there are hundreds of Park and Ride spots that could be provided under the el by the Belt Parkway unless you want to develop that area also. Instead all we get is luxury development starting at $1 million + for a condo. How many in that 28 story monstrosity just built by the Sheepshead Bay Station do you suppose will be taking the already overcrowded subway to work since the MTA is so reluctant to provide additional service? Or will they be crowding the streets further by driving to work? My guess it is the latter. 

What we need is more affordable housing. When was the last time you saw a sign saying "Affordable housing being built here" or "low cost housing being built here? More likely the sign said "luxury condos coming." 

Deflection is such a great tactic.

No one builds affordable housing because it's literally not profitable to build affordable housing, and there's so much demand you could probably multiply what's in the pipeline by ten and still not satisfy all the regular market demand. We created NYCHA for a reason.

You still haven't explained how your park and ride model "works". Who's going to drive in via the congested Belt and P&R at Sheepshead Bay so they can take 45 minutes to get to Midtown? Who is spending time slogging through the traffic of Flushing and Jamaica to park at those stations? And at $30,000 per underground space, that is a hell of a lot of subsidy for one additional commuter. If we spent that much on the existing riders of the subway, we'd have $169 billion dollars to spend and almost all of our problems would disappear overnight. There is a reason nobody proposes park and rides in New York City - who is paying for a garage that doesn't serve that many people? The taxpayer, when most households in New York don't even own a single car?

The Bay Area has limited residential development for decades and has an extensive park and ride system. Traffic is still miserable and housing is still expensive - it's not a real solution, and all it does is push everybody out to two-hour commutes in one direction. And unlike SF, we've basically developed all the land in that distance already.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

You make good points but as long as the MTA won't improve frequencies on routes such as the B4, something else needs to be done. As I stated, there is unused space by the Belt Parkway that could accommodate 100 or so Park and ride spaces. Also, I was thinking more of Rockaway folk like Breezy Point and Belle Harbor rather than people from Sheepshead Bay for those spaces. And yes, you certainly could provide bus service from Rockaway to the Brighton line, but the MTA does not want to come nine times new neighborhoods by adding service. Their goal is to provide the least possible Bus and subway service they can get away with politically. Until we can change that, I see Park and ride as the only alternative to getting fewer to drive into Manhattan. Congestion pricing will just make them pay more, but won't significantly reduce traffic. 

100 park and ride spaces, for about 100 people per workday, which is basically a rounding error in Sheepshead's Bay ridership alone. Let's not even get to the point where creating a parking lot is actually kind of intensive, since you'd have to somehow squeeze a parking garage entrance safely in between an offramp and an onramp for the Belt, you'd have to pave it, provide drainage, etc. If you're not seeing parking getting built, there's probably a reason why.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

100 park and ride spaces, for about 100 people per workday, which is basically a rounding error in Sheepshead's Bay ridership alone. Let's not even get to the point where creating a parking lot is actually kind of intensive, since you'd have to somehow squeeze a parking garage entrance safely in between an offramp and an onramp for the Belt, you'd have to pave it, provide drainage, etc. If you're not seeing parking getting built, there's probably a reason why.

120 spaces is certainly better than 20 spaces. The fact that the 20 spaces are filled by 7 AM proves there is a demand for it. So if we can't entirely solve a problem, we should do nothing. That's what you are saying with "rounding error." Talk about deflection. I say parking spaces under the el and you change that to parking garage. Paving and providing drainage are no reasons not to build it. The reason it's no being built is because of deBlasio's focus on development and his anti-car bias that we must do everything possible to discourage driving. There is no thought being given on how to be drivers to drive shorter distances by encouraging more not to drive all the way into Manhattan. 

 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Deflection is such a great tactic.

No one builds affordable housing because it's literally not profitable to build affordable housing, and there's so much demand you could probably multiply what's in the pipeline by ten and still not satisfy all the regular market demand. We created NYCHA for a reason.

You still haven't explained how your park and ride model "works". Who's going to drive in via the congested Belt and P&R at Sheepshead Bay so they can take 45 minutes to get to Midtown? Who is spending time slogging through the traffic of Flushing and Jamaica to park at those stations? And at $30,000 per underground space, that is a hell of a lot of subsidy for one additional commuter. If we spent that much on the existing riders of the subway, we'd have $169 billion dollars to spend and almost all of our problems would disappear overnight. There is a reason nobody proposes park and rides in New York City - who is paying for a garage that doesn't serve that many people? The taxpayer, when most households in New York don't even own a single car?

The Bay Area has limited residential development for decades and has an extensive park and ride system. Traffic is still miserable and housing is still expensive - it's not a real solution, and all it does is push everybody out to two-hour commutes in one direction. And unlike SF, we've basically developed all the land in that distance already.

Yes, and NYCHA is doing such a great job. Yes let's have them build more public housing to mismanage. Affordable housing does not have to be public housing. 

You ask who will drive to Sheepshead Bay so they can take 45 minutes to get to Manhattan? You think driving from Sheepshead Bay to Manhattan takes less than 45 minutes? Think again. It takes 45 minutes just to get to Borough Park when you include looking for parking. It takes 45 minutes to get as far as Fort Greene or Downtown Brooklyn. People don't drive to Manhattan because it is quicker. They do it because they are comfortable and don't have to stand in a crowded train which sometimes is as crowded near midnight than it is during rush hour.  

And those living in Rockaway have a 90 minute commute to Manhattan. A 20 minute drive to Sheepshead Bay and a 45 minute subway ride would be an improvement. 

 

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Hell, how many people are even in that 28 story monstrosity (taking your word for it) to begin with..... Same deal with 300 Ashland.... Same deal with 626 Flatbush av (The Parkline, I believe it's called)... I could keep going....

All these high rise condo's/apartments are being built for an IDEA of the types of people that are "supposed" to move into them & the common man does not fit that bill.... You're not gonna get a bunch of Rockefeller's, Hilton's, & Kardashian's filling up these places..... People are struggling out here, even the ones w/ barely enough income to move into any of these places... Just to say they're in a "trendy" area.... I refuse to do it...

Millennials are being given a raw deal out here.... This trend of overbuilding w/ all these luxe apt's keeps up & homelessness in this city is going to skyrocket.....

LOFL at "affordable housing built here"... Yeah right

That monstrosity is first starting to rent know. I would guess it is still at least half empty. But if they don't sell, why are so many being built? On Ocean Avenue near Kings Highway, three six story condos replacing single family homes are going up simultaneously on the same block. The same is happening everywhere you look. That means more lookIng for on-street parking and more traffic congestion. The city has only themselves to blame for them increased traffic congestion. It is easy to say the should all be in subways and buses. But that won't happen a single long as the MTA refuses to provide adequate service. They still haven't returned the off peak subway guidelines to 100% seated  load from 125% that they changed in 2010. People expect a seat during non-rush hours and they should get one. They should not have to stand like sardines at midnight. And to plan service do riders should gave to stand, then the spect no one to drive is utterly ridiculous. 

[Brillant93]

26 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

That monstrosity is first starting to rent know. I would guess it is still at least half empty. But if they don't sell, why are so many being built? On Ocean Avenue near Kings Highway, three six story condos replacing single family homes are going up simultaneously on the same block. The same is happening everywhere you look. That means more lookIng for on-street parking and more traffic congestion. The city has only themselves to blame for them increased traffic congestion. It is easy to say the should all be in subways and buses. But that won't happen a single long as the MTA refuses to provide adequate service. They still haven't returned the off peak subway guidelines to 100% seated  load from 125% that they changed in 2010. People expect a seat during non-rush hours and they should get one. They should not have to stand like sardines at midnight. And to plan service do riders should gave to stand, then the spect no one to drive is utterly ridiculous. 

Speaking of midwood. That area is seeing a boom in commercial development. It’s noted at once was a suburb but now it’s changing. But congestion can be blamed on a lot of things. You have all these small streets converging into one. 

[checkmatechamp13]

9 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

You make good points but as long as the MTA won't improve frequencies on routes such as the B4, something else needs to be done. As I stated, there is unused space by the Belt Parkway that could accommodate 100 or so Park and ride spaces. Also, I was thinking more of Rockaway folk like Breezy Point and Belle Harbor rather than people from Sheepshead Bay for those spaces. And yes, you certainly could provide bus service from Rockaway to the Brighton line, but the MTA does not want to come nine times new neighborhoods by adding service. Their goal is to provide the least possible Bus and subway service they can get away with politically. Until we can change that, I see Park and ride as the only alternative to getting fewer to drive into Manhattan. Congestion pricing will just make them pay more, but won't significantly reduce traffic. 

 

I'm not familiar with the traffic patterns on the Belt Parkway, but it seems a bit optimistic to be able to reach Sheepshead Bay from the Rockaways in 20 minutes.

And it would be cheaper in the long run for the city to just fund the better bus service as opposed to building the park-and-rides (not to mention you can have more frequent bus service as soon as the next pick, as opposed to taking however long it takes to build a park-and-ride). But you are right that if we can find money for park-and-rides, but not better bus service, then it's at least a temporary solution.

[P3F]

A hundred-space parking lot right next to Sheepshead Bay station would probably get a lot of usage from people who live in areas without bus service or subpar bus service. I wouldn't be surprised if it filled up by 7:30 AM or something like that.

If I'm not mistaken, the el between Brighton Beach Avenue and Neptune Avenue has a whole lot of nothing under it... They could probably put in a couple hundred spaces there, like they've done under the I-278 structure here: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7140239,-73.9530539,3a,75y,8.01h,91.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz7MiWIzfQ6Y-6mCPLgt7UQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dz7MiWIzfQ6Y-6mCPLgt7UQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D97.46376%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[BrooklynBus]

7 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

Speaking of midwood. That area is seeing a boom in commercial development. It’s noted at once was a suburb but now it’s changing. But congestion can be blamed on a lot of things. You have all these small streets converging into one. 

What small streets merging into one? 

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'm not familiar with the traffic patterns on the Belt Parkway, but it seems a bit optimistic to be able to reach Sheepshead Bay from the Rockaways in 20 minutes.

And it would be cheaper in the long run for the city to just fund the better bus service as opposed to building the park-and-rides (not to mention you can have more frequent bus service as soon as the next pick, as opposed to taking however long it takes to build a park-and-ride). But you are right that if we can find money for park-and-rides, but not better bus service, then it's at least a temporary solution.

The distance traveled on the Belt Parkway is quite short. Without traffic it's about five minutes and the exit is literally right where the parking would be. The distance on Flatbush Avenue should also only about ten minutes. But since DOT removed a lane to slow down traffic, it probably takes a little longer. Still even with moderate to heavy traffic, it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes. And they could also have a bus do the same thing, but I would have the bus exit at Knapp since I do not know if the current structure should hold buses although I believe school buses are allowed to  use it. 

[Brillant93]

6 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

What small streets merging into one? 

 

I was on the bus so I couldn't type correctly, but I meant to say big streets likes Kings hwy merging into a smaller part. It causes congestion. I explained it to someone about how when you have a steady street with the same lane of traffic going all the way through traffic is going to flow a little bit more easier more 100% but better than if it were to be multiple lanes merging into a few. So lets say you have a four lane street but it condenses down into a two way standard lane road. Its going to cause congestion because you have two lanes of traffic merging into a single one way lane.

But this could be a problem for neighborhoods like Midwood because with all the businesses and development its having its going to create more traffic. People driving to stores, doctor offices, truck deliveries and people going to work is ripe with congestion. The streets aren't big enough in my opinion. They're building a target over there on a side street and God knows how bad thats going to be. It leads into residential block and people double parking outside of a one way street is asking for trouble. 

[BrooklynBus]

13 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

I was on the bus so I couldn't type correctly, but I meant to say big streets likes Kings hwy merging into a smaller part. It causes congestion. I explained it to someone about how when you have a steady street with the same lane of traffic going all the way through traffic is going to flow a little bit more easier more 100% but better than if it were to be multiple lanes merging into a few. So lets say you have a four lane street but it condenses down into a two way standard lane road. Its going to cause congestion because you have two lanes of traffic merging into a single one way lane.

But this could be a problem for neighborhoods like Midwood because with all the businesses and development its having its going to create more traffic. People driving to stores, doctor offices, truck deliveries and people going to work is ripe with congestion. The streets aren't big enough in my opinion. They're building a target over there on a side street and God knows how bad thats going to be. It leads into residential block and people double parking outside of a one way street is asking for trouble. 

The problem isn't lane merging. Traffic from the wide part of Kings Highway doesn't even merge onto the narrow portion. It all flows into Avenue P which is also two lanes. The traffic on the service road of Kings Highway is minimal. 

Yes, the streets aren't wide enough and that is because they weren't planed for cars. Kings Highway is an old Indian path. The eastern portion was widened in the 1920s, but the western portion was already too developed to be widened. 

As I stated, the problem is  over development because of the city's greed to collect more taxes. So they sold off the municipal parking lot when it really needed to be double decked. Parking except on Sunday is all but impossible with cars circling the blocks for 20 minutes to even find a metered parking space. 

If your theory is correct, the congestion should disappear when DOT creates a bus lane on the wide part of Kings Highway for the B82. It will just create congestion on the wide portion where none exists now. Buses already average over 20 mph on that portion of Kings Highway for 21 out of 24 hours a day where the speed limit is 25. They won't be traveling any faster. A bus lane is totally unnecessary there. The curbside bus lane on the narrow portion should help congestion if it is enforced. 

[Brillant93]

14 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

A bus lane is totally unnecessary there. The curbside bus lane on the narrow portion should help congestion if it is enforced. 

Well all I got to say if is the key word. 

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

The problem isn't lane merging. Traffic from the wide part of Kings Highway doesn't even merge onto the narrow portion. It all flows into Avenue P which is also two lanes. The traffic on the service road of Kings Highway is minimal. 

Yes, the streets aren't wide enough and that is because they weren't planed for cars. Kings Highway is an old Indian path. The eastern portion was widened in the 1920s, but the western portion was already too developed to be widened. 

As I stated, the problem is  over development because of the city's greed to collect more taxes. So they sold off the municipal parking lot when it really needed to be double decked. Parking except on Sunday is all but impossible with cars circling the blocks for 20 minutes to even find a metered parking space. 

If your theory is correct, the congestion should disappear when DOT creates a bus lane on the wide part of Kings Highway for the B82. It will just create congestion on the wide portion where none exists now. Buses already average over 20 mph on that portion of Kings Highway for 21 out of 24 hours a day where the speed limit is 25. They won't be traveling any faster. A bus lane is totally unnecessary there. The curbside bus lane on the narrow portion should help congestion if it is enforced. 

Already made that same point to this guy earlier in this thread.... There is no point in putting a bus lane on that part of Kings Hwy. just so that buses can get to the currently congested portion of Kings Hwy. faster - to end up getting stuck in that congestion after the fact.... It's fool's logic, meant to dupe the stupid....

The logic is no different than the MTA front-loading SBS service on bus routes w/ local counterparts & dwindling service on the local counterparts - to give off the illusion that SBS is that much more superior than the locals.... I'll point you in the direction of a teacher & his students & have you ask him who his best & brightest student{s} are - guarantee you that teacher would not have to remove the dummies from the classroom before giving you an answer !

What they did with the B46/SBS in that regard was disgustingly blatant... If that doesn't illustrate to you how far they'll go with SBS to make it "work", nothing will.

[BrooklynBus]

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Already made that same point to this guy earlier in this thread.... There is no point in putting a bus lane on that part of Kings Hwy. just so that buses can get to the currently congested portion of Kings Hwy. faster - to end up getting stuck in that congestion after the fact.... It's fool's logic, meant to dupe the stupid....

The logic is no different than the MTA front-loading SBS service on bus routes w/ local counterparts & dwindling service on the local counterparts - to give off the illusion that SBS is that much more superior than the locals.... I'll point you in the direction of a teacher & his students & have you ask him who his best & brightest student{s} are - guarantee you that teacher would not have to remove the dummies from the classroom before giving you an answer !

What they did with the B46/SBS in that regard was disgustingly blatant... If that doesn't illustrate to you how far they'll go with SBS to make it "work", nothing will.

Don't know if you read all the B82 reports, but you had to see all of them to get the complete picture because no one report showed all the data. It said buses on the wide portion of Kings Highway already exceed 20 mph average speed for all but three hours of the day where the speed limit is 25 mph. So the buses couldn't possibly go any faster with their own lanes. It will just create congestion where none exists now because all the bus islands will be widened. They would be better off just moving the bus to the service road which is only congested for one block outside Beth Israel (now Mt Sinai) Hospital so I would leave those few blocks on the main road. 

[Brillant93]

A video interviewing the passengers on the B82 route. 

Also its planned that the B82 sbs route will launch in July. 

 

[Yankees4life]

They need those buses yesterday but I guess better late than never. Gotta get Glenwwod RD done near the station and setup the Bus lanes at Kings Hwy...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

A video interviewing the passengers on the B82 route. 

Also its planned that the B82 sbs route will launch in July. 

 

How exactly is the "new" B82 going be any better than the current one?

[bobtehpanda]

17 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

How exactly is the "new" B82 going be any better than the current one?

Well, the two-way routing on Glenwood will probably save a hell of a lot of time. 

[Brillant93]

13 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Well, the two-way routing on Glenwood will probably save a hell of a lot of time. 

Which should have been done a long time ago. 

31 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

How exactly is the "new" B82 going be any better than the current one?

Part time bus lanes during rush hour especially in the narrow part of kings hwy, having trucks delivery off rush hour times, have the sbs/limited run throughout the day instead of morning and afternoons, artic buses to handle crowds, and have it end at cropsey avenue instead of coney island (which I assume that there would be lots of short turns around coney island avenue). 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

9 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

Which should have been done a long time ago. 

Part time bus lanes during rush hour especially in the narrow part of kings hwy, having trucks delivery off rush hour times, have the sbs/limited run throughout the day instead of morning and afternoons, artic buses to handle crowds, and have it end at cropsey avenue instead of coney island (which I assume that there would be lots of short turns around coney island avenue). 

Cropsey Avenue huh... That's interesting. So no more Coney Island?

[Brillant93]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Cropsey Avenue huh... That's interesting. So no more Coney Island?

No, I guess ridership doesn't warrant sbs down there. 

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Brillant93 said:

No, I guess ridership doesn't warrant sbs down there. 

They save money on the fare machines by not doing the entire route. It also means anyone boarding after 25th Avenue who wants to transfer to the SBS and another bus has to now pay an extra fare.