|
|
| Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes (302841) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (303204) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TERRApin Station on Tue Mar 3 13:33:37 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 3 09:53:23 2015. It's a general catch-all term meaning "conspiring against you", such as your example of not inviting you to the meeting even though you were on the same email list as other invitees. |
|
|
| (303215) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 3 17:31:00 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by TERRApin Station on Tue Mar 3 13:33:37 2015. They could have used a narrower list, so there is no evidence of conspiracy. |
|
|
| (303221) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 3 19:40:59 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 25 17:13:39 2015. So now you want me to design the thing[Flushing Bus Terminal]?No. You can quickly get an estimate as to the project's scale. That might be enough to let you know whether a project is practical. The fact that it would handle half as much traffic as the PA bus terminal just highlights how badly such a terminnal is needed. The volume shows only whether a solution is necessary - it is. There are many solutions that don't involve building a terminal. Solutions that involve reducing the bus volume are more viable than building a bus terminal. The bus terminal does not reduce bus volume; it sweeps it under the rug (or off he street). |
|
|
| (303223) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 3 22:50:48 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 3 19:40:59 2015. The only way I can see to reduce bus volume without cutting service to have more through routing with fewer routes terminating in Flushing. Given Main Street is the last subway stop with so many transferring to buses, I can't see through routing or cutting service as plausible solutions. A terminal is a plausible solution because of all the curb space that would be freed and sidewalk congestion that would be reduced. |
|
|
| (303229) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 4 10:22:50 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 3 22:50:48 2015. The only way I can see to reduce bus volume without cutting service to have more through routing with fewer routes terminating in Flushing.Through routing will not change anything. The congestion is caused by both the number of buses and the dwell time each spends in Flushing. Through routing will cut the number of buses in half but double their dwell time. The net result for congestion is a big fat zero. A terminal is a plausible solution because of all the curb space that would be freed and sidewalk congestion that would be reduced. You're still ignoring the problem of getting so many buses in/out of the terminal. The multiple ramps will all require curb cuts that will have to compete with local pedestrian traffic. I'd proposed and posted a solution for solving Flushing's congestion several times. The long term fix is to extend subway service. The short term solution which provides 90% of the functionality for 10% of the cost is to operate a LIRR shuttle between Willets Pt and Bayside. Bus routes that now terminate in Flushing would terminate at the closest LIRR station - Murray Hill, Broadway, Auburndale and Bayside. Many people who currently take a bus would walk to the LIRR station. The shuttle could run every 5 minutes. This would mean a time savings over the current system of taking the bus to Flushing. The reduced bus mileage would also pay for the train service - even with the LIRR's bloated operating costs. |
|
|
| (303232) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Mar 4 10:32:57 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 4 10:22:50 2015. Doesn't through service eliminate layovers, thus lessening congestion?For your LIRR shuttle solution, it is a good one, but it would have to be free, wouldn't it? I wonder if simply having Flushing-bound buses end at different spots within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius of Main / Roosevelt and then having circulator buses connect the dots would be a little cheaper. I proposed something like that for Jamaica to connect 165th St terminal with Parsons / Archer with the LIRR at Sutphin, and having no other buses run through Jamaica (i.e. buses from the west would end at Sutphin, buses from the east would end at 165, and buses from the south would end at 168th / Archer, or something like that). |
|
|
| (303233) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TERRApin Station on Wed Mar 4 11:59:57 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 3 17:31:00 2015. Then why are you complaining? |
|
|
| (303234) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 4 12:03:51 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Mar 4 10:32:57 2015. For your LIRR shuttle solution, it is a good one, but it would have to be free, wouldn't it?I described fare collection before. The LIRR shuttle trains would be solely for this service. There would be metrocard machines at each station. Riders would swipe metrocard and receive a ticket. Ticket would be collected by LIRR conductor. Single fare would be deducted for bus-LIRR Shuttle-#7 Line from Willets Pt trips in either direction. I wonder if simply having Flushing-bound buses end at different spots within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius of Main / Roosevelt and then having circulator buses connect the dots would be a little cheaper. Downtown Flushing is constrained by a road system that was created for a small village in the early 19th century. Existing local pedestrian traffic means there will be congestion for any scheme using local streets. |
|
|
| (303239) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Mar 4 14:29:42 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Mar 3 06:07:15 2015. Agreed. The time it took to board dramatically increased when the fare rose to 15 cents and tokens were not accepted on buses until much later. I remember half the passengers boarding with quarters and needing change. I believe the bus drivers also accepted dollar bills which they simply put away separately until exact fare in 1969 when they were no longer accepted.Each time the fare rose first to 20 cents, then 30, and 35, the boarding process slowed even more until tokens were accepted. I remember it taking several minutes to board when there were three or four people ahead of you. So to say that MetroCard slowed the boarding process is just incorrect. |
|
|
| (303245) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Thu Mar 5 09:04:44 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 4 10:22:50 2015. In the AM rush, there is a westbound about every 8 minutes passing Flushing on the Port Wash, and the eastbound frequency is close to that as well. Doesn't seem practical to be adding trains that have to make crossover moves at intermediate stations w/ the engineer changing ends. That shuttle cannot run every 5 minutes at the times when it would be most needed to run every 5 minutes.The 7 extension would solve some of the congestion issue in Flushing but I am not holding my breath. |
|
|
| (303250) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Mar 5 12:08:10 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by sloth on Thu Mar 5 09:04:44 2015. Doesn't seem practical to be adding trains that have to make crossover moves at intermediate stations w/ the engineer changing ends.There are spare platforms at Willets Pt to handle the reversal. There's a yard east of Bayside to relay off the through tracks. Changing ends will not delay regular traffic at either end. |
|
|
| (303257) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Fri Mar 6 10:17:22 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Mar 5 12:08:10 2015. Bayside can't be used to turn trains efficiently. The switch is in the middle of the crossover and a reverse move would be necessary to get into the "yard". Might as well just go to Great Neck.Shea *could* be set up to handle this, but currently it's 5 mph track and it takes a small eternity to bring anything in or out of there. Port Wash can't handle this service at the frequency needed to make it worthwhile. It's a non-starter. |
|
|
| (303260) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 6 11:42:45 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by sloth on Fri Mar 6 10:17:22 2015. Bayside can't be used to turn trains efficiently. The switch is in the middle of the crossover and a reverse move would be necessary to get into the "yard".Obviously, the yard approach from the west would be modified to permit entry and exit without the need for a reverse move on the through tracks. The yard would also be electrified. Neither is particularly expensive to implement. All the real estate is already on LIRR property and there's plenty of room for staging the construction. Shea *could* be set up to handle this, but currently it's 5 mph track and it takes a small eternity to bring anything in or out of there. There would also be upgrades to the existing tracks and the station. They have not been used regularly since the World's Fair closed in 1965. Port Wash can't handle this service at the frequency needed to make it worthwhile. It's a non-starter. The Port Wash Line capacity constraints are the single track east of Great Neck and the merge to the main line west of Woodside. The Port Wash can handle much more capacity between these two bottlenecks. Even the LIRR takes advantage of avoiding the bottleneck east of Great Neck. Many trains turn at Great Neck. They don't limit the service between Penn Sta and Great Neck because of the single track east of Great Neck. |
|
|
| (303288) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Sat Mar 7 17:28:33 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 6 11:42:45 2015. It's not that simple. The signalling system, and to a lesser extent the Great Neck bottleneck, are not going to be able to handle this, even if the relays are expedited.From 7:28a to 9:06a you have 12 scheduled westbounds already. Running this service would bring you to around 30 scheduled westbounds in 98 minutes. In a few instances, there is a second Great Neck train sitting in the station waiting for the first one to come out of the pocket track already. Then there are three eastbounds that have to get to Port Washington over the single track against all those westbounds. If you schedule trains 3 minutes apart they are going to be catching each other's codes on a regular basis, which slows down all service and knocks out the synchronization of the single track service. If you run the shuttle service at a frequency that Port Wash *could* handle, it would run every 10-12 minutes, and there will be some bigger gaps, since it's not like these trains are going to be the priority over regular service. That may not be preferable to the slow bus to Flushing. I would think a bus terminal in Willets Point combined with some kind of busway that skirts Flushing to the north or south would be a far better use of funds, assuming a #7 extension is never happening. |
|
|
| (303363) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 10 16:45:12 2015, in response to Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 16 14:29:02 2015. Part 4 of 5 |
|
|
| (303441) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 16 13:44:11 2015, in response to Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 16 14:29:02 2015. Final Part |
|
|
| (303465) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Tue Mar 17 22:29:48 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 16 13:44:11 2015. I remain confused why you continue to advocate for the city to subsidize the storage of private vehicles over allowing exclusive travel lanes for public transit.The overwhelming tenor of your article is that SBS is either unfair to private vehicles, some data is inconclusive, or some hypothetical situation might pose a problem. That's not a reason to abandon the program, especially when it's benefits are clear. |
|
|
| (303475) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Mar 18 07:48:59 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by j trainloco on Tue Mar 17 22:29:48 2015. He thinks that people agree with him when in actuality almost everyone really disagrees with him. He's just plain wrong. |
|
|
| (303524) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Mar 19 09:27:56 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by j trainloco on Tue Mar 17 22:29:48 2015. "Moratorium" does not mean abandon the program. It means stop and assess what you are doing until you are sure you are doing the correct thing. Apparently drivers are still double parking on Nostrand severely delaying traffic. Either you fix that problem or you don't proceed with the B46 where you will have similar problems.I also said traffic on Nostrand Rogers could be minimally affected if you would ban more parking on parallel avenues between Empire and Eastern Parkway during the AM rush and perhaps north of Eastern Parkway if there is a problem there, so the displaced traffic has somewhere to go. Woodhaven is a different situation. BRT is a waste. SBS could work with HOV/bus lanes, but not with exclusive bus lanes, and they should not be in effect 24/7. These are legitimate concerns. We should not accept DOT's wild allegations as proof without any substantiation. |
|
|
| (303525) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Mar 19 09:30:06 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by TERRApin Station on Wed Mar 4 11:59:57 2015. For one thing, they say you should write to learn how to get on the committee, when in fact it isn't open to the public, oy elected officials and community leaders. |
|
|
| (303579) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Mar 20 13:03:17 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Mar 19 09:30:06 2015. Who says? Where do they say this? And what committee? |
|
|
| (303594) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Mar 20 17:57:50 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Mar 20 13:03:17 2015. I'm talking about the Community Advisory Committee over here.I wrote to the address requesting how to get on and received a response stating that the committee is chosen when the project starts and consists of elected officials, community boards, neighborhood groups, and civic association and that each group is limited to sending one representative. So uness you get elected to office or one of those groups selects you to represent them, you are out of luck. If you don't beleve me, write to the address yourself. |
|
|
| (303644) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sat Mar 21 20:10:51 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Mar 20 17:57:50 2015. Yes, it says that on the webpage. So why did you think you had a chance of getting on the committee? |
|
|
| (303658) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Mar 21 22:07:46 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sat Mar 21 20:10:51 2015. Then why does it ask you to write in order to get on? Do you really think elected officials and community board chair people will write to get on? More likely than not, they are just put on automatically.It states: "To find out how to join your local community advisory committee, please email brt@dot.nyc.gov." That makes it appear that it s possible to get on one when it is not. It is plainly misleading. |
|
|
| (303660) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Sat Mar 21 22:45:18 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Mar 19 09:27:56 2015. Having been a user of the B44 SBS, I don't see the problems you are mentioning, but I mainly ride the north portion of the route. Regardless of its shortcomings, it is substantially better than the previous service. Do I have gripes with it? Yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't better than what we had before, and that we shouldn't expand the serviceAs for your comments on Woodhaven boulevard, there's lots of practical data on the benefits of exclusive use bus lanes, and how loss of lanes for private motoring can improve traffic flow. The point of exclusive use bus lanes is to make the bus more attractive, thereby reducing reliance on private motoring. I also think it's nuts that we dedicate the majority of public space throughout the city not to pedestrians, not to mass transit, not to green spaces, but to asphalt to accommodate private vehicles that are mostly carrying one person. |
|
|
| (303690) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 14:33:20 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Mar 21 22:07:46 2015. Then why does it ask you to write in order to get on? Do you really think elected officials and community board chair people will write to get on? More likely than not, they are just put on automatically.Because that probably applies more to the "representatives from civic organizations, neighborhood groups, and major institutions." It states: "To find out how to join your local community advisory committee, please email brt@dot.nyc.gov." That makes it appear that it s possible to get on one when it is not. It is plainly misleading.It's slightly misleading, yes, but any intelligent person such as yourself, who claims (without any corroborating evidence) to have been the head of bus planning for a year, should be able to see that they clearly listed who is eligible to be on the committee and "members of the general public not associated with any organization" are not on the list. |
|
|
| (303732) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Mar 22 20:29:55 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 14:33:20 2015. But even if you are a member of a civic committee, doesn't mean you could get on the DOT Committee. They could respond that they already have a member from that group on the Committee. Yet they make it seem that the Committee is open to the public. They should say, if you are a member of any one of the following groups contact them to find out if they have a representative on the Committee. If not you can apply to be on XYZ committee by blank date since the committtees are chosen prior to the start of a study not once it has started. The website makes it appear you can join at any time. |
|
|
| (303735) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 20:38:22 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Mar 22 20:29:55 2015. But even if you are a member of a civic committee, doesn't mean you could get on the DOT Committee. They could respond that they already have a member from that group on the Committee.They state that clearly on the page. What's the problem? Yet they make it seem that the Committee is open to the public.Only someone unintelligent would read it that way. And of course there are a lot of unintelligent people out there, so yes, they should have written it better. They should say, if you are a member of any one of the following groups contact them to find out if they have a representative on the Committee. If not you can apply to be on XYZ committee by blank date since the committtees are chosen prior to the start of a study not once it has started.No, that's really ridiculous. |
|
|
| (303770) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 23 14:43:49 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 20:38:22 2015. When you have a heading that says "Get Involved", clicking on that link should provide information on how you can actually get involved and not refer you to an e-mail address where the response will be that this doesn't apply to you. |
|
|
| (303781) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Mar 23 18:30:55 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 23 14:43:49 2015. That's just your opinion. The fact is a close reading of the text shows that they are being upfront and honest. |
|
|
| (303787) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 23 19:26:42 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by j trainloco on Sat Mar 21 22:45:18 2015. There is a big difference between theory and practice. While SBS may sound great theoretically in the way it affects drivers changing modes to bus, what happens in practice is what is important not the theory. Thus far in NYC there is zero evidence that SBS caused anyone to switch from their car to the bus. For that to happen a hell of a lot more would be required than simply adding exclusive bus lanes for SBS.As far as you experience with SBS being an improvement, I respect your opinion. However, it as to be beneficial to most, before we can conclude it is a success. There are many problems and they need to be addressed, not ignored. That is the major point. Thus far no one is addressing any of the negative points. You might agree it is not perfect, but DOT and the MTA have yet to admit this. To keep going to new communities denying any problems experienced elsewhere just to get approval, is just being dishonest. |
|
|
| (303788) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 23 19:27:42 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Mar 23 18:30:55 2015. That is just your opinion and it s no more valid than mine. |
|
|
| (303804) | |
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Mar 24 07:34:18 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 23 19:27:42 2015. It's much more valid than yours because it's the truth. I stayed facts. The text DOES explain everything if you are capable and intelligent enough to read and understand the text. People less so, like you, could get tricked up. Which is why I agree they should write it better to serve the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||