THE COMMUTE: Many have thought this for a long time. Finally, someone has made a convincing case that this is indeed true and not just a figment of our minds. That someone is John Rozankowski, PHD from the Bronx.

In his article on Source 101, in which he critiques a study by the Center for an Urban Future called “Behind the Curb” [PDF], already discussed by Sheepshead Bites, Dr. Rozankowski, however, adds a few comments of his own concluding that the answer is to break up the MTA.

He outlines five ways the MTA is shafting the outer boroughs:

  1. Poor Connectivity
  2. Mediocre Service
  3. Poor Station Maintenance
  4. No Expansion Plans
  5. 2010 Service Cuts.

From his article:

“In a study called Behind the Curb, the Center for an Urban Future provides convincing data demonstrating that while Manhattan lost 110,000 jobs since 2000, the outer boroughs have gained 67,000 new jobs mainly in healthcare, education and manufacturing. These gains would have been even more dramatic if travel between and within the boroughs was easier. Entrepreneurs are reluctant to take advantage of lower costs in setting up their businesses in the outer boroughs because of difficulties in attracting and retaining good workers. More often than not, the reason is a long and difficult commute.”

He goes on to explain how the Manhattan orientation of the subway system and the lack of interborough bus routes makes it difficult to travel between the boroughs, hence the heading “Poor Connectivity.”

Unless you live near a borough line, chances are you will need three or four buses, multiple fares and a lot of time to complete your interborough trip. Often it is easier to take an indirect train into Manhattan and then back out, transferring to one or two buses than to try to negotiate the entire trip by local buses. Behind the Curb criticizes the MTA’s Select Bus Service (SBS) program for only looking at existing routes and not routes that would improve interborough travel. I said the same thing here and here.

In section two of the study, “Mediocre Service,” Rozankowski criticizes the number of subway stops you have to stop at before entering Manhattan because of the MTA’s reluctance to provide express service on unused tracks, such as on the F line, which they were considering in 1993 but changed their minds because of budgetary constraints. (The G would have been extended to Church Avenue to make this happen. That has since been done; however, now an F express must await the completion of the rebuilding of the viaduct over the Gowanus Canal.) What he says about the Number 4 express pilot program in the Bronx is very interesting.

Under section three, “Poor Station Maintenance,” appears the following:

“Adding insult to injury, the MTA announced at the beginning of 2011 that it was ending its station rebuilding program and would now repair the remaining stations (Source: NY Daily News, 1/24/11). The timing couldn’t be better: just when all the stations in the wealthy areas that the MTA cares about have been rebuilt, it’s now only going to repair the rest!”

The fact that the difficult Atlantic/Pacific transfer (or as I call it, “The Panama Canal”) did not include a new escalator when the complex was rebuilt several years ago, after a 20 year delay — because rebuilding Manhattan stations were given the priority when money became scarce — also suggests an outerborough bias. Instead, a triple-width stairway exists where an escalator should be. There is no doubt in my mind that, had this station been in Manhattan, not only would there have been an escalator, but the delay in rebuilding also would have been shorter. Also, few people realize that there is another unused shorter passageway connecting the IRT and the Brighton line, which was originally planned to be rebuilt and reopened but was scrapped to save on costs.

Section four, “No Expansion Plans” and section five, “Service Cuts” are self-explanatory although these are more a function of a lack of funding than an unwillingness by the MTA… or maybe not. As a participant in the 2003 to 2006 New York Metropolitan Transit Council’s study of long range solutions to Southern Brooklyn’s transportation problems, the MTA would not even discuss the idea of subway expansion or installing light rail along the virtually unused Bay Ridge division’s LIRR tracks south of Avenue H, although we were talking 30 years into the future when the MTA’s funding situation could be better.

In my criticism of Operations Planning, I asked why it took so long to extend routes to the Gateway Mall in Spring Creek. I have also criticized them for considering operating costs and revenue as if they are not related.

However, in their latest plan to reroute a Queens route, Q37 to the Aqueduct Racino opening this September, they are projecting additional revenues to cover the increased operating expense of making a small one-half-mile diversion to the route. No back-up is provided on how those projections were made. Again, where is the transparency? (The discussion starts on Page 57. [PDF]) The MTA states that the casino will serve as “a large trip generating activity center” and is expected to generate “over 1,100 new jobs and more than $30 million in annual spending.” Yet their response is to only make a one-half mile diversion to an existing north-south route. They do not even give any consideration to the slowing down of service for the route’s current 6,500 weekday passengers that this diversion would cause.

A land use change of this magnitude deserves extensions of east-west Brooklyn routes over the Queens border to serve it, new east-west routes from Queens, and perhaps even a new north-south route and new SBS routes. The MTA’s response to this new outer-borough development is totally inadequate.

Personally I don’t know if Rozankowski’s conclusion to return control of the subways and buses to the city is the solution. It certainly is a big leap from sections one through five. Perhaps part of the answer is to appoint some transit users from the outer boroughs to the MTA Board.

Was the New York City Transit Authority More Responsive Prior to the MTA Takeover?

What first got me interested in buses was when I learned at five years old that you could transfer between the B46 and the B12, but you needed to pay an extra fare to use the B46 and B35. It just seemed illogical to me. At age 15, I learned the reason was that there was no reason, other than it was something that should have been changed 25 years earlier when the city took control of most of the bus routes in Brooklyn from private operation, under the Board of Transportation. In fact the policy to allow universal bus transfers still was not changed for about another 25 years until MetroCard came into being, and today more than two buses still require multiple fares unless you can afford an unlimited ride card.

Fifty years is quite a long time to make an obvious change to the mass transit system. Yet there are bus routes still operating today that should have been rerouted in 1940, operating in the same inefficient manner and discouraging ridership. Clearly changes need to be made, and if the answer is not to break up the MTA, at least they must be required to better consider the needs of the riding public instead of a singular goal of reducing their deficit. But how?

What do you think? Has the time come to break up the MTA and give control of the city’s transit back to the city, and if this is done, do you think there will be a higher regard for the outer boroughs?

The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).

Related posts

  • Meganharry

    Will the B train ever run express again, and if so, will it be 7 days a week?

    • Anonymous

      Express service should return this September, Monday to Friday. Seven days a week is another issue.

    • Barkingspider7

      I hope not – the b & q trains are running better than they ever have.  Hope nothing changes for a very long time.

      • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

        Damn straight, there was never more than a 5 minute benefit to take the B from SHB to Dekalb avenue (because of the bottleneck further down the line), and that 5 min loss is more than made up for by the fact that the trains arrive much more often.

        • BrooklynBus

          Obviously two local riders.  Five minutes saved is 5 minutes saved. Look at all the money being spent on B44 SBS just to save 6 minutes.  Why aren’t you complaining about that.  Same selfish reasoning from Carroll Gardens that has prevented an F express.

          I also disagree with you about the bottleneck.  There wasn’t any prior to the reconstruction.  Granted there was a problem at Parkside during the 70s, but that was cleared up later I believe with some signal upgrades.

           

          • LLQBTT

            The stops at Carroll and Bergen Sts are 2 heavily utilized stations.  A plan to have any F trains bypass them (assuming the lowel level at Bergen is not re-activated) needs to be carefully considered.

          • winson

            i frankly do not find a need for Culver Express service. The only express section along the elevated portion is the single track between 18th Avenue and Kings Highway (some F trains terminate at Kings Highway during rush hours and I think they should run nonstop from 18th Avenue to avoid congestion with Coney Island-bound trains) and that is not going to save much time at all. The lower level of Bergen Street is in severe disrepair and virtually unusable. While there are two express tracks between Church Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech, nearly all of the local stations are used just as much as the express ones, so it is not likely they will be used again. You all saw how frustrated people were when trains skipped 15th Street and Fort Hamilton Parkway earlier this year. The one line that could really use express service is the West End (D) line. The N train frequently gets rerouted there in one direction as the express and gets jammed as a result.

          • Anonymous

            First I don’t see how itvwould be possible to deactivate the Culver Express without the lowervlevel of Bergen Street. I thought the fire damage there was supposed to be repaired. if this is not planned, it just shows another bias to the outer boroughs. I don’t see how you could say that an express isn’t necessary When I used to use the F, it was always at crush capacity by the time we reached Jay Street. They just don’t want to add the extra trains to run it.

          • ajedrez

            Carroll and Bergen Streets wouldn’t cause the locals to be crushloaded because:

            1) Most of the riders from points south would already be on the (F) express.

            2) The Park Slope stations have the (G), which should help limit crowding (if somebody wants the (A) or (C), they can take the (G) to Hoyt-Schermerhorn and transfer there.

            By the way, would the Bergen Street lower level be rebuilt if the (F) express occurred?

          • winson

            i frankly do not find a need for Culver Express service. The only express section along the elevated portion is the single track between 18th Avenue and Kings Highway (some F trains terminate at Kings Highway during rush hours and I think they should run nonstop from 18th Avenue to avoid congestion with Coney Island-bound trains) and that is not going to save much time at all. The lower level of Bergen Street is in severe disrepair and virtually unusable. While there are two express tracks between Church Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech, nearly all of the local stations are used just as much as the express ones, so it is not likely they will be used again. You all saw how frustrated people were when trains skipped 15th Street and Fort Hamilton Parkway earlier this year. The one line that could really use express service is the West End (D) line. The N train frequently gets rerouted there in one direction as the express and gets jammed as a result.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            The bottleneck exists since local and express trains diverge to a single track at prospect park and since the MTA does not stick to any legitimate timetable for trains (actually its more of an issue with keeping to the timetable) it’s a gamble whether or not your express train will be given preference over the local train when approaching the divergence. That wait time nullifies any benefit of an express train. It’s a null set.

            Personally I’d prefer getting on the train faster (starting my trip 5 min earlier) than to start 5 min later and have a shorter ride. You’re waiting the same amount of time, it all depends whether its on the platform or on a train, and with NYC weather I think the train wins.

          • Anonymous

            Not true.There were no delays at Prospect Park for at least the last five years the B ran as express.

        • Guest

          I take the B in the morning from SHB to 42nd Street, then the 7 to Grand Central, and then walk 3 blocks…I do this at just about an hour exactly. Coming home, if I’m able to catch the 7 and then the B right away w/out a wait, then it takes me an hour and fifteen minutes (and usually, I don’t catch them immediately). When you’re giving up two hours already towards a commute, I’d kinda like to have that fifteen minutes.

        • winson

          i frankly do not care that the B will run express again in 3 months. It is one of the crappiest lines in the system with very low service (trains have 8:00-8:15 minute intervals during rush hours), lots of bunching and gaps between trains (probably because it almost always gets held between DeKalb Avenue and the Manhattan Bridge for like 3-4 minutes to let the D train go through first and another 5-6 minutes just before curving into 59th Street to let the C train proceed), and the R68/68As it uses absolutely suck even though they used to be great (they are so slow, provide poor A/C and announcements, and have been breaking down much more frequently than before). That is why I will stick with the Q train when school resumes next month because of its superior R160s and more frequent service even though it too suffers from irregular train intervals ever since it got extended to Astoria and the N became the full-time Broadway Local.

      • Guest

        Nope. Sorry. Give us back the B express. Better then they have ever been?! What time of day do you take these trains?

  • Ron B

    These are good points. THe #7 extension is only happening thanks to a rare contribution from NYC for the project. If NYC wasn’t interested in developping Hudson Yard, this extension would have been killed when the west side stadium was shelved by Silver & Bruno. The subway should be extended south from Brooklyn College. I know originally it was supposed to go down Nostrand, but I think going down Flatbush to Aviator makes more sense. Or extend the #4 down Utica and then Flatbush to Aviator.
    The Bay Ridge Line should definitely be used for passenger service. Imagine the connections @ Brooklyn College, East NY, New Lotts Avenue, Fresh Pond Road. The J & Z should be extended past Jamaica Center to Rosedale, the N should be extended to LaGuardia airport and the # 5 should be extended to Co-op City.

    • Allan Rosen

      Keep on dreaming.

      And the #7 extension is totally unnecessary.  No one has ever been able to give me an answer why the 14th Street line couldn’t have been extended instead via the High Line past the Javits Center and up toward 72ns Street.  Yes it is an elevated line but it runs between buildings not over a street so it is not obtrusive.  The area still could have been developed with the High Line running within the buildings.  It would have to have been a fraction of the cost to do that instead of all that deep tunneling.  Maybe then some money would have been left over for Brooklyn or the other boroughs.  Select Bus Service is not a replacement for needed subways.

      • Ron B

        great ideas and I read abotu them in the past, it would have made much moire sense to extend the L train. It could have even run along 11th or 10th Ave once the High line was used. SInce that was not the case, IMHO, a transit line to Javitz was totally necessary, naturally time will tell once Hudson Yards is developped.

      • LLQBTT

        We all know why the 7 extension is happening, because Mayor Mike wants it for his far West Side real estate project.  And nothing re-inforces this more than not building a needed stop at 10 Ave/41 St.

        • winson

          I really wished the planned subway extensions of the 1930s really happened. it would have greatly benefited the outer boroughs with extension of the 7, A, E, F, J, and N lines further into Queens,
          extension of the 2 to KCC, connection to Staten Island from Fort
          Hamilton Parkway and 4th Avenue, connection between Queens Boulevard and
          the Rockaways via Woodhaven Boulevard, service to Kings Plaza and Floyd
          Bennett Field via Utica Avenue and Broadway, and the 2nd Avenue Subway
          serving the lower sections of the Bronx. TBH, the SAS only needs to be built north of 59th Street. That is where the Lexington Avenue Line gets jammed. Along midtown and Lower Manhattan, it gets help from other lines.

        • winson

          I really wished the planned subway extensions of the 1930s really happened. it would have greatly benefited the outer boroughs with extension of the 7, A, E, F, J, and N lines further into Queens,
          extension of the 2 to KCC, connection to Staten Island from Fort
          Hamilton Parkway and 4th Avenue, connection between Queens Boulevard and
          the Rockaways via Woodhaven Boulevard, service to Kings Plaza and Floyd
          Bennett Field via Utica Avenue and Broadway, and the 2nd Avenue Subway
          serving the lower sections of the Bronx. TBH, the SAS only needs to be built north of 59th Street. That is where the Lexington Avenue Line gets jammed. Along midtown and Lower Manhattan, it gets help from other lines.

  • nolastname

    What’s up with the tunnel from L.I. to the city? I saw an article that the company that does the tunnel boring wants to leave the drilling machine under Manhattan (several stories) in what was called a pretty full place. It would cost more to dismantle and bring it up for salvage than what it worth. Crazy stuff.

    • nolastname

      And Gothamist just put up a post that the drill doing the 2nd Ave subway extension broke surface ground outside a PaPa John’s. But it is only a small hole they said.
      Yeah, right, that makes me feel better.

  • LLQBTT

    Walder’s resignation creates the perfect opportunity to break up the MTA.  He is known as a most effective manager and a transit expert.  And yet, all he could wrest out of his team were a few customer facing enhancements, such as the bus locator on the B63, the countdown clocks, whether or not there are delays (web site) and brighter station lighting.  He did though introduce lots of cost savings initiatives. Uner MTA, changes have been only incremental over the over 45 years of the MTA’s existence shows that the entity, as currently structured, is untenable.  There are too many interested (or maybe disinterested?!) parties that meddle from politicians to unions.  Problems take forever to get solved.  So, for example, have they yet solved the problem of the LIRR operators tripling their salary in OT to pad their pensions?  Oh, union rules? Well, re-negotiate the darned contract.

    I would add though that LIRR ESA, and the 7 extension benefit central and eastern Queens commuters.

    +SBS+ is a scam and poor excuse for true BRT.

    Bus service is essentially unchanged.  When I visit the old neighborhood, I see the same B68 bunching that has existed forever.  Maybe the B68 needs a Limited to help speed the trip? Maybe it needs the bus cameras to ticket the countless double-parkers on CIA that gunk up the works.  These are quick and easy solutions.

    Breaking up the MTA is needed, but along with that is a desperate need to coincide an organization re-shuffling of the ALL agencies.  There is something desperately wrong with a place where innovation is stifled and out of the box thinking is rewarded with demotions.  If they actually had to compete to provide their service, they’d be outta business in a few weeks.

    • Allan Rosen

      The MTA agencies still operate separately under the MTA umbrella and not as a unified organization.  The MTA has not integrated them into a central well-functioning agency so maybe you are correct. 

      A perfect example is how buses operated under MTA Bus have not been integrated into NYCT Transit to take advantage of economies such as operating extra distances to reach depots.  Does it make any sense that the B100 which passes directly outside Flatbush Depot is still housed in Spring Creek?

      • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

        That’s a separate union issue that needs to be addressed. I would actually address it though through tendering of bus operations as concessions via private operators who competitively bid.

    • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

      SBS is BRT—and good, IF done correctly. The Bx12 and M15 SBS routes are examples of SBS done correctly, as they filled in gaps in the subway network.

      On another forum (@BrooklynBus:disqus posts there too), I proposed redoing the M60 as an SBS route to improve that service. SBS should have the intent of providing faster service as crosstown routes, rather than duplicating subway route. Combining the Q44 and part of the Q50 as an SBS service also would make sense – crosstown service.

  • Allan Rosen

    I forgot to mention one more example. In the redevelopment of the municipal parking lot in Flushing into a commercial development, the MTA is not including a much needed underground bus terminal.  Instead they built a small one in Jackson Heights a few years ago where it was not needed because those buses could have been through routed.

    • LLQBTT

      A question for you sir. Why is the MTA in the real estate business at all?

      • Anonymous

        I guess the same reason the Port Authority is in it. Anyway, the Flushing redevelopment is spearheaded by the city’s Economic Development Corporation not the MTA. But I don’t see why they can’t work together on this one. More development without making any provisions for traffic will only increase the congestion. The City’s solution is to turn Main Street into a one-way. That’s like using a band-aid when you need a tourniquet. A bus terminal would get buses off the street. The merchants would probably oppose an underground one because they would be afraid of losing business.

  • Georgia

    Every morning I commute from Neck Road to Rockerfella Center if I the train at 6 I am there in half an hour believe it or not. If I get the train at 6:30 or so it will take 1 hour.
    As we all know signals and congestion it will take over an hour. 

    • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

      That’s an issue with the BMT bottleneck at DeKalb Avenue, and one of the positives of an earlier era was connecting the BMT Culver to the IND line.

  • Guest

    This is the map we at a bare minimum should be seeing in every subway car today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

    • LLQBTT

      You want a line to the World’s Fair?? C’mon

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        Sure, why not. We have to prepare for the 2039 fair.

        • Anonymous

          Who’s going to resurrect Robert Moses?

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            I’ll settle for resurrecting Grover Whelan.

  • Guest

    One other tidbit… If you take the LIRR from Bayside, Flushing, Hollis to say Jamiaca you should be charged normal rates not nearly $6. Bayside is part of New York City at last check. Once the LIRR enters the five boroughs or for trips within the five boroughs rates should be on par with the subway.

    • Anonymous

      Just another reason how the MTA has not integrated its various agencies like it was supposed to do.

    • ajedrez

      I could understand charging extra for traveling to Manhattan, but trips within the outer boroughs should be the same price (maybe a bit more) than taking a local bus. On Metro-North, an intra-Bronx trips costs $2.75. That’s what an intra-Queens trip (except for, travel to, say Woodside) should be.

      If the MTA had a free transfer (or a transfer for 50 cents) between the subway and LIRR to Eastern Queens, that would probably save them money, as they could cut back on bus service as riders switch to the LIRR for faster service.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    I am going to say a bit so in some case, and not so in others, and it’s really a shame. The MTA could really be encouraging people onto the LIRR as a rail-based commuter transportation system and in the process reduce its non-Staten Island express bus service. For this post, I will concentrate on the express bus network.

    Example: In the Bronx, instead of the BxM1 and BxM2 (I’d probably keep the BxM2 since it goes to West Midtown), the MTA could instead be running enhanced RailLink service and expand it to the weekends as well, to better utilize the rails. Similarly, the BxM7 and BxM11 should be reconsidered outside rush hours, as there is service to Pelham Bay Park and under White Plains Road, respectively.

    For Queens, this is where the unfairness hurts everyone: Because of expensive LIRR fares, people choose to instead take the express bus instead of a local bus to the Port Washington Line (northern Queens) or the Hempstead or Far Rockaway Lines (Queens Village and Hollis to Rosedale).

    Some service cuts do need to be made, but the wrong ones were as I see it.

    • ajedrez

      The BxM7 and BxM11 carry a decent number of riders, so service could be reduced, but I would say to keep it.

      For riders in Eastern Queens, the LIRR is slightly cheaper than the express bus to Manhattan, but that’s only if they work near Penn Station. That’s why the LIRR pass should be like an express bus pass and work on all modes of travel within NYC.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    I am going to say a bit so in some case, and not so in others, and it’s really a shame. The MTA could really be encouraging people onto the LIRR as a rail-based commuter transportation system and in the process reduce its non-Staten Island express bus service. For this post, I will concentrate on the express bus network.

    Example: In the Bronx, instead of the BxM1 and BxM2 (I’d probably keep the BxM2 since it goes to West Midtown), the MTA could instead be running enhanced RailLink service and expand it to the weekends as well, to better utilize the rails. Similarly, the BxM7 and BxM11 should be reconsidered outside rush hours, as there is service to Pelham Bay Park and under White Plains Road, respectively.

    For Queens, this is where the unfairness hurts everyone: Because of expensive LIRR fares, people choose to instead take the express bus instead of a local bus to the Port Washington Line (northern Queens) or the Hempstead or Far Rockaway Lines (Queens Village and Hollis to Rosedale).

    Some service cuts do need to be made, but the wrong ones were as I see it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/monsterzro Nelson Fernandez

    sure, the B31 stops running after midnight, if you need to get to Gerritsen Beach from the train station after midnight, you’re screwed..or walking…

    • dkupf

      Whenever there was a ride check done, the total cumulative ridership between 1:30 AM and 5:00 AM on Gerritsen Avenue ONLY was zero.  Yes, a big fat goose egg!  It should have been maintained for the B2, when it did get some riders.  But overnight B2 service was eliminated in 2002 with the hope that it would trickle down to Gerritsen Beach.  Obviously, it failed.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    On the bus route network, I would say though that the pain is a bit more evenly spread, but in the outer boroughs, except for the Bronx when the route network was redrawn in the 1980s, the MTA has made very little effort to examine the outer borough bus network. This is to me where a private consulting firm (not connected to the MTA) could help very well in terms of redoing the route network.

    • Anonymous

      In the early 80s and again in the early 90s the MTA spent about $8 million studying bus routes in all the boroughs. There were 5 borough studies in the early 80s. Then additional studies for Southern Brooklyn and the Northeast Bronx in the 90s to redraw the entire bus network. Nothing was accomplished from any of these studies except for the Bronx. The main reason was the MTA’s failure to reach a consensus with the communities. The MTA presented poor plans which the communities refused to accept. They also refused to listen to any suggestions for compromise from the communities. The MTA asked them to accept everything or reject everything. The MTA refused to implement only the parts of the study that the communities agreed with so all the money went down the drain. I was hired to head the Brooklyn Study in 1981 after most of the money had been spent with most of the tasks unaccomplished. I wrote a work program to get approval for an additional $250,000 to finish the study.

      Nothing happened because my boss insisted that my proposals be rewritten so that they wouldn’t make any sense.

  • dkupf

    For the longest time, I believed that the MTA should be comprised of the Mayor and Public Advocate of NYC, the five NYC borough presidents, the Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, and Rockland County Executives, an elected representative from each of Fairfield and New Haven Counties, and the MTA Chairman.  The MTA Chairman would only vote in order to break a tie.  (No non-voting members, which violates the US Constitution.)

    What do y’all think?

  • Subway Stinker

    Connectivity is bunk. It is a solution in search of a problem and does not deserve to be on a list of transit priorities. The biggest problem is overcrowding on the subways and busses caused by infrequent service. Readers who propose expansion of subway lines are living in a dreamworld. There is no money. If the MTA/TA reopened and restored all or some of the abandoned stations and subway lines that are unused many capacity issues would be  solved.  Regarding the B and Q service, I have been advocating all local service since last year. Brighton riders now enjoy twice as much service at no extra cost.

    • ajedrez

      But there is an additional cost because the express trains can complete their runs 5-10 minutes faster vs. the local trains. 

    • Anonymous

      First of all there is an extra cost for all local service and second, only the local riders received more service while the express riders had their trips lengthened.

  • Fredrick Wells

    A few things to address:
    (1) Why doesn’t the MTA simply extend the B41 bus route to Rockaway Park before implementing SBS on the route?
    (2) Why doesn’t the B35 bus terminate at Gateway Center and operate via Van Siclen Avenue? The B83 can simple replace all B20 service along Pennsylvania Avenue and into Ridgewood Queens, the B82 can extend to Gateway Center, and a new B21 route can operate between Bay Ridge and JFK Airport mostly replacing the old B23 bus route and the B20 route along Linden Blvd.
    (3) Why doesn’t the Q56 extend to Woodhull Medical Center and the Q24 to Utica Avenue/Eastern Parkway?
    (4) Why isn’t there a bus between East New York and Far Rockaway (this was formerly the Q21A)?
    (5) Why isn’t there a Conduit Avenue bus route between Starret City and Cambria Heights in Queens? Not all Queens bus routes are to connect with a Subway line.
    (6) What is taking the MTA so long to extend the Q27 bus route to Rosedale?

  • gustaajedrez

    1) It would be too long and unreliable, and you already have the Q35.

    2) The B35 would be too long and unreliable

    3) For the Q56, it’s just due to lack of funds, but for the Q24, again it has to do with unreliability.

    4) The Q21A had low ridership. You were better off using the (A)

    5) Because Queens is based off a hub-and-spoke system where the only way for a bus line to get decent ridership is to have it serve a subway station. There is an issue with network coverage in that area, but I don’t think there is enough demand between Cambria Heights and Starrett City to warrant a direct bus route.

    6) Again, too long and unreliable (it’s already a long route)

  • Pingback: MTA May Restore Some Service Cutbacks: The Latest On Fare-Beating And Much More | Sheepshead Bay News Blog

  • Fredrick Wells

    Was there a Q51 proposal from Sheepshead Bay to Rockaway Park (one where I suggested to extend to Coney Island)? On the 1975 Queens Bus Guide Map, there was the Q21A which operated between Far Rockaway and East New York Brooklyn and with Gateway Mall in Spreing Creek, I don’t see why the MTA can’t reinstate this route.