<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Queens Residents Oppose Loss of Parking for Bus Rapid Transit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30995</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30995</guid>
		<description>Interesting point, Nimby.  For this study, the MTA/DOT could have chosen some of the boulevards that were designed for streetcars (like Queens Boulevard, Northern Boulevard or Southern Boulevard) and are wide enough to fit those boarding islands.

They didn&#039;t, and it&#039;s typical of the kind of bait-and-switch that&#039;s standard practice when implementing a BRT system.  You start out with Curitiba and after everyone&#039;s objections are taken into account, you wind up with a bus that&#039;s just like the old one but painted a different color.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting point, Nimby.  For this study, the MTA/DOT could have chosen some of the boulevards that were designed for streetcars (like Queens Boulevard, Northern Boulevard or Southern Boulevard) and are wide enough to fit those boarding islands.</p>
<p>They didn&#8217;t, and it&#8217;s typical of the kind of bait-and-switch that&#8217;s standard practice when implementing a BRT system.  You start out with Curitiba and after everyone&#8217;s objections are taken into account, you wind up with a bus that&#8217;s just like the old one but painted a different color.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30980</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30980</guid>
		<description>I really wish that people would get over this one mode v another debate, all that does is lenghten the whole process; rather the answer lies in a truly integrated land use and transportation planning exercise. To date no organization or individual has had the strength of will to stand up and honestly express what truly is in the best interest of the city and region as a whole. Everyone is busy advocating solutions to symptoms of a problem without addressing its root causes. It hasn&#039;t been acknowledged that transportation is only one part of a wider problem, and also in truth it is about ACCESS. Access to essential services, to education, to healthcare, to employment. The estimated 1 million additional people in the City and 4 million in the Metro area, will not just add increase traffic congestion, but to all facets of life.

People need to stop fixating on BRT or LRT or whatever the mode-du-jour RT is being pedalled. There are plenty examples of half empty streetcars operting around the country, as there examples of BRT running not very rapidly. Any alternative will only be successful if it is supported by and part of a wider range of policies that promote sound planning with tangible benefits to all!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really wish that people would get over this one mode v another debate, all that does is lenghten the whole process; rather the answer lies in a truly integrated land use and transportation planning exercise. To date no organization or individual has had the strength of will to stand up and honestly express what truly is in the best interest of the city and region as a whole. Everyone is busy advocating solutions to symptoms of a problem without addressing its root causes. It hasn&#8217;t been acknowledged that transportation is only one part of a wider problem, and also in truth it is about ACCESS. Access to essential services, to education, to healthcare, to employment. The estimated 1 million additional people in the City and 4 million in the Metro area, will not just add increase traffic congestion, but to all facets of life.</p>
<p>People need to stop fixating on BRT or LRT or whatever the mode-du-jour RT is being pedalled. There are plenty examples of half empty streetcars operting around the country, as there examples of BRT running not very rapidly. Any alternative will only be successful if it is supported by and part of a wider range of policies that promote sound planning with tangible benefits to all!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nimby pimby</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30968</link>
		<dc:creator>nimby pimby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30968</guid>
		<description>Orcutt &amp; Aaron --
 
There are some big problems with what you are saying and the comparisons you are making.  First because of the limited width of the street in the outer borough BRT corridors and the fact that most of them are two-way, you cant fit boarding islands and more radical measures into the right of way.  Both Geary and Van Ness have tremendous rights-of-way that don&#039;t exist on Nostrand Avenue, for example.  And the more dramatic the plans certainly the more radical the opposition. 
 
Second, the comparison to San Francisco is ludicrous given that we want to push NYC to do things dramitically and fast.  Look at those links and the history.  Geary alone is a 3 year study and AFTER those three years then the EIS process will begin.  From study to target for &quot;Phase 1&quot; (a likely limited implementation, not what you see in the renderings) you are talking about 2004 to 2011.   Add this to the fact that the Geary corridor was supposed to get BART train service in the original 1970s plan and we are talking about a municipal failure to provide mass transit here nearly on the scale of the 2nd Avenue subway.  They&#039;ve been talking BRT for Geary through the late 1990s.  What&#039;s the big delay?  Well, basically because parking and car loving NIMBYs have ridiculous amounts of power in San Francisco despite the look-at-me-liberal talk.  All the processes they are doing is to get around them/convince them/keep their lawsuits from freezing everything (look at the non-implementation of the SF Bike Master Plan as an example.) 
 
Thankfully, in New York, NIMBY&#039;s generally don&#039;t have that kind of power so if the City gets the right push and advocates out-organize them, they can be beaten. 
 
Please find a better example than SF to compare NYC to.  How about LA&#039;s MetroRapid -- that is an impressive story.  If NYC had a fancy rendering like SF would that make you happier?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Orcutt &amp; Aaron &#8211;</p>
<p>There are some big problems with what you are saying and the comparisons you are making.  First because of the limited width of the street in the outer borough BRT corridors and the fact that most of them are two-way, you cant fit boarding islands and more radical measures into the right of way.  Both Geary and Van Ness have tremendous rights-of-way that don&#8217;t exist on Nostrand Avenue, for example.  And the more dramatic the plans certainly the more radical the opposition. </p>
<p>Second, the comparison to San Francisco is ludicrous given that we want to push NYC to do things dramitically and fast.  Look at those links and the history.  Geary alone is a 3 year study and AFTER those three years then the EIS process will begin.  From study to target for &#8220;Phase 1&#8243; (a likely limited implementation, not what you see in the renderings) you are talking about 2004 to 2011.   Add this to the fact that the Geary corridor was supposed to get BART train service in the original 1970s plan and we are talking about a municipal failure to provide mass transit here nearly on the scale of the 2nd Avenue subway.  They&#8217;ve been talking BRT for Geary through the late 1990s.  What&#8217;s the big delay?  Well, basically because parking and car loving NIMBYs have ridiculous amounts of power in San Francisco despite the look-at-me-liberal talk.  All the processes they are doing is to get around them/convince them/keep their lawsuits from freezing everything (look at the non-implementation of the SF Bike Master Plan as an example.) </p>
<p>Thankfully, in New York, NIMBY&#8217;s generally don&#8217;t have that kind of power so if the City gets the right push and advocates out-organize them, they can be beaten. </p>
<p>Please find a better example than SF to compare NYC to.  How about LA&#8217;s MetroRapid &#8212; that is an impressive story.  If NYC had a fancy rendering like SF would that make you happier?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30967</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30967</guid>
		<description>That sounds good, Jon, and I also would like these corridors to be successful.  But as far as I&#039;m concerned BRT (as opposed to just &quot;worthwhile bus improvements&quot;) is already a discredited concept, and a red herring that distracts attention away from streetcars.  By the time you spend enough money to make a significant improvement in bus service, you&#039;re almost at the level of LRT.  I don&#039;t know Merrick Avenue, but the 207th Street/Fordham Road/Pelham Parkway route would be perfect for a streetcar (just &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theamazingbronx.com/id7.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as designed&lt;/a&gt;).

I know you&#039;re a busy guy, but I&#039;ve posted this link here before, and I&#039;m hoping that some day a transit advocate that supports BRT will tell me why it&#039;s wrong:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That sounds good, Jon, and I also would like these corridors to be successful.  But as far as I&#8217;m concerned BRT (as opposed to just &#8220;worthwhile bus improvements&#8221;) is already a discredited concept, and a red herring that distracts attention away from streetcars.  By the time you spend enough money to make a significant improvement in bus service, you&#8217;re almost at the level of LRT.  I don&#8217;t know Merrick Avenue, but the 207th Street/Fordham Road/Pelham Parkway route would be perfect for a streetcar (just <a href="http://www.theamazingbronx.com/id7.html" rel="nofollow">as designed</a>).</p>
<p>I know you&#8217;re a busy guy, but I&#8217;ve posted this link here before, and I&#8217;m hoping that some day a transit advocate that supports BRT will tell me why it&#8217;s wrong:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orcutt</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30893</link>
		<dc:creator>Orcutt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:35:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30893</guid>
		<description>Arguing for doing BRT well so it does not become a discredited concept here is very different than arguing against doing BRT at all.  

We are hoping that new MTA and new NYC DOT leadership will review the city projects and focus on getting a few really good models in place. There are some win-win outcomes that can be achieved that get beyond saying Queens residents are jerks for defending their parking spaces.  Note that the SF options which the planners say work the best do not take any curb lane space at all. 

The downtown bus bulbs are a good development but shouldn&#039;t be seen as something that alone delivers &quot;rapid&quot; bus service.  They in fact could and should be implemented on every bus route in the city.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arguing for doing BRT well so it does not become a discredited concept here is very different than arguing against doing BRT at all.  </p>
<p>We are hoping that new MTA and new NYC DOT leadership will review the city projects and focus on getting a few really good models in place. There are some win-win outcomes that can be achieved that get beyond saying Queens residents are jerks for defending their parking spaces.  Note that the SF options which the planners say work the best do not take any curb lane space at all. </p>
<p>The downtown bus bulbs are a good development but shouldn&#8217;t be seen as something that alone delivers &#8220;rapid&#8221; bus service.  They in fact could and should be implemented on every bus route in the city.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: liz</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30891</link>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30891</guid>
		<description>the problem is not parking spaces being turned into bus priority lanes or bike lanes.  the problem is people using streets for long term parking. the solution is to price remaining parking so that it favors shorter term parkers-- customers, patients and the like.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the problem is not parking spaces being turned into bus priority lanes or bike lanes.  the problem is people using streets for long term parking. the solution is to price remaining parking so that it favors shorter term parkers&#8211; customers, patients and the like.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: busfan</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30884</link>
		<dc:creator>busfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30884</guid>
		<description>v: so instead, we have the leader of one of the main advocacy groups arguing against doing BRT...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>v: so instead, we have the leader of one of the main advocacy groups arguing against doing BRT&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Naparstek</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30880</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Naparstek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30880</guid>
		<description>
&lt;p&gt;Orcutt,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those San Fran BRT plans look a lot like what I saw in Paris. The Parisian BRT guys were saying that the BRT lines that run down the middle of the Avenue, two-way, with a station in the median right in the middle, were the corridors that were performing best, by far. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Indeed the NYC BRT designs do not seem to be all that ambitious by comparison but do you see any amount of advocacy changing the plan or the design at this point?
&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Orcutt,</p>
<p>Those San Fran BRT plans look a lot like what I saw in Paris. The Parisian BRT guys were saying that the BRT lines that run down the middle of the Avenue, two-way, with a station in the median right in the middle, were the corridors that were performing best, by far. </p>
<p>Indeed the NYC BRT designs do not seem to be all that ambitious by comparison but do you see any amount of advocacy changing the plan or the design at this point?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: v</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30876</link>
		<dc:creator>v</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30876</guid>
		<description>ok, yeah, &quot;elderly residents doubleparking for doctor&#039;s visits&quot;...yeah, ok, that seems like a really good reason to oppose public transit. ridiculous.

a lot of queens doesn&#039;t have subway service. bus rapid transit can help ALLEVIATE the attending problems. these kinds of complaints are *the* reasons why streetsblog and streetfilms are so important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ok, yeah, &#8220;elderly residents doubleparking for doctor&#8217;s visits&#8221;&#8230;yeah, ok, that seems like a really good reason to oppose public transit. ridiculous.</p>
<p>a lot of queens doesn&#8217;t have subway service. bus rapid transit can help ALLEVIATE the attending problems. these kinds of complaints are *the* reasons why streetsblog and streetfilms are so important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orcutt</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30875</link>
		<dc:creator>Orcutt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30875</guid>
		<description>One of the problems with the city&#039;s BRT program is that people are being asked to give up parking for something they don&#039;t believe is going to work.  Despite the city&#039;s assurances, cops are as likely to park in bus lanes as enforce them.  Why should these new lanes be any different?  And the projects aren&#039;t ambitious enough (time of day lanes, painted lines, unclear whether signal pre-emption, enforcement cameras etc are going to be included) to garner active support of pro-transit groups.  Check out some U.S. BRT planning that looks likely to rebuild major city avenues into transit boulevards: 
http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm
http://www.sfcta.org/vanness/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the problems with the city&#8217;s BRT program is that people are being asked to give up parking for something they don&#8217;t believe is going to work.  Despite the city&#8217;s assurances, cops are as likely to park in bus lanes as enforce them.  Why should these new lanes be any different?  And the projects aren&#8217;t ambitious enough (time of day lanes, painted lines, unclear whether signal pre-emption, enforcement cameras etc are going to be included) to garner active support of pro-transit groups.  Check out some U.S. BRT planning that looks likely to rebuild major city avenues into transit boulevards:<br />
<a href="http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sfcta.org/vanness/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfcta.org/vanness/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30873</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30873</guid>
		<description>Could you change that to &quot;&lt;i&gt;Some&lt;/i&gt; Queens Residents ...&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you change that to &#8220;<i>Some</i> Queens Residents &#8230;&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Observer</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30872</link>
		<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:39:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30872</guid>
		<description>We&#039;re getting into this cycle of doing nothing.  &quot;Yeah, its bad, but can&#039;t do this or that.  Too inconvenient.&quot;

Meanwhile, the situation continues to spiral down the drain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re getting into this cycle of doing nothing.  &#8220;Yeah, its bad, but can&#8217;t do this or that.  Too inconvenient.&#8221;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the situation continues to spiral down the drain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-30871</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/17/queens-residents-oppose-loss-of-parking-for-bus-rapid-transit/#comment-30871</guid>
		<description>&quot;Elderly people going to see the doctor can&#039;t even double park to see the doctor right now.&quot;

DOUBLE PARK TO SEE THE DOCTOR?? 
most doctor visits include at least a half hour in the waiting room!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Elderly people going to see the doctor can&#8217;t even double park to see the doctor right now.&#8221;</p>
<p>DOUBLE PARK TO SEE THE DOCTOR??<br />
most doctor visits include at least a half hour in the waiting room!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

