BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: Public Input · 2020-05-15 · BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT...

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II:Public Input

•

Table of ConTenTs

ExEcUTIvE SUmmARy i

cHAPTER 1 | WoRkSHoP PURPoSE AND STRUcTURE 1

cHAPTER 2 | WoRkSHoP fINDINgS 9

cHAPTER 3 | oNLINE BRT SURvEy fINDINgS 26

APPENDIx A | LIST of oRgANIZATIoNS & ELEcTED offIcIALS REPRESENTED AT THE WoRkSHoPS 42

June 2010

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT ExEcUTIvE SUmmARy

eXeCUTIVe sUMMaRY

Inthefallof2008,theNewYorkCityDepartmentofTrans-portation(DOT)andMTANewYorkCityTransit(NYCT)be-ganexploringopportunitiesfortheexpansionofBusRapidTransit (BRT) in New York City. Public input is a criticalcomponentofthiseffort,andsointhespringof2009DOTandNYCTsoughttoengageNewYorkersinadialogueonthefutureofBRT.Thiseffortincludedsevenpublicwork-shopsacross thecity andanonline survey, thegoalsofwhichwereto:

• educate the public about bRT and current bRT projects;

• solicit feedback on unmet transit needs that may be appropriate for bRT; and,

• solicit feedback on bRT’s package of features.

Over325peopleparticipatedintheworkshops,includingrepresentativesfrom47communityandbusinessgroups,andstaffmembersfromtheofficesof23localelectedof-ficials. Inaddition,over600peoplecompletedtheonlinesurvey. The workshop and survey participants providedDOTandNYCTwithawealthoffeedbackonlocaltransitneedsandcommunityissues,whichwillhelpguidethetwoagenciesastheymoveforwardwithplanningforaddition-alBRTroutes.Fromallthepubliccomments,onecentralthemeemerged:NYCTandDOTshoulddomoretomeetthetransitneedsofNewYorkersthroughimprovementstothecity’sbussystem.

outreach approachThe outreach effort was designed tomaximize opportu-nities for residentsandstakeholdergroups tovoice theirideasandopinions.Theworkshopsusedaseriesofinter-activeexercisestostimulateaconversationonBRT.Par-ticipantsweredivided intogroupsofeight to tenpeopleand assigned to tables with a facilitator. The facilitators

guidedeachgroupthroughadiscussionofpotentialBRTcorridorsandofBRTfeatures,suchasoff-boardfarepay-ment,real-timebusarrivalinformation,transitsignalprior-ity,andbuslanesandbusways.Eachparticipantfilledoutaquestionnaireoverthecourseoftheworkshopandnotetakerscapturedcommentsateachtable.Theonlinesurveyfollowedasimilarformatandalsoprovidedtheopportunityforopen-endedresponses.

summary of Public Comments Overall,theworkshopsandsurveyindicatedthatthepub-licissupportiveofBRTexpansionandotherbusimprove-ments and feels that these initiativeswill improve transitserviceinNewYorkCity.98%ofworkshopattendeesand97%ofsurveyrespondentsexpressedsupportforBRTex-pansion.Participantsprovidedarangeofviewpointsandideas,fromwhichseveralkeythemescameforward:

TRansIT needs • Overall,participantssawmostofthetransitneedcor-

ridorsidentifiedbyDOTandNYCTasgoodcandi-datesforBRT.Participantsfrequentlyrecommendedextensionstothesecorridors,aswellassuggestedtheirown.Themapsonpages12-20inchapterIIpresentthetransitcorridorsthatparticipantsidenti-fiedashavingthegreatestneedforfasterservice.

• ManyparticipantsencouragedDOTandNYCTtoimplementimprovementstobusservicequickly,par-ticularlythosethatdonotinvolvecomplexconstruc-tionorhighcapitalcosts.

i

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT

bRT feaTURes • Overall,participantsstatedthatBRTfeatures,such

asoff-boardfarepaymentandtransitsignalpriority,wouldspeedupbustravelandmakeridingthebusmoreconvenientandlessstressful.Manypartici-pantsexpressedadesireforquickimplementationofspecificBRTfeatures,suchasreal-timebusarrivalinformationdisplaysatbusstops.

• Ofthefeaturesdesignedtoimprovebusspeedandreliability,frequentservicewasviewedasthemostdesirablefeatureamongparticipants.Ofthefea-turesdesignedtoimprovecomfortandconvenience,real-timebusarrivalinformationwasbyfarthemostpopularfeature.

• Inregardstosubway-likestationspacing,participantswereconcernedabouttheaccessibilityofBRTandbusservicefortheelderlyanddisabledriders.

• Mostparticipantssupportedtheconceptoftrafficsignalpriorityforbuses,butstatedthatDOTshouldcarefullyanalyzeandmonitorimpactsontrafficandpedestrians.TSPsystemsshouldensurethatpedes-trianhaveenoughtimetosafelycrossstreets.

• Mostparticipantssupportedtheconceptofoff-boardfarepayment,butstatedthatNYCTandDOTshouldhaveadequateenforcementinplacetopreventfareevasionandthatsecurityconcernsatsomestationswouldneedtoaddressed.

bUs lanes and bUswaYs • Overall,participantsvoicedsupportfortheimple-

mentationofbuslanesandbuswayswhenbroadlydefined,statingthatthesefeatureswouldspeedbusservicebyallowingbusestoavoidtrafficconges-tion.Manyparticipantsstatedthatforbuslanestobeeffective,DOTandNYCTwillneedtoinstitutemorerobustenforcementmeasuresagainstillegalparking.

• Concernsaboutspecifictreatmentsandcorridorsfellintotwogeneralcategories:(1)thatillegallyparkedvehicleswouldinhibittheeffectivenessofbuslanes,and(2)thatbuslanesandbuswayswouldeliminateparkingspacesandincreasetrafficformotorists.Participantsalsoraisedquestionsaboutpedestrian,bicyclist,anddriversafetyandimpactsonlocalbusinesses.

• Notreatmentwastheclearfavoriteamongpartici-pants,althoughcurbsidelanesweretheleastpopulartreatment,duetoconcernsovertheireffectivenessandimpactsonparkingandcommercialdeliveries.

• Whenconsideringabuslaneorbusway,participantsstatedthatDOTandNYCTneedtocarefullyanalyzepotentialtraffic,pedestriansafety,parkingavailabil-ity,anddeliveryimpacts.Asuccessfulbuslaneorbuswaydesignmustbetailoredtotheneedsofthespecificcorridor.

PlannIng PRoCess • Participantsstatedthatcontinuedcommunityin-

volvementthroughouttheplanningofindividualBRTcorridorsandotherbusimprovementprojectswillmaketheprojectbetterandisessentialforsuccessfulprojectimplementation.

ii

1

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT cHAPTER 1 | WoRkSHoP PURPoSE AND STRUcTURE

The PurposeInAprilof2009,theNewYorkCityDepartmentofTrans-portation(DOT)andMTANewYorkCityTransit(NYCT)re-leased“IntroductiontoBusRapidTransitPhaseII,”areportonthefutureofBusRapidTransit(BRT)inNewYorkCity.Thereportidentifies31unmettransitneedsacrossthecitythatmaybecandidates forBRTanddiscussespotentialimprovementstothepackageofBRTfeaturestobeimple-mentedonfutureroutes(NewYorkCitypiloteditsfirstBRTroute, theBx12SelectBusServiceonFordhamRoad intheBronx,startinginthesummerof2008).ThePhaseIIreportispartofalargerplanningeffortbyDOTandNYCTtodevelopacomprehensiveBRTsystemacrossthecity.

Publicengagementisacriticalpartofthisprocess,asfeed-back from residents and community stakeholders helpsDOTandNYCTtobetterunderstandthetransitneedsoflocalneighborhoodsandaddresslocalconcerns,suchasparking availability and traffic congestion. In conjunctionwiththereleaseofthePhaseIIreport,DOTandNYCTheldsevenpublicworkshopsbetweenMay28,2009andJune18,2009onthefutureofBRTinNewYorkCity.Thegoalsoftheworkshops,heldacrossthefiveboroughs,wereto:

• educate the public about bRT• solicit feedback on unmet transit service

needs that may be appropriate for bRT• solicit feedback on bRT features

Over325peopleparticipatedintheworkshops,themajor-ityofthemregularbusriders.Inadditiontotheworkshops,DOTandNYCTpostedanonlineBRTsurvey,completedbyover650respondents,whichfollowedasimilarformattotheworkshops.ThisreportpresentsasummaryoftheresultsoftheworkshopsandtheonlinesurveyandwillhelptoinformtheworkofDOTandNYCTasthetwoagenciesmoveforwardwithplanningforaPhaseIIBRTprogram.

1. woRkshoP PURPose and sTRUCTURe

DowntownBrooklynBRTWorkshop

2


workshop structure Theworkshopsusedinteractiveexercisesandvisualaidstostimulateanin-depthconversationonBRTandtopro-vide participants with ample opportunity to voice theirideas and opinions. In contrast to a public hearing, par-ticipantswererandomlydividedintogroupsofeighttotenandassignedtotableswithafacilitatorandanotetaker.Thefacilitators,amixofNYCDOTandNYCTstaffandcon-sultant staff, guided eachgroup through a series of dis-cussion units; the facilitator’s rolewas to ask questions,guidethediscussion,and,mostimportantly,tolisten.Thenotetakerrecordedparticipantcommentsandkepttrackofthetimespentoneachdiscussionunit.Inaddition,eachparticipantfilledoutaquestionnaireoverthecourseoftheworkshop.Theworkshoptookabout90minutesandwasdividedintofourparts:

(1) InTRodUCTIon: the participants introduced them-selves and where shown a brief video, the purpose ofwhichwastogiveeachparticipantabaselineunderstand-ingofBRTandtheBx12SelectBusServiceproject.Thefacilitatorlaidoutthegoalsoftheworkshopandansweredquestionsaboutthevideo. (2) seRVICe need CoRRIdoRs – MaP eXeRCIse:the

purposeofthisunitwastosolicitparticipantfeedbackontransitneedsthatmightbeappropriateforBRT.Alargemapof the borough inwhich theworkshopwas taking placewasplacedoneachtable,(seesampleabove);thesemapsshowedtheserviceneedcorridorsidentifiedbyDOT/NYCTinthePhaseIIreport(forexample,UticaAvenueinBrook-lynandtheNorthShoreinStatenIsland).Eachparticipantusedstickerstoindicatewheretheylivedandplacestheyfrequently traveled to (place of employment, local shop-ping,etc.).ThefacilitatorthenaskedparticipantsfortheirthoughtsoneachoftheDOT/NYCT-identifiedserviceneedcorridors.Participantsusedmarkerstomodifythesecor-ridorsandtoaddcorridorsoftheirown.Attheendofthediscussion,eachparticipantwasaskedtoidentifythethreeserviceneedcorridorstheybelievedweremostimportant.Thisfeedbackwasrecordedontheboroughmapsandineachparticipant’squestionnaire.

SampleWorkshopMap

3


BRTFeaturesExercise

3) bRT feaTURes – feaTURes gaMe boaRd:thepurposeofthisunitwastosolicitparticipantfeedbackonthepackageoffeatureswhichmakeupaBRTservice.A“BRTFeaturesGameBoard,”shownleft,wasplacedoneachtable.Thegameboard illustrates BRT’s five speed and reliabilityfeaturesandthreecomfortandconveniencefea-tures. For the speed and reliability features, thegame board also indicates the estimated traveltimesavingsthefeatureachieves(basedona30minutebustrip).Thefacilitatoraskedparticipantsfor their opinions of each feature andwhat thatfeaturemeant to them (i.e. how frequent is fre-quentservice?)Participantsthenusedstickerstoindicateonthegameboardwhethertheylikedordislikedeachfeatureorfeltitwasnotimportant.Afterfurtherdiscussionoftheresults,participantsrecordedtheirresponsesintheirquestionnaires.

4


Samplebuswayrendering Sampleoff-setbuslanerendering

Samplecurbsidebuslanerendering

4) bUs lanes and bUswaYs - PhoTo based Ren-deRIngs:thepurposeofthisunitwastosolicitparticipantfeedbackonarangeofBRTbuslaneandbuswaydesigns.Participants were shown a series of three photo-basedrenderings demonstrating different bus lane and buswaytreatments (samples shown above and at left) andwereaskedfor theiropiniononeach.Thenotetaker recordedtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesidentifiedbythegroupdirectly on the renderings. At the end of the discussion,participantsusedstickerstoindicatewhethertheylikedordislikedagivendesign.Thisfeedbackwasalsorecordedineachparticipant’squestionnaire.

During thecourseof theworkshops,staff fromDOTandNYCTwerealsopresenttoanswerquestionsaboutnon-BRTrelatedissues.

5


workshop date location Total Participants

Bronx May28,2009 TheHub 29

QueensI June2,2009 JacksonHeights 52

QueensII June3,2009 DowntownJamaica 27

BrooklynI June9,2009 DowntownBrooklyn 40

BrooklynII June10,2009 BrooklynCollege/Flatbush 40

StatenIsland June16,2009 NewDorp 39

Manhattan June18,2009 GarmentDistrict 97

Inadditiontocommunitymembers,workshopattendeesincludedrepresentativesofcivicorganizations,electedofficials,andbusinessgroups,including:

AppendixAincludesadetailedlistoftheorganizationsandelectedofficialsrepresentedattheworkshops.

attendanceAtotalof324participantsattendedthesevenworkshopsheldacrossthefiveboroughs.Manhattanhadthehighestturn-outwith97participants,whileJamaicahadthelowestturnoutwith27participants.

• staffrepresentativesof23electedofficialsfromthecity,state,andfederallevel;

• membersandstafffrom12communityboards;• representativesandstafffrom25community,

civic,andadvocacyorganizations;

• representativesfromfivebusinessimprovementdistricts;and

• staffmembersfromfivegovernmentagenciesatthecity,state,andregionallevel.

6


outreach effectiveness Participantswereasked in theirquestionnaireshow they learnedabout theworkshops.SignspostedonNYCTbuseswerethemosteffectiveapproachtoattractingparticipants.The“Other”categorylikelyincludesrepresentativesofelectedofficialsandcommunityboardmemberswhowerecontacteddirectlybyDOTandNYCTstaffandoutreachbycommunitygroupstotheirmembers.

outreach Method number of Participants Percentage

SignPostedOnNYCTBus 97 35%

DOTEmailAnnouncement 52 19%

DOTTextMessage 4 1%

DOTWebsite 25 9%

NPRRadio 4 1%

Other 99 35%

7


Participant Transportation UseParticipants were asked which mode of transportation they used most frequently for travel within their borough ofresidence.Aboutathirdofrespondentsreportedrelyingprimarilyonthelocalbussystemforintra-boroughtravel.

Most frequent Mode of Transportation for Intra-boro Travel number of Participants Percentage

LocalBus 119 31%

Subway 94 25%

ExpressBus 13 3%

Car 29 8%

Walk 40 11%

Bike 19 5%

StatenIslandRailroad 4 1%

Combination:CarandSubway 1 0%

Combination:BusandSubway 25 7%

Combination:BusandTrain 5 1%

Combination:BusandExpressBus 1 0%

Combination:Bike,CarandBus 1 0%

Combination:Bike,CarandWalk 19 5%

Combination:NotSpecified 3 1%

NoResponse 5 1%

*note that a small portion of participants checked more than one mode.

8


Participantswerealsoaskedhowoftentheyridethebus.Aboutthree-quartersofworkshopparticipantsreportedusingthebusatleastonceaweek.Overall,frequentbusriderswerewellrepresentedatthesevenworkshops.

bus Use frequency number of Participants Percentage

Lessthanonceperweek 30 15%

Onetothreedaysperweek 52 27%

Fourtosevendaysperweek 95 48%

Noresponse 19 10%

Participants’ awareness of bRTAtthebeginningoftheworkshop,participantswereaskedto provide a one-sentence description of BRT in theirquestionnaires. A few respondents stated that theywerenot familiarwith theconceptandhadcome to thework-shop to learnmore, but a significant number exhibited afamiliaritywithBRT.Manyoftheresponsescapturedwhatparticipants saw as BRT’s primary features and benefits.DescriptionsatmultipleworkshopslikenedBRTtoamorecost-effectivelightrailsystem.Thefollowingisasamplingoftheresponses.BRT:• “…isasmart,modernwaytomovelargenumbers

ofpeoplerapidlyabovegroundforareasonableinvestment;themostcost-effectivesolutiontourbantransport.”

• “…consistsofexclusivebuslanes,off-boardfarecollection,enclosedstationsandbusservicethatfeelslikeametro.”

• “…isadedicatedbuslaneroutethatfacilitatesacceleratedbustrafficwithoutinterferencefromautomobiletraffic.”

• “…isthegreatesthopeforefficienttransportationforthosethatdonothaveaccesstoasubway.”

• “…isabuswithpriorityoperationindedicatedtrafficcorridors,minimaldwelltimewithonboardfareinspectionofprepaidtickets,minimalstops,increasedridershipanddecreasedtriptime.”

• “…isalightrailsystemwithoutexpensiveinfrastructure.”

9

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT cHAPTER 2 | WoRkSHoP fINDINgS

key findings

oVeRall feedbaCk on bRT• Participantswereoverwhelminglysupportiveof

implementingBRTinNewYorkCity:74%ofpartici-pantswhocompletedthequestionnaireindicatedthattheywouldsupporttheexpansionofBRT.24%saidtheywouldsupportBRTexpansion,buthadsomeconcerns.2%ofparticipantsstatedthattheydidnotsupportanyexpansionofBRT.

• ManyparticipantsexpressedadesireforquickimplementationofBRTorofspecificBRTfeatures,suchasreal-timebusarrivalinformationdisplaysatbusstops.

seRVICe needs • Participantsrespondedpositivelytotheserviceneed

corridorsidentifiedbyDOTandNYCT.• ParticipantswerefrequentlyinterestedinBRTser-

vicesthattookthemallthewaytotheirdestination—notjustservicesthatconnectedthemtothenearestsubway—andexpressedadesireforinter-boroughBRTroutes.

• ParticipantsoftenaddedserviceneedcorridorsoftheirownorextendedtheDOT/NYCT-identifiedser-viceneedcorridors.Participant-identifiedneedsweremostoftenfocusedonunderservedareas,suchasHuntsPointintheBronxandRedHookinBrooklyn.

• Participantstendedtofocusmostoncorridorsneartheirresidence.

bRT feaTURes • TheeightBRTfeaturesreceivedmostlypositive

feedback.Manyparticipantsstatedthatthesefea-tureswouldspeedupbustravelandmakeridingthebusmoreconvenientandlessstressful.

• Inthespeedandreliabilitycategory,frequentservicewasthemostpopularfeature.Runningways,off-boardfarepayment,trafficsignalpriority(TSP),andsubway-stylestationsspacingalsoreceivedpositivefeedback,butalsoraisedanumberofconcernsandquestions.

• Inthecomfortandconveniencecategory,real-timebusarrivalinformationwasbyfarthemostpopularfeature.BRTvehicleswerealsopopular,especiallythelow-floorfeature.Enhancedstationswereoftenseenaslessimportant.

bUs lanes and bUswaYs • Participantsvoicedsupportfortheimplementationof

buslanesandbuswayswhenbroadlydefined.Manyparticipantsstatedthatbuslanesandbuswayswouldspeedupbusservicebyhelpingbusestoavoidtraf-fic.Whenitcametospecifictreatments,however,anumberofparticipantsraisedconcerns.

• Concernsfellintotwogeneralcategories:(1)concernsthatillegallyparkedcarsandtruckswouldinhibittheeffectivenessofbuslanesandbusways,and(2)concernsthatbuslanesandbuswayswouldeliminateparkingspacesandincreasetrafficformotorists.

• Participantsalsoraisedquestionsaboutpedestrian,bicyclist,anddriversafetyandimpactsonlocalbusinesses.

II. woRkshoP fIndIngs

Throughthecourseofthesevenworkshops,severalkeythemesemerged:

10


Participant feedback on service needs objeCTIVes and aPPRoaCh Theworkshopmap exercisewas designed to: (1) solicitfeedback from participants on the DOT/NYCT-identifiedcorridorsidentifiedin“IntroductiontoBRTPhaseII,”and (2)allowparticipants tosuggestotherpotentialcorridorsfor consideration. Participant feedback was captured inthreeways:questionnaireresponses,marked-upboroughmaps, and comments recorded by the note takers. Thisanalysisfocusesonparticipantcommentsandideasthatwerementionedthemostfrequentlyandthatgeneratedthemostinterestfromparticipants.

oVeRall CoMMenTsSeveraltrendswereapparentacrossthesevenworkshops:

• ParticipantsrespondedpositivelytotheDOT/NYCT-identifiedcorridorsandsawmostofthemasgoodcandidatesforBRTorimprovedbusservices.

• ParticipantsfrequentlyextendedormodifiedtheDOT/NYCT-identifiedcorridors;sometimesparticipantsconnectedtwoormorecorridors.

• ParticipantsfromtheBronx,Brooklyn,Queens,andStatenIslandexpressedaninterestinbettertransitconnectionstootherboroughs;oftenthesepartici-pantsstatedadesireforinter-boroughconnectionsthatdidnotrequiretravelingthroughManhattan.

• Participantstendedtofocusmostoncorridorsneartheirresidence.

11


The bronx oVeRall feedbaCk• BronxparticipantsindicatedthatDOT/NYCTshould

placethehighestpriorityonareasunderservedbythesubwaysystem,suchastheWebsterAvenue/ThirdAvenuecorridor,HuntsPointandMelrose.

• Bronxparticipantsexpressedadesireforimprovedeast-westconnections,asmostsubwayserviceintheBronxrunsnorth-south.SuggestedroutesincludedGunHillRoadand161stStreet.

• Bronxparticipantsalsonotedtheimportanceofcreat-ingatransitlinktoQueensthatdidnotrequiretravelthroughManhattan.Thiswassuggestedaspartofanumberofpotentialcorridors.

PRIoRITY CoRRIdoRs•webster avenue/Third avenue Corridor

- Almostallparticipantswantedtoseethecorridorextendednorth-southandconnectedtoeast-westserviceinthenorthernBronx,potentiallyonGunHillRoad.

- Thiscorridorreceivedthehighestoverallranking,althoughsomeparticipantsquestionedtheneedforBRTgiventhehighfrequencyofexistingbusservices.

•HuntsPointPeninsula- AllfiveparticipanttablesidentifiedHuntsPoint(particularlythewesternsection)asahighpriorityforBRT,bothforemployeeswhoworkedintheareaandresidents.

- ParticipantsexpressedaneedforimprovedtransitwithinHuntsPoint,aswellasbetterconnectionstootherareasintheBronxandbeyond.

- SuggestionsincludedconvertingtheBx6routetoBRT.

•SoundviewCorridor- Severalparticipanttablesidentifiedthearea’scur-renttransitoptionsasunreliableandinsufficient,andnotedthatitisdifficultforpedestriansintheareatoaccesssubwaystopsandotherpartsoftheBronx.

- ParticipantswantedbetterconnectivitywithinSoundview,aswellastootherpartsoftheBronx.

- FouroutoffiveparticipanttableswantedtoextendtheSoundviewcorridoreast-west,potentiallyalong161stStreet.

12


Bx12 SBS

2

1

34

Underserved Area

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route

Participant Identified Corridors

DOT/NYCT Identified Corridors

Underserved Area

Service Need

5

6

7

1. Third Avenue/Webster Avenue Corridor 2. Soundview Corridor3. Bruckner Expressway – express bus corridor4. Major Deegan Expressway – express bus corridor 5. Hunts Point Corridor6. South Bronx East-West Corridor 7. North Bronx East-West Corridor

bronx service needs

13


brooklyn oVeRall feedbaCk • ParticipantsatbothBrooklynworkshopsfrequently

suggestedextendingtheDOT/NYCT-identifiedcorridorstoQueens,includingtoJFKandLongIslandCity.

PRIoRITY CoRRIdoRs•Utica avenue Corridor

- AttheFlatbushworkshop,participantsrankedthiscorridorasoneofthetwomostimportantneeds;thecorridoralsorankedhighattheDowntownBrooklynworkshop.

- ParticipantsfromsoutheastBrooklynexpressedadesireforafasterandlesscrowdedtransitcon-

nectiontoDowntownBrooklynandManhattan.- AnumberofparticipantssuggestedextendingthecorridorsouthonFlatbushAvenuetothe

Rockaways;otherparticipantssuggestedexten-sionstoDowntownBrooklyn(insteadoftheWil-liamsburgBridgebusplaza)andManhattan.

- ParticipantsalsosuggestedotherpotentialcorridorstobetterservesoutheastBrooklyn,

includingFlatbushAvenue,identifiedasthemostcongestedtransitcorridorinBrooklyn,andRemsenAvenue,identifiedasaroutetobetterserveCanarsie.

•RedHook- FouroutoffiveparticipanttablesattheDowntownBrooklynworkshopidentifiedRedHookasanun-derservedareathatisdifficulttogettowithoutacar;theareawasalsofrequentlyraisedattheFlatbushworkshop.

- ThemostcommonsuggestionwasforaBRTroutebetweenRedHookandDowntownBrooklyn.Par-ticipantsalsosuggestedroutesfromRedHooktoLongIslandCity,Greenpoint,andtheWilliamsburgEastRiverwaterfront.

- RedHookwasalsofrequentlyaddedasanexten-siontoothercorridors,includingtheBushwicktoDowntownBrooklynCorridorandtheWilliamsburgEastRiverWaterfrontCorridor.

•SouthernBrooklynEast-WestCorridor- AttheFlatbushworkshop,participantsrankedthiscorridorasoneofthetwomostimportantneeds.

- Participantsstatedthattripsalongthiscorridorwerelongandslowandthatmanypartsofthecorri-dorwereunderservedbytransit.SomeparticipantsnotedthatatripacrosssouthernBrooklyncantakeupto2hours.

- SomeparticipantssuggestedextensionstotheGatewayMallandsouthtoBrightonBeach.

•WilliamsburgEastRiverWaterfrontCorridor/ bushwick to downtown brooklyn

- Thesetwocorridorswerefrequentlycombined,andbothreceivedsignificantinterestattheDowntownBrooklynworkshop.

- ParticipantsfeltthattheWilliamsburgEastRiverwaterfrontwasisolatedfromtransitandthatbothareaswereunderservedandgrowing.

14


B44 SBS

4

6

5

3

7

1/2

Underserved Area

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route



Underserved Area

Service Need

Extension

8

9

10

1 & 2. Utica Avenue/ Southeast Brooklyn Corridor3. Southern Brooklyn East-West Corridor4. Central Brooklyn East-West Corridor5. Bushwick to Downtown Brooklyn Corridor6. Williamsburg East River Waterfront 7. Gowanus Expressway – express bus corridor8. Flatbush Avenue Corridor9. Red Hook Corridor10. Queens Connections

10

brooklyn service needs

15


ManhattanoVeRall TRends • Manhattanparticipantsvoicedoverwhelmingsupport

forbettereast-westcrosstownservice,especiallyacrossCentralPark.All10tablesidentifiedexistingcrosstownbusroutesaspossibilitiesforBRT,particu-larly125thStreet,86thStreet,59thStreetand23rdStreet.

PRIoRITY CoRRIdoRs•UpperWestSide/UpperEastSideCrosstown Corridor

- Participantsrankedthiscorridorasthehighestpriority.

- 86thStreetreceivedthegreatestattention;participantsstatedthattheM86isveryslowandover-crowded.

- 96thStreet,72ndStreet,and66thStreetwerealsomentioned.

•MidtownCrosstownCorridor- Participantsrankedthiscorridorasahighpriority.- ParticipantsalsoexpressedaneedforL-shapedroutesthatwouldconnecttheUpperWestSidetotheeastsideofMidtownandtheUpperEastSidetothewestsideofMidtown.

•125thStreetCrosstownCorridor-Participantsrankedthiscorridorasahighpriority.

•WestSideCorridor- Participantsidentifiedthefarwestsideasahighgrowthareathatlackseasyaccesstothesubwaysystem.

- SomeparticipantssuggestedextendingservicenorthtoWashingtonHeightswithapotential

connectiontotheexistingBx12SBS.

16


5

Bx12 SBS

6

1

2

3

M15 SBS

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route



Service Need

M34 SBS

4

"L" Shaped Routes

1. 125th Street Corridor2. Upper West Side-Upper East Side Corridor3. 14th Street Corridor4. West Side Corridor5. 57th Street Corridor 6. 23rd Street Corridor

Manhattan service needs

17


QueensoVeRall feedbaCk• ParticipantsatbothQueensworkshopsidentifieda

needforeast-westserviceacrossnorthernQueens;someidentifiedcorridorsextendingallthewayfromManhattantotheNassauCountyborder.

• Queensparticipantsalsoexpressedadesireforbetterconnectionstotheairports,particularlyLaGuardia.TheLaGuardiaAirport/EastElmhurstCorridorwasfrequentlyextendedbotheast-westandnorth-south.

• AnumberofQueensparticipantsexpressedaneedforbetterconnectionstoDowntownBrooklynviaanumberofroutes.

• AnumberofQueensparticipantsnotedthatconges-tioninDowntownJamaicaandDowntownFlushingslowsdownbusservice.

PRIoRITY CoRRIdoRs•NorthernQueens-LIC-ManhattanCorridor:

- ThisreporthascombinedtheDOT/NYCTQueens-Manhattancorridorwiththeparticipant-identifiednorthernQueenseast-westcorridor.

- AlmostalltablesattheJacksonHeightsworkshopsuggestedextendingtheQueens-ManhattancorridoreastviaNorthernBoulevardtoconnectwithDown-townFlushing.

- Someparticipantssuggestedfurtherextensions,includingeasttoNassauCountyandsouthtoJamaicaalongtheproposedJamaicatoFlushingCorridor.

- Participantssawthiscorridorasfillinganeedforimprovedintra-Queenstransitandasrelievingcongestiononthe7trainandtheLongIslandExpressway.

•LaGuardiaAirport/EastElmhurstCorridor:- Thiscorridorwasahighpriorityatalmostall tablesattheJacksonHeightsworkshopandwasfrequentlydiscussedattheJamaicaworkshop.

- Participantsstatedthatthecorridorwouldpro- videimprovedairportaccessforQueensresidents.

- Someparticipantssuggestedextendingthecor- ridornorth-southalongWoodhavenBoulevard toJamaica,whileotherssuggestedextendingthecorridoreast-westtoLongIslandCityand

theBronx.

•JamaicaAvenue/HillsideAvenueCorridor: - ThisCorridorreceivedthehighestrankingattheJamaicaworkshop,andalsorankedhighattheJacksonHeightsworkshop.

- Jamaicawasseenbyparticipantsasakeytrans-ferpoint,whichprovidedaccesstootherpartsofQueens,aswellasBrooklynandManhattan.

- SomeparticipantsbelievedthatthiscorridoralreadyhadadequateserviceandthataddingmorebuseswouldcreateadditionalcongestioninDowntownJamaica.

18


2 4

5

6

7

8

9

3

JamaicaStudy

Underserved Area

Service Need



Extension

Study Area

1. LaGuardia/East Elmhurst Corridor2. Middle Village Corridor 3. Utopia/Fresh Meadows Corridor4. Hillside Avenue/Jamaica Avenue Corridor5. Southeast Queens Corridor6. Flushing to Jamaica Corridor7. Queens-Manhattan Connections8. Long Island Expressway – express bus corridor 9. Long Island City East River Waterfront Corridor 10. Northern Boulevard Extensions11. Woodhaven Boulevard Extension

10 10

11

Queens service needs

19


staten Island oVeRall TRends • ManyparticipantsstatedthatStatenIslandersrelyon

theircarsforlocaltravel;somequestionedtheutilityofBRTonStatenIslandandsuggestedothertrafficimprovements,suchastheturninglane/trafficsignalchangesonHylanBoulevard,wouldhavegreaterbenefitsforresidents.

• Ratherthanfocusonlocaltrips,participantsempha-sizedtheneedforbetterinter-boroughtransitconnec-tions.ManyparticipantssawBRTashavinggreaterpotentialforcommuters,ratherthananoptionforlocalerrandsandintra-islandtravel.

• SuggestionsweremadeatthreetablesforatransithubatGrasmerewithconnectionstotheNorthShorecorridorandtheStatenIslandRailroad.

PRIoRITY CoRRIdoRs•HylanBoulevard

- Thiscorridorreceivedattentionatalltables,butsomeparticipantsfeltthataBRTroutewasunnec-essarybecauseofrecentimprovementstotrafficsignaltiming.

- ParticipantssuggestedextensionstoBayonneandtoRichmondAvenue.

•NorthShoreCorridor- Anumberofparticipantswereinterestedinstimulat-ingeconomicdevelopmentinthisareawitha BRTroute.ParticipantsidentifiedRichmondTerraceandSnugHarborasgrowthareasfordevelopmentandtourism.

- Participantssuggestedextensionssouthtothe TeleportorFreshKills,aswellasconnectionstoNJTransit’sHudsonBergenLightRail(HBLR)inBayonne.

•BayonneConnection- ParticipantssuggestedbetterconnectionstoBayonneandtoHBLRatallfivetables.

20


S79SBS

1

2

3

Underserved Area

Service Need



Extension

Phase I BRT Route

1. North Shore Corridor2. West Shore Corridor3. Staten Island Expressway – express bus corridor4. Bayonne Extensions

4

4

staten Island service needs

21


feature feedback Comments

Frequentservice Overwhelminglysupported Participantsexpressedadesireforbusservicethatoperatedona5-10minutefrequency.

Subway-stylestationspacing Generallysupported Manyparticipantsfeltthisfeaturewouldspeedupservice,butsupporthingedonpreservationoflocalservice,particularlyforelderlyanddisabledriders.

TransitSignalPriority Generallysupported Someparticipantsexpressedconcernsoverpedestriananddriversafety.Othersstatedthatthisfeaturewouldreducebusdelays.

Off-boardfarepayment Generallysupported Manyparticipantsfeltthisfeaturewouldspeeduptheboardingprocess.Someparticipantsexpressedconcernsoverfareevasion,safety,andmachinereliability.

Buslanesandbusways Generallysupported Someparticipantsstatedthatthisfeaturewouldspeedbusesthroughtraffic.Otherparticipantsexpressedconcernsovertraffic,parking,safety,andeffectiveness.

sPeed and RelIabIlITY feaTUResAll speed and reliability features—frequent service, sub-way-stylestationspacing, transitsignalpriority,off-boardfarepayment,andbuslanesandbusways—receivedmostlypositive feedback. The most common positive commentsraisedacrossalltheworkshopsincluded:

• FrequentService:participantsconsistentlyidentifiedthisastheirmostpopularfeature.Participantsexpressedadesireforbusesthatarrivedevery5to10minutes.

• Off-BoardFarePayment:participantsstatedthatall-doorboardingwouldspeeduptheboarding

processandreducelines.Also,busdriverswouldnothavetocollectfares,whichwouldincreasetheirsafety.Themostcommonconcernsraisedacrossalltheworkshopsincluded:concernsaboutthepotentialforfareevasionandaboutpotentialproblemscausedbybrokenmachinesandconfusedcustomers.

• BusLanesandBusways:participantsfellintotwogeneralgroups:(1)thosewhowereprimarilycon-cernedthatthebuslaneoptionswouldnotbeeffec-tiveduetoenforcementproblems,and(2)thosewhowereprimarilyconcernedoverthetraffic,parking,andsafetyimpactsofallthreetreatments.

Participant feedback on bRT featuresTheBRTfeaturesgameboardexercise,describedinsectionI,wasdesignedtoeducateparticipantsaboutthefeaturesthatmakeupBRTandtosolicitparticipantfeedbackonthosefeatures.Participantfeedbackwascapturedinthreeways:questionnaireresponses,stickervotesonthegameboards,andcommentsrecordedbythenote-takers.

22


CoMfoRT and ConVenIenCe feaTURes TheBRTfeaturesgameboardexercise,describedinsectionI,wasdesignedtoeducateparticipantsaboutthefeaturesthatmakeupBRTandtosolicitparticipantfeedbackonthosefeatures.Participantfeedbackwascapturedinthreeways:questionnaireresponses,stickervotesonthegameboards,andcommentsrecordedbythenote-takers.

feature feedback Comments

Realtimebusarrivalinformation Mostpopular Thiswasoverwhelminglythemostpopularfeatureamongparticipants.

BRTvehicles Secondmostpopular Participantsexpressedsupportforlow-floorvehiclesandnear-levelboarding.

Enhancedstations Generallynotimportant Mostparticipantsindicatedthiswaslessimportantandthatfundsshouldbetargetedelsewhere.

• Real-timebusarrival informationwasbyfarthemostpopularfeatureamongallworkshopparticipants.Par-ticipantsfeltthisfeaturewouldhelpbusriderstobetterplantheirtrip.Itwouldalsogiveriderstheflexibilitytochooseadifferentmode,suchasthesubwayorwalk-ing,ifthenextbuswasseveralminutesaway.

• BRTvehicleswerealsopopular,andanumberofpar-ticipants stated that low-floor buses and near-levelboardingwouldbothspeedbusesandaidtheelderlyanddisabledriders.

• Enhanced stations were a distant third; many par-ticipants felt that fundsavailable for improvingbusservicewould be better spent on other features ormoreservice.

Participant feedback on bus lane and busway designsThe bus lanes and busways exercise, described in section I, was designed to educate participants about differentBRTrunningwaysdesignoptionsandtosolicitparticipantfeedbackonthoseoptions.Participantswerepresentedwiththreeoptions:

(1)asamplecurbsidelanedesign;(2) asampleoffsetbuslanedesign,and (3) asamplebusway.Participantfeedbackwascapturedinthreeways:questionnaireresponses,stickervotesonthephoto-basedrenderingsofthethreebuslaneandbuswayoptions,andcommentsrecordedbythenote-takers.

23


oVeRall CoMMenTs• Participantsvoicedsupportfortheimplementationof

buslanesandbuswayswhenbroadlydefined.Manyparticipantsstatedthatbuslanesandbuswayswouldspeedupbusservicebyhelpingbusestoavoidtraf-fic.Whenitcametospecifictreatments,however,anumberofparticipantsraisedconcerns.

• Notreatmentwastheclearfavoriteamongpartici-pants,althoughcurbsidelanesweremostoftentheleastpopulartreatment.ParticipantsattheManhattanworkshopweremorelikelythanparticipantsattheotherworkshopstosupportbusways.

• Participantsraisedanumberofconcernsregardingallthreeconfigurations,includingimpactsontrafficandparkingavailability,effectivenessofbuslaneswithoutconsistentenforcement,andpedestriananddriversafety.

• Giventhecomplexityofthedesignsandtheshorttimeperiodavailableforthisexercise,somepartici-pantshaddifficultygraspinghoweachofthetreat-mentswouldwork.SomeofthedesignswereseenasunfamiliarandpotentiallyconfusingintheNewYorkenvironment.

Row approach feedback Comments

CurbsideLane Roughlyequalnumberofposi-tiveandnegativeresponses

• Familiartomostpeople• Concernsoverimpactsontrucksanddeliveries• Concernsoverlossofparkingspacesandimpactsonretailers• Concernsthatvehicleswouldblockthelaneandthat

thedesignisdifficulttoenforce• Rightturnconflicts

Off-SetLane Positiveonbalance,butwithasignificantnumberofnegativeresponses

• Retainsparkingspacesanddeliveryaccessfortrucks• Reducesroadcapacity• Difficulttoenforce• Parallelparkingconflicts• Pedestriansafetyconcerns• Rightturnconflicts

Busway Positiveonbalance,butwithasignificantnumberofnegativere-sponses;Manhattanparticipantsweremorelikelytofavor

• Easiertoenforce• Willmovebusesthefastest• Parkinganddeliveryimpacts• Pedestriansafety• Unsafe/confusing• Dislikeofone-wayconversionoption

24


answer Responses Percentage

SupportBRTexpansion 185 74%

DonotsupportBRTexpansion 5 2%

SupportBRTexpansionwithConcerns 59 24%

overall Reaction to bRT and the workshopssUPPoRT foR bRTAttheendoftheworkshop,participantswereaskedinthequestionnairewhetherornottheywouldsupportadditionalBRTroutesacrossNewYorkCity.ParticipantsexpressedoverwhelmingsupportforexpandingBRT.

feedbaCk on The woRkshoPsResponsetotheworkshopfromparticipantswasverypos-itive,withmany indicating“nothing”under the“whatdidyounotlike?”question.Participantslikedthevisualmateri-als,theinteractivenatureoftheworkshops,

andtheopportunitytohavetheirvoicesheard.Afewpar-ticipants expressed concern that there was insufficienttime allotted to cover a complex subject and that someparticipantstendedtomonopolizethediscussion.

25


26

INTRoDUcTIoN To BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II

III. ResUlT of The onlIne bRT sURVeY

backgroundFrom June to July 2009, theNewYorkCity Departmentof Transportation (DOT) and MTA New York City Transit(NYCT)conductedanonlinesurvey for theBRTPhase IIproject.Thesurvey, implementedusingSurveyMonkey,acommercialprovider,wasaself-selectedsampleandsimi-larinstructureandcontenttothecity-wideBRTPhaseIIworkshops(conductedinMayandJuneof2009).AlinktothesurveywasprovidedonNYCDOT’swebsite.AsofJuly15,2009,652usershadcompleted thesurvey.Thesur-veybeganwithquestionsonboroughofresidence,mostfrequentlyusedmodeoftransportation,andweeklynum-berofbusrides.BRTspecificquestionswereaskedaboutcomfort,speed,andreliabilityfeatures,preferredbuslane

configurations,andtherankingsofpotentialBRTcorridorsineachborough.Opportunity foropen-endedcommentswasprovidedperiodicallythroughoutthesurvey.

ResPondenT ChaRaCTeRIsTICs While the questions about borough and neighborhoodwereoptional, about95%of respondentsnamedoneofthefiveboroughsastheirplaceofresidence.Inaddition,89%ofrespondentsvoluntarilyprovidedtheirzipcode,al-lowingresponseratestobepartiallytrackedbygeographicarea.(seemapatleft)

The survey asked respondents which mode they usedmostfrequentlyfortravelwithintheirboroughofresidence.Incontrasttotheworkshops,themostcommonresponsewasthesubway.Amongsurveyrespondents,Bronxresi-dentsweremostlikelytogetaroundbylocalbus,Brooklynresidentsbybicycle,Manhattanresidentsbysubway,andQueensandStatenIslandresidentsbycar.Giventheavail-abledataonmodeshareinNewYorkCity,itislikelythatbusridersandcyclistswereover-representedintheBRTSurvey,whiledriverswereunder-represented.

SurveyRespondentsbyzipcode.

INTRoDUcTIoN To BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II cHAPTER 3 | oNLINE BRT SURvEy fINDINgS

27

INTRoDUcTIoN To BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II cHAPTER 3 | oNLINE BRT SURvEy fINDINgScHAPTER 3 | oNLINE BRT SURvEy fINDINgS

Primary Mode for Intra-boro Trips

Intra-boro transportation bicycle Car express bus local bus subway walking other

Bronx 7% 13% 13% 32% 23% 13% 0%

Brooklyn 29% 7% 2% 15% 27% 20% 0%

Manhattan 13% 0% 1% 18% 55% 13% 1%

Queens 10% 24% 5% 23% 22% 16% 0%

StatenIsland 0% 56% 6% 31% 0% 6% 0%

Overall 17% 9% 3% 18% 37% 16% 1%

survey Response Rates by borough

boroughs % of survey Respondants

Bronx 5%

Brooklyn 32%

Manhattan 40%

Queens 16%

StatenIs. 2%

Total 95%

28


bus Usage Trips by borough

borough <1 day per week 1-3 days per week 4-7 days per week

Bronx 32% 16% 52%

Brooklyn 57% 29% 15%

Manhattan 38% 35% 27%

Queens 44% 21% 35%

StatenIs. 25% 19% 56%

Total 44% 30% 26%

bUs Usage Respondentswerethenaskedhowfrequentlytheyridethebus.Overallbusridershiptrendsbyboroughtendedtore-flectthemodalsplitsinthepriorquestion.BronxandStatenIslandrespondentsrodethebusthemostfrequently,withoverhalfofrespondentsfromtheseboroughsridingfourtosevendaysperweek.Allotherboroughswereweightedtowardsthelowendoftherange,with57%ofBrooklynrespondentsridingthebuslessthanonceperweek.

29


bRT features

borough speed & reliability feature: Most Popular

Convenience feature: Preferred option

bus lane configuration: Most Popular

Bronx TSP Realtimebusarrivalinformation Off-setbuslane

Brooklyn Frequentservice Realtimebusarrivalinformation Busway

Manhattan Frequentservice Realtimebusarrivalinformation Off-setbuslane

Queens Frequentservice/busways Realtimebusarrivalinformation Off-setbuslane

StatenIsland Frequentservice Realtimebusarrivalinformation Off-setbuslane/Busway(Tie)

Overall Frequentservice Realtimebusarrivalinformation Off-setbuslane

bRT features

TheBRTfeaturessectionaskedrespondentsquestionsaboutthreecategoriesofBRTfeatures:speedandreliability,com-fortandconvenience,andbuslaneconfiguration.Methodologiesvariedslightlyforeachsection,withrespondentsaskedtochoose“like,”“dislike,”or“notimportant”forthespeedandreliabilityfeatures,tochoosetheir“mostimportant”comfortandconveniencefeature,andtorespondwitheither“like”or“dislike”andopenendedcommentstoeachofthreepossiblebuslaneconfigurations.

30


sPeed and RelabIlITYInthe“SpeedandReliability”section,“frequentservice”had themost positive responses (95%approval),while“subway-like spacing” had themost negative response(14%ofrespondentsdisapproved).

CoMfoRT and ConVenIenCe Inthe“ComfortandConvenience”section,respondentsoverwhelmingly preferred real-time bus information(59%), to BRT vehicles (27%) and enhanced stations(14%).Thisorderofpreferencewasmaintainedthrough-outallboroughs.

bUs lanes and bUswaY Curbsidebuslanesreceivedpositivemarksfortheirap-parenteaseof implementationandpedestriansafety (inthatpassengersdon’thavetocrossthestreet toboardthebus).Theoverwhelmingmajorityofcomments,how-ever,expressedconcernsthata lackofproperenforce-ment or physical separation of the laneswould lead tofrequent violations bymoving and idling vehicles. As aresult,many respondents were skeptical that the laneswoulddemonstratesignificantgainsinspeedorservice.Many comments also demonstrated concern over thecompetition between cyclists and buses for space un-der this configuration.Others expressed concerns overthe lackofadequatespace forparkingordeliveries,orcited safety concernsovermoving vehicles adjacent tocrowded pedestrian areas. The curbside configurationreceivedthemoststronglynegativeresponse,with40%ofrespondentsrespondingagainstit.Amongpedestriansandcyclists, thenumberof negative responses rose toabove50%.

Theoffsetbuslanefaredbetterthanthecurbsidearrange-ment,withmanypositivecommentspraisingthemainte-nance of curbside parking/delivery area.Many also feltthatthisarrangementwouldbesaferforpedestriansthancurbside lanes. Respondents were again skeptical thatthe lanewould remainclearofdoubleparkedcars anddeliveryvehicleswithoutadequateenforcement,andthatcarsgetting intoandoutof theadjacent spaceswouldblock the lane or risk being “clipped” by an oncomingbus.Again,duetothehighproportionofcycliststakingthesurvey,concernsforencroachmentonbikelanesandgeneralcyclingsafetywerevoiced.

The busway option received themost strongly positivecomments.Manycommentsreferredtothisas“thebestoption,” evoking comparisons to systems in Curitiba,Melbourne,Boston,andBerlin.Cyclingsafetycomplaintsdropped off, although there were several complaintsabout the absence of a bike lane in the photo simula-tion. Comments about parking or delivery enforcementalsodroppeddramatically.Thenegativecommentsweredominated by dislike for having to cross the street tocatch the bus, and the safety concerns when jaywalk-ingorrunningtocatchthebus.SomerespondentsalsoexpressedskepticismattheabilityforthisconfigurationtobewidelyimplementedinNewYork,especiallyinMan-hattanandStatenIsland.

31


The bronx

The bronx Transit service needs

bronx Ranking by allRespondents

Ranking byborough Residents

A.WebsterAve./ThirdAve.Corridor:underservedarea 1 1

B.SoundviewCorridor:underservedarea 2 2

C.BrucknerExpresswayCorridor:highvolumeexpressbuscorridor 4 4

D.MajorDeeganExpresswayCorridor:highvolumeexpressbuscorridor 3 3

In the Bronx, the Webster Avenue/Third Avenue Corridor received the highest score, followed by the SoundviewCorridor.TheGrandConcoursecameupfrequentlyasanalternativecorridorinthecomments.Severalrespondentsalsounderscoredtheneedforgreaterinter-boroughconnectivity.

service needsIn evaluating the service needs corridor section, choic-es ranked first by respondentswere given three points,choices ranked second were awarded two points, andchoicesrankedthirdwereawardedonepoint.Resultsbyborough are presented in the following pages. In some

cases, relative rankings of corridors changed amongthose respondents residing in a given borough versuscitywide response rates. In these cases, deviations arenoted. Respondents were also given space to providecommentsorproposeadditionalcorridorsnotconsideredinthesurvey.

32


Bx12 SBS

B

A

CD

Underserved Area

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route

bronx service needs

33


brooklyn

brooklyn Transit service needs

brooklyn Ranking by allRespondents


A.UticaAvenueCorridor/EasternBrooklynNorth-SouthCorridor:underservedarea

1 1

B.SouthernBrooklynEast-WestCorridor:difficulttrip 5 5

C.CentralBrooklynEast-WestCorridor:difficulttrip 2 2

D.BushwicktoDowntownBrooklynCorridor:difficulttrip 4 4

E.WilliamsburgEastRiverWaterfrontCorridor:growtharea 6 6

F.GowanusExpresswayCorridor:highvolumeexpressbuscorridor 2 3

In Brooklyn, the Utica Avenue Corridor/Eastern Brooklyn North-South Corridor ranked the highest, with theCentral Brooklyn East-West Corridor and the Gowanus Expressway Corridor tied for second. Among Brook-lyn residents, theCentral Brooklyn East-West Corridorwas preferred to theGowanus ExpresswayCorridor. Com-ments emphasized the need for inter-borough connections. Alternative routes and neighborhoods that fre-quentlyappeared included:FlatbushAvenue,service toRedHook,andconnectingWilliamsburg tootherBrooklynneighborhoods.Specifically,therewereanumberofcommentsthatfocusedeitheronconnectingWilliamsburgtoParkSlope,orstatedthatthewaterfrontcorridorwouldbemoreusefulif itconnectedtoeitherLongIslandCityorotherpartsofBrooklyn.

34


B44 SBS

C

E

D

B

F

Underserved Area

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route

A

brooklyn service needs

35


Manhattan

Manhattan Transit service needs

Manhattan Ranking by allRespondents


A.125thStreetCrosstownCorridor:difficulttrip 3 3

B.UpperWestSide/UpperEastSideCrosstownCorridor:difficulttrip 2 1

C.14thStreetCrosstownCorridor:difficulttrip 1 2

D.WestSideCorridor:subwaycrowding 4 4

In Manhattan, the 14th Street Crosstown Corridor was ranked the highest among all respondents, followed by theUpper West Side/Upper East Side Crosstown corridor. Manhattan residents, however, preferred the Upper WestSide/Upper East Side route to the 14th Street route. Many comments focused on developing a Midtown cross-town route, such as 57th, 42nd, or 34th Street. An additional group focused on other crosstown corridors—frequently23rdStreetorHoustonStreet.Alargeportionofthecommentssuggestedcorridorsalreadyunderconsiderationordevelopment forBRTPhase I, suchas theFirstAvenue/SecondAvenuecorridor, theFifth/MadisonCorridor,andthe34thStreetTransitway.Therewasanadditionaltrendtowardsrequestingvarious“diagonal”routesthroughoutManhattanaswell,suchasLowerEastSidetotheWestVillage,theUpperEastSidetotheWestVillage,andWashingtonHeightsorInwoodtotheUpperEastSide.Alargenumberofrespondentsagainstatedadesiretoseemoreinter-boroughBRTroutes.

36


Bx12 SBS

A

B

C

4

M34 SBS

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route

M15 SBS

D

Manhattan service needs

37


Queens

Queens Transit service needs

Queens Ranking by allRespondents


A.LaGuardiaAirport/EastElmhurstCorridor:underservedarea 1 3

B.MiddleVillageCorridor:underservedarea 8 5

C.UtopiaParkway/FreshMeadowsCorridor:underservedarea 6 7

D.JamaicaAvenues/HillsideAvenueCorridor:underservedarea 5 8

E.SoutheastQueensCorridor:underservedarea 6 6

F.JamaicatoFlushingCorridor:difficulttrip 3 4

G.Queens-ManhattanConnectionsCorridor:subwaycrowding 4 1

H.LongIslandExpresswayCorridor:highvolumeexpressbuscorridor

2 1

I.LongIslandCityEastRiverWaterfrontCorridor:growtharea 9 9

Overall responses for theQueenscorridors rankedtheLaGuardiaAirport/EastElmhurstCorridorfirst, followedbytheLong Island Expressway corridor. Among residents, however, theQueens-ManhattanConnectionsCorridorwas tiedforfirstwith theLong IslandExpresswayCorridor, followedby theLaGuardiacorridor.Comments largely focusedonconnectionstoLaGuardiaandJFKairports,connectionstoManhattanandotherboroughs,andBRTonQueensBoule-vardandNorthernBoulevard.

38


B D

E

F

G

H

I

C

Underserved Area

Service Need

Study Area

JamaicaStudy

A

Queens service needs

39


staten Island

staten Island Transit service needs

staten Island Ranking by allRespondents


A.NorthShoreCorridor:growtharea 2 2

B.WestShoreCorridor:growtharea 3 3

C.TheStatenIslandExpresswayCorridor:highvolumeexpressbuscorridor

1 1

InStatenIsland,theStatenIslandExpresswayCorridorrankedfirst, followedbytheNorthShoreCorridor.Commentsfor Staten Island were limited to a few areas: connections to New Jersey and Brooklyn, and the use of VictoryBoulevardasapotentialBRTcorridor.

40


S79SBS

A

B

C

Underserved Area

Service Need

Phase I BRT Route

staten Island service needs

41


overall support Overall,supportforexpandingBRTinnewYorkCitywasstrong: 97% of respondents expressed some level ofsupport for additionalBRT routes. 74%of respondentssupported additional BRT routes without qualification,while 23% of respondents supportedmore BRT routesbut had some concerns. Of the respondents that sup-portedBRTwithreservations,therewereseveralpatternsthatemerged.Thelargestconcerndealtwithasegmentof thesurveyedpopulationthatstrongly felt thatBRT isinferiortolightrailandthatinvestmentshouldberead-justedaccordingly.OtherssupportBRT,butonly ifbus-waysor“strongBRT” is implementedratherthan“BRT-lite.”OthersdoubtedthatthesystemwouldbeeffectivewithoutsteppingupNYPDenforcementofbuslaneviola-tors.Manyexpressedconcernforothermodes,eitherforparkingandtrafficissues,orforbicyclelanesandpedes-triansafety.AsmallergroupofrespondentsworriedthatBRTwouldcomeattheexpenseoflocalservice.

additional CommentsAdditional comments largely echoed the concernsvoiced earlier in the survey, including a preference forlight rail or subway expansion, a concern for bicyclesafetyandinfrastructure,andadesiretosee“trueBRT”rather than small changes branded as BRT. The larg-est single group of commentators—about one third ofall comments made—expressed their support for BRTexpansion.Asmallsubsetof theseexpressedthebeliefthatevensomeofthe improvements intheoverallBRT/SBS package would make a major difference on bustransitinNewYorkCity.


appendix a: list of organizations & elected officials Represented at the workshops

eleCTed offICIals RePResenTed OfficeofStateAssemblymanJonathanBingOfficeofStateAssemblymanMatthewTitoneOfficeofStateAssemblymanMicahKellnerOfficeofStateAssemblymanMichaelBenedettoOfficeofStateAssemblymanSheldonSilverOfficeofStateAssemblywomanHelenWeinsteinOfficeofStateAssemblywomanJaneleHyer-SpencerOfficeofCongressmanMichaelMcMahonOfficeofCityCouncilmemberDanielGarodnickOfficeofCityCouncilmanJamesOddoOfficeofCityCouncilmanKennethMitchellOfficeofCityCouncilmemberElizabethCrowleyOfficeofCityCouncilmemberJamesVaccaOfficeofManhattanBoroughPresidentScottStringerOfficeofStateSenatorDianeSavinoOfficeofStateSenatorHiramMonserrateOfficeofStateSenatorJeffKleinOfficeofStateSenatorJoséSerranoOfficeofStateSenatorShirleyHuntleyOfficeofStateSenatorJohnSampsonOfficeofStateSenatorLizKruegerOfficeoftheBronxBoroughPresidentRubenDiazJr.OfficeoftheQueensBoroughPresidentHelenC.MarshallOfficeoftheStatenIslandBoroughPresidentJamesP.Molinaro

CoMMUnITY boaRds RePResenTed BronxCommunityBoard1BronxCommunityBoard7BrooklynCommunityBoard17ManhattanCommunityBoard4ManhattanCommunityBoard6ManhattanCommunityBoard8QueensCommunityBoard3QueensCommunityBoard5QueensCommunityBoard8QueensCommunityBoard12QueensCommunityBoard13StatenIslandCommunityBoard3TransportationCommittee

CoMMUnITY, adVoCaCY, and laboR oRganIzaTIons RePResenTed BailOutthePeopleMovementCatholicCharitiesCentroHispanoCuzcaltánCOMMUTECoalitionDC37/Local1359DisabledRidersCoalitionEast79thStreetNeighborhoodAssociationFundforPublicHealthHudsonGuildJacksonHeightsBeautificationGroupKewGardensHillsCivicAssociation

42

INTRoDUcTIoN To BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II APPENDIx A: LIST of oRgANIZATIoNS & ELEcTED offIcIALS REPRESENTED AT THE WoRkSHoPS

43

MetropolitanCouncilofLowVisionIndividualsNewYorkCityTransitRidersCouncilNewYorkPublicInterestResearchGroupNosQuedamosParkSlopeCivicCouncilPermanentCitizensAdvisoryCommitteetotheMTAPrattCenterforCommunityDevelopmentQueensCommunityHouseQueensVillageRepublicanClubStraphangersCampaignSustainableSouthBronxTheInstituteforTransportationandDevelopmentPolicyThePointCDCTransitWorkersUnionTransportationAlternativesTri-StateTransportationCampaignWestHarlemMorningsideHeightsSanitationCoalitionYouthMinistriesforPeace&Justice

bUsIness gRoUPs RePResenTed34thStreetPartnershipDowntownAllianceDowntownBrooklynPartnershipNostrandAvenueMerchantsAssociationSunnysideChamberofCommerce

goVeRnMenT agenCIes RePResenTed NYCDepartmentofCityPlanningTransportationDivisionNYCDepartmentofEducationNewYorkStateDepartmentofTransportationPortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJerseyStatenIslandEconomicDevelopmentCorporation

news oRganIzaTIons In aTTendanCe BrooklynPaperManhattanMediaQueensChronicleTheIndependent

oTheR GreenMapSystemHRAIS364LaGuardiaCommunityCollege

45

INTRoDUcTIoN To BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II APPENDIx B: WoRkSHoP mATERIALS

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: Public Input · 2020-05-15 · BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT...

Documents

Transcript of BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: Public Input · 2020-05-15 · BUS RAPID TRANSIT PHASE II: PUBLIc INPUT...