The Commute: Why We Need A Moratorium On Future SBS Routes – Part 2 Of 5

THE COMMUTE: Last week in Part 1, we discussed unsubstantiated claims and outright lies used to mislead the public that Select Bus Service (SBS) is a greater success than it is, if in fact it is a success at all.

At the February 10th City Council hearing, summarized here, MTA NYCT Chief of Operations Planning Peter Cafiero testified that the largest cost for SBS is the cost for enforcement, but he did not elaborate. He also stated that SBS reduces the amount of fare evasion, but again didn’t provide any details.

Misrepresentation Of Facts And Contradictions

When asked by City Council members how much SBS costs, Department of Transportation (DOT) Commissioner and MTA Board Member Polly Trottenberg first stated: “between $17 and 18 million.” Later, when asked again, she stated: “an average of $10 million,” neglecting to mention that this figure does not include the cost of new buses. About two-dozen buses were purchased specifically for the B44 SBS at about $750,000 each. That adds another $18 million. Then there are the ongoing costs to maintain the fare equipment after the manufacturer’s three-year warranty expires, and to repaint bus lanes, which can wear out in less than a year. But as Cafiero stated, the largest cost is for enforcement, which is also ongoing. Enforcement brings in revenue, but does it pay for the costs of enforcement and fare evasion? More data the MTA does not divulge. We are just supposed to accept on faith that “BRT [Ed. – the Bus Rapid Transit Company] offers tremendous features at an affordable price.”

Would that statement also be true if the cost of BRT is not $10 million, as Trottenberg stated, but $200 million? The DOT says it would. That is the estimated cost for instituting true BRT on Woodhaven Boulevard. On November 5, 2014, Trottenberg testified before the City Council that $200 million was a lowball estimate and the actual cost could run much higher. So even at $300 million, the MTA believes it is a wise investment.

So why, when Council Member Debi Rose asked why BRT was removed from the MTA’s Capital Budget for Staten Island’s North Shore, Cafiero stated that it would cost $300 million, and since there is a $30 billion hole in the Capital Budget, spending $300 million is just out of the question. Why is possibly spending $300 million on Woodhaven Boulevard a wise choice, but spending it in Staten Island is out of the question?

Contradictions are typical of the MTA and DOT, as is telling you only part of the story — the part they want you to hear. At the SBS workshops held prior to SBS implementation, only the favorable features of SBS were discussed. All the negative criticism was ignored. For example, when presenting the proposal for the B44 SBS, not once did the DOT or MTA verbally mention that lanes for general traffic would be removed. It was up to the individual to inspect the diagrams to figure out that the bus lane was previously a traffic or parking lane. The diagrams only represented sample blocks, so the complete picture was never seen prior to implementation. Buses stopping at all stops south of Avenue U were also cut by 75 percent. By only presenting positive aspects, the public and elected officials were fooled.

One Group That Could Not Be Fooled

Anyone who is familiar with Main Street in Flushing knows that traffic in the area is a nightmare. That is because 23 bus routes pass through or terminate in that area, which accounts for 26,000 daily passenger transfers, according to the MTA. The solution to reducing traffic congestion is obvious: Build an off-street bus terminal. A lawyer with the Amalgamated Transit Union suggested it at the February 10, 2015 hearing. I have been advocating this for years.

So what is DOT’s solution to reducing traffic congestion on Main Street? Take away a lane of traffic and install an exclusive bus lane for an SBS route. Where is DOT’s proof that removing a traffic lane will improve traffic flow? When their plan was presented to residents on January 22, 2015, the residents went livid because they saw the lunacy in DOT’s madness. They were so vocal, that Trottenberg now has serious reservations about exclusive bus lanes in Flushing.

This meeting differed from previous SBS meetings because bus riders were poorly represented. The SBS proponents thought it wasn’t fair that bus riders and people from outside the area who would benefit by exclusive bus lanes were not present. If so, why is it fair that automobile drivers were not represented at the Woodhaven Boulevard SBS meetings? They are the ones who would be most inconvenienced when exclusive lanes will be introduced there. Why is having only bus riders present considered adequate community involvement? Why are their voices the only ones that matter?

How Are They Able To Fool So Many?

I have already given you part of the answer. They do it by making unsubstantiated claims and only touting the benefits of SBS. They make unsubstantiated claims such as ‘removing traffic lanes reduces congestion, because drivers will switch to the SBS bus.’ These supposed benefits are not questioned. The negative aspects are left for you to figure out. Most people cannot because so much information is hidden. They tell outright lies and misrepresent facts, which is evident by their many contradictions. People should not accept claims made on face value, but they do.

An initial report is prepared one year after an SBS route is introduced. No follow-up information is provided to the public. Are we supposed to believe that what might have been true in 2009 remains true in 2015? Their survey techniques are also questionable, as I have discussed many times before. We are supposed to believe that a sample of a few hundred M15 riders from 2011 adequately represents the 54,000 daily riders in 2015. By constantly quoting from these initial reports the public is under the false impression that M15 ridership is still on the increase when in fact, it is declining.

We have no way of knowing how many riders are forced into walking longer distances to the M15 SBS because they have to wait 45 minutes for a local, or how many must take the local when they want the SBS because they are running 45 minutes apart in bunches of three or four. The MTA just wants us to believe that if the route wasn’t successful, ridership would not be increasing. So what are we to assume now that we know M15 ridership is now less than it was before SBS was implemented? That the route is now failing? The initial report is still being quoted touting ridership increases.

The DOT stated on February 10 that one size does not fit all, and each SBS route is tailored specifically for the communities it serves. At the same time they expect us to believe that if one route shows promise, that all future routes will fare the same. That logic is inconsistent. If each route is different, the results will also be different, and success in one place does not guarantee success elsewhere, but we are asked to believe that will be the case.

Next week: Separating fact from fiction and the inadequacy of community involvement.

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).

Disclaimer: The above is an opinion column and may not represent the thoughts or position of Sheepshead Bites. Based upon their expertise in their respective fields, our columnists are responsible for fact-checking their own work, and their submissions are edited only for length, grammar and clarity. If you would like to submit an opinion piece or become a regularly featured contributor, please e-mail nberke [at]sheepsheadbites [dot]com.