Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

dkupf

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

471 profile views
  1. I did not go to the one in Riverdale, but I attended the Marble Hill, Williamsbridge, Morrisania, Pelham Bay, and the Co-Op City. Marble Hill and Williamsbridge had about 25 people each. Morrisania, no more than 10. But for Pelham Bay, I stand corrected. There were at least 100 people, maybe more.
  2. View File Service Guidelines As that this document was on the MTA website, it is in the public domain. Submitter dkupf Submitted 11/26/2019 Category Manuals  
  3. This is an open letter I gave to NYCT regarding Limited-Stop Bus Service design. =================================================================== The intent of the Limited-Stop Bus Design Guidelines are to speed service in order to make such services more attractive. However, there must be a balance, as that there must not be a significant negative impact for local riders. For New York City, this balance is when a local bus route has a headway of every six minutes or less. In Los Angeles, however, it is every 7½ minutes or less. Research in each city have confirmed these thresholds. Besides, would you wish to wait, on average, 50% longer for a local bus? I didn’t think so. This is why the B6 and Bx1 do not and will not have Sunday limited-stop service until the relevant thresholds are reached. Wider headways cannot and must not be considered. I hereby propose an amendment to the two-hour span, as that it should apply only to outside of the Weekday Peak. For the weekday peak, limited-stop service should be considered when a local bus route has a headway of every six minutes or less if and only if the service requirement is reduced by at least one bus. Based upon this, the B15, for example, could have limited-stop service for a short ½-hour span during the morning weekday peak from JFK Airport to Bedford-Stuyvesant, if feasible. But for the B36, limited-stop service would not be feasible, because the boarding pattern is too evenly dispersed. This amendment, per MTA Bylaws, would be subject to the relevant internal approvals. Afterward, it must then be approved by the MTA Transit Committee, then ratified by the MTA Board. I have total confidence that such an amendment could be ratified in a timely manner in the near future. ============================================================================================= Please read page 8 of this attachment, then discuss. Thank you. Service Guidelines
  4. Version 1.0.0

    19 downloads

    As that this document was on the MTA website, it is in the public domain.
  5. Here is the longer version of my critique of "Bus Stop Spacing" that was published on October 9, 2019 by The Bronx Daily. ================================================================================================== Bus Stop Spacing is a mindless implementation of standard practices by the MTA and NYCDOT without the consideration of the effects of their actions. There is a big difference between the number of times that a bus stops along a route and the number of bus stops along a route. If a bus route has many bus stops, but only stops at a few of them, the elimination of bus stops has little, if any, effect on bus speed. Hence, there is little benefit to their elimination. Potential passengers, however, must walk further, on average, to reach a bus stop, increasing passenger travel time. This also significantly increases the chance of a missed connection. For infrequent service, a missed connection could also discourage bus usage. Increased walking distance to bus stops negatively impact the elderly and the permanently or temporarily infirmed, e.g., someone using crutches due to an injury. For proof that that there is no correlation between bus stop spacing, bus speed, and service reliability, one can look no further than the city of Philadelphia. The average distance between bus stops within this city is 500 feet. But in the Center City it’s as close as 450 feet. Though bus service reliability is just as bad as in New York City, at approximately 75%, weekday bus speed in Philadelphia is much faster. According to the Philadelphia Bus Network Choices Report, their bus service speed averages less than 12 mph, 50% faster than in New York City! To determine where a bus stop should be located, one of the factors is the topography. Pockets of New York City, especially in the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island, are known to be hilly. This is the reason as to why bus stops for the Bx11 in the neighborhood of Highbridge are well-utilized. Another example, in central Queens, is the Q18. When traveling northbound from its southern terminus, the Q18 has a bus stop on 65 Place at 53 Avenue. The route then travels eastbound on 53 Avenue. The next bus stop is at 68 Street, a distance of 550 feet. After that, it turns north onto 69 Street and stops at 52 Drive; the previous bus stop was 600 feet away. If you look at a bus map, you wouldn’t know that 53 Avenue has a steep rise at the western end. Hence, the bus stop at 68 Street is well-utilized. What about cases where bus stops are spaced very close together but usage for each is very high? Should some of those stops be eliminated, buses would make fewer stops saving only the few seconds each of acceleration and deceleration, but dwell time would significantly increase at the remaining stops. They could become dangerously crowded, possibly resulting in increased fare evasion due to impatient passengers entering the rear door. In-route travel time could be slow for many reasons. These include, but are not limited to, excessive double parking, blocked bus lanes, inadequate service levels causing excessive dwell time, and schedules that do not adequately reflect running times. It would be irresponsible and too simplistic to conclude that a bus route with very slow speeds and close stops should have some of its stops removed to speed service in the absence of analyzing other data. What matters more than the number of bus stops or the distance between them are the volume of those stops, boarding and exiting, and the impacts, positive and negative, of a stops’ removal. Let us consider a bus stop with a combined total volume of 50 passengers boarding and exiting, and the bus route that utilizes the stop operates every five minutes for the four peak hours, every ten minutes for another eight hours, and every 20 minutes for the final four hours. This means that 108 trips (48 + 48 + 12) pass that bus stop at an average of more than two passengers per trip. The result is an average of more than 25 trips, or more than one in four trips, that would stop at this stop. Therefore, a majority of trips would save no time if the stop was eliminated. Also, the time saved by the buses not stopping, i.e., a few seconds each for acceleration and deceleration, would be negligible. And, if there are half-dozen adjacent lightly utilized bus stops, the elimination of some stops could result in a bus stopping at Stop A instead of Stop B, saving no in-route travel time. The only meaningful effect of the elimination of the stop is that 50 passengers daily now have a longer walk to or from a bus stop. The best bus stop candidates to be considered for elimination are moderately-utilized stops that are very close together. The elimination of those bus stops would reduce passenger travel time, because most buses would make fewer stops, and dwell time would not significantly increase at the remaining stops. The only realistic benefit of the elimination of a bus stop would be the increase of the number of available parking spaces, assuming that there is no fire hydrant at the bus stop. Bus stop spacing must always be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in order to increase in-route travel time without significant negative impacts on passenger travel time. Such analyses have to be based on a variety of factors, not exclusively bus stop usage. No formulas. In conclusion, Bus Stop Spacing has demonstrated that the MTA and NYCDOT are only concerned about bus travel time, not passenger travel time. They are pretending that they will make “improvements” and “speed travel”. It is dishonest and wrong. They cannot be trusted.
  6. Mr. Rosen’s analogy of the Coverage-Vs.-Ridership concept is valid. It is also a compromise. But service within the city limits of New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., for example, like Budapest, Singapore, and Vienna, are dense to the point where the concepts’ use is impractical and unnecessary. For smaller USA metropolises, e.g., Cleveland, Columbus, and Miami, service per capita is already very poor, and funding is relatively scarce. The service planners in these cities, therefore, have to explicitly decide the correct service balance.
  7. They claimed, based on a legitimate news report I saw on YouTube, that ridership for some routes were low to the point when it would have been cheaper to send them in taxis. Bus service in that corridor was, rightfully, eliminated.
  8. I attended most of the open houses. No more than 25 people showed up for each of them. Except for the one in Co-Op City; more than 2,000 people attended. Did you attend any of them? What are your ideas for The Bronx? And, I want concrete ones, not negative replies.
  9. I agree. The open-door policy began in the early 1980's due to local community pressure. And when it was implemented, Boston Road ridership skyrocketed at a time when service was being cut to the bone. Nowadays, Westchester does not care about Bronx riders; their service is now being cut. Seems like it has come full circle.
  10. If so, then the only changes to my open letter would be for the Bee-Line 60 & 61 to have a closed-door policy, and the Bx30 to operate between Fordham Plaza and Ropes Avenue.
  11. The intent for the Bx34 extension was to connect Wakefield and Woodlawn with 24-hour local bus service. Implementation of all redesign proposals must be based on community input. Of course, there has to be compromise and negotiation, and no plan will satisfy everyone. The plan that’s finally decided upon mustn’t be dictated by a higher authority. Communities, however, must also be willing to support plans that are for the greater good, and not take a parochial approach. And, communities that are virtually isolated from others must not block attempts to improve access to their communities by wanting to stay isolated and automobile-dependent. If this is what they want, then they should not live in New York City. That being said, the Final Plan fails to resolve the issues for the many transit deserts that exist in The Bronx, e.g., the Throgs Neck Bridge, West 233 Street, and southern Zerega Avenue. The Final Plan also creates new transit deserts, e.g. Mount Sinai. That is why the BxM2 route cannot and must not change.
  12. I apologize for being terse. But Mr. Walker, generally, knows what he is talking about. In fact, I distributed many copies of the open letter to people at the Open Houses. I received nothing but positive feedback. Besides, any route would be better than the Bee-Line 54.
  13. I just submitted the maps from that open letter to the website. I await the approval. But they are here, as an attachment. Re: East Bronx Local Lines to Remain Unchanged in Redesign; No BxM17
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.