dkupf

Service could and should be aligned with demand.   What should not happen is the blind elimination of bus and subway trips without the evidence to support their eliminations.  In MTA jargon, this is called redlining.

On 11/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Your comments are inaccurate, so you can't tell us to not respond "negatively" when you are talking out of your @ss.  For starters, a lot of people attended the work shops.  I went to the one in Riverdale, which had a full house.  The open house in Pelham Bay that I went to was also well attended.  Quite frankly, most of what was covered could've been done online. None of it was so creative or outside of the box.

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.

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

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.

25 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

* No, I didn't attend any of those meetings.....

Therefore, my open letter stands with modifications.😁

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Walker himself isn't the problem... At the same time, consistently mentioning the guy in posts that have nothing to do with him or his work is quite annoying.

Anyway.....

In a grid network, a coverage route is basically a route that doesn't nicely / quote-unquote perfectly fit into that grid.... In a hub & spoke network, a coverage route is basically a route that isn't, well, a part of the hub & spoke network.... To sum it up, outliers.

When you have an ultimate bus network that's comprised of differing network types operating concurrently, it makes it less feasible to discern which route is operating as a coverage route....

To me, when the MTA brings up coverage vs. frequency, that's their way of conveying that they ultimately want to cut costs simplify the individual bus/borough networks....

            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.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

They screwed up the Anchorage redesign IMO. They put out an 80/20 frequency/coverage split that everyone liked and then cut off a whole bunch of areas and went with a 90/10 split.

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.

13 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about quite frankly.

The stops at East 97/99 Sts & 5th/Madison Aves.

18 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The "changes" to your open letter should consist of it being balled up & chucked into the recycle bin.

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.

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.

13 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol....

When you have someone literally suggesting that the MTA discontinue one of its bus routes & have the fiscal savings transferred over to Bee Line for some anticipatory dual benefit, the merit of whatever individual ideas that's being posed, to me, is irrelevant....

With that said, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is yet another exercise at intellectualizing the connecting of dots on a map.

...and the BL-60/61/62 will remain running along Boston rd for the benefit of Westchester county...
Something that's apparently lost on Mr. sackrider there.

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.

13 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You should apologize for being dense.

You come on here & paste this letter under the pretense of wanting a discussion - However, when you're faced with the counterargument (The MTA & Bee-Line being completely separate entities) regarding one facet of what you're suggesting, you resort to:

• dismissing the argument by minimizing it ("we cannot look at routes in isolation; they are connected.")
• setting up a strawman argument ("The Redesign approach works.  Plain and simple.")
  • debunking it (bringing up other cities that benefited from redesigning their bus systems)
• deflecting (by bringing up some Jarrett Walker & introducing some website that has squat to do with anything)

Disagreeing with your specific plan isn't equivalent to disagreeing with the general idea of a network redesign.... The conflation of the two is the disingenuous premise you're running with & it is a fallacious one.

We all can have the belief that the network should be more unified between separate entities & jurisdictions, but simply put, the real world does not operate like that.... It's enough that Bee-Line implemented the Metrocard system onto its buses as a method of payment.... There is nothing saying that Bee Line, on top of that, has to alter its routes to mitigate the MTA's inadequacies - Regardless of however many people you claim to have handed out your letter to & having received nothing but positive feedback due to it.... A group of ignoramus' giving you unwarranted high praises & support, does not trump, or supersede the fact that the MTA & Bee Line are separate entities....

Any route being so-called better than the BL-54 is not the MTA's issue.

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.

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

To hell with whoever the hell that is.... I'm directing my remarks at YOU, Mr. "we cannot look at routes in isolation; they are connected."...

The gall that you, David Kupferberg, suggest that the MTA have Bee-Line 1] discontinue a bus route & 2] extend one of their bus routes - especially when the MTA can't clean up its own god damn mess... Good job making a mockery out of bus riders with this foolish letter you decided to scribe & send off....

Nobody's contesting the general notion of the network needing a redesign.... Stop deflecting.

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.

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

Quote

To hell with whoever the hell that is.... I'm directing my remarks at YOU, Mr. "we cannot look at routes in isolation; they are connected."...

The gall that you, David Kupferberg, suggest that the MTA have Bee-Line 1] discontinue a bus route & 2] extend one of their bus routes - especially when the MTA can't clean up its own god damn mess... Good job making a mockery out of bus riders with this foolish letter you decided to scribe & send off....

If it works in the Toronto area, it could work here.  After all, they have more service per capita than in NYC.  But nothing happens unless we try it.

Mr. Walker's company handled many bus service redesigns, e.g., Miami, Cleveland, San Jose, and Dublin.  For Dublin, the Draft Plan reduced the amount of bus routes from 130 to 100, but the service was simpler and easier to understand.  The Final Plan incorporated public feedback in which additional routes were added and others were changed.

Please read his posts regarding Dublin from 10/22/2019 and 9/23/2018 on https://humantransit.org/

BTW, did you go to the https://humantransit.org/ website?  If not, please do so.

The express bus redesign portion seems to shift routes to where the people live.

But, of course, service via Mt. Sinai Hospital leaves much to be desired.

If I am wrong, please critique.

More than 41 years ago, ten routes were changed in southern Brooklyn.  Beforehand, each route had no better than a 15-minute headway.

The Redesign approach works.  Plain and simple.

3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Yes, of course.

Next time I have an issue with my Chase account, I'll be sure to call Citibank.... You know, since they're both banks & all....

Tell that to Jarrett Walker, not me.

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

Why the f*** are you sending the MTA a letter that suggests altering bus routes that they have zero control over

For all route adjustments, we cannot look at routes in isolation; they are connected.

Here is the open letter that I sent to the MTA.  (I will send the maps separately.)  Let's discuss.

=============================================================================

Dear NYCT Operations Planning:              

                While the Bronx has robust bus service, transit deserts remain, especially the neighborhoods of Baychester, Edenwald, and Unionport.  The Co-Op City Bus Service Study, in my opinion, didn’t go far enough to address neighborhood concerns regarding intraborough travel.

                For the Bronx, the goals should be:

·         Restructure service to make limited-access highways less of a barrier between neighborhoods;

·         Address bus service concerns in certain neighborhoods; and

·         Encourage interborough, intraborough, and cross-county travel.

                I think that I have crafted low-cost alternatives that addresses such concerns.  For the first point:

·         Bx16 – Operate via 233 St instead of Nereid Av (see attached map); and

·         Bx29 – Extend from Co-Op City to Wakefield via the neighborhoods of Baychester and Edenwald.  (See attached map for details.)

For the second point:

·         New Route Bx25 – Operate between Co-Op City and Castle Hill Park via Gun Hill Rd, Eastchester Rd, Waters Pl, Westchester Av, and Zerega Av.  Operate daily 5AM – 1AM, but north of Westchester Sq Weekdays 6AM-midnight, Saturdays 7AM-midnight, Sundays 8AM-11PM.  (See attached maps for details.)

·         Bx31 – Reduce service to compensate for the addition of the “new” Bx25.

And, for the third point:

·         New Route Bx80 SBS – New SBS route between Fordham Plaza and LaGuardia Airport via the current Bx41 SBS routing, then via 3 Av, stopping at E 138 St on 3 Av (northbound) or Alexander Av (southbound), the RFK Bridge, and the current M60 SBS routing;

·         Bx30 – Discontinue, and:

          o   Westchester County Bee-Line 52 – Extend via Conner St and the current Bx30 routing into Co-Op City (add Sunday service) with full boarding and alighting privileges within the New York City limits (see attached map); and

          o   Use the savings to pay Westchester County to add service to their Routes 52 (newly extended into Co-Op City) and 60/61 (via Pelham Pkwy and Boston Rd) within the New York City limits and within the purview of the Bus Service Loading Guidelines;

·         Bx34 – Extend to the Mount Vernon East Metro-North Station (see attached map); and

·         Westchester County Bee-Line 54 – Discontinue.

                For the first point, the revised Bx16 would make the route simpler and easier to understand, whereas the Bx29 extension would be used to fill the void, as well as open up City Island to a significant part of the borough.

                For the second point, the creation of the Bx25 would significantly reduce three-legged trips between Co-Op City and southern Bronx.  Major trip generators on the route include the Bronx State Hospital, Hutchinson Metro Center, a Fed-Ex facility, a NYC Dept. of Sanitation district office, and the MTA Zerega Avenue Maintenance & Training Facility.  For the latter, currently, staff have to either walk almost ½ mile from the nearest bus stop or drive to work.  This seems, in my opinion, hypocritical to MTA’s goals.

                And, for the third point, the proposed Bx80 SBS would reduce interborough travel times significantly, as current riders would no longer have to travel via Manhattan in order to go to Queens.  Such travel time savings would also encourage ridership.  The Bx80 SBS currently remains unfunded due to other priorities.  However, if the NYCDOT unilaterally decides to add fare collection equipment at East 138 Street, you would be hard-pressed to implement the service.

                Regarding the elimination of the Bx30, for one mass transit operator to pay another mass transit operator in order to add service on the other operator’s bus routes has never been tried by the MTA, though I’m sure that this is done elsewhere in the USA.  (But, in Canada, in the Toronto metropolitan area, Brampton Transit, Mississauga Transit, and York Region Transit pay the Toronto Transportation Commission to operate some bus service in their respective areas.)  In this case, it would require cooperation between the MTA and Westchester County Bee-Line.

                For the last two subpoints, these were originally proposed by you in 1989; the change was expected to, at least, pay for itself.  But Woodlawn’s concerns and institutional issues scuttled the proposal.

                The fact is that service can’t be added without the elimination of some service.  But the service planners don’t use these services, and are, therefore, either unaware or don’t care about specific community needs.

                I’m sure that evaluating the full set of bus service proposals for the Bronx will show that they are up to your standards.  I ask you to analyze them objectively and with an open mind.

                Thank you.

Sincerely,

David Kupferberg

E-mail: dkupf@yahoo.com

The goal for a "redesign" is to MAXIMIZE operating efficiency.

The best example, so far, where there was a political backlash to a "redesign" was Dublin.

Over there, the draft plan reduced the amount of routes from 130 to 100.  But, they were simpler and easier to understand.

After the backlash, additional routes and changes were incorporated into the Final Plan.

Jarrett Walker, in his website https://humantransit.org/ acknowledges the backlash, and thought that it was a great thing.

Besides, if service planning was easy, anybody would be able to do it.

First, read his posts for Dublin from 10/22/2019 and 9/23/2018, then draw your own conclusions.

The goal for a "redesign" is to MAXIMIZE operating efficiency.

The best example, so far, where there was a political backlash to a "redesign" was Dublin.

Over there, the draft plan reduced the amount of routes from 130 to 100.  But, they were simpler and easier to understand.

After the backlash, additional routes were incorporated into the Final Plan.

Jarrett Walker, in his blog, https://humantransit.org/, acknowledges the backlash, and thought that it was a great thing.

Besides, if service planning was easy, anybody would be able to do it.

First, read his posts for Dublin from 10/22/2019 and 9/23/2018, then draw your own conclusions.

That's correct... Different ridership with different needs... 

I, however, prefer the service planners determine this based on hard evidence.

And if the service planners already have this evidence, they should release it to the public.