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.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BrooklynBus last won the day on October 25

BrooklynBus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,019 Excellent


About BrooklynBus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The run times are tight enough. As far as longer layovers, that may be necessary at certain times, but often the buses are hanging out too long at the college. If they want to improve service, they should do more coordination with buses leaving ten minutes after class dismissal. It's dumb for a bus to leave the terminal with six passengers, right before 100 students arrive at the bus stop.
  2. I share your concern which is why I am hoping that after the MTA releases its plan, and if it is not what people want, some will get behind this plan or some version of it and say we like this better, why can't you do it? That would force them to at least consider parts of it. The draft Queens plan is due out between December 4th and 7th. Someone who saw parts of it didn't like it.
  3. As I stated, no plan will please everyone. It is hard to believe that that many people use that stop when B16 service is so poor to begin with. I believe far more people would prefer direct service to the N. As for your question of how the people at that particular stop would get to 86th Street 4th -Avenue who aren't using the subway, they would still be within the quarter-mile walking guideline to 86 St to pick up the B1. The major purpose of the plan is to insure that very few will have to walk more than a quarter mile to a bus or train which is not presently the case.
  4. Thanks. Glad you like most of it. I cut the Kings Highway service south of Tilden Avenue because the B7 is fairly close to the B46 at that point and you also have the B47 nearby and the B7 is the most lightly used except for school runs which would remain. Anyone who uses the B7 there, can use the B46 instead by walking a few blocks and can transfer to the B82 for lower Kings Hwy. It was one of the few routes I decided to cut. It’s always easier to add routes than to cut routes, but the costs must be kept manageable.
  5. This is the latest version (3.5) of the Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign I developed. The proposals have not changed since the last version posted, but it provides updated information. https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmiYAcY6ebQngUDLhOC-BonmAg19 Below is the abstract of the plan: “This document shows how to restructure Brooklyn’s local bus network with the objective of increasing ridership by making the system more user-friendly. It accomplishes this objective by making most trips possible using only one or two buses or bus and subway. Service gaps are filled; routes are generally longer, straighter and more direct, but with most buses traveling shorter distances to better increase reliability and better fit service to demand. Airport access and interborough travel are also improved. Implementation is accomplished in phases with a small investment in increased operating costs to generate greater revenue.”
  6. Apparently, though obvious to us, it wasn’t obvious to the MTA that no one (except for bus fans) wants to stay on a bus longer than necessary. Waiting 45 minutes in the bitter cold for a bus is something I never want to do again. And people wonder why some would take their car instead.
  7. That is certainly true. I remember once reading about a politician who obviously never rode a bus making a comment that there were too many buses in Downtown Brooklyn. He was around Adams and Joralemon where like a dozen routes pass and most are one or two stops from the end of the route where most of the people had already gotten off or had not gotten on yet. Not only didn't he realize that, he thought they were all on the same route, so he commented to the press, why do we need a bus running every minute that carries only a handful of passengers? He claimed the MTA was being wasteful with all that service. As far as the other comment that the are sufficient, that is exactly what the MTA thought when they proposed the B44 SBS. They stated that it would be so attractive with its quick service, people would switch from the B36 and the B4 to go to the instead of the Brighton line. That never happened and they had to cutback the 2 minute B44 rush hour service after the first pick.
  8. Plenty of people depend on the eastern portion of the B4 especially in the rush hour to get to and from the subway. When KCC is not in session and there’s is no beach service, B4 buses are just as crowded as the B49, yet no one would suggest to cut that route at Sheepshead Bay Station during those times. There even is ridership on Neptune Avenue which is why service was returned there in 2013. When the MTA cut midday and evening B4 service in 2010 to CI Hospital, their first plan was to terminate it at the hospital during non rush hours. I wrote to them that buses on Neptune Avenue at 2PM carried full seated loads in both directions, so how could they discontinue it? So they redid their counts and based on what I told them, they started afternoon buses to Knapp Street at 1:30 PM instead of 4:30 PM. They even told me so.
  9. Because of irregularities in the grid system, there are many instances where we cannot meet the maximum walking guidelines to a bus stop of a quarter-mile, known as transit deserts. Increasing bus stop spacing will greatly increase the numbers not within acceptable walking distances to a bus route and will decrease the attractiveness of bus routes. And since the average local bus trip is only 2.3 mikes, the amount of time saved for the average passenger by eliminating bus stops is minimal at best. The purpose is mainly to save operating expenses, not to help the bus rider. Still this wouldn't be bad if those savings were put back into providing more service. But it is not. The savings will go to reducing the deficit. Why have walking guidelines, if you are just going to ignore them? There are no plans to operate routes closer together to maintain the walking guidelines.
  10. So what exactly is your point? That walking an additional 45 seconds is insignificant? What about my other points? That many would be beyond the quarter mile standard to walk to a bus stop; some have difficulty walking and can't walk at 3 mph; why pay $2.75 to walk for half your trip?, what about inclement weather?, the greater chance of missing a bus the longer you walk, that buses may not stop anyway at lightly used stops so eliminating them is of little benefit, that eliminating heavily used stops would overload remaining stops increasing fare abuse, etc. Also, some stops are still 500 feet apart, so the extra walking would be more than 45 seconds.
  11. No one ever said operating cost reduction is bad. It is only bad when it has a negative effect for the passenger. Consider the fact that non-revenue miles was once considered a bad thing that should be minimized. Now it is considered good because non revenue trips can be made at a lower operating cost than when passengers are picked up. So as a result many partial trips to and from depots which used to carry passengers, now run in non-revenue service. So we now have some trips traveling half-way across boroughs out of service and in the MTA’s misguided thinking, this is deemed a more efficient operation. The MTA decides which trips run not in service when the passenger loading guidelines can still be met without these trips. Okay In theory, but doesn’t work in practice because the wrong assumption is that all buses are running on time which of course is not the case. So in practice, you can have an overloaded bus bypass a stop because it is late and too full and right behind it is an empty bus not in service that won’t pick up the passengers that were bypassed. That never happened when those partial trips were passenger trips. Of course if you reduce your operating costs, you can use that money to run more trips but that doesn’t happen. If it did, every routine schedule change would show a net zero change in operating costs. Instead, those savings are used to help balance the budget not to provide additional service. We know that happens because every time a schedule change is announced, it is associated with an operating cost savings of several million dollars. Where are you getting a “40 percent” decrease in trip time from? I don’t see that anywhere. Are you saying buses are operating 40 percent quicker because of stop consolidation, or passenger trips are 40 percent quicker because of it? What I do see in what you quoted is this: “this indicates that stop consolidation had no appreciable effect on service reliability”. I thought it was supposed to improve service reliability. I don’t consider diagonal streets “grid irregularities”. They supplement the grid. A grid irregularity is a street without through service like Albany Avenue in Brooklyn, so there is a wide gap between the remaining north south routes creating long walking distances to them.
  12. I guess I supposed to be impressed by the two papers you cited. I am not. Just because a paper is published in a journal or someone writes a Masters Thesis doesn’t make everything stated correct. The data needs to determine the results, not predefined conclusions deciding the data collected. First, here are my problems with the first undated paper. First it is undated, so we do not know how old it is. The entire tone of the paper is how the operator can be benefitted with goals to reduce operating costs. I am not disputing the conclusions that wider spacing reduces costs and improves reliability. But what about the impacts to the passenger which are glossed over? Here are a few quotes: “The findings indicated that bus stop consolidation had no significant effects on passenger activity, whereas bus running times improved by nearly 6%.” What is meant by “no significant effects on passenger activity” and how do they determine what is significant? Where is the discussion on passenger trip time? The time spent on the bus is not the only variable that needs to be considered. Where is the discussion on the effect on ridership? Another quote: “For example, Benn (footnote 5) cited a 1992 study conducted by New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority showing that after an increase in the distance between stops of more than 40%, resulting accessibility declined by only 12%.” So who decided that “only 12%” is insignificant? If I stated ridership declined by “only 12%, wouldn’t you have problems with that statement and say 12% is significant? So why is 12% insignificant when talking about accessibility? Also, I was once interviewed by Benn, and wasn’t impressed. He also was fired by the MTA for inappropriate conduct. Quote 3: “In contrast to the existing 37 stops, the model indicated that the optimal number of stops was 19, with several at new locations. Average spacing increased from approximately 200 to 400 m. Passengers’ average walking time increased 0.60 min, whereas their in-vehicle times declined 1.8 min.” How can an increased walk of 100 meters, over 300 feet, take a little over a half minute? Who can walk 600 feet in one minute? That would mean a mile in under nine minutes. Someone would have to be running to the bus stop. Now the Masters Thesis. “Bus stop consolidation was found to have reduced bus travel times and improved schedule reliability on the route, without adverse impacts on ridership.” Again, the entire focus is on speed and reliability, not the effect on passenger trip time. Second quote: “Review of coverage area Generally, a quarter-mile walk is considered to be a reasonable distance that customers will walk to a bus stop. With a detailed neighborhood map, the quarter-mile coverage area was sketched out by tracing all of the possible walking paths, following only legal walkable paths (usually streets, but sometimes also sidewalks, public paths, stairs, etc). Areas that would lose quarter-mile access to a bus stop as a result of a bus stop closure or relocation were scrutinized carefully; if high-ridership generators such as schools or multifamily dwellings existed within the lost coverage area, then alternative bus stop placement scenarios were evaluated. In areas with a regular grid street system and existing bus stop spacing of less than 1000 ́, the lost coverage area from revising the bus stop spacing to 1000-1200 ́ is typically small. However, irregular streets and gaps in the grid may make the lost coverage much larger. Figure 5 shows an example of a sketch of the coverage area.” The important sentence here is the last one. What percentage of New York City has an irregular grid system? Probably 75 percent. The only places it is fairly regular is Manhattan north of 14 Street, Bedford Stuyvesant area, and southwestern Brooklyn. Even central Brooklyn’s grid is broken by Kings County Hospital and Holy Cross Cemetery. Queen’s grid is totally irregular, Staten Island has no grid, and the Bronx has many topographical issues. So one can assume that increasing bus stop spacing will have a negative effect in those areas since many would now be outside the quarter mile they would be willing to walk. And the data presented does not dispute that. Third quote: “This represents a 7% ridership increase, at a time when many of Metro’s other inner-city bus routes saw a slight decrease in ridership. However, it should be noted that some additional service, approximately 8 trips both directions, mostly in the late evening period, were added to the route between 2002 and 2003.” We all know that there is a direct relationship between increasing service levels and increasing ridership. Had there been a 7% increase in ridership or no reduction in ridership, without a service change, we could conclude no negative effects due to bus stop removal. But that is not the case. We have no way of knowing, that with the same service increase, and with no bus stop removal, the ridership increase would not have increased by 10 percent. So to conclude there were no negative effects or no significant negative effects by removing bus stops, from the data presented, would be irresponsible.
  13. Your logic is flawed The added three minutes and two minutes do not cancel each other out. They are cumulative. So if my trip previously was 30 minutes, it is now 35 minutes or about 16 percent longer. As far as short stop spacing discouraging longer trips, all heavily used routes either have limited or SBS service or a subway alternative. Buses are usually for shorter trips.
  14. Request a stop is only for getting off the bus right? You can't ask a driver to stop for you at a non bus stop when you get on. So it only works half the time. And if they removed stops on a case by case basis, I have no problem with that. I was basically responding to the 1,000 foot standard that another poster proposed. I still believe it makes little sense to remove very lightly utilized stops that 70 percent of the buses skip anyway which was the case with my stop. Heavily utilized stops should not be removed either even if all are close together because the remaining stops would become overloaded and more prone to fare evasion. Only closely spaced moderately used stops should be considered for elimination. But a law requiring cars to give the right of way to buses pulling out from bus stops would save much more time than eliminating bus stops. A bus saves an average of 12 seconds by eliminating a stop. Buses sometimes wait 30 seconds to a minute until they get the right of way when pulling out. Two states have such a law.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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