BrooklynBus

I n that case, then they will just call all Limiteds SBS when OMNI is fully underway, but they will be no different than Limiteds, and that term will become extinct.

They would probably keep their designations until they eliminate the existing machines. I believe the machines have a three year manufacturers warranty. So when they start breaking down and the MTA has to pay for maintenance they will remove the machines and slowly redesignate routes as Limiteds one at a time. It will probably be about ten years before all the machines are removed and the buses rebranded without the words SBS.

There is no reason to have any new SBS routes with OMNI coming on line. The fare machines would be a waste of money.

I never meant to suggest that fare capping was a bad idea. I even start the article listing its advantages over guessing if you should buy an unlimited. What I am opposed to is the MTA makes it seem like fare capping would make the fare equitable for all and no further measures need be taken and there is nothing wrong with many trips requiring double fare through no fault of the passenger. The other problem they are not including any daily fare capping regardless of what they would charge for it. As the article stated, with fewer people working five days a week and all the weeks with holidays in it, few will be able to benefit. Add sick days and vacation and the number is even lower. I believe Chicago also offers second and third buses for 25 cents, at least it did when I was there. Other cities recognize the need for three buses so why doesn’t the MTA. They behave like all trips can be made on one fare and what’s with keeping three legged transfers a secret?

Okay, you think $6 would be too much of a bargain for a daily pass. Fair enough, so you price it a little higher. I don’t see why my hypotheticals are meaningless. How am I robbing those covering shorter distances and rewarding those covering longer distances? I am doing the exact opposite. The transit fare has always made no sense. I just found an old book of transfers from 1973 and looked at a few of them. It turned out my friend why attended Kingsborough at that time paid a fare and a half (add a ride) to get to school using two buses because there was no free transfer. It turned out he could have gotten to school on one fare if he took four buses. If you are so smart, what is your solution to a fairer fare since you don’t like what I proposed?

I don’t see a contradiction. I am saying a max daily fare could also be an option. That would mean that All no one would be charged more than two fares a day. So if someone is charged a double fare in the morning for a long trip, his trip home would be free. I believe last year there was a bill in the Assembly to require the MTA to provide three-legged transfers. Apparently it went nowhere. Just publicity for the person who introduced it so he becomes the good guy that cares. It is also possible that some trips could require triple fare which a three legged transfer wouldn’t solve.

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. There would be a relationship to length but the fare wouldn’t be dependent on length. A lot would depend on how far you will be traveling on the last bus you are riding if you start with a bus or subway. You could travel 90 minutes on one or more trains and then ride another hour on your last bus for one fare. Or you could ride an hour on your first bus, take a train for 45 minutes and if the bus comes right away, ride another hour on the last bus. Those are extreme examples, all more than two hours for one fare. A typical example would be a 15 minute bus ride, an hour on the subway and another 30 minutes on a bus. (Waiting for the first bus does not count, but waiting for the first train would count.) Don’t you think that is fairer than taking a bus for 15 minutes,10 minutes waiting, a second bus for 15 minutes, five minute wait, and a third bus for 15 minutes (an hour trip) for two fares?

I never said anything about a $2 bus ride or soneone in the A paying more money, so I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as those needing three buses to make a trip, that is moreso the case in Queens than in other boroughs, though it is necessary in some isolated areas of Brooklyn also like Gerritsen Beach, Red Hook and Canarsie. Less of a problem in more centralized areas like Flatbush. All not areas for people of wealth.

But it applies to both subways and buses (moreso to buses) and not everyone reads both forums. I rarely check the subway forum myself.

https://www.qchron.com/opinion/columns/fare-capping-is-not-the-solution-for-mta-riders/article_fd3295eb-6d4b-52de-b38c-5ef658dd439f.html

Key Considerations as the MTA resumes Brooklyn Bus Route Network Redesign https://www.gothamgazette.com/opinion/10950-mta-brooklyn-bus-network-redesign-restarts

I thought Traffic was moved from NYPD to DOT years ago. Don’t the traffic enforcement agents work for DOT? I know parking is under NYPD.

I have difficulty believing that. It makes no sense. Maybe Section 5 wasn't represented adequately because they couldn't possibly want that. They don't spend their whole life in Coop City and need to get out some time. As long as there is a way to get to all the sections on one bus, they shouldn't object to a fairly direct route out of a Coop City.

My aunt lived in Coop city when I was a kid before we had a car. She was in Section 5. I don't remember why we didn't use Queens Transit to the Pelham line. Maybe there was no Saturday service. But we took the bus to Gun Hill and White Plains Road. I always thought it was ridiculous for it to take 45 minutes just to get out of Coop City as we explored every nook and cranny of Coop City as if we've were on a siteseeing bus. Glad they fixed that and it looks like the proposal also has more direct service to Allerton Ave. Don't see how they could have fewer routes with all the people living there.

The last time Bronx routes were redesigned was in the 80s. I wasn't drawing any conclusions whether the plan is good or not. You may be right that a good compromise was reached. I wasn't talking about the plan's specifics but just in general terms. If there is some oposition, the first reaction should not be okay then we won't change anything. If more than one option was proposed and both were rejected, then leaving a route unchanged would be the correct choice.

Doesn’t mean it is not possible to design competent plan that helps more than it hurts. Or is the MTA not capable of that? If a community is opposed to a change, the MTA should develop alternatives to accomplish the same purpose, not just say, okay we will just leave the route as is.

Buford's Revision plan a not making only a few tweaks. Guess once he left, someone was too lazy to do a real redesign.

https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops/u/29664069

They already had the Bronx and Queens workshops for the proposals. Why do they have to do it again? Implementation for the Bronx was already agreed upon. For Queens they promised to revise the proposals before having additional workshops. They have made those revisions and are ready to present them. I heard it from someone who heard it from the MTA.

They are not starting the process from scratch. I just heard they will be releasing a revised Queens Redesign in two weeks.

Then AM NY got it wrong. They said all the studies were originally plannned for implementation by the end of 2021. According to you, that wasn't true. If you do not count the 1 1/2 year hold due to Covid, the added delay is 3 1/2 years, not five years. That still seems excessive unless the MTA really intends to listen this time and not try to force unpopular changes. If that is the case, it's worth the wait. I doubt that's the case given what is happening with bus stop removal.

I agree it shouldn't take five years. But you also have to ask yourself routes should be eliminated based on Covid travel patterns which is probably what the MTA will propose if the redesigns in fact will continue. If Covid travel patterns are in fact temporary, what are the chances that discontinued routes will return if travel patterns return to normal? The redesigns should not be an excuse for service and route cuts. The purpose as Byford envisioned them was to improve service. I doubt that will ever happen with him gone.

None of this has been stated. It’s just my prediction based on my over 50 years dealing with and working for the MTA.

I assume they mean implementation of the final routes by December 2026. However, I predict they will change their minds before after all the opposition delays implementation further. They will then say Boroughwide changes (except for the Bronx and Staten Island) are not feasible and. They will divide the Queens study into three studies, NW Queens, NE Queens and SE Queens, and Brooklyn into Brooklyn North and south, and Manhattan into North and South. 2026 will then become 2030. And by about 2028, they will just give up and go back to studying two routes at a time. This doesn’t have to happen if they show some actual willingness to listen to what the public wants, minimizing opposition instead of trying to force changes to save them money that’s no one wants. We really need thoughtful redesigns. They are over 50 years overdue!

The only legwork involved is the holding of workshops. And if the MTA was serious about soliciting opinions from its bus riders, they would not have distributed three inch by three inch post it notes for rider suggestions. They would have at least distributed an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. The Covid delay merited an extension until 2023, not 2025, unless the MTA is serious about getting these studies right and not merely hope riders will just forget about these studies in five years. Remember, in the 1980s, the MTA undertook these same studies that resulted in virtually no changes at all. The Brooklyn study for example resulted in a few meager proposals which the MTA said they could not implement considering their budget constraints. That was after a $6 million expenditure for that study alone.