BrooklynBus

So please explain to me how SBS is an improvement. Winter 2014 Limited schedule shows 7:31 AM bus leaving B116 Street and arriving in Woodside at 8:35. Current schedule shows 7:32 AM bus leaving B116 St and arriving at 8:46 AM at Woodside. Where is the promised 25 percent time savings? And what about the time lost by e everyone else? That just doesn't matter to you.

Yes it is. DOT has more of a problem with buses on OP because of the stops. But I doubt they would approve a bus route for a long distance. The lanes are pretty narrow and were not designed for buses.

My calculations were incorrect and I don't know how much extra fuel artics use, but 50 percent more does not sound illogical. Regarding shifts I don't know how many of them end at 8 AM, but that is sonetging else to consider. Maybe if they were from 10 PM to 6 AM, it would save money by using standard buses. The Q53 doesn't carry more than a handful of passengers during those hours. Sixty foot buses do not seem to make sense there.

Actually, four round trips is $80. So it's $30,000.

Yes, paying the driver is the primary cost. But you can't look at it as just a ten mile trip. You have look at it as what it costs for the entire overnight shift. So if four round trips are made, it's $40. But the MTA does all their costs annually. So that would be $14,600 + the labor differential and that's only one route.

Buses don't use gasoline. They use diesel and they get about 4 miles a gallon.

Why would they have to ride the route the entire way? The bus driver could just not open the doors again until they are finished.

Five to ten minutes? Just ridiculous. There goes your entire SBS time savings and maybe then some. They really need to evaluate this entire program before converting additional routes to SBS.

They changed their policy after numerous complaints. If all machines at a stop are out of order, you are not required to get off and pay. You are supposed to get a receipt after you get off. They say the Eagle Team knows which machines are not working and won't give you a summons if you tell them which machine it is. If they don't have the machine on their list, you should be able to fight the summons. I do not know if it can be done by mail, but that should be allowed. You should also be able to get your money back when double charged but it probably isn't worth the hassle.

Why are lane markings replaced after three years of being worn out? Even after I complained about Shore Blvd, it took them nine months. I was on the BQE this weekend and the lane markings near Northern Blvd are completely worn out. It is downright dangerous even during the day. If you try to use the lines between the concrete as lane markings, you can easily be misled because sometimes they are smack dab in the middle of the lane. It's so easy to stray especially where the road width changes. And it never used to be that way with bus stops. When I headed Planning in 1981, when they posted the opening date of the new escalator on Brighton Beach Avenue (which incidentally Anthony Weiner requested) five days before it opened, I requested the bus stop be moved from Brighton 7 St to Coney Island Avenue. They did it in time for the opening! Shows it is possible for them to do things promptly if they want to.

Sounds like they could use more than one route over the Whitestone.

There are many alternatives that would be bette than what is out there now. They just don't want to invest the money. They only want to cut. I fully agree that no overnight service shoukd be greater than every 30 minutes even if it means fewer routes running overnight. They also could have special night time routes.

It may not make sense in every case. That all has to be studied. But I doubt it if it was ever considered. That is the point. Maybe whenever you do it, you also refill the fuel tank so the bus doesn't have to come in just for refueling and it can stay on the road longer. I believe a bus needs refueling every 48 hours on the road. So maybe you bring it in every other time and half the time they run overnight.

I had totally forgot about that one.

Yes too much high level management that does little other than to delve out assignments to subordinates adding little to the process. Need more middle level managers and supervision. Why aren't the bus managers responsible for a half dozen routes? The few they do have can't possibly watch all the routes. And don't forget that although artics carry more passengers they may not be more cost efficient since operators receive premium pay as of the last contract and the buses use more fuel. Whenever they carry less than 60 passengers they are less efficient. Why don't they switch to 40 foot buses overnight instead of running artics nearly empty? I wonder how much money that would save? Reassigning buses to different depots by allowing MTA Buses and NYCT buses in each other's depots would also save money. Why should the B100 come all the way from Spring Creek when it passes directly in front of Flatbush Depot? There are many ways to save money without negatively affecting service.

The B82 never was extended from Ulmer Park to Coney Island. The B5 ran to Ulmer Park which became the B50. Pathmark Supermarket was built near Canal Avenue. Residents from Cropsey Avenue needed a way to access it so the route was extended to Canal Avenue which really was in the middle of nowhere and no place to terminate a bus route. It was a short distance from Coney Island where a transfer could be provided to the B74 and B36. It only took the MTA like 30 years to realize that but since they were pennywise and pound foolish, the same reason the B67 terminates a short distance from Williamsburg Bridge Plaza where it could provide numerous bus transfers, they finally agreed to the short extension to Coney Island but refused to provide the extra mileage, so in exchange to balance the miles, they decided to terminate every other bus at Ulmer Park. So the route was never designed to get people from parts of the B82 north of Bay Parkway or Cropsey to Coney Island.

Since the lie was so obvious and not subject to interpretation, I just thought he would care. He could have somehow try to explain the response without admitting anything wrong and say he would have someone look into it. But I guess I should just be happy he responded.

I posted the above last week and I would like your opinion. Would you call someone a liar who interprets the phrase "slightly better" to mean "vast improvement" and "slightly faster" to mean "much faster." I realize there are more polite ways of saying that calling it misleading or deceptive, but to me it still a lie. I sent this to Byford this morning informing him that if NYCT is going to get the trust of the public, his staff cannot continue to be engaged in lies. Instead of thanking me for bringing this to his attention, he took offense. Apparently, he doesn't consider this to be lying. I find this disappointing and am now skeptical.

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/sbs-is-not-helping-riders-commutes/article_9070d9c0-e022-56c3-a854-4f590211002a.html According to this article, MTA spokesman Shams Tarek said, “The Comptroller’s report affirms that SBS runs much faster than local routes and is a vast improvement over regular bus service, and that riders like it.” The Comptroller's report says nothing of the sort. The report states: "Over the last decade, bus ridership in New York City has nosedived and many local routes have become less reliable, slower, and increasingly outdated. While Select Bus routes have performed slightly better, there is ample room for improvement." It further states: "Select Bus routes travel only slightly faster than the average local route (8.9 mph versus 7.4 mph) and are identical in their on-time performance – a meager 62 percent (see Chart 5).2"" "Slightly better" and "slightly faster" is not "vast improvement" and "much faster". This is typical of the lies made by the MTA and DOT to gain acceptance of SBS from the public. As for passenger satisfaction levels with SBS, the Comptroller's survey showed a 64 percent satisfaction rate whereas the MTA's faulty methodology showed a 95 percent satisfaction rate. The Comptroller does not state if local riders were also surveyed. If not, then the 64 percent approval rating would most likely be even lower since those riders did not opt for the SBS service.

Exactly. Until they change their metric to be passenger travel times, not bus travel times. That will be the problem.

That has been their policy thus far. Even when they returned the B37, they cut the route and instituted only 20 minute headways. They have also shown no interest in returning a modified B71. Splitting routes, unless you overlap the central portion which is what should be done means more trips will require two or three buses It al, depends on the bus stop's usage. In 2006, they eliminated my bus stop which had a grand total of 56 passengers per day using it. That meant that only one in 20 buses ever stopped there anyway, so virtually no time was saved by eliminating it. Now when I walk 200 feet extra to the closest bus stop, there is a 30 percent chance I will miss a bus I would have not missed if I went to the old stop that was eliminated. So you made travel more difficult for 56 people and helped no one. Rarely did a bus ever have to stop at both stops anyway because the usage is light. If the bus did save one stop, it saved only about ten seconds, the time it took to slow down, pick up a passenger, and accelerate.

Here is the final part of my SBS series. This was written before the MTA announced its Bus Plan. http://www.gothamgazette.com/opinion/7629-the-great-select-bus-service-conspiracy-part-iii

That's what I am afraid of. A big emphasis on service cuts and route eliminations with new routes only operating every 30 minutes. The MTA has shown no interest in spending mre money on service so why should that change now? Even the purpose of the double decker buses is to provide fewer buses. While some bus stops may not be necessary, it makes no sense to eliminate very underutilized stops since mist buses skip those stops anyway. The result is that the few users who do use those stops will have increased travel times as they just miss a bus while walking longer and buses don't save time without those stops.

Yes. Its all over the news, but there is no document to look at is there?

Where can I find the document?