BrooklynBus

Forgot to mention that you should not have to pay a double fare for a local trip. Another reason not to use mass transit. A time based fare would make more sense. Fare capping doesn’t help most because few travel by mass transit five days a week and you need to travel six days to benefit. 

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

And that’s exactly why legislation in NYC needs to change. 

Other then VERY FEW “safe streets” advocates I’ve heard from, the logistics of changing an entire street grid to appease less the 2% of the population is atrocious. NYCDOT can not pick and choose who listen to. If one Streetsblog says that 8th Avenue has to many cars, and literally every resident opposes a plan to do any change, why does NYCDOT basically go “yeah, screw you, we’re gonna do it anyway.”

Literally every recent NYCDOT project I’ve seen (except fixing the retaining wall on the SB HHP), is road diet this, road diet that, bike lane here, bike lane there, speed camera here, red camera here, while residents are literally screaming that they don’t want it.

And I understand that NYC is a pedestrian city, but NOT in every single street. I could understand imposing a 25 MPH limit on more pedestrian dense zones such as 42nd St, but a 25 MPH limit on Cross Bay Blvd, Atlantic Ave, Pelham Parkway, etc? Come on now.

Don’t forget about what they did to 34 Avenue in Jackson Heights which is vigorously opposed. It was a great alternative when Northern was too heavy. So they cut the street with in half with bike lanes and planters that is mostly unused. So it’s no longer an alternative to Northern. Then they installed a bus lane to make traffic move even slower and added a bike lane removing parking. Then they removed every other bus stop increasing walking without placing a new route along a neighboring avenue to reduce walking distances. They increased walking distances so some are now 3/4 of a mile from the closest bus stop. If they would have installed a new bus route on 31 Avenue instead and moved some of the buses from Northern over there, more would be closer to a bus route making bus travel more desirable, not less, and they wouldn’t have needed bus lanes on Northern. 
 

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1 & 2. There are many many reasons why people are driving.  I mentioned some of them before.  For years, you've had the attitude with the  of "if you don't like it, drive". This has been manifested in the way service has been run for YEARS, from the poor attitude of bus operators, as well as some saying that some communities don't need such and such service (some bus drivers still say this in fact, which I don't get, as they are advocating for LESS work for their colleagues lol).  There was a bus operator in the Queens Redesign Group doing just that.  Only when I pointed out that if they cut such and such local bus line, it would mean less work for him and his colleagues did he make the connection. I mean there is only so much work to go around and with the  when they cut service, they believe in gutting it, so people would lose their jobs. There is no question about that, and this happened back in 2010 when they cut a lot of bus service.

You also have some New Yorkers moving here with the means to afford to drive and they are because they can and those people would likely be doing so regardless of what was happening with the . Then you have the people that are fed up with using the  and the poor service and overall poor experience and rude behavior.  Those people now either drive always or have cut back their use of public transit considerably and WFH has further exacerbated the problem.

And yes, DOT does lie.  As I said earlier, they come in with a plan in place and the community is just told about it and it's pretty much a done deal.

You say "and people are still driving" as if that's a good thing.  It's not... I am far from anti-car, because as I said, I do get around by car as well, but looking at this from a practical standpoint, when you have people ditching public transit to drive here in NYC, a City that is not laid out to have so many cars on the road, it almost always means more congestion.  This is not an either or situation where the blame is squarely on DOT either. Yes, they are exacerbating the problem for sure by constricting streets and taking away parking to make driving more difficult and they should be.  We simply do not have the space available to have hundreds of thousands of more cars on our streets.  What are we seeing now is people driving because of convenience and once people become comfortable, it is VERY difficult to break them from wanting to drive.  All of it means higher costs for the City.  Congestion means less productivity, lost revenue for the  (and the City) and so on. I didn't even mention the environmental impact.

What's dangerous with the  is they absolutely know that they need to cut their operating expenses sooner rather than later, especially with farebox revenues being down substantially, and so while they know bus ridership has declined and was declining even pre-pandemic, they still are trying to find a way to do more with less and cut service.  The culture at the  needs to change though.  They have made strides for sure, but there's a long way to go.

I can’t really disagree with what you said here. The main reason people choose to drive over mass transit, even with the difficulties that DOT causes, is that it is still quicker for many trips, they are assured of getting a seat, they have gear to carry, using the system requires too much walking, and the system isn’t set up to handle many regional trips. 
 

And yes we do not need more cars on the road. So what is the answer to encourage more use of mass transit? Regional bus routes to make more trips available by mass transit. The MTA is not doing that. Provide more seats and more frequent service. The MTA’s newest cars provide no more seats than a city bus which has also been reduced in the past 50 years, The MTA constantly cuts service. Make it easier to carry gear on buses. The MTA has made that more difficult on buses by placing barriers above the wheel covers to prevent you from leaving your groceries there. They are reducing the number of bus stops to increase walking distances, not reducing it. 
 

In other words, the MTA is doing everything possible to make it more difficult to use mass transit. Yes, they operate within a constrained budget, but they are not doing things that would be cost effective and require little money. They could reopen dozens of subway entrances closed in the 70s because of high crime and to reduce the number station agents needed. Those reasons are no longer valid to keep those entrances closed. They opened like six bathrooms. What about the hundreds of others that still remain closed. Paint is cheap, but virtually every station could use new paint on the ceiling. I was walking through the otherwise beautiful connection between the Sixth Avenue Line and the Flushing Line. The ceiling looked dirty and filthy. 
 

So why don’t they try harder to encourage mass transit use? Could it be that Transportation Alternatives which now has become a big MTA supporter funded by large corporations including Lyft which runs Citibike, actually have it in their best interests for less subway and bus usage? That is also in the MTA’s best interests, because fewer riders means a smaller deficit for them. 

26 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh yes, you can never satisfy everyone.  Your comments about the Bx15/M125 split and the Q50 service levels... I have definitely heard people complaining about the new Q50 from Co-op City and the Bx23.  Neither are reliable or don't run enough.  That whole Bx15/M125 split is an example of eliminating options for riders. They felt too many lines ran across 125th and wanted people using one bus that wanted crosstown service. Serious cost savings, that's for sure. I just hope enough people spoke up.  It's more tricky now with people working from home or hybrid. People are not as vocal.

1. You are just showing your ignorance here. lol A large majority of those cars using the HOV lane are single occupancy vehicles abusing it.  They are using it because enforcement was lax for far too long. Finally we are seeing some enforcement, but it may be too late, as they try to avoid being caught. 

2. That's true, but you are also in denial about more registrations and more people driving.  That is happening too.

NYCDOT does not need community input to do what they do.  Most of what they are doing is a done deal and yes it is frustrating.  They come to the community with a plan that they are set to implement, not a plan that they want the community to discuss and solicit feedback on.  Sad but true.  Community boards act as advisory only.

And why are more people driving? Because mass transit service is constantly being cut with fares rising. 
 

And DOT blatantly lies. They stated they only install bike lanes where the communities have requested them. Not true.  They also install bus lanes where they are unnecessary, not helping bus riders, but only done to slow down traffic further, increase congestion, make driving more difficult and raise revenue. Yet with all this, more are driving. So what does that tell you? 

10 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Getting back on topic, I've been hearing that the MTA has largely scaled back on the ideas from the recent draft....another draft will be coming out with some routes being restored to what they currently are, with alterations to existing proposals.

And before anyone asks, there's currently no set date on when the next draft will come out. Changes are still ongoing.

I remember saying how there will be multiple drafts coming out for Queens in various places, and some people didn't believe me....lol.

Queens is due out in a few weeks. Personally, I believe Queens is too big to be implemented all at once if the plan is done correctly. It needs to be considered as three separate boroughs, Northeast, Southeast and Northwest. 
 

7 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You doubt it's true? You should ride along the Gowanus and see... Many mornings now there are more cars in the HOV lane than there are buses.  Car registrations are also up significantly, so while you may doubt it, t

3. Because the Van Wyck has been dealing chronic congestion... That's a perfect example of the vehicular congestion I was speaking of. A number of Queens express bus commuters have complained about this some days.  

So now you are complaining too many cars are using HOV lanes? I thought car pooling was a good idea that we wanted to encourage? Maybe they are not using express buses is because they are so expensive or they don’t get a seat? It should be no more than twice the local fare with further discounts for regular commuters, and allow for a third transfer. Everyone should be guaranteed a seat for a premium fare. 

Also, the Van Wyck has had construction and reduced speeds for like ten years and probably another ten years. Totally ridiculous. Slow speed limits lower road capacity and that contributes to congestion. 

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

With that last part, most of these lanes are being eliminated to install bike lanes or pedestrian extension zones. What sucks more about it is it seems NYCDOT is doing whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of the public input from community boards & local officials. I personally have not seen ANYONE advocating or wanting bike lanes or traffic mitigation on Riverdale Ave ( @Via Garibaldi 8 correct me if I’m wrong), and yet here they come changing the entire street grid and reducing it from 2 lanes to 1 in each direction.

You are exactly correct. 

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The way to mitigate it is to improve public transportation.  The City is not built to withstand the amount of vehicular congestion we are seeing, so the City and DOT are essentially coming up with hostile ways to disincentivize people driving.  Traffic has skyrocketed on the BQE because more people stopped using public transportation and are instead DRIVING.  That is a fact. I know quite a few people that used to take the express bus into Manhattan that now drive every day.  If you lose ten people that stop taking public transportation that now drive, unless they carpool, that's now ten cars on the road that didn't exist before.

As someone who gets around by car and public transit, there is a place for cars and a place for public transit and right now because public transit has deteriorated, we are seeing a shift to insane vehicular traffic, and WFH and the hybrid schedule are both exacerbating that problem.

Adding lanes induces more vehicular usage. This has been shown time and time again.  The reason lanes are being constricted is because you have too many people driving recklessly on the road.  That coupled with pedestrians, cyclists, etc. means lots more accidents.  We've also had a lot more streetcar racing, which has exacerbated the safety problem. While I don't fully agree with narrowing the streets, I do understand the reason. If more common sense was used, these measures likely wouldn't be as drastic as they have been, but traffic related fatalities have continued to increase.

The lights are not synched on purpose.  That's all part of the Vision Zero program, which deters speeding. You can't travel at high speeds if you have to stop every so many blocks.  Furthermore, to actually envision the plan that DOT wants would cost much much more, so they've taken a blanket approach Citywide in an attempt to keep costs down. You take one or two designs. You examine the costs for those two options and then you expand it.  That's pretty much what is happening, and the DOT has been very clear about this approach when re-designing streets. The goal is to deter speeding and decrease fatalities first and foremost.

P.S. NYC is now the most congested in the country.

Sorry, but registrations for cars here in NYC has definitely increased. That is a fact - a 40% increase back in 2021.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/new-york-car-ownership-jumps-nearly-40-as-pandemic-creates-mass-transit-worries/

That trend has not stopped either, as NYC now has the worst congestion in the country.

I was talking about the section between Hamilton and Atlantic southbound where traffic has not increased in 50 years and it is moving much faster because a bottleneck was removed. Northbound, on this same stretch, the opposite occurred. A lane was eliminated under the promenade, so now that section northbound is a parking lot all the time. So when you introduce a bottleneck, you increase congestion, and when you eliminate a bottleneck, you decrease congestion. This has been proven. End of discussion.

As far as the other things you talk about that more are using the BQE because they are shifting from mass transit, I doubt that is true. And as I explained adding lanes does not always induce vehicular usage. It can reduce congestion. NYC may be the most congested in the country, but it is NYCDOT policy that is causing that: eliminating parking and traffic lanes, out of sync signals, artificially low speed limits, less green time, unnecessary traffic channelization, turn restrictions that makes you go a half mile or more out of your way, unnecessary bus lanes or in effect when they are not necessary, etc. 

40 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

Adding more lanes is just going to intice more people to fill up those lanes.

It has been proven time and time again that all that does is increase traffic congestion.

That doesn’t hold true when you add lanes to remove a bottle neck. The right lane of the BQE southbound used to exit at Hamilton Ave. Because of that bottleneck, traffic always moved at 20 mph from 7 AM to 10 PM every day. When the bottleneck was removed by rebuilding the overpass to three lanes in 1975, it was only 20 mph during rush hours and at least 40 mph all other times. That was nearly 50 years ago and the traffic has not increased since then or the speeds slow down. So no, everyone did not rush out and buy cars when that third lane was added. 
 

It may hold true if you expand a 20 mile roadway from three lanes to four, or it may not. 

I am not sure you are even correct. I recently had to take the bus to see a councilman. I knew the bus ride was only about 10 minutes, but I allowed 30 minutes because I knew I had a five minute walk at both ends and allowed the max wait (assuming no bunching) of 10 minutes. I got there on time or a few minutes early. Had I only considered the time on the bus, I would have been 20 minutes late 

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

He's technically correct.  I think most people don't always factor in the time to get to a stop because for most trips, the walks aren't that egregious.  At most, maybe it's ten minutes to a bus stop. The focus tends to be on the actual time spent on the bus.

What about wait time? They don’t factor that in either? 
 

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

You ask what is ambiguous - then go on to address the 2 examples I gave as to how "total travel time" can be construed in more than 1 fashion... I mean look, the blanket term in & of itself does not have a sole definition.... It means different things to different people.... You kill that ambiguity by mentioning/inquiring door-to-door travel.... Door-to-door travel is a universally understood & accepted term, whereas merely stating/asking total travel time, is not.... If I wanted to know the time it took for someone to get from some ultimate point A to ultimate point B, I would not use vague verbiage like that; what's their "total travel time"... I would be more specific than that.

You say your time on just the mode{s} is some meaningless number (aside from planners determining service levels)... I wouldn't go as far as to convey it that way, but there isn't a doubt in my mind if I were to ask random passengers their total travel time, I'm going to be met with a (relevant) follow-up question - Which to me would only point out that there isn't an automatic assumption on their part that I'm referring to door-to-door travel if I were to inquire on someone's "total travel time".... People would not know if I were to be referring to a door-to-door commute, or the "total travel time"....

....specifically on whatever mode.

And what is the difference as you see it between “total travel time” “passenger travel time” and “door to door” travel time? To me they are more or less all the same thing. The only term that’s different is the time spent on buses and trains which could or could not include wait time. That is the only ambiguity I see. 
 

The MTA is just wrong in instructing riders not to include walk time as part of total travel time, because it definitely is part of it. 

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol, but IAWTP....

My problem with that statement of his is that:

a] total travel time, is ambiguous.... It can mean [travel from door-to-door] or [travel whilst using MTA buses/trains (in this case)]....
b] speed is a factor of total travel time (regardless of ambiguity)....

Either way, as you stated earlier, wait times (whether it be dwell time at a stop{s}, the wait time b/w modes, etc.) are (also) a factor...

What is ambiguous? Passenger travel time is the time it takes to get somewhere. That includes walking time, waiting time, ingress and egress time to get on and off the buses, etc. How else would you define door to door travel? I defined it in the article I wrote for Bklyner.com. Just because the MTA instructs you not to count your walk time to the bus in their on-line survey does not make that right. When you plan your trip, don’t you account for all those factors? If you only considered your time using buses and trains, you would always be late. Your time just on the buses or trains is a meaningless number, unless you are planning service levels. 

7 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's very interesting about the B49 being terminated at Emmons Av (I assume in front of what was IS 43)? I went there when I was in junior high school and I can't imagine the B49 not going into Manhattan Beach since Manhattan Beach and Sheepshead Bay are so connected. Most of the kids then lived in Sheepshead Bay, Manhattan Beach or Brighton Beach, with some living as far as Sea Gate or Coney Island.  I was good friends with quite a few kids in Manhattan Beach. We all either walked or took the B49, or sometimes I took the B4 depending on where I was going.

You also are correct about that stop being by the escalator.  The  of today does not think of such things.  Not proactive, but rather reactive... As an example, they proposed to re-route some buses in one redesign using a parkway, but never reached out to DOT about receiving permission to do so (they made it clear that they would need DOT's permission in the draft plan) or creating any HOV lanes to ensure that bus service moved accordingly.  When I mentioned it to the senior planners in a meeting, they looked completely stunned, as if no one had thought about it. lol

Prior to 1969, the last stop of the B49 was Shore Blvd and Neptune Ave, just after the turn. The bus then went to Cass Place without passengers and made a U turn back on Shore Blvd. then it turned right on Emmons and pulled into its terminal halfway between the school and the pedestrian bridge. People going to the beach would like off at Lunch’s, like at least 50 people per bus and walk over the bridge to the beach. I did that as a teenager. Now everyone could have stayed on the bus to the last stop and get the B1 all the way to the beach. But no one ever did that because it was an extra fare. 
 

In 2001, I suggested to Paul Gaukowski who then was in charge of Brooklyn planning that they should make a short extension of the B83 to Gateway Mall via the Belt Parkway which had just opened. He told him they needed a permit from DOT to use the Belt Parkway after he gave me a strange look because it was obvious he didn’t know he needed a permit to do that. Then it took him three whole years just to study that obvious one mile  extension before he did it exactly as I recommended. Then they started to use the Belt Parkway to get B1 buses from Ulmer Park to Kingsborough College and to Fourth Avenue not in service. It was so odd they didn’t know that, because I learned they needed a permit from the MTA back in 1975. 

17 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Here's a question I have for you... Why has there been such inconsistent distances between local bus stops in NYC historically? I never understood having some stops where you have a bus stop literally a block away.  Something else I wonder about is has the  ever tried to sabotage local bus service when they've introduced limited stop service? I remember years ago waiting at a local bus stop and wondering where all the local buses were because nothing but limited stop buses were passing me by.

I support some bus stop consolidations, but I also am acutely aware of the fact that removing too many of them could deter ridership.  Yes, people want faster service, but there are also a number of people that take the local buses because they don't or can't walk as far, and that is something that the absolutely must consider.  Now I am an able bodied individual that is used to walking several blocks to get my express bus, but if I am talking the local bus in Manhattan, I am doing so with the goal of not walking that much,  If I wanted to do a ton of walking, I'd take the subway, so there needs to be a balance found between speed and convenience. 

Regarding sabotaging local service, if the schedule shows to much limiteds relative to local service, then the answer is yes. I think a more likely reason is that the buses are just not running on schedule. 
 

People don’t realize how much bunching there is. My friend who uses the Q101 showed me once that bus time showed six buses on the line. They were running in two clumps of three buses each. The MTA has to pay more attention to situations like that, rather than being obsessed with removing bus stops.
 

There is no doubt that some bus stops need consolidation, but it has to be done correctly. It is not enough to just consider the space between bus stops. You have to see where the parallel routes are, if there are any. If there are nearby parallel routes, there should be no problem in changing two block spacing to three blocks, accounting for major uses like schools, hospitals, etc. If there are no parallel routes, like on Northern Boulevard, the stops need to be every two blocks to keep the walking distance to the bus reasonable. Buses stopping every for blocks on Northern have increased the walk for some to 3/4 of a mile which is unreasonable. Just check Google maps and you can figure out maximum walks for yourself. 
 

Spacing between routes is one reason why bus stop spacing varies. Another is through accidents of history. Bus stops have not been looked at in over 50 years. It is long overdue, just as changing routes are. Some stops are too close just because routes have changed. For example, prior to 1978, the B49 ran straight on Ocean Avenue before I diverted it to serve Sheepshead Bay Station. It now runs on an Avenue Z. The B36 stopped at Avenue Z and E 19 Street, so they had the B49 stop there too. The old B49 stopped at the far side of Avenue Z on Ocean. So now when the B49 turns from Avenue Z to Ocean, it stops on the far side of E 19th and again about 100 feet later on Ocean Avenue after it makes the turn. Only the B36 should stop at E19 St. It is not necessary for the B49 to make both stops. 
 

I will give you another example. There is a stop at E 16 and Emmons westbound for the B4 and B49. The B49 stops again after it makes the turn onto Shore Road. When there were only bus stop signs with no route numbers indicated back in the 1960s, the B49 always skipped the stop at E 16. It was only for the B36 which stopped there at that time because the B49 would have to shift to the left to make the turn. When they added route numbers for the stops, someone looked at a map and wrongly assumed the B49 stopped there and signed it for both buses. So now the bus had to stop there. And since no one ever decided to correct that mistake, it has now been stopping there and shifting to the left to make a turn for over fifty years. 
 

Who knows how many similar situations there are like that in the city. So it is actually good the MTA is taking the opportunity to review all bus stops. But as I explained in the petition, they are not doing it correctly and removing far too many bus stops. About five percent need to be relocated or moved, not 33 percent. 
 

As I stated before, when I was Director of Planning, I moved two bus stops. I eliminated a B49 bus stop that was 200 feet from another one. Originally one stop was for the old B1 that ran to Sheepshead Bay and the other was the old B49 terminus on Emmons Avenue. In 1969 when the B49 was extended to Manhattan Beach it stopped at both stops until I removed the old terminal stop in 1981. No one complained and residents were grateful for six additional parking spaces which were again removed when it became a stop for the BM3. The other stop I moved was the B1 from Brighton 7 to Coney Island Avenue. I saw a notice that a new escalator was opening at Coney Island Avenue in five days. Why should someone walk a block from the bus stop to the escalator, I reasoned. So I promptly sent a letter to DOT asking they move the bus stop. The new stop was in place the first day of escalator operation. Had I not done that in 1981, most likely riders would be walking that extra half block today, over 40 years later, from Brighton 7th halfway to Coney Island Avenue. 

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Exactly. If a stop is eliminated, people will walk directly to/from the next-closest stop without backtracking. Plus, a good portion of riders are heading to major cross streets (transfer points, large commercial areas, etc) which are pretty much always going to have the stop maintained, so the extra walk (if any) only applies on one end of the trip.

You just stated “a good portion” are headed to major cross streets. Then you said the extra walk only applies on one end of the trip. It would apply only on one end of the trip if it were “all”, not “a good portion.

No, he has a point on that. If too many people see an increase in total travel time (which isn't balanced out by a similar or greater number seeing decreased travel time), then you'll end up with ridership losses.

Or if they plan on drinking and won't be capable of driving their car back. Or if they're stopping at another destination before or after that has hard/expensive parking. Or if there's heavy traffic and the bus has reliable bus lanes (e.g. Parts of Hylan Blvd or Webster Avenue).

Yes, or if they drink. I already mentioned parking. It is very rare that a bus in a bus lane would be faster than a car. 

The other thing is that "available" is subjective, and also not a fixed constant. Somebody may have a car that they share with their spouse or a relative. They could decide to run the errand immediately using mass transit, or wait 2 hours for their spouse/relative to return the car. They could decide whether or not to buy a car based on the comparable trip by mass transit. And of course, calling a taxi/Uber/Lyft can make a vehicle available to you if you're willing to pay the extra cost. (Nowadays, there's even sites where you can rent cars by the hour for fairly cheap prices...a 1 hour rental for $11 might be enough to make a run to the supermarket and pick up a couple of weeks worth of food).

Available means available. The car is either available or it isn’t available. End of discussion. No need to make it more complicated than it is. Do these one hour rentals deliver the car to your door and pick it up from your house? If not, what you are stating regarding shopping is not feasible. It would be cheaper just to have the food delivered. 

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Again...making generalizations as to what people may prefer. Yes, those are things you'll get with a car. The question is, will it be worth the cost? (Again, not everybody who has a car "available" necessarily has it sitting in their driveway ready to go).

A car being worth the cost is an entirely different discussion and has nothing to do with the points I was making. I was only talking about scenarios where a car was available. 

I disagree. See above. 

And total travel time includes waiting as well. The faster the buses go, the more frequency can be run with the same fleet.

As I said, frequency can be increased. There is no guarantee it will be. 

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That assumption may hold for the first couple of days that the stop is eliminated, but in the long-term, nobody will backtrack to a location that they are fully aware is no longer a bus stop.

Why do you keep talking about backtracking. I never mentioned backtracking. You walk to the corner. There used to be a bus stop there. It is no longer there. You have to walk three minutes to the next bus stop. In that three minutes there is a chance you could miss the bus. If the headway is 30 minutes, the chance is slight, but the effect on your trip time is great. It may be a five percent chance. But your trip time could easily be doubled if you do miss the bus. If the headway is six minutes, meaning the average wait is three minutes, walking the extra three minutes there is a 100 percent chance you will miss the bus. So your trip is now three minutes longer. If 20 seconds are saved for each stop removed, you would have to pass nine removed stops to make up the three minutes, assuming the bus would have stopped at all stops that were removed. And that assumes all buses run on time. Buses can and do bunch even if the headway is 20 or 30 minutes, making your trip even longer if you miss both buses if they are running together.

We've been through the math on this many times before. The total amount of extra travel time is the amount of the extra walking, minus the amount of time that the bus takes to cover the same distance. If the headway is every 30 minutes, and it takes you 2 extra minutes to walk to the new bus stop (while the bus takes 30 seconds to travel that distance), then the chances that a bus passes in the time you are traveling is (2.0 - 0.5) / 30 = 5% That means there is a 95% chance that you will wait zero extra time, and a 5% chance you will miss the bus. The 1.5 minutes is the same amount of time as if you were starting your trip 1.5 minutes further down the side street.

As for headways being based on ridership, a lot of these redesigns (not just MTA) are taking the approach that frequency on its own can generate ridership. That's why back in 2019, they added extra off-peak service to the Q6, Q69, S93, B17, and B65 (which actually did lead to some ridership increases on those routes before COVID came and wiped those out). 

1 hour ago, jaf0519 said:

You always say this, as if that makes it true. Why should the MTA care about total travel time? They aren’t involved in what you do outside this bus, whether you go to one store or two, or whether you feel the trip was worth the journey. They provide a public service, not a shuttle to your doorstep.

The MTA should care about travel time because they are in the business of serving the public and that’s what the public cares about the most. No one is asking for a shuttle service to their doorstep, so that is not a relevant comment. People are asking for reasonable distances to walk to and from the bus. A half mile or three quarters of a mile is not reasonable for local bus routes, which are the maximum distances after all the stops are eliminated. You say they are not interested in if you believe the trip is worth the journey. They should be interested in that because if it is not worth the journey, you won’t be on the bus.

33 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Yes and no. This argument is always presented with the assumption that:

1)  Someone is always going to walk from the defunct bus stop to the new one.

2)  During the “longer” walk to the in-service bus stop that they’ll automatically have a longer trip because the walk may be longer, and they will automatically miss a bus because the walk may be longer.

I disagree with both notions.

1) Someone may live half way between two stops, and if one is eliminated, they’ll have the same walk to the still-in-service stop. They’re not going to walk to the old stop, then walk to the new stop, they’re going to take a path that makes sense. 

2) If someone has a 10 min walk to a bus stop and they wait 10 mins for a bus, the time from origin to boarding the bus is 20 mins.

If the bus stop becomes defunct and they have to walk to the next or previous bus stop, which adds 5 min to the walk, and they now wait 5 mins for the bus, there still a 20 min origin to boarding time period.

There is nothing set in stone saying they will always wait for the bus for a fixed amount of time at a particular stop and by moving the stop their trip becomes extended indefinitely simply because their walk may be extended.  Their trip can be shortened by decreased headway even though the stop is further and/or because the route has less stops, etc.

 

1) No. the assumption is not everyone will first walk to the old stop and then the new stop. The assumption is that some will first walk to the old stop, the; the new stop. 

2) Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is also true provided they don’t miss a bus walking the xtra five minutes which could add six or up to 30 minutes to their trip. There is also no guarantee that the MTA will. Shorten the headway, after eliminating stops. Headways are based on ridership, and if ridership does not increase, the headways remain the same. 

48 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I said using the subway or driving. If the bus is the only available mass transit option, but is slow, then many will drive even if the bus is available.

To say it's a myth is overgeneralizing. There's areas where buses are slow and areas where they aren't. There's areas where delays merging back into traffic are significant, and there's areas where they aren't. If they get a lot of feedback for certain stops, they can always restore them.

As I said, buses are not slow if you compare them to cars using local streets. Since Vision Zero, we no longer have arterials where cars were much faster than buses. Now it’s either the highway or local streets for cars. If you don’t compare the two, you can say both cars and buses are slow on local streets with buses being slightly slower because they make stops. It doesn’t matter how fast or slow a bus is, if someone has a car available they will always choose to drive over the bus no matter how fast it goes with the following exception. People will choose a bus over driving if parking at the destination is scarce or expensive, or they would rather not give up their parking space, fearing they won’t get another one when they get back.

The reasons for driving are the ride is more comfortable, no transfer required, you always get a seat, and if you got gear, it’s much easier.

Even if you could double the speed of buses which you won’t be able to do even if you eliminated all stops and it only stopped at the terminals, people would still drive if they were able to with the exception mentioned above. Getting people to switch from cars to local buses if they were faster is only wishful thinking. Express buses is another story. 
 

And you and the MTA keep forgetting, it’s not the speed of the bus that’s important, it’s your total travel time that matters. 

39 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And part of the reason the average bus trip is so short is because they're so slow that most people making longer trips end up using the subway or driving. If buses were to be sped up, logic would dictate that the average would shift upward (to the exact extent is yet to be determined)

And it is good that most making longer trips use the subway rather than the bus because it is cheaper to operate. The MTA shouldn’t be encouraging long bus trips when the subway is an alternative. And my proposal for a state law requiring non-emergency vehicles the right of way to buses leaving bus stops would save buses more time than removing all those bus stops without inconveniencing bus riders. Besides, it’s myth that buses are slow. They are only slightly slower than cars since the speed limit was reduced to 25 mph. Seven for buses in Brooklyn as compared to about ten for cars. Local buses in Queens are even faster, like about 9 mph on average. 

5 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I see arguments indicating that removing bus stops does not speed up buses. If that were the case, wouldn’t Limited routes have equal running times to locals? Why are limited routes more popular than locals?

Of course removing bus stops speeds up buses in some cases and Limited do move faster than locals. But where is your proof that Limited are more popular? Yes, they are more popular for longer trips, but most trips are short not long. The average local bus trip is only 2.3 miles. And as I’ve said many times before, the issue isn’t how fast buses travel, but how fast is your trip. They are not the same. Removing nine bus stops saves you two minutes @20 seconds per bus stop. But if half the riders walk three minutes longer at each end, the average trip is now one minute longer. The only one who saves money is the MTA. It is not being done for the good of the bus passenger. 

Why didn’t this receive more publicity? If this guy wasn’t on TV telling the weather, we would have heard nothing about it.

Any wonder why there is crime in the subways, when someone can be beaten because he said something when a senior’s hair was lit on fire, three of the eight are caught and none are even arrested?

The police didn’t want to bother doing the paperwork when they know the DA will just let them go free anyway. This has to stop now. Share this post so more can see it, and maybe our useless mayor and governor will wake up And do something positive.

https://youtu.be/UGZSQTrrFkY

More criticism of the Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign

https://www.brooklynpaper.com/brannan-southern-brooklyn-mta-bus-redesign/

https://bklyner.com/bus-talk-connect-red-hook-to-manhattan/

https://www.drove.com/campaign/63cc1060b9846701601c2032?fbclid=IwAR1S-gJjlErQD7_573yEE-NKvFIJ6jPWghj96QQ72sj4xLISqsfBfinE8yU

Also, 

MTA is planning to reduce the bus service in Coney Island and Brighton Beach.

Friends of Asser Levy Park do not agree with the proposed draft and invite our community to participate in three workshops creating our own Community Proposal:

MTA DRAFT. COMMUNITY VISION.

We will be collecting the ideas in one draft to let MTA know WHAT WE NEED.

It will be presented to MTA on February 21st during the meeting with the agency.

First two workshops will take place in the Coney Island Library, meeting room #2, Saturday February 4 and 11, 2-3pm. Capacity is limited to 20 people. Please register to attend. We will discuss the area between Stillwell Ave and West 37th street.

Third workshop will be covering the area from Stillwell Ave to Coney Island Ave. Tentatively it will be on Sunday, February 19th, we will post an update on time and place.

Also, 

It is plainly obvious that the MTA does not want its passengers to know about or attend their virtual meetings about the Redesign since they won’t even post notices on the buses with the meeting schedule.

So I asked them at yesterday’s meeting why? Their response was that prior to the first meeting, the digital screens (which aren’t even on all the buses) flashed the schedules. Therefore the assumption must be that all bus riders rode the buses that week or so and memorized the schedules, so printed notices were not necessary.

How dumb does the MTA think its customers are? They just continue to insult our intelligence, and no one calls them out. Any wonder why hardly anyone attends these meetings with more reps from the MTA and DOT, than there are from the public?

Let’s support our Bed-Stuy neighbors protesting service elimination

https://nextdoor.com/p/pKcQx4DFbGx-?utm_source=share&extras=NDc2MDIxNTE%3D&fbclid=IwAR1vRiB74kUJBACuE28uWzMcgNtrx-7JAHnNY_YX4lusfk2dro5IAbayac4

By eliminating one way service on two separate routes, they are in effect eliminating a north south bus route in Bed Stuy. 

According to the MTA they aren’t eliminating or removing bus stops either. They are just “consolidating” and “balancing” them. They just continue to mislead.

This is what the petition says:

Save Bus Access to Bed-Stuy & Crown Heights!

Under the proposed Brooklyn Bus Route Redesign all bus service to Tompkins and Lewis Avenues will be eliminated. The plan calls to shift the southbound B43 from Tompkins to Marcus Garvey and the northbound B15 from Lewis to Throop, in effect eliminating one of the few North-South bus routes in Bed-Stuy by merging the two. Crown Heights residents and businesses will also be impacted by moving the B43 from Brooklyn to Albany Avenue.

This proposed change will dramatically increase the distance needed to access public transportation and eliminate service to two important and up-and-coming commercial corridors. As residents, business owners, commuters, and consumers we demand the maintenance of bus service to Tompkins and Lewis Avenues. We do need to improve bus service in Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, and in Brooklyn, but eliminating routes for the mirage of decreased wait times is not the change we need.

Please sign our petition, enter a comment in the MTA portal, and attend a Zoom meeting about the plan. (Bed-Stuy 1/17; Crown Heights 2/2; Crown Heights South 2/7. All from 6:30-8:30) 

I just searched B49 and B68 on change.org and came up with nothing. I know CB 15 would be against the swap, but CB 13 surprised me. 

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I would take this as people not caring about practical reasons and simply thinking about some rail fantasy route.  That's my guess.  As a commuter, my perspective is different.  Buses are practical for a host of reasons, but I agree with you.  Even if there was a subway extension, there would still be a need for a bus.  People take buses for a host of reasons.  Shopping, ability to walk to and from with shorter walks, not to mention that sometimes taking the subway involves a ton of backtracking.  The subway is only practical for long distances or in cases where it is right there. If you have to do a decent amount of walking to reach it, then back track once you get off, it may not be all that practical.

Also, if someone is taking a bus and needs to transfer for the last quarter mile, given the choice, they would rather complete their trip by bus rather than changing for the subway for one stop. 
 

10 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yup! Just like it used to

How would you expect to get that done with the policy of no grade crossings? The only way to do it would be to run light rail south of Rockaway Parkway or Broadway Junction. 
and what about the construction south of Seaview since it was eliminated?

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

The  to the Pier is a very cheap extension that can become reality if done properly. Most of the ROW is already there, and the money they use to run the B42 can be put into this project. Win-Win. Regarding the 3rd Ave Elevated, my point is the fact that they thought they could replace the whole thing with a bus and it would've been fine, except now the  is barely running the Bx15 efficiently. Same thing with the Myrtle El and now the B54.

I know why, because most projects the  does is always met with red tape. Heck, the only expansions we've had in the last few decades have all been within Manhattan. 

So you are saying the L should run on the surface to the pier?