B44 +SelectBusService+

[BrooklynBus]

I don't care how it compares to local usage. As long as the usage of the B44SBS is enough to keep it alive, which, at least from a commuter and one bus driver perspective, seems to be.

Of course local usage is important. The B44 is not a new route but has always been one of Brooklyn's most heavily utilized routes. If a lower proportion of riders are now using the SBS than previously used the Limited, and many have switched to the local, that would indicate the SBS not the success it is claimed to be. I am not saying that is the case. But you cannot do a fair analysis of the SBS by completely ignoring the local. That is what you and the MTA seem to be doing and that is wrong. All trips need to be analyzed. That includes the complete trip including walking, not merely bus travel times.

[Vistausss]

I'm not sure why you decide for me what's important? I clearly said: *I* don't care how it compares to local usage, meaning that's my opinion. I was looking at the SBS usage only, not the local usage.

[B35 via Church]

I'm not sure why you decide for me what's important? I clearly said: *I* don't care how it compares to local usage, meaning that's my opinion. I was looking at the SBS usage only, not the local usage.

Come on, Make your argument more potent than this......

 

Yes, it gets a lot of usage on the northern part, but how does usage compare with local usage? You have to look at that also.

Of course local usage is important. The B44 is not a new route but has always been one of Brooklyn's most heavily utilized routes. If a lower proportion of riders are now using the SBS than previously used the Limited, and many have switched to the local, that would indicate the SBS not the success it is claimed to be. I am not saying that is the case. But you cannot do a fair analysis of the SBS by completely ignoring the local. That is what you and the MTA seem to be doing and that is wrong. All trips need to be analyzed. That includes the complete trip including walking, not merely bus travel times.

The way it's looking, you're trying to force your stance on SBS onto him..... We get it, you're not all that fond of SBS service.... I'm not either, but good grief - You're bringing up a talking point & accusing Vistausss of being like the MTA because he's not exactly concurring with your point? How do you figure he's ignoring the local, or deeming local usage unimportant just because he said "And that proves that the B44SBS does get lots of usage, esp. on the northern part of the route."? 

 

I don't know why he specifically singled out the northern part of the 44 SBS, but what does, or how is the decent usage of the SBS on that part of the route problematic? This whole bringing up of the 44 local is a classic example of a red herring argument (as it pertains to Vistausss) - the local isn't in question here, SBS is - which is why he thanked Acela for his commentary..... The SBS not being the success (the both of us) may think it is & his opinion of the 44 SBS are two totally different things.....

 

I get the point you're making, but it was unfairly aimed at Vistausss......

[NYSubwayBuff]

just to throw in my 2 cents, SBS is working on the 44 and im supporting it because it forces people who want to take faster bus service walk longer therefore, in the long run decreasing the obese pop in that area (just a prediction that this will happen eventually) 

[BrooklynBus]

@B35

 

I wasn't trying to force anything on Vistausss. He was asking questions and I was politely answering them. Then he makes a statement "Shoo the haters" declaring SBS is a success because it is heavily utilized. All I stated was that the limited and the local were both highly utilized before SBS. It wasn't that a new route was created and you could just declare success because the SBS was heavily utilized and to make a fair assessment you have to look at changes to the ridership on the local too. He replied that he wasn't interested in the local, only in the SBS. And you seem to agree that the SBS can be analyzed without consideration of the local. I merely stated that the MTA is doing the same thing and it is wrong.

 

I never stated that decent usage of the SBS is in anyway problematic. I don't know where you got that from. It is a good thing.

 

I don't see how I am being unfair to anyone. (He was the one who said "Shoo the haters." and accused my friend of exaggerating) I think that was unfair. I also don't understand how anyone could draw any conclusions (success or failure regarding the SBS) by only analyzing half the route. The SBS and the local are a package and you have to look at both. Heavy usage on the SBS is not impressive if the usage on the Limited was greater.

[B35 via Church]

@B35

 

I wasn't trying to force anything on Vistausss. He was asking questions and I was politely answering them. Then he makes a statement "Shoo the haters" declaring SBS is a success because it is heavily utilized. All I stated was that the limited and the local were both highly utilized before SBS. It wasn't that a new route was created and you could just declare success because the SBS was heavily utilized and to make a fair assessment you have to look at changes to the ridership on the local too. He replied that he wasn't interested in the local, only in the SBS. And you seem to agree that the SBS can be analyzed without consideration of the local. I merely stated that the MTA is doing the same thing and it is wrong.

 

I never stated that decent usage of the SBS is in anyway problematic. I don't know where you got that from. It is a good thing.

 

I don't see how I am being unfair to anyone. (He was the one who said "Shoo the haters." and accused my friend of exaggerating) I think that was unfair. I also don't understand how anyone could draw any conclusions (success or failure regarding the SBS) by only analyzing half the route. The SBS and the local are a package and you have to look at both. Heavy usage on the SBS is not impressive if the usage on the Limited was greater.

1- Exactly... He was talking about the SBS - You made the point about the local.

He said he wasn't interested in the local after that fact (he didn't originally come out & say he wasn't interested in the local; it's not like he's saying screw the local & hooray SBS)..... I mean, He doesn't have to concur with your point......

 

2- ((Post #1076)) of yours definitely had that undertone.....

 

3- I can see why he said the shoo the haters comment.... The accusing your friend of exaggerating I don't see as being unfair at all; that's like saying he has to believe what you say because you said it...... The rest of this part of the post, I already said I got your point....

 

One thing though..... Where is this argument (about having to look at both the SBS & the local component) whenever someone talks about some LTD route?

[bobtehpanda]

1- Exactly... He was talking about the SBS - You made the point about the local.

He said he wasn't interested in the local after that fact (he didn't originally come out & say he wasn't interested in the local; it's not like he's saying screw the local & hooray SBS)..... I mean, He doesn't have to concur with your point......

 

2- ((Post #1076)) of yours definitely had that undertone.....

 

3- I can see why he said the shoo the haters comment.... The accusing your friend of exaggerating I don't see as being unfair at all; that's like saying he has to believe what you say because you said it...... The rest of this part of the post, I already said I got your point....

 

One thing though..... Where is this argument (about having to look at both the SBS & the local component) whenever someone talks about some LTD route?

 

For whatever reason, there seems to be some notion that "LTD service is good" whenever it gets proposed around these parts. However, the actual MTA is much stricter than these posters (and in this case, that's a good thing), so that service gets distributed between a local and a limited as necessary (and providing that trunk service on a route with a limited section meets minimum headways)

[BrooklynIRT]

Did you mean maximum headways?

[BrooklynBus]

1- Exactly... He was talking about the SBS - You made the point about the local.

He said he wasn't interested in the local after that fact (he didn't originally come out & say he wasn't interested in the local; it's not like he's saying screw the local & hooray SBS)..... I mean, He doesn't have to concur with your point......

 

2- ((Post #1076)) of yours definitely had that undertone.....

 

3- I can see why he said the shoo the haters comment.... The accusing your friend of exaggerating I don't see as being unfair at all; that's like saying he has to believe what you say because you said it...... The rest of this part of the post, I already said I got your point....

 

One thing though..... Where is this argument (about having to look at both the SBS & the local component) whenever someone talks about some LTD route?

1. Yes, he doesn't have to concur.

 

2. I don't see any undertone.

 

3. Accusing my friend of exaggerating is like saying I am making up things by repeating it. As I showed what he saw is pretty close to the actual schedule if two B36s bunch.

 

On a related note I took the S79 yesterday and while I waited 20 minutes for the S78 at Clove Road (at around 3PM) , after getting off the S79, I saw four S79s in the opposite direction in bunches of two and three S78s coming all at once. Considering these routes operate on a 15 minute headway, and BusTime is in effect, I would like to know what effect BusTime and BusTrek is having on reducing bus bunching.

 

Did you mean maximum headways?

I'm pretty sure he meant minimum headways. It gets a little confusing. (Remember, decreasing headways means better service, and increasing headways lowers the amount of service.)

[BrooklynIRT]

It seems like it should be "maximum" when you are trying to determine whether the line should get LTD service. Maximum headway = minimum frequency and minimum headway = maximum frequency.

 

So for example, a transit authority may put LTD service on a bus line running 15 BPH (4 minute headway) or 12 BPH (5 minute headway) but not on a line running 10 BPH (6 minute headway). So let us say the cutoff frequency for LTD service is 12 BPH, and the corresponding cutoff headway is 5 minutes.

 

This means the transit authority will not put LTD service on a line running fewer than 12 BPH, which means the authority will not put LTD service on a line with buses running more than 5 minutes apart, on average. That means 12 BPH is the minimum frequency while 5 minutes apart is the maximum headway.

 

Therefore, I think it should be "maximum headway," not "minimum headway."

[BrooklynBus]

It seems like it should be "maximum" when you are trying to determine whether the line should get LTD service. Maximum headway = minimum frequency and minimum headway = maximum frequency.

 

So for example, a transit authority may put LTD service on a bus line running 15 BPH (4 minute headway) or 12 BPH (5 minute headway) but not on a line running 10 BPH (6 minute headway). So let us say the cutoff frequency for LTD service is 12 BPH, and the corresponding cutoff headway is 5 minutes.

 

This means the transit authority will not put LTD service on a line running fewer than 12 BPH, which means the authority will not put LTD service on a line with buses running more than 5 minutes apart, on average. That means 12 BPH is the minimum frequency while 5 minutes apart is the maximum headway.

 

Therefore, I think it should be "maximum headway," not "minimum headway."

What you just said makes perfect sense. What he should have said was "meets minimum service requirements" not "meets minimum headways.". That would have been clearer. Using the word maximum I think just woud have added to the confusion.

[Mysterious2train]

 

 

I worked the local 44 yesterday for an RDO (second time I've worked it since SBS implementation), and it's still pure hell. I left Knapp Street two minutes early, and still got the business northbound, Standing load into the Junction, which it emptied out, then picked up maybe about 12 people there; arrived at Glenwood and game was over.. AGAIN, standing loaded with those damn 6s coming in. Had no help the entire trip. And that was the first round.

 

Second round, I caught my local leader at Av L, flew passed and caught a double headway (10 mins) now, which he didn't catch me until I got to Midwood Street & NY Avenue, still with a packed bus; passed him again Fulton & Nostrand, didn't see him again until I saw him turnaround at Flushing Avenue.. and with all that, I still caught him on the southbound, when I got to Church Avenue ( 2 minutes early on a 8 minute headway). It's still pure hell either way you look at it.

 

Really nice about that extra service. Worst part is that it doesn't seem like there are any simple solutions to local crowding, espeically at Glenwood Rd which is contingent on the frequency of B6s passing by. Although, it's pretty alarming how buses can be so crowded one time and so calm another. 

[B35 via Church]

For whatever reason, there seems to be some notion that "LTD service is good" whenever it gets proposed around these parts. However, the actual MTA is much stricter than these posters (and in this case, that's a good thing), so that service gets distributed between a local and a limited as necessary (and providing that trunk service on a route with a limited section meets minimum headways)

Simple deduction, and I made this point before a few times in other discussions....

 

LTD service was the initial upgrade/enhancement of speeding up "local" service.... Therefore, LTD service will always be seen as good....

Other than the B35 LTD (and not just by me either... lol) & more recently, the way the MTA swapped service patterns w/ the B6 LTD [in comparison to the local], LTD's in general don't get that backlash.....

 

This is the one instance I'm glad that the MTA is stricter than what some forum posters propose LTD service be on certain routes... Instead of LTD service effectively complementing local service, you have folks creating long ass routes & dubbing them Limited's - because they know LTD's are known to skip stops that locals make.....

 

1. Yes, he doesn't have to concur.

 

2. I don't see any undertone.

 

3. Accusing my friend of exaggerating is like saying I am making up things by repeating it. As I showed what he saw is pretty close to the actual schedule if two B36s bunch.

 

On a related note I took the S79 yesterday and while I waited 20 minutes for the S78 at Clove Road (at around 3PM) , after getting off the S79, I saw four S79s in the opposite direction in bunches of two and three S78s coming all at once. Considering these routes operate on a 15 minute headway, and BusTime is in effect, I would like to know what effect BusTime and BusTrek is having on reducing bus bunching.

Man, look, I'm just gonna go into your SI occurrence..... I'm not gonna keep reiterating myself with the side stuff....

 

Your wait for the S78 is typical, although to have 3 S78's come at once is definitely out of the ordinary.... Usually, 78's don't catch up to each other like that mid-route.... I feel sorry for whoever was waiting for the 78 in that direction, after that last bus of the 3 passed - the normal wait for a solitary 78 is bad enough.... Basically, for lack of a better term, service on the 78 flat out sucks - which is one reason why you have as many folks cramming onto 79's down on Hylan..... 

 

As far as Bustime & Bustrek, these implementations don't affect what goes on, on the roads...

That's the main reason I'm not high on them as VG8 is.....

[Acela Express]

Well there goes the neighborhood

 

http://nypost.com/2014/02/07/mta-promises-to-ease-crowding-on-bus-line

 

Gates and Av L will be added by next pick.

 

Gates was definitely needed; Av L outside of rush hour is a waste of time to be honest.

[Turbo19]

SBS is degrading nicely so far.

[BrooklynIRT]

We can thank the personal automobile, the automotive industry, elected officials who insist on being shrouded in luxury (personal automobiles and limousines), people who will not give up street parking for anything, society, industry, and culture for making people believe that personal automobiles are 'needed' for 'reasons' that are not real reasons at all, the NYPD Traffic Division (which cannot exist without road vehicles), and overdone capitalism, for said degradation.

[BrooklynIRT]

We can also thank the aforementioned things, organizations, and people for the fact that SBS is, unfortunately, an extremely watered down version of BRT.

[bobtehpanda]

We can also thank the aforementioned things, organizations, and people for the fact that SBS is, unfortunately, an extremely watered down version of BRT.

 

It's an extremely watered down version of BRT because there are very few places that have room to host actual BRT. If you look at BRT in the developing world, you'll notice that it's two lanes of buses (and possibly two bypass lanes at stops) surrounded by three or four traffic lanes on each side, or a median strip and two lanes. Nostrand is significantly narrower, as are most arterial roads save for the Grand Concourse, Queens Blvd, Woodhaven, etc.

 

There is nothing wrong with the current SBS, and if anything the stops are abnormally far apart in their outer segments; it makes wider stop spacing than most rapid transit systems.

[BrooklynIRT]

It's an extremely watered down version of BRT because there are very few places that have room to host actual BRT. If you look at BRT in the developing world, you'll notice that it's two lanes of buses (and possibly two bypass lanes at stops) surrounded by three or four traffic lanes on each side, or a median strip and two lanes. Nostrand is significantly narrower, as are most arterial roads save for the Grand Concourse, Queens Blvd, Woodhaven, etc.

Take note of the fact that the narrowness is due partially to the presence of parked vehicles and is exacerbated by illegal double parking practically every single day.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with the current SBS

Really? I can name at least three posters on this forum who do not seem to agree with this statement at all!

 

 

and if anything the stops are abnormally far apart in their outer segments; it makes wider stop spacing than most rapid transit systems.

What is your point?

[BrooklynBus]

Well there goes the neighborhood

http://nypost.com/2014/02/07/mta-promises-to-ease-crowding-on-bus-line

Gates and Av L will be added by next pick.

Gates was definitely needed; Av L outside of rush hour is a waste of time to be honest.

You really can't add a stop just for rush hours. That wouldn't make sense. And if the stop is lightly used at other times, what's the problem? If the stop is skipped, no time is wasted. And if a few people board or get off, only a few seconds are wasted. It's not that there are synchronized signals at that point and making an additional stop disrupts everything. At least it is available.

Take note of the fact that the narrowness is due partially to the presence of parked vehicles and is exacerbated by illegal double parking practically every single day. Really? I can name at least three posters on this forum who do not seem to agree with this statement at all!What is your point?

The narrowness is due to the fact that the road actually narrows at specific points, widens, then narrows again, which is quite unusual.

 

I think with the modifications, enforcement, and other changes that are not being made, the route could actually work well. I just think there were better candidates in the borough that were not chosen. Specifically an east west corridor without subways with longer median trip lengths.

[bobtehpanda]

Take note of the fact that the narrowness is due partially to the presence of parked vehicles and is exacerbated by illegal double parking practically every single day.

 

Really? I can name at least three posters on this forum who do not seem to agree with this statement at all!

 

What is your point?

 

People are arguing that the SBS/local arrangment is terrible, results in bunching, etc., but it's not like these problems didn't exist before with the LTD/local. The only major detrimental change was moving the B44 to Rogers instead of New York Av, and that's because the New York Av routing had more turns than the Rogers Av routing and would've been a bit complicated to schedule reliably.

 

The road is only four lanes wide north of the Junction, even with parking lanes. Between the Junction and Kings Hwy, it is 6 lanes with parking lanes, but even that isn't terribly wide.

 

My point is that two stops are being added and people are recoiling in horror at how the route is becoming degraded. However, one of those stops (Gates) is in the northern segment of Nostrand where SBS service is the only service being provided, and the other provides transfer to local bus routes. Complaining about this is like complaining about a scratch on the paint of a car. Is it inconvenient? Sure. Does it actually change that much? Not really.

 

(It's also nice to see how we've moved from "the MTA is arrogant and doesn't listen to passengers" to "the MTA is kowtowing to the needs of residents when they're asking for two more stops", but that's another story for another day.)

[Mysterious2train]

People are arguing that the SBS/local arrangment is terrible, results in bunching, etc., but it's not like these problems didn't exist before with the LTD/local. The only major detrimental change was moving the B44 to Rogers instead of New York Av, and that's because the New York Av routing had more turns than the Rogers Av routing and would've been a bit complicated to schedule reliably.

 

The road is only four lanes wide north of the Junction, even with parking lanes. Between the Junction and Kings Hwy, it is 6 lanes with parking lanes, but even that isn't terribly wide.

 

My point is that two stops are being added and people are recoiling in horror at how the route is becoming degraded. However, one of those stops (Gates) is in the northern segment of Nostrand where SBS service is the only service being provided, and the other provides transfer to local bus routes. Complaining about this is like complaining about a scratch on the paint of a car. Is it inconvenient? Sure. Does it actually change that much? Not really.

 

(It's also nice to see how we've moved from "the MTA is arrogant and doesn't listen to passengers" to "the MTA is kowtowing to the needs of residents when they're asking for two more stops", but that's another story for another day.)

 

While issues with the B44 Local is definitely not anything new, I'd argue it's definitely gotten worse. A bunch of well-used (e.g. Glenwood Rd) stops that are now local-only leads to increased dwell time, and the extension to Knapp St, while not too long and only for certain trips, just hurts reliability as well (I guess you could argue this is balanced out by having some SBS trips ending at Avenue U, though that doesn't do much for local-only riders.)

 

Also, Gates Av is not in the area you're thinking of; there is local service at that stop, but it's a well-used stop so I can see why an SBS stop is being placed there. I do agree that it's a little ridiculous to lament the death of the SBS, though.

[BrooklynIRT]

I have to eliminate some quoted posts because of restrictions on the amount of quotes I can put in one post.

In post #1095, BrooklynBus said: "The narrowness is due to the fact that the road actually narrows at specific points, widens, then narrows again, which is quite unusual."

Now BrooklynIRT says: I am actually referring mainly to the Flushing Ave-E Pkwy and Sullivan Pl-Ave "H" sections. The E Pkwy-Sullivan Pl is a bit of a different story.

 

In post #1095, BrooklynBus said: "I think with the modifications, enforcement, and other changes that are not being made, the route could actually work well."

Now BrooklynIRT says: Enforcement? The following statements express what I think about enforcement. Some of these will be statements made by others, with which statements I agree:
 
Statement #1:

The problem with SBS bus lanes is that they aren't really usable as such; there are too many exceptions. They're only enforced during peak hours, drivers can do pickup/dropoff and right turns, etc. and this all has an effect on performance. Sure, they're camera enforced, but I don't think they actually ticket you until you spend above a certain time in the lane itself.

Statement #2:

According to traffic law, it's not double parking unless it's done past a certain amount of time (which I *believe* is something like one to three minutes). Now recall what bobtehpanda said about "too many exceptions."

 
Statement #3:
Traffic signals are harder to make when other vehicles are slowing you down, legally or illegally. MTA accounts for these slowdowns that buses experience (often due to law enforcement that is never adequate enough) by creating schedules with inflated running times. This is strongly connected to "why do bus operators drive so slow nowadays?" and the quotes I got from that thread:
 

I imagine the problem is that they put a bit too much emergency padding into the schedules for the 1-in-100 crap situations.

There are times and places where the schedule allows too much time. So the operator drives too slowly.

They schedules really have to be looked at more closely. Perhaps if there are days with unusually light traffic, buses should be allowed to run ahead of schedule to solve the slow bus problem. <== This is so much easier said than done, for a multitude of reasons. No offense to BB.

You can't blame the operators for crawling at times when you have all these other moronic drivers cutting off the bus at random times along the way. Sometimes, the buses crawl because they tend to be early and sometimes bunch up, often times its just the scheduling especially on the part of BusTime where they are pretty much watched on what they do, how early they get to both ends of the terminals and other things that go on.

if the schedule gives you 65 minutes for a run that you can do in 55 minutes CYA and take your time. That's always been rule #1 throughout the TA. Let the schedule makers worry about the time alloted. Those who are complaining about your speed ain't gonna pay your bills. Carry on.

B44 Local south 
From Ave D to Flatbush  3 blocks  we are given 10-14 minutes
Even with cluster F at Glenwood that is still 6-7 minutes too much
I constantly sit at Glenwood for 2-3 lights just to kill time

Statement #4:
The NYPD Traffic Division cannot exist without road vehicles. (Recall my statement about traffic law enforcement that is never adequate enough.)

Statement #5:
"The fact that we are unable to enforce traffic laws to even 0.0001% should be considered a cost of our transit system."

Statement #6:
"The amount of resources required to patrol the roads takes away resources from the law enforcement efforts at every other level of society."

Statement #7:
"It is appallingly unfair that people can buy permission to break the law (paying traffic tickets). Rich people can break the law without hardship while everyone else suffers. Assuming of course, that the law is enforced, which it rarely is."
 
Statements 5, 6, and 7 from carsstink.org. I modified 6 and 7 a bit. Please excuse the name of the website.
 
In post #1095, BrooklynBus said: "I just think there were better candidates in the borough that were not chosen. Specifically an east west corridor without subways with longer median trip lengths."

Now BrooklynIRT says: Well, considering the fact that the train has been having problems for years and will continue to have problems indefinitely and the B44 SBS is helpful for circumventing such problems when it is fast enough on a unidirectional road with better-than-average traffic signals....
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Bottom line: As long as law enforcement is not adequate enough to allow MTA to create B44 SBS schedules with running times that are not nearly as inflated as they currently are, the law enforcement is useless as far as SBS is concerned.

The road is only four lanes wide north of the Junction, even with parking lanes.

What is your point?

Between the Junction and Kings Hwy, it is 6 lanes with parking lanes, but even that isn't terribly wide.

It is not six lanes b/w JCT and Kings Hwy.

[limitednyc]

the glennwood problem has always been hat way.

[TeeLow]

the glennwood problem has always been hat way.

If DOT placed two foot soldiers to patrol that area exclusively, and also did a full out blitz monthly, I'm thinking folx with a habit of ignoring the posted parking signs will get the message. The turnover rate for Traffic Agent must be high considering the Open Competitive walk-in has been listed steadily for the last two+ years.