Better Coordination of Modes is a Key to a Well Balanced System

[qjtransitmaster]

I talk about the express bus later, but 1 thing Alan aka Brooklyn Bus which i agree with 100% is why not the use of more park and ride at major subway terminals and hubs particuarly in outerboros. For starters you got the Brooklyn Cyclones ballpark just a couple of blocks from Stillwell-Coney Island Terminal. It has parking lots that lies empty off season such as now in late fall and winter. Why not use that?

 

Ditto for Citfield and LIRR at Willets Point station which lays off the Grand Central (GCP) and Van Wyck. Since Main St parking basically has a long waiting list, why not use the Citifield lots year round for those driving from say Northern Queens or parts of Nassau County? Even Yankee Stadium has a few lots that could be used in off season like now. No matter what ppl. will use their cars sadly no matter what. At least by making these ballparks parking lots avaialble year round, it would help take off traffic off such as the GCP, Belt Parkway, Van Wyck and more.

 

There other in the city near major highways that also should be developed for park and ride. I mention it my ideas after you guys reply to this thread.

 

That crap ain't gonna work in NYC that would put more cars on the road and make buses unreliable and cripple travel for transit and non bus users alike bad idea. GCP buses can use it between little neck and jewel due to low bridge and again north of LIE to LGA. Van wyck ain't worth it.HOV on van wyck would be most effective from LIE to kew gardens and jamacia that's it.

First of all, please understand that I have nothing against Express Buses as a mode or have any bias against any other mode. Each has its place. Second, as much as I hate to admit it, sometimes service cuts are necessary on local as well as express buses. Only adding service is never the answer. I don't agree with the MTA, however that for every increase, there also must be a cut. That philosophy is just ridiculous but I won't get into that now.

 

That said, there is a hierarchy that should be followed. First, we should try to get people on the rails. When not possible, then the subways. If there are no subways, then express buses, SBS, Limited buses, then local buses. Improving coordination which is what this article is about plays a part in this. When the B41 limited was started, one of the first limiteds, NYCT was measuring its success by increased patronage on the route. My question was where are those new passengers coming from? If they are leaving their cars at home, that's fine. But what if they previously were using the local B41 to change for the 2 or 5 to get to downtown Brooklyn and now just decided to stay on the bus all the way although it would still take longer than changing to the train? In my opinion that would not be so good because you never want to take people out of the train and put them on a bus instead if it is slower. I had this exact discussion with the chief bus planner many years ago during a job interview and he looked puzzled because it never occurred to him that some new riders may have previously been subway riders which is a more efficient mode to operate.

 

Similarly, you wouldn't want to take people out of the subway or rail system to use express bus which is why these lines mainly operate where there are no subways. No one is talking about "punishing" express bus riders. At the same time, you shouldn't be operating an express bus route for less than six passengers which is sometimes the case. I was not speaking specifically about which express bus routes should have a cut in service and I do not use express buses, to answer your question. I was basing my comments on what I heard at a transportation conference from a resident in Rochdale trying to keep her express bus route when the MTA was trying to cut it. She stated that there was an LIRR stop close to the express bus which could be used by the express bus passengers but isn't because the trains are too crowded to board and if someone can get on, the train is usually too crowded for the conductor to punch tickets and collect fares. So it seemed to me that if additional cars or trains could be provided during rush hours, (and more trains stopped there during non-rush hours) that might be a more efficient means of providing service than express buses since the higher railroad charge might also be a factor in someone choosing an express bus. I am not proposing eliminating express buses or service, just that it be looked into to determine if there were any cases where the LIRR could provide service instead at a cheaper operating cost than the express bus. I was not proposing that someone take two or three buses to the LIRR instead of a direct express bus. Are we clear now?

 

Dude QM21 is the bus and it has no off-peak service to be honest it has no service left to slash it is bidirectional meaning it runs at times when LIRR doesn't unlike the 2 weakest MTA bus lines that are worthless you know who they are they are ranked 34 and 35 in ridership level for express bus.

It's about as easy to come from central and northern Westchester then it is to come from eastern Queens, and that's a fact. I remember some years ago when they were trying to cut that 4a bus that comes from Yonkers and they had a cow up there, as that bus alone upheld property values along Central Av in areas not that close to the Harlem Line (they still advertise the presence of that bus in real estate listings).

 

its 4c and I convinced 4 people I met to switch to MNRR since even with uniticket and their travel styles they found out MNRR to bee-line was cheaper AND FASTER THAN 4C. You exaggerate how far central ave is from MNRR it really is not that far any part period. Especially since BL runs connecting buses that are TIMED with several MNRR peak trains and several departures throughout the day the former 4C user now uses the 8 to tuckahoe for MNRR and she told me it was faster than the bus ever was. That bus kept values high WOW FAIL. I would advertise convenient shuttle buses to MNRR that should keep values high. You have the 65,66,8,7 and ect taking you to MNRR. I will not pay $300 a month on one bus when I can pay $278 on bus and rail and several buses to choose from.

Love how Queens is always cheated out of express bus service

 

The QM1 and 5 IMO can be merged off peak, making the Fresh Meadows short turns on rush hours the QM5 as well.

The QM4 and QM6 can possibly get combined in some form with the combined routing losing the 164 street portion during off peak hours

 

The resources from the buses can be used to make revampments like

Extend hours OF OPERATION/ Days of Operation on the QM15, QM17, and QM24

 

err you liked my QM4/6 idea didn't ya QM17 and 24 I don't think are realistic concentrating ridership on one line with similar structures will be a better yield until it gets crushed off-peak I can't vouch for more off-peak lines. I would let BM5 make all QM15 woodhaven stops to pitkin at off-peak hours and reverse with 3 woodhaven stops being both pickup and drop off for transfers similar to BXM18's transfers. improve Q38 and time between Q21,53/52 and 38 to concentrate ridership to manhattan.

 

 

VG8 rail fares are NOT THAT HIGH. If you by off-peak ticket at the machine it is only $.25 more expensive than express bus except peak times. $5.50 vs $5.75 I am not losing sleep over a quarter. QM21 only exists cause rochdale LIRR is not accessible for old HOWEVER I saw the line for QM21 ALL the people were fit and able to use the LIRR but used 21 out of habit which kills your elderly argument dead completely.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It lowers costs for the MTA. It's just that for some reason or another, they don't pass those savings on to the passengers.

For some reason... LOL That's exactly my point. They're NOT going to lower the cost. As much as people don't think they won't pack folks onto trains that's exactly what they're doing now, so the point is the passenger is the one getting ****** over while the saves.... The passenger gives up more options to pay more.... Sounds like something that passengers would just love....

 

I agree that the fare structure is stupid. There's no reason why it should cost more to travel within the city on the LIRR/MNRR than the express bus. In fact, it should cost less because those modes are cheaper to operate. The fare from SE Queens to NYP should be about $4.50 or so, not $8.75.

That just makes Mangano's argument look very good... That the is bloated in terms of operating costs and this is a prime example of that. It's also one reason why I don't think the express buses are so UBER expensive to operate as everyone claims they are.

 

I don't think him driving is relevant. It's not like he's saying to cut service on the B1 & B49.

 

And obviously somebody is going to fight for the service they use, but that doesn't mean it should automatically be restored. Nor does somebody not being affected by a cut automatically invalidate when they say something should be cut. If he drives so much, he shouldn't have been affected by the B4 & B64 truncations, and yet he still fought for them.

Actually the fact that he drives is quite relevant because if he was using the system, he would know that there is really nothing to cut in terms of express bus service in Queens. He argued not once but twice in two separate articles about how wasteful express bus service is in Queens and how he would cut more service. Really???

As far as service being restored, we should make every effort to restore as much service as possible here in NYC because of how dependent folks are here on public transit. Now if a route isn't working we shouldn't just be running it like it's okay to waste service, but on the same hand every effort should be made to market the service and tweak it to draw ridership within reason. This is something that the in some cases does not do or waits too long to try to do well after a route has gone south.

 

I'm pretty sure he's saying it's more cost-effective for the MTA. I don't think he was insinuating anything about the cost for the passenger.

 

Oh I know he was. I just wanted him to say that directly because some folks on here are under the impression that having more folks use the rails will lower the passengers' cost, which has been shown to be total BS.

 

VG8 rail fares are NOT THAT HIGH. If you by off-peak ticket at the machine it is only $.25 more expensive than express bus except peak times. $5.50 vs $5.75 I am not losing sleep over a quarter. QM21 only exists cause rochdale LIRR is not accessible for old HOWEVER I saw the line for QM21 ALL the people were fit and able to use the LIRR but used 21 out of habit which kills your elderly argument dead completely.

 

Uh who gives a crap about off peak?? Even during off peak it can be more expensive because you have to first get to the station to get the LIRR which may or may not be accessible. MetroNorth doesn't run shuttle service on weekends so you would have to take car service to get to the station then pay for the ticket (which would be discounted but still). The express bus is not only far cheaper in that instance but quicker as well.

[checkmatechamp13]

For some reason... LOL That's exactly my point. They're NOT going to lower the cost. As much as people don't think they won't pack folks onto trains that's exactly what they're doing now, so the point is the passenger is the one getting ****** over while the saves.... The passenger gives up more options to pay more.... Sounds like something that passengers would just love....

 

 

The passenger pays more, but they would be paying even more if the MTA didn't make the cuts. If they didn't make the cuts, the MTA might raise the fares by say, 15% instead of 10%, which affects everybody including commuter rail riders.

 

In any case, when I said "passengers", I meant LIRR/MNRR passengers, not passengers in general. When the MTA saves money from one mode, they're not necessarily going to reinvest it in that particular mode. The fact that ridership has been increasing hasn't caused them to reduce the fares for MNRR passengers, but it might've played a role in the general fare hike.

 

That just makes Mangano's argument look very good... That the is bloated in terms of operating costs and this is a prime example of that. It's also one reason why I don't think the express buses are so UBER expensive to operate as everyone claims they are.

 

 

This isn't a "prime example" of anything. That document doesn't prove anything about being bloated. It simply states what the farebox recovery ratio is. Maybe it's bloated, or maybe it isn't, but that one simple document doesn't prove anything.

 

If you're saying the commuter rail operating costs are higher than the express bus operating costs, then that's wrong too, because I just proved that they're lower.

 

Actually the fact that he drives is quite relevant because if he was using the system, he would know that there is really nothing to cut in terms of express bus service in Queens. He argued not once but twice in two separate articles about how wasteful express bus service is in Queens and how he would cut more service. Really???

As far as service being restored, we should make every effort to restore as much service as possible here in NYC because of how dependent folks are here on public transit. Now if a route isn't working we shouldn't just be running it like it's okay to waste service, but on the same hand every effort should be made to market the service and tweak it to draw ridership within reason. This is something that the in some cases does not do or waits too long to try to do well after a route has gone south.

 

 

Well then it still doesn't matter whether or not he drives. Let's say he gave up his car and took the B1 & B49. Taking a local bus route in Brooklyn is not going to give him insight into how express buses operate in Queens.

 

In any case, my point is that he's not saying "Oh, I don't use it so it can be cut". He's advocated for increases in service that wouldn't benefit him either. If he really didn't care about the system, he wouldn't have advocated for them.

 

Uh who gives a crap about off peak?? Even during off peak it can be more expensive because you have to first get to the station to get the LIRR which may or may be accessible. MetroNorth doesn't run shuttle service on weekends so you would have to take car service to get to the station then pay for the ticket (which would be discounted but still). The express bus is not only far cheaper in that instance but quicker as well.

 

 

You don't need to take shuttle service to reach the LIRR. Most stations are served by a regular local bus, especially in that particular instance (QM21) His particular comment had nothing to do with any other route, just the QM21.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The passenger pays more, but they would be paying even more if the MTA didn't make the cuts. If they didn't make the cuts, the MTA might raise the fares by say, 15% instead of 10%, which affects everybody including commuter rail riders.

The point is that packing everyone on to trains is not the answer. It's an easy, LAZY way out with the passenger being screwed twice with higher fares AND less options to boot. It is no coincidence that there is a correlation between good transportation and economic growth for neighborhoods around the city. And no the shouldn't be basing service on this, BUT they should understand that good transportation benefits them as well...Vibrant neighborhoods can mean higher prices for the real estate that they own and they can charge higher rents to their tenants and so on and so forth.

 

Transportation is another form of investment, whether you want to look at it that way or not, especially here in NYC, not just for the but for the city as a whole.

 

In any case, when I said "passengers", I meant LIRR/MNRR passengers, not passengers in general. When the MTA saves money from one mode, they're not necessarily going to reinvest it in that particular mode. The fact that ridership has been increasing hasn't caused them to reduce the fares for MNRR passengers, but it might've played a role in the general fare hike.

I'm well aware of what you mean and that's what many folks have taken issue with in general... Taking from one to give to another.

 

This isn't a "prime example" of anything. That document doesn't prove anything about being bloated. It simply states what the farebox recovery ratio is. Maybe it's bloated, or maybe it isn't, but that one simple document doesn't prove anything.

 

If you're saying the commuter rail operating costs are higher than the express bus operating costs, then that's wrong too, because I just proved that they're lower.

You don't need the document to prove anything. The fact that the commuter rail operating costs are lower yet the passenger costs are so high shows that their prices are bloated at least in some cases. It is very difficult to justify raising prices on MNRR especially when they have record numbers in ridership. I understand that everyone has to share the pain and all of that but just going on the simple principle that folks including yourself have had on here that lowering operating costs automatically means that the fares will be lower is clearly not the case.

 

 

Well then it still doesn't matter whether or not he drives. Let's say he gave up his car and took the B1 & B49. Taking a local bus route in Brooklyn is not going to give him insight into how express buses operate in Queens.

 

In any case, my point is that he's not saying "Oh, I don't use it so it can be cut". He's advocated for increases in service that wouldn't benefit him either. If he really didn't care about the system, he wouldn't have advocated for them.

He doesn't have to say it. My point is that he can't fully relate to those who use those services every day that he's advocating cutting because he doesn't even use public transit here!! Him advocating for services that wouldn't benefit him in Brooklyn have nothing to do with him advocating for cuts in Queens because the difference here is he knows the neighborhoods that he's advocated for service increases for and has enough experience to see the impact that poor bus service is having in these communities because he drives around to have an idea of the problem though he can't totally understand the full impact since he isn't riding those lines.

 

It's clear that he has been out of touch with the commutes that Queens riders face in Northern and Eastern Queens because if he wasn't he would've known that express bus service has been pretty much cut to the bone there.

 

 

You don't need to take shuttle service to reach the LIRR. Most stations are served by a regular local bus, especially in that particular instance (QM21) His particular comment had nothing to do with any other route, just the QM21.

 

Yeah most is the key word, because that still doesn't mean that the buses get you there quickly. In my case I would've had to have walked for a while or take two buses to get to the LIRR, so the QM21 would've helped out a lot.

[BrooklynBus]

 

 

Nobody's talking about penalizing anyone, or flat out encouragement of a longer commute.... Who are you to try to tell people what mode they should embark on first anyway, whether it's on a train or on a bus.... Like I said, people are gonna take what works best for them..... And don't try to make it out like I'm one of these people that advocate for no cuts whatsoever..... Get out of here with that....

 

You are being inconsistent by stating that we should try to get people onto rails moreso than buses; where was all this talk of that years ago when you were more active on the forums saying everything you were saying about there needing to be a betterment of the bus network (esp. in south brooklyn).... There should be an equal importance of getting people on to different modes, period - that is the essence of what BALANCE is, regarding coordination.... smh @ we should try to get people onto every other possible mode over a local bus (including SBS' & LTD's)...

 

Anyway, No, You never implicitly said we should eliminate buses to put people on trains (which would be the worst case scenario to pull on), but telling us that there should be a hierarchy of trying to get people on a particular mode first DOES suggest that you're placing more of an importance over one mode over another as to pertains to better coordination w/i the system..... That is what I am questioning.... You don't have to necessarily advocate for the elimination of a bus route to belittle surface transportation; which is what you're doing with this whole thing, whether you realize it or not....

 

 

I certainly do not intend to belittle bus transportation as I have been working toward that end my entire life. In fact, I just completed next weeks article where I discuss again the MTA's bias against buses and how that is wrong. And yes you are correct in stating that people should take whichever mode works best for them. The MTA should support all modes equally.

 

All I am saying is that from an operational point of view it is more advantageous to have people ride the train over the bus given they have that choice. That would be why I would be against a Limited on the B68 for example because that would encourage B68 usage over use of the train for short trips requiring increasing the number of uses on the route without any gain for the MTA. The plain fact is that trains can carry so many more passengers than the bus. We saw the chaos when the MTA had to replace subway service through the tunnels with buses. Buses just can't do the same job as subways in terms of carrying the same numbers of passengers.

[BrooklynBus]

 

There are times when you are only going to get a few riders on the rails as well but that doesn't mean that you cut the service.

 

That's exactly what it means. That's what the service guidelines are all about.

 

 

I just find that to be very self centered and typical of some folks here that think well I'm not affected by the cuts so screw them. Also as much as you talk about using public transit I'm really curious as to how often you actually use public transit these days here in NYC. When I met you at the Town Hall meeting you drove there, even though you were advocating for use of public transit, which is certainly hypocritical to me. I think it's easy to say yeah cut this and cut that when you're driving around in a car and you don't have to depend on a bus or train to get around OR better yet you just don't use the bus or train during say late nights for example.

 

First of all there is nothing wrong about driving and also advocating for mass transit. You take the mode that makes most sense for you. If I can get there in half the time by car, why should I take mass transit? I use mass transit for trips that make sense or me where travel times are comparable. I had no access to a car for my first 25 years, and rarely if ever used taxis, so I know what it means to be transit dependent. I am generally against service cuts. You saw how hard I fought against the 2010 cuts although I had a car, so it is unfair to call me hypocritical.

 

You might be pleased to know that I lost my brand new car in the storm and for the past six weeks have been completely transit dependent until I get my car replaced. That means I am not making many trips that I would have made because they are just too inconvenient by transit. I am using the system a great deal more and am happy to report am having very few problems. For virtually every trip I have made the system has worked quite well. I have encountered very few problems on bus ad subway.

 

 

What's more troubling to me is that you could make the statements you made about Queens when the has already slashed service to any express bus that is even remotely close to the LIRR with the exception of rush hour service but as was stated before, even then they don't mimic the LIRR. I would like you to explain how exactly you're "complimenting" the train system if you're advocating slashing bus service and trying to get more folks to use the train?? There's nothing complimentary about that at all.

 

I never advocated "slashing bus service". I only stated that there should not be a fare impediment on the rails that would encourage someone to use express bus over the rails, and perhaps if there weren't, some express route service could be cut. That is quite different.

 

 

Furthermore your argument about rail service being more cost effective doesn't sit well with me either. Who is it supposed to be more cost effective for?? The or the passenger because if it's the passenger that is certainly not the case. Rail fares keep going up despite record ridership, so who is it more cost effective for??

 

More cost effective for the MTA is what I meant. Rail fares going up despite record usage is a separate issue.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

First of all there is nothing wrong about driving and also advocating for mass transit. You take the mode that makes most sense for you. If I can get there in half the time by car, why should I take mass transit? I use mass transit for trips that make sense or me where travel times are comparable. I had no access to a car for my first 25 years, and rarely if ever used taxis, so I know what it means to be transit dependent. I am generally against service cuts. You saw how hard I fought against the 2010 cuts although I had a car, so it is unfair to call me hypocritical.

 

You might be pleased to know that I lost my brand new car in the storm and for the past six weeks have been completely transit dependent until I get my car replaced. That means I am not making many trips that I would have made because they are just too inconvenient by transit. I am using the system a great deal more and am happy to report am having very few problems. For virtually every trip I have made the system has worked quite well. I have encountered very few problems on bus ad subway.

That's fine but you can't argue on the one hand that folks should take the service that is most convenient but then say on the other hand that you shouldn't have limited stop service if a subway is nearby. That's like saying that we shouldn't have the M101 LIMITED because the lines are below on Lex.

 

 

I never advocated "slashing bus service". I only stated that there should not be a fare impediment on the rails that would encourage someone to use express bus over the rails, and perhaps if there weren't, some express route service could be cut. That is quite different.

And you're making the assumption that in Queens there is service to cut and assuming that there are express buses running near the LIRR which isn't the case.

[BrooklynBus]

 

...

Why exactly does there have to be a hierarchy to improve coordination between modes?

...

Basically what you're saying is that we should try to get people to take rail transportation over surface transportation whenever possible....

 

Not for one second do, or have I ever believed that one mode of transportation holds any more importance over

 

Think I missed this before so let me reply now. Never said there has to be a hierarchy to improve coordination. They are two separate issues. Don't know what you mean by "importance". Of course all modes are important. Yes we should try to get people to take rail over buses, but not the way the MTA is doing it by cutting service and limiting choices. You are correct that everyone will and shoud use the mode that is best for them. What I am saying is that we should not make changes to the bus system that would take people out of trains and put them onto buses. That's all I meant by hierarchy.

 

And thanks Checkmate for sticking up for me. Yes I fought for the B64 although I have only ridden the route once and fought or the B4 although use the route rarely. And I wouldn't hesitate advocating a cut on a route that I use if I thought it is the right thing to do. But yes, the B1 and B49 are the ones I use most so I write mostly about them. But from my younger years, I was very familiar with the B46, B12, and B35 via Church which I used for 25 years on almost a daily basis. Of course I ride and have used many other routes, although I don't ride to busfan. My highest priority in terms of fixing routes is to rationalize the B16 which I actually rode for the first time a few months ago. It really isn't absolutely necessary to ride a route to understand its problems but it certainly does help a lot and you will find problems you never knew existed when you ride the route.

[checkmatechamp13]

The point is that packing everyone on to trains is not the answer. It's an easy, LAZY way out with the passenger being screwed twice with higher fares AND less options to boot. It is no coincidence that there is a correlation between good transportation and economic growth for neighborhoods around the city. And no the shouldn't be basing service on this, BUT they should understand that good transportation benefits them as well...Vibrant neighborhoods can mean higher prices for the real estate that they own and they can charge higher rents to their tenants and so on and so forth.

 

Transportation is another form of investment, whether you want to look at it that way or not, especially here in NYC, not just for the but for the city as a whole.

 

It's not higher fares because overall, it helps boost the FRR (See below). Commuter rail riders specifically might not see a reduction, but it helps lessen the impact of the fare hike for riders in general.

 

It's a choice between less service/higher fares, or same service/fares that are even higher.

 

I'm well aware of what you mean and that's what many folks have taken issue with in general... Taking from one to give to another.

 

(**sigh**)

 

You do realize that the subway system covers 67% of its operating costs, right? The LIRR only covers 44% and MNRR covers 52% (That's changed slightly since the service reductions, but the general point still applies, and if you don't believe me, you can take out a calculator and figure it out yourself, or go through the trouble of filing a FOIL request). If anybody's complaining about "taking from one to give to the other", it should be subway riders complaining about giving to commuter rail riders, not the other way around.

 

You don't need the document to prove anything. The fact that the commuter rail operating costs are lower yet the passenger costs are so high shows that their prices are bloated at least in some cases. It is very difficult to justify raising prices on MNRR especially when they have record numbers in ridership. I understand that everyone has to share the pain and all of that but just going on the simple principle that folks including yourself have had on here that lowering operating costs automatically means that the fares will be lower is clearly not the case.

 

When did I say that lower operating costs should equal lower fares on that mode? If we're going to use that logic, we should lower the subway fare by about 25-30% because the operating costs are that much lower.

 

For some reason, they want the farebox recovery ratio (FRR) on the commuter rails to be roughly in the same ballpark as the FRR as the local buses, higher than the FRR on the express buses, and lower than the FRR on the subway.

 

When you average together all the modes, it comes out to about 55% total, which is the highest FRR in the country. Other major cities like Boston, Philadelphia, etc all have lower farebox recovery ratios. If you want to talk about "operating costs are lower so the fare should be lower", we should have an across-the-board fare reduction.

 

Why do they do it like that? It has to do with the funding from different sources. You have the funding from the federal government, state government, local government, and it's all allocated for different sections of the system. There's that whole commuter tax out in the suburbs. If they repeal that tax, that means the fares in the suburbs will go up, but not the ones in the city. (And let's not debate about whether or not it's justified or whatever). Why? Because there's less funding from another source, so they have to turn to the farebox to make up the difference. The farebox recovery ratio is higher, but they still have the same overall amount of revenue.

 

He doesn't have to say it. My point is that he can't fully relate to those who use those services every day that he's advocating cutting because he doesn't even use public transit here!! Him advocating for services that wouldn't benefit him in Brooklyn have nothing to do with him advocating for cuts in Queens because the difference here is he knows the neighborhoods that he's advocated for service increases for and has enough experience to see the impact that poor bus service is having in these communities because he drives around to have an idea of the problem though he can't totally understand the full impact since he isn't riding those lines.

 

My point is it has nothing to do with him driving. That has to do with the fact that he lives in Brooklyn, not Queens.

 

Let's say he didn't have a car, and he relied on the B1 & B49. That has absolutely nothing to do with bus service in Queens, so whether he's driving or using Brooklyn buses is irrelevant.

 

You want to say "he doesn't use Queens services and doesn't understand the impacts of the cuts", that's already a weak argument. But if you want to bring up the fact that he drives as being a reason why his opinion on cuts in Queens is invalid, that's an even weaker argument.

 

In any case, why does it matter? He said that express buses that duplicate off-peak LIRR service should be cut (and the fare changed so that there's no extra penalty for the express bus riders). No routes fit the description. Therefore, he's effectively saying that there shouldn't be anything cut. What's the problem?

 

It's clear that he has been out of touch with the commutes that Queens riders face in Northern and Eastern Queens because if he wasn't he would've known that express bus service has been pretty much cut to the bone there.

 

You don't have to be "in touch" to know that there's basically nothing left to cut as far as Queens express service goes. All you have to do is look at the schedules and maps. It's irrelevant.

 

Yeah most is the key word, because that still doesn't mean that the buses get you there quickly. In my case I would've had to have walked for a while or take two buses to get to the LIRR, so the QM21 would've helped out a lot.

 

Locust Manor is right by the LIRR, and every single bus in that area connects with the LIRR at either Jamaica or Locust Manor, so no, it's only one bus.

 

That's fine but you can't argue on the one hand that folks should take the service that is most convenient but then say on the other hand that you shouldn't have limited stop service if a subway is nearby. That's like saying that we shouldn't have the M101 LIMITED because the lines are below on Lex.

 

It's a different story because the are overcrowded, so you would want to shift passengers off the subway.

 

A better example would be the Bx1 on the Grand Concourse. (Not saying that isn't a valid argument, but that you could've used a better example)

 

And you're making the assumption that in Queens there is service to cut and assuming that there are express buses running near the LIRR which isn't the case.

 

He's not saying to cut all off-peak express service. He's saying to cut the service that runs near the LIRR. Since no routes run near the LIRR, there's nothing to cut on that basis. What's the problem?

[BrooklynBus]

Here is my reasoning for suggesting possible service cuts on some Queens express routes. Many of the Queens express bus routes are operated by MTA Bus. In Brooklyn, you have several operated by NYCT.

 

If you studied the NYCT and MTA Bus rationale for cutting express bus service in 2010, you would have seen that MTA Bus used a much lower standard than NYCT. If NYCT used MTA Bus standards for costs and patronage, they never would have eliminated the X29. It costed less to operate and had higher patronage than some MTA Bus routes that were retained. Now you could argue that most X29 riders had a subway alternative and that wasn't the case in Queens. But the fact remains the reason the standards were lower on MTA Bus was because the city subsidizes the MTA for those losses, but not for NYCT express bus routes.

 

So the question is why MTA express buses were cut at all. The larger issue is that the entire city subsidy issue needs to be reexamined. Subsidies should be apples equally. Service levels should not depend on if the route was once privately operated or not.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's not higher fares because overall, it helps boost the FRR (See below). Commuter rail riders specifically might not see a reduction, but it helps lessen the impact of the fare hike for riders in general.

 

It's a choice between less service/higher fares, or same service/fares that are even higher.

I don’t care about overall… The fact is that ridership on the MNRR is at record levels and MNRR passengers will be paying more for the same service. I doubt the average MNRR is thinking about how many people ride the subway when they see their fare increase. They’re thinking I’m paying more money to stand on even more crowded trains.

 

(**sigh**)

 

You do realize that the subway system covers 67% of its operating costs, right? The LIRR only covers 44% and MNRR covers 52% (That's changed slightly since the service reductions, but the general point still applies, and if you don't believe me, you can take out a calculator and figure it out yourself, or go through the trouble of filing a FOIL request). If anybody's complaining about "taking from one to give to the other", it should be subway riders complaining about giving to commuter rail riders, not the other way around.

Oh please… The can’t even give accurate numbers regarding their own finances so whatever stats they put out are always up for debate.

 

 

You want to say "he doesn't use Queens services and doesn't understand the impacts of the cuts", that's already a weak argument. But if you want to bring up the fact that he drives as being a reason why his opinion on cuts in Queens is invalid, that's an even weaker argument.

Oh really, how so? If he was using the services in Queens he would know that they are no express buses near the LIRR running off peak.

 

In any case, why does it matter? He said that express buses that duplicate off-peak LIRR service should be cut (and the fare changed so that there's no extra penalty for the express bus riders). No routes fit the description. Therefore, he's effectively saying that there shouldn't be anything cut. What's the problem?

It’s pretty simple… If he wrote an article about how express buses shouldn’t duplicate off-peak LIRR service when no routes fit the description, then he’s showing how ignorant he is about express bus service in this case, complaining about how wasteful they are in Queens when the isn’t running any service of the sort. What it does illustrate is the ignorance that folks have when it comes to express bus service and the assumptions made. In short the article is misleading and creates the type of bias that I see often when discussions come up about express buses.

 

You don't have to be "in touch" to know that there's basically nothing left to cut as far as Queens express service goes. All you have to do is look at the schedules and maps. It's irrelevant.

Well even so he didn’t even look at a map…

 

Locust Manor is right by the LIRR, and every single bus in that area connects with the LIRR at either Jamaica or Locust Manor, so no, it's only one bus.

Ok you know when I'm the one that had to take the commute... It's two buses if you need to get from Guy Brewer Blvd... I guess you didn't look at the map either...

 

He's not saying to cut all off-peak express service. He's saying to cut the service that runs near the LIRR. Since no routes run near the LIRR, there's nothing to cut on that basis. What's the problem?

 

What do you mean what's the problem?? How do you sit there and write two articles on the subject suggesting these cuts and not know this??? That right there shows that he is ignorant about how things are running transportation wise in Queens and to make an argument like he's making and write an article about it, he should at least be aware of these things.

 

Here is my reasoning for suggesting possible service cuts on some Queens express routes. Many of the Queens express bus routes are operated by MTA Bus. In Brooklyn, you have several operated by NYCT.

 

If you studied the NYCT and MTA Bus rationale for cutting express bus service in 2010, you would have seen that MTA Bus used a much lower standard than NYCT. If NYCT used MTA Bus standards for costs and patronage, they never would have eliminated the X29. It costed less to operate and had higher patronage than some MTA Bus routes that were retained. Now you could argue that most X29 riders had a subway alternative and that wasn't the case in Queens. But the fact remains the reason the standards were lower on MTA Bus was because the city subsidizes the MTA for those losses, but not for NYCT express bus routes.

 

So the question is why MTA express buses were cut at all. The larger issue is that the entire city subsidy issue needs to be reexamined. Subsidies should be apples equally. Service levels should not depend on if the route was once privately operated or not.

 

But what does this have to do with your complaining about Queens express bus running off peak near the LIRR when that isn't even the case??

[checkmatechamp13]

I don’t care about overall… The fact is that ridership on the MNRR is at record levels and MNRR passengers will be paying more for the same service. I doubt the average MNRR is thinking about how many people ride the subway when they see their fare increase. They’re thinking I’m paying more money to stand on even more crowded trains.

 

 

Where's a facepalm when you need it?

 

Yes, MNRR riders aren't thinking about it. And your point is? Just because they aren't thinking about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

Different modes have different farebox recovery ratios. The subway performs better than the commuter rails, and they perform better than the express buses. Everybody is paying more for the same service. It's just that the MTA decided to take the money gained from the increased ridership on Metro-North and spread it among all the modes.

 

Oh please… The can’t even give accurate numbers regarding their own finances so whatever stats they put out are always up for debate.

 

 

I love it when you try to back out of arguments when you're backed into a corner.

 

You weren't debating the accuracy of the stats. You were talking about them as if they proved a point, talking about "this is a prime example of that", and "the operating costs are so low, but the passenger costs are so high" (which doesn't even make any sense). So now you're basically saying that you were trying to prove a point with inaccurate stats.

 

Nice try, though.

 

Oh really, how so? If he was using the services in Queens he would know that they are no express buses near the LIRR running off peak.

 

 

....which has nothing to do with him driving. He could give up his car and ride all the Brooklyn buses he wants, but it's not going to tell him about the ridership of Queens express buses.

 

It’s pretty simple… If he wrote an article about how express buses shouldn’t duplicate off-peak LIRR service when no routes fit the description, then he’s showing how ignorant he is about express bus service in this case, complaining about how wasteful they are in Queens when the isn’t running any service of the sort. What it does illustrate is the ignorance that folks have when it comes to express bus service and the assumptions made. In short the article is misleading and creates the type of bias that I see often when discussions come up about express buses.

 

 

So, basically, his idea has already been implemented. There's no off-peak service near the LIRR.

 

He wasn't sitting there advocating for across-the-board cuts to express buses. He was advocating for cuts in certain, limited situations. It's not creating some sort of bias. If somebody reads the article, they'll say "Yes, express buses shouldn't duplicate the LIRR off-peak". Then they'll look at a map and see that there are no routes that fit this description anyway. He wasn't trying to make it seem as if all Queens express routes duplicate the LIRR.

 

Well even so he didn’t even look at a map…

 

 

Thank you for repeating exactly what I just said.

 

Ok you know when I'm the one that had to take the commute... It's two buses if you need to get from Guy Brewer Blvd... I guess you didn't look at the map either...

 

 

You said you took 2 buses to reach the express bus, not the LIRR. For the LIRR, you take the Q111/113 to Parsons Blvd and walk a few blocks west to the LIRR station.

 

What do you mean what's the problem?? How do you sit there and write two articles on the subject suggesting these cuts and not know this??? That right there shows that he is ignorant about how things are running transportation wise in Queens and to make an argument like he's making and write an article about it, he should at least be aware of these things.

 

 

Because he's basically suggesting "cuts" to nothing.

 

First you're talking about "Oh, he doesn't understand the impact these cuts will have on the community", when there's no cuts, and therefore, no impact.

 

Yes, he should've checked his facts before publishing the article, but what's done is done. He's not going to delete the article. He was under the assumption that this wasn't already done. Now that he realizes that this is already happening, well, that's good. It's one thing the MTA did right.

[B35 via Church]

Think I missed this before so let me reply now. Never said there has to be a hierarchy to improve coordination. They are two separate issues. Don't know what you mean by "importance". Of course all modes are important. Yes we should try to get people to take rail over buses, but not the way the MTA is doing it by cutting service and limiting choices. You are correct that everyone will and shoud use the mode that is best for them. What I am saying is that we should not make changes to the bus system that would take people out of trains and put them onto buses. That's all I meant by hierarchy.

Come on, quit the playing dumb act... Oh you don't know what I mean by importance.... Lol.....

 

See BrooklynBus, you are trying to argue both sides of the coin to save face, regarding the points VG8 & myself brought up in this thread earlier.... I read both of your posts aimed at me since the last time I commented in this thread.... You cannot argue both sides when you specifically say that we should try to get riders on rails over buses.... You cannot claim well-balance when you say we should try to get riders on rails over buses.....

 

The plain fact is that trains can carry so many more passengers than the bus. We saw the chaos when the MTA had to replace subway service through the tunnels with buses. Buses just can't do the same job as subways in terms of carrying the same numbers of passengers.

This doesn't mean you focus anymore attention (since you don't know what I mean by importance) on getting people on rails though..... That is what a hierarchy suggests; you trying to minimize what you meant by a hierarchy after the fact is much ado about nothing..... It is to no one's surprise that buses have a purpose & subways/RR's have a purpose..... The focal point is the better coordinating of modes & balancing the system is it not? Stating that we should try to get more people on rails over buses is saying that we should try to get less people on buses over rails if rail service is present in a given area.... You cannot try to redefine what a balance is, come on now..... Connecting/getting people to trains is equally important as Connecting/getting people to buses - some would even say it's the same difference..... Trains having more passenger capacity than buses does not change any of that.....

 

Here is my reasoning for suggesting possible service cuts on some Queens express routes.

Many of the Queens express bus routes are operated by MTA Bus. In Brooklyn, you have several operated by NYCT.

 

If you studied the NYCT and MTA Bus rationale for cutting express bus service in 2010, you would have seen that MTA Bus used a much lower standard than NYCT. If NYCT used MTA Bus standards for costs and patronage, they never would have eliminated the X29.

Suggesting possible service cuts on Queens' exp. routes b/c they're operated by MTA Bus? Really now....

 

I understand/realize that a much lower standard was used, but it's still silly to say/suggest that service should be cut based on the notion that many of Queens' express routes are operated by MTA Bus.... Surprised you would make that weak an argument for cutting service, period - It makes it look like you were simply trying to avert VG8's point.....

 

Quite frankly, I don't know what it is you're suggesting be cut out there.....

 

That's fine but you can't argue on the one hand that folks should take the service that is most convenient but then say on the other hand that you shouldn't have limited stop service if a subway is nearby.

That's what I'm sayin... You can't argue that:

 

- ["People should take whichever mode works best for them" & how "the MTA should support all modes equally.] (post 30)

&

- ["Yes we should try to get people to take rail over buses, but not the way the MTA is doing it by cutting service and limiting choices.] (post 33)

 

And then tell me that he's not being inconsistent? The man is picking & choosing his arguments.....

 

That right there shows that he is ignorant about how things are running transportation wise in Queens and to make an argument like he's making and write an article about it, he should at least be aware of these things.

Not necessarily about Queens, but what's funny about that is that he's been called out on SC about that in the past....

[BrooklynBus]

This is getting quite ridiculous. Reread the article. It is about improving coordination between modes. There was one sentence that asked a question which was can't we reduce some express bus service in Queens if we rationalized Long Island bus fares? If that answer is no, then it is no. Now several of you have taken that simple question and turned it into I want to cut a bunch of Queens express routes, and also saying that since I drive, the system doesn't affect me, so I am being selfish and recommending cuts. Then you go on to say that since I believe there is or should be a hierarchy to get people to use trains over buses, I have a bias against buses and that I am being inconsistent.

 

None of that is true. I am not being inconsistent, certainly do not have a bias against buses and am not proposing express bus cuts, by asking a simple question. I said all modes are important. People should use what is best for them and all I meant by hierarchy is that the MTA should not go out of their way to provide new services that would cause someone to switch from subway to bus. That does not mean I believe in the converse, that they should make bus travel as inconvenient as possible to force people to use subway instead of bus. My fight to keep and restore B4 was because that was exactly what they we're trying to do. Regarding MTA Bus, my only point is that the same criteria should be used for all buses when deciding cuts and MTA. bus should not be given any special privileges because of its subsidies.

 

I wish you all would focus on the gist of the article which apparently no one has any argument with, rather than going off on these different tangents which is not what the article was even about.

[B35 via Church]

In other words, lemme try taking the high road because people are calling me out on my inconsistencies....

 

You brought up the hierarchy nonsense out of your own mouth.... You are not blameless in any of this criticism you've gotten thus far, so cut the I'm innocent act.... Good job at trying to separate what you said in the blog & what you're saying on this forum, as if what you said on the forums here don't matter.....

 

But I digress....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is getting quite ridiculous. Reread the article. It is about improving coordination between modes. There was one sentence that asked a question which was can't we reduce some express bus service in Queens if we rationalized Long Island bus fares? If that answer is no, then it is no. Now several of you have taken that simple question and turned it into I want to cut a bunch of Queens express routes, and also saying that since I drive, the system doesn't affect me, so I am being selfish and recommending cuts. Then you go on to say that since I believe there is or should be a hierarchy to get people to use trains over buses, I have a bias against buses and that I am being inconsistent.

 

None of that is true. I am not being inconsistent, certainly do not have a bias against buses and am not proposing express bus cuts, by asking a simple question. I said all modes are important. People should use what is best for them and all I meant by hierarchy is that the MTA should not go out of their way to provide new services that would cause someone to switch from subway to bus. That does not mean I believe in the converse, that they should make bus travel as inconvenient as possible to force people to use subway instead of bus. My fight to keep and restore B4 was because that was exactly what they we're trying to do. Regarding MTA Bus, my only point is that the same criteria should be used for all buses when deciding cuts and MTA. bus should not be given any special privileges because of its subsidies.

 

I wish you all would focus on the gist of the article which apparently no one has any argument with, rather than going off on these different tangents which is not what the article was even about.

 

Again you brought these things up in the article, not us, and you did so not once but in two different articles, so we are most certainly reading your articles. All I'm saying is if you're going to write an article like that posing some of the questions that you did, then you should at least do your research beforehand especially seeing how you were a former transit planner at the . Don't sit here and complain when you're called out on your inaccuracies because you're making arguments for things and saying how they're so expensive to run when they don't even exist.

 

 

Where's a facepalm when you need it?

 

Yes, MNRR riders aren't thinking about it. And your point is? Just because they aren't thinking about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

Different modes have different farebox recovery ratios. The subway performs better than the commuter rails, and they perform better than the express buses. Everybody is paying more for the same service. It's just that the MTA decided to take the money gained from the increased ridership on Metro-North and spread it among all the modes.

I've already made my point before... That cramming people on to trains and subways doesn't mean lower fares.... I know it's hard for you to follow along since you're just so busy arguing with me. Funny how you take up for BrooklynBus when I make comments arguing the exact same thing that others are, but nothing is said towards them. Why am I not surprised...

 

 

I love it when you try to back out of arguments when you're backed into a corner.

 

You weren't debating the accuracy of the stats. You were talking about them as if they proved a point, talking about "this is a prime example of that", and "the operating costs are so low, but the passenger costs are so high" (which doesn't even make any sense). So now you're basically saying that you were trying to prove a point with inaccurate stats.

 

Nice try, though.

You're right I wasn't and I even said as much in a previous post. I was discussing the notion of getting more folks to ride the rails and that not meaning that prices will automatically go down. You're the one that came up with the stats, not me, and I simply stated that their stats are questionable seeing their past history with the inaccuracy of their stats, which is pretty good argument to raise. Just because you post some figures up here doesn't mean that they're gold but you have a habit of doing that when trying to justify the 's actions.

 

 

....which has nothing to do with him driving. He could give up his car and ride all the Brooklyn buses he wants, but it's not going to tell him about the ridership of Queens express buses.

In the smaller scope of things no it won't. My point was that in the larger scope of things, he was out of touch and I still stand by that statement. It doesn't matter which route we're talking about because if a person is driving they can't fully understand what those commuters are going through. If he was taking routes in Brooklyn he could at least relate to the pain the Queens riders face and perhaps not be so quick to call for cuts to Queens service and go on about loading guidelines for Bus and NYCT.

 

 

You said you took 2 buses to reach the express bus, not the LIRR. For the LIRR, you take the Q111/113 to Parsons Blvd and walk a few blocks west to the LIRR station.

You don't know what I took and how many times I've been out there so just be quiet already about my commute. You know what I post and nothing more, not unless you're following me around now. When taking the LIRR over there I take two buses because it's my damn commute not yours and I do what's convenient for me.

 

 

Because he's basically suggesting "cuts" to nothing.

He's suggesting cuts to things that have already been cut and to cover his @ss now that he's been outed for complaining about services that don't exist, he goes on to talk about how the standards should be changed for Bus vs NYCT for cuts to express bus service to try to give his argument teeth. If he wanted to argue that then he should've said that from the beginning.

 

 

First you're talking about "Oh, he doesn't understand the impact these cuts will have on the community", when there's no cuts, and therefore, no impact.

Because he's arguing multiple things... It's clear in his mind that one way or another there should be more cuts to express bus service because now he's bringing up this nonsense about Bus loading standards vs NYCT standards.

 

 

Yes, he should've checked his facts before publishing the article, but what's done is done. He's not going to delete the article. He was under the assumption that this wasn't already done. Now that he realizes that this is already happening, well, that's good. It's one thing the MTA did right.

 

Yeah and now hopefully he won't write article #3 calling for the same nonsense since this is second article that he's done this with that I've read.

 

And with that this discussion with you is done since there is no getting through to you.

[BrooklynBus]

Garibaldi,

 

Again you are making it seem like I wrote an article about cuts to express bus routes which is not true. The article is about better coordination of modes. Why is no one addressing any of the other point in the article like a bus terminal in Flushing or bike racks on buses for example? Why are you harping on one single point?

 

And the fact remains whether you like it or not, subsidies per passenger are the highest for express bus riders if you exclude paratransit. So if someone would be able to take a local bus to the LIRR and possibly another bus in Manhattan and get to his destination in less time than if he made the entire trip by express bus, and if someone is not doing that just because that trip would cost more than an express bus, the fare structure should be changed to permit that by lowering the LIRR fare and providing a free transfer to the bus. If there is no situation where that would apply, then it doesn't apply. That's what I was trying to say. But no matter how you look at it, it was one sentence in an article. You make it appear that I wrote two articles calling for express bus cuts because there are parallel Long Island routes someone could take. I said nothing of the sort.

 

As far as MTA Bus vs NYCT standards for cuts, I am not first bringing that up now. I mentioned that in previous articles and I believe it may have even been in my testimony in 2010. I am also not saying there should be more MTA Express bus cuts. What I am saying is that you either cut MTA buses to meet the standard set for NYCT buses or you restore the NYCT cuts to meet the MTA Bus standards, but there shouldn't be two sets of standards.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Garibaldi,

 

Again you are making it seem like I wrote an article about cuts to express bus routes which is not true. The article is about better coordination of modes. Why is no one addressing any of the other point in the article like a bus terminal in Flushing or bike racks on buses for example? Why are you harping on one single point?

 

And the fact remains whether you like it or not, subsidies per passenger are the highest for express bus riders if you exclude paratransit. So if someone would be able to take a local bus to the LIRR and possibly another bus in Manhattan and get to his destination in less time than if he made the entire trip by express bus, and if someone is not doing that just because that trip would cost more than an express bus, the fare structure should be changed to permit that by lowering the LIRR fare and providing a free transfer to the bus. If there is no situation where that would apply, then it doesn't apply. That's what I was trying to say. But no matter how you look at it, it was one sentence in an article. You make it appear that I wrote two articles calling for express bus cuts because there are parallel Long Island routes someone could take. I said nothing of the sort.

 

As far as MTA Bus vs NYCT standards for cuts, I am not first bringing that up now. I mentioned that in previous articles and I believe it may have even been in my testimony in 2010. I am also not saying there should be more MTA Express bus cuts. What I am saying is that you either cut MTA buses to meet the standard set for NYCT buses or you restore the NYCT cuts to meet the MTA Bus standards, but there shouldn't be two sets of standards.

 

Okay, so you've clarified your points, which was part of what I asking you to do from the get go and that I can respect, but I do recall somewhere this issue about express buses being raised before. As for the two standards, quite frankly if they were to do that I think service cuts would be even worse than what they were now which as far as I'm concerned would not help to have a balanced system in terms of connections between buses and trains and would elongate the commutes for many passengers. Now I do agree that the standards should be the same, but they need to be adjusted so that cuts aren't as ridiculous such as with the X29 and X16, leaving folks to have longer, inconvenient commutes.

 

As for your other comments in that article one question I would pose to you is do you really think it is possible to make connectivity better between buses and trains other than what is already being done?? I'm not sure about that one because of the simple fact that it may just make things worse. With train connections I can understand to a degree but how could you coordinate bus to train connections better?? I've witnessed bus to ferry connections and while I hate the idea of folks missing their bus or ferry connection in that case if you try to hold one or the other for too long, then you have a back up that could affect everyone for hours. Through increased technology I think perhaps better connectivity is doable but I don't see that happening in the near future, though with Bus Time and the subway countdown clocks it has certainly helped allow folks to make their own connections better. I think the real key is if people can plan their commutes better, the rest for the most part will fall into place. If I know when said bus is coming and can get a feel as to if there is traffic or not then I can plan around that and that to me is a big thing that I would give the credit for. I've already shaved a significant amount of time off of my commute with Bus Time by being able to catch buses that I wouldn't have bothered to try to take or even make connections by knowing where one bus was while on another and then planning my connection accordingly.

[BrooklynBus]

 

As for your other comments in that article one question I would pose to you is do you really think it is possible to make connectivity better between buses and trains other than what is already being done?? I'm not sure about that one because of the simple fact that it may just make things worse. With train connections I can understand to a degree but how could you coordinate bus to train connections better?? I've witnessed bus to ferry connections and while I hate the idea of folks missing their bus or ferry connection in that case if you try to hold one or the other for too long, then you have a back up that could affect everyone for hours. Through increased technology I think perhaps better connectivity is doable but I don't see that happening in the near future, though with Bus Time and the subway countdown clocks it has certainly helped allow folks to make their own connections better. I think the real key is if people can plan their commutes better, the rest for the most part will fall into place. If I know when said bus is coming and can get a feel as to if there is traffic or not then I can plan around that and that to me is a big thing that I would give the credit for. I've already shaved a significant amount of time off of my commute with Bus Time by being able to catch buses that I wouldn't have bothered to try to take or even make connections by knowing where one bus was while on another and then planning my connection accordingly.

 

 

I realize that it would be impossible or very difficult to coordinate bus and subway schedules at the midpoints of bus routes such as at Eastern Parkway and Utica Av which is a major transfer point between buses and trains. I think at bus terminals it should be easier if it is not done now. But what is wrong with that holding light proposed by my Columbia University professor back in 1992? Can you think of any reason why we couldn't have that? The technology seems to exist since for years we have at lights light up when an elevated train is about to enter the station so that passengers could wait in the waiting room instead of on a cold platform.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I realize that it would be impossible or very difficult to coordinate bus and subway schedules at the midpoints of bus routes such as at Eastern Parkway and Utica Av which is a major transfer point between buses and trains. I think at bus terminals it should be easier if it is not done now. But what is wrong with that holding light proposed by my Columbia University professor back in 1992? Can you think of any reason why we couldn't have that? The technology seems to exist since for years we have at lights light up when an elevated train is about to enter the station so that passengers could wait in the waiting room instead of on a cold platform.

 

I don't follow what you are getting at when you talk about elevated trains entering the station so that passengers could wait in the waiting room... There is a technology for the most part that alerts passengers as to when the train is coming so that they don't have to wait in the cold. It exists for example at the Sheepshead Bay train station.

[BrooklynBus]

I don't follow what you are getting at when you talk about elevated trains entering the station so that passengers could wait in the waiting room... There is a technology for the most part that alerts passengers as to when the train is coming so that they don't have to wait in the cold. It exists for example at the Sheepshead Bay train station.

 

 

That's exactly what I mean. At Sheepshead Bay the "waiting room" is on the ground floor. On the F it's on the mezzanine. I'm calling it a waiting room like they have on the railroads because there is always a bench or two for you to sit down and wait for the sign to light up that a train is coming so you can go to the platform. Sorry if the term "waiting room" confused you.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's exactly what I mean. At Sheepshead Bay the "waiting room" is on the ground floor. On the F it's on the mezzanine. I'm calling it a waiting room like they have on the railroads because there is always a bench or two for you to sit down and wait for the sign to light up that a train is coming so you can go to the platform. Sorry if the term "waiting room" confused you.

 

Well Bus Time has been wonderful for me... I can time the bus perfectly so I wait maybe 5 minutes at the most and my bus is there. Also allows me to get a few things done if the bus is late or whatever.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

The way I look at this discussion is that within NYC a balance between the modes is almost impossible to accomplish, rendering the whole discussion here moot. Let's face it, the most popular commute for any city is that into the CBD (Lower Manhattan and Midtown for NYC's case). For that commute buses are much less efficient than subways. Ultimately, subways will be used in greater numbers and have greater cost efficiency than buses. What we should be focused on is how to make the most of each mode individually. In that effort we should look at what 'specialty' each mode can cater to effectively and then design that mode to cater to it

 

- Walking should be the short distance mode. People making trips shorter than 1 mile in length should walk instead of using a local bus or subway.

- Local buses should be the medium distance mode. Medium distance can be considered anything greater than 5 local bus stops (see info below) but less than the full length of an average local bus route

- Limited stop or +SBS buses should be the medium/long distance mode. A perfect example of a trip that this mode would work for is that from the UES to the LES on M15 +SBS. It's about the full length of the average local bus route but not long enough IMO for subway usage.

-Subways should be used for long distance trips within city limits. A trip from the outer boroughs into the CBD fits this perfectly and the subway was designed for this.

- Commuter rails should be used for trips that cross over city limits. This one is simple enough.

There are ways that the network can be modified to get commuters more in line with this model

- Space out the distance between local bus stops (They should on average 4-5 blocks apart instead of every 2 blocks)

- Subway stops (on the same trunk line) should be at least 1 kilometer apart. Any combination of stops that are too close together will result in the abandonment of the least used stop

- Run super-express (I have no other word to describe it) subway services into the outer boroughs to raise the headway of subway service in areas that neighbor a CBD (UES, UWS and so on)

[qjtransitmaster]

The way I look at this discussion is that within NYC a balance between the modes is almost impossible to accomplish, rendering the whole discussion here moot. Let's face it, the most popular commute for any city is that into the CBD (Lower Manhattan and Midtown for NYC's case). For that commute buses are much less efficient than subways. Ultimately, subways will be used in greater numbers and have greater cost efficiency than buses. What we should be focused on is how to make the most of each mode individually. In that effort we should look at what 'specialty' each mode can cater to effectively and then design that mode to cater to it

 

- Walking should be the short distance mode. People making trips shorter than 1 mile in length should walk instead of using a local bus or subway.

- Local buses should be the medium distance mode. Medium distance can be considered anything greater than 5 local bus stops (see info below) but less than the full length of an average local bus route

- Limited stop or +SBS buses should be the medium/long distance mode. A perfect example of a trip that this mode would work for is that from the UES to the LES on M15 +SBS. It's about the full length of the average local bus route but not long enough IMO for subway usage.

-Subways should be used for long distance trips within city limits. A trip from the outer boroughs into the CBD fits this perfectly and the subway was designed for this.

- Commuter rails should be used for trips that cross over city limits. This one is simple enough.

There are ways that the network can be modified to get commuters more in line with this model

- Space out the distance between local bus stops (They should on average 4-5 blocks apart instead of every 2 blocks)

- Subway stops (on the same trunk line) should be at least 1 kilometer apart. Any combination of stops that are too close together will result in the abandonment of the least used stop NICE THEY NEED THIS BADLY.

- Run super-express (I have no other word to describe it) subway services into the outer boroughs to raise the headway of subway service in areas that neighbor a CBD (UES, UWS and so on it Looks good but how will you even go about doing it?

 

Dude you do realize that if this piece of genius is implemented it WILL INFACT create this so called impossible balance between modes of transport in NYC. To be honest this idea makes it outright possible and practical. So much for balance between modes in NYC impossible your idea not only makes it possible it makes it look easy to accomplish.

For some reason... LOL That's exactly my point. They're NOT going to lower the cost. As much as people don't think they won't pack folks onto trains that's exactly what they're doing now, so the point is the passenger is the one getting ****** over while the saves.... The passenger gives up more options to pay more.... Sounds like something that passengers would just love....

 

 

That just makes Mangano's argument look very good... That the is bloated in terms of operating costs and this is a prime example of that. It's also one reason why I don't think the express buses are so UBER expensive to operate as everyone claims they are.

 

Actually the fact that he drives is quite relevant because if he was using the system, he would know that there is really nothing to cut in terms of express bus service in Queens. He argued not once but twice in two separate articles about how wasteful express bus service is in Queens and how he would cut more service. Really???

As far as service being restored, we should make every effort to restore as much service as possible here in NYC because of how dependent folks are here on public transit. Now if a route isn't working we shouldn't just be running it like it's okay to waste service, but on the same hand every effort should be made to market the service and tweak it to draw ridership within reason. This is something that the in some cases does not do or waits too long to try to do well after a route has gone south.

 

Oh I know he was. I just wanted him to say that directly because some folks on here are under the impression that having more folks use the rails will lower the passengers' cost, which has been shown to be total BS.

 

Uh who gives a crap about off peak?? Even during off peak it can be more expensive because you have to first get to the station to get the LIRR which may or may not be accessible. MetroNorth doesn't run shuttle service on weekends so you would have to take car service to get to the station then pay for the ticket (which would be discounted but still). The express bus is not only far cheaper in that instance but quicker as well.

 

what kind of idiot uses car service to LIRR? if you have money like that then fares are not even an issue. QM21 hmm I am guessing you used a linden blvd stop didn't ya cause that is the only way you can be too far from LIRR. Ohh MNRR has off-peak links 66 and 8 run off-peak and scarsdale is a 13 min walk from central ave. The crosstown 7 is 7 days a week and timed well with MNRR as is the 55 sort of thus invalidating your argument options mean nothing if they are useless and slow and in 4c's case MORE EXPENSIVE!!!! Do the math. Getting to LIRR is easy work. And there is ZERO instance where X63/QM21 is faster than LIRR none unless the buses can teleport and skip the van wyck by magic plz in a dream world it's faster. LMAO CMON MAN.

 

 

 

Remember NYC has a pecking order from most loved to afterthought

there is LIRR/MNRR

next subways then LTD stop buses then local buses and lastly express buses except in SI and the bronx where

express buses are 2nd in hierarchic pecking order rather than dead last.

 

Personally locals are dead last in pecking order they simply show up cause they know better.

[checkmatechamp13]

That's what I'm sayin... You can't argue that:

 

- ["People should take whichever mode works best for them" & how "the MTA should support all modes equally.] (post 30)

&

- ["Yes we should try to get people to take rail over buses, but not the way the MTA is doing it by cutting service and limiting choices.] (post 33)

 

And then tell me that he's not being inconsistent? The man is picking & choosing his arguments.....

 

 

But in that same post (#30) he says

 

All I am saying is that from an operational point of view it is more advantageous to have people ride the train over the bus given they have that choice.

 

Most of the restorations he's advocated for have been in areas where the subway wasn't an alternative for the trip, or it was too inconvenient. With the B4, the B36 is too far away from Emmons Avenue, and with the B64, it's cut off from a whole bunch of connections at Coney Island.

 

He's basically saying that if people have the option of using a bus or train, the use of the train should be encouraged (which is what the MTA is doing). But they're going about it the wrong way, because they're giving people crappy bus service. He's mentioned before how people shouldn't be penalized if the subway is in the middle of the route (say, a KCC student shouldn't be penalized by taking the B35--B49 when it's quicker than taking the B35-B49), because it actually saves the MTA money by allowing them to reduce service on the B49, and helps the student by helping him get to school faster. But at the same time, he wouldn't advocate for entirely eliminating the B49 and forcing those people to take the subway. In fact, he specifically mentioned that in his articles about the B44 +SBS+.

 

And in Post #20, he says the same thing:

 

If we could reduce some bus service by having more people using the train instead, I regard that as a good thing because it's more cost efficient, but only if someone switches from bus to subway voluntarily, not because the alternative of using the bus no longer exists.

 

I've already made my point before... That cramming people on to trains and subways doesn't mean lower fares.... I know it's hard for you to follow along since you're just so busy arguing with me. Funny how you take up for BrooklynBus when I make comments arguing the exact same thing that others are, but nothing is said towards them. Why am I not surprised...

 

 

Wow. One other person. Aside from that, the whole thing started as one simple comment directed towards you that wasn't even a real defense of BrooklynBus. (Post #21).

 

You said: I would like to see a cost analysis of why MetroNorth and the LIRR cost so much and how much they are subsidized..... I gave you the analysis you asked for. Then the other posts were related to the analysis. So far, nothing to do with defending him.

 

Then you started talking about "Oh, he has a car, so he has no sympathy for the users and has no idea about service in Queens" and all that BS. That's when I "defended him". One that one point that you raised. B35 wasn't the one who raised that point. Aside from that, he wasn't directing any of his comments at me.

 

Nice try at deflection, though.

 

In any case, the MTA has a deficit. They were going to raise the fares anyway. The additional revenue means that they have that much additional money to work with, towards putting off the fare hike. Just because MNRR was the agency that saw the ridership gains doesn't necessarily mean that the money has to go towards MNRR itself.

 

Aside from that, it's not like ridership doubled or anything. Ridership on MNRR increased about 3% from last year. (http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2012-q3-ridership-APTA.pdf). All of the numbers for previous years are avilable here. How much would the fare have realistically been lowered by, and how do you know that the MTA didn't factor in the additional revenue from MNRR when considering how much to hike the fare. Remember that the fare was going to be raised anyway, barring outstanding circumstances.

 

You're right I wasn't and I even said as much in a previous post. I was discussing the notion of getting more folks to ride the rails and that not meaning that prices will automatically go down. You're the one that came up with the stats, not me, and I simply stated that their stats are questionable seeing their past history with the inaccuracy of their stats, which is pretty good argument to raise. Just because you post some figures up here doesn't mean that they're gold but you have a habit of doing that when trying to justify the 's actions.

 

I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

 

Re-read all my posts on the topic, including the one right on top of this one.

 

In the smaller scope of things no it won't. My point was that in the larger scope of things, he was out of touch and I still stand by that statement. It doesn't matter which route we're talking about because if a person is driving they can't fully understand what those commuters are going through. If he was taking routes in Brooklyn he could at least relate to the pain the Queens riders face and perhaps not be so quick to call for cuts to Queens service and go on about loading guidelines for Bus and NYCT.

 

 

He said himself he knows what it's like to be transit-dependant, because for the first 25 years of his life, he didn't have a car.

 

Aside from that, you can still use transit and call for cuts.

 

You don't know what I took and how many times I've been out there so just be quiet already about my commute. You know what I post and nothing more, not unless you're following me around now. When taking the LIRR over there I take two buses because it's my damn commute not yours and I do what's convenient for me.

 

 

That's how I know which routes you took, because you listed them.

 

Q111 (once - tutoring session) (to Q25 and then to QM5; bus was filthy), Q113 (once - tutoring session from Q25 (from QM5 or QM6))

 

You took the Q113 to go to the session, and the Q111 to go back, and in both cases, you were going to/from the express bus, not the LIRR. The only routes by Guy R Brewer Blvd are the Q111 & Q113.

 

He's suggesting cuts to things that have already been cut and to cover his @ss now that he's been outed for complaining about services that don't exist, he goes on to talk about how the standards should be changed for Bus vs NYCT for cuts to express bus service to try to give his argument teeth. If he wanted to argue that then he should've said that from the beginning.

 

He's mentioned that before. He's mentioned in the past how it's not fair the the X27/28 performed better than some MTA Bus routes, and yet the X27/28 were eliminated, but the MTA Bus routes weren't. He's also mentioned the X29 at some point in the past.

 

Because he's arguing multiple things... It's clear in his mind that one way or another there should be more cuts to express bus service because now he's bringing up this nonsense about Bus loading standards vs NYCT standards.

 

It's not "nonsense".

 

The BM4 cost around $40 per passenger on Saturday, and meanwhile, the X27 cost around $9, and the X28 cost around $15 and yet which one was cut? You can argue that the BM4 had some runs reduced (which still doesn't bring the cost down that much), but then you could also argue that X27 Saturday service was even more efficient than $9 per person. He's 100% right with that. The same standard should apply across the board, whether it results in more cuts, or more restorations.

 

Now I do agree that the standards should be the same, but they need to be adjusted so that cuts aren't as ridiculous such as with the X29 and X16, leaving folks to have longer, inconvenient commutes.

 

 

That's his whole point. The X29 & X16 actually performed very well, and yet they were cut, while other, worse-performing MTA Bus routes were maintained.

 

Well Bus Time has been wonderful for me... I can time the bus perfectly so I wait maybe 5 minutes at the most and my bus is there. Also allows me to get a few things done if the bus is late or whatever.

 

 

This has nothing to do with BusTime. He's saying that there should be lights outside the station for the B/Os to know if a train is pulling in, so they know to wait a few minutes, so that passengers can catch that bus instead of having to wait for the next one.