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

[BrooklynBus]

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)

 

It's obvious from your post that you are young and have no difficulty walking and that's who your standards are deigned for. The fact is that a large portion of Manhattan bus riders especially on the Upper East Side are elderly women. There are seniors in many other part of the city as well as younger people who use buses also who have difficulty walking. Some people may have temporary injury like sciatica or use crutches for a while. Others are carrying heavy packages. So you shouldn't make,a statement like buses should stop only every our or five blocks. You also say everyone should walk all trips under a mile. Theoretically for health reasons you are probably correct. But many are not able to walk that distance or wouldn't want to in inclement, very cold, or very hot weather. Or maybe the neighborhood isn't deemed safe to walk.

 

There are many reasons why people need to use the bus for trips under one mile and you have no right to impose your standards on everyone. I know as far as I'm concerned, on some days I have no problem walking a mile and a quarter, and on other days I have no energy and would take a bus just for a few blocks.

[B35 via Church]

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.

Finally, someone else I can direct a post at in this thread....

 

My stance with that guy wasn't that he hates buses & wants to make the commute for bus riders worse to pack people on trains....

My stance was that you can't be pro-bus & pro-train & then sit here talking about reducing bus service to have more people on trains being such a good thing (for any reason).... I wasn't attacking the idea that he all of a sudden developed a hatred for buses (like he tried to make it seem), I was attacking his logical inconsistency.... He was flip-flopping throughout this discussion, then continually tried to make like there was this big misunderstanding... When that didn't work, the *I'm an innocent victim card* was played.... I'm like dude, whatever....

 

Anyway, Yes the use of the train should be encouraged, but so should buses... In this thread, he was placing too much of the emphasis on trains regarding coordination of modes (that's one reason I mentioned that you can't try to redefine what a balance is)... I wasn't saying that he was in some sort of agreeance with the MTA with how they go about forcing people onto trains by killing bus service, because I remember the posts he made on this forum (and all the blog posts he forwards here) regarding the B36/B44/44SBS, and the B4, etc. etc....

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

It's obvious from your post that you are young and have no difficulty walking and that's who your standards are deigned for. The fact is that a large portion of Manhattan bus riders especially on the Upper East Side are elderly women. There are seniors in many other part of the city as well as younger people who use buses also who have difficulty walking. Some people may have temporary injury like sciatica or use crutches for a while. Others are carrying heavy packages. So you shouldn't make,a statement like buses should stop only every our or five blocks. You also say everyone should walk all trips under a mile. Theoretically for health reasons you are probably correct. But many are not able to walk that distance or wouldn't want to in inclement, very cold, or very hot weather. Or maybe the neighborhood isn't deemed safe to walk.

 

There are many reasons why people need to use the bus for trips under one mile and you have no right to impose your standards on everyone. I know as far as I'm concerned, on some days I have no problem walking a mile and a quarter, and on other days I have no energy and would take a bus just for a few blocks.

 

I understand everything you say here. Those who need to use the buses on short trips for the reasons you bring up have every reason to do. The thing is that the bus doesn't exist to solely cater to these folks and if buses have to stop once every 2 blocks because of that it lengthens the commute time for people who are on the bus for a considerable distance. My thought process here is that having 4 blocks between bus stops doesn't drastically affect people commutes yet cuts the number of local bus stops in half lowering commute times in the process. If you look at it having stops 4 blocks apart means that no stop is further than 2 blocks from a currently existing stop. For those folks whom end up having to walk a couple of extra blocks to reach a bus, it really shouldn't make a difference. As to how this all encourages able-bodied folks to walk for short trips I can reply with another post if you would like,

[B35 via Church]

^^ I've heard that argument/point raised before.... While I'm not totally against it, I will say that you'd kinda bastardize the importance of LTD's by creating super locals (lol... by that I mean, increasing the distance between local stops) though.... Forgot who said it, but I hear that LTD's actually save the MTA money in the longrun.....

[BrooklynBus]

 

Finally, someone else I can direct a post at in this thread....

 

My stance with that guy wasn't that he hates buses & wants to make the commute for bus riders worse to pack people on trains....

My stance was that you can't be pro-bus & pro-train & then sit here talking about reducing bus service to have more people on trains being such a good thing (for any reason).... I wasn't attacking the idea that he all of a sudden developed a hatred for buses (like he tried to make it seem), I was attacking his logical inconsistency.... He was flip-flopping throughout this discussion, then continually tried to make like there was this big misunderstanding... When that didn't work, the *I'm an innocent victim card* was played.... I'm like dude, whatever....

 

Anyway, Yes the use of the train should be encouraged, but so should buses... In this thread, he was placing too much of the emphasis on trains regarding coordination of modes (that's one reason I mentioned that you can't try to redefine what a balance is)... I wasn't saying that he was in some sort of agreeance with the MTA with how they go about forcing people onto trains by killing bus service, because I remember the posts he made on this forum (and all the blog posts he forwards here) regarding the B36/B44/44SBS, and the B4, etc. etc....

 

 

I wasn't flip flopping and I never said anything about reducing bus service to have more people on trains. Yes, both use of both trains and buses should be encouraged. I never said anything to the contrary. When I was talking about it being advantageous if more trips shifted from bus to subway, it was implicit that I was talking about cases where capacity existed. I never would want anyone to leave a comfortable bus to be packed in like a sardine on the train. Many who do have the choice currently choose bus over train just because they are more comfortable even if the trip takes ten minutes longer.

[BrooklynBus]

I understand everything you say here. Those who need to use the buses on short trips for the reasons you bring up have every reason to do. The thing is that the bus doesn't exist to solely cater to these folks and if buses have to stop once every 2 blocks because of that it lengthens the commute time for people who are on the bus for a considerable distance. My thought process here is that having 4 blocks between bus stops doesn't drastically affect people commutes yet cuts the number of local bus stops in half lowering commute times in the process. If you look at it having stops 4 blocks apart means that no stop is further than 2 blocks from a currently existing stop. For those folks whom end up having to walk a couple of extra blocks to reach a bus, it really shouldn't make a difference. As to how this all encourages able-bodied folks to walk for short trips I can reply with another post if you would like,

 

 

I wasn't trying to imply that all stops shoud be two city blocks apart. Sometimes two blocks makes sense and in some cases three blocks makes more sense. It depends on how crowded the buses are and how well utilized the stops are. In cases where bus stops are. moderately used, three block spacing makes the most sense. In cases of stops that are heavily utilized, two block spacing makes the most sense since little time is saved with three block spacing. People have to walk an extra half block or block and the dwell time increases at the remaining stops. In cases of lightly used stops, two block spacing makes the most sense since many stops are skipped anyway because no one is getting on or off, so why inconvenience anyone by reducing the spacing? The exception would be if parking is at a premium and it makes sense to reduce bus stops to increase the number of available spots. Then three block spacing may make sense. I can't see four or five blck spacing except if there is only park, cemetery, or industrial uses in the area and hardly anyone is getting on or off the bus in that area. And as B35 points out, you do have limited on heavy routes for that.

[B35 via Church]

I wasn't flip flopping

Sure you were... and it's already been pointed out in this thread already....

You're wasting your time trying to convince me that you weren't, just letting you know that right now.....

 

and I never said anything about reducing bus service to have more people on trains.

Why are you telling me this for? I just said in my last post that this wasn't what I was accusing you of....

 

Yes, both use of both trains and buses should be encouraged.

Which was a point I made.... Which you agreed to after you got called out on your inconsistency....

You can agree to it, sure.... But don't sit up here & implicitly state that we should try to get more people on rails too - and on top of that, try to persuade people that you weren't inconsistent - When the focus of the whole thing is to better coordinate modes to aim for a well balanced system.....

 

I never said anything to the contrary.

Of course you didn't say anything to the contrary to that.... Lol, Nobody's arguing this....

The contrary to that statement would be neither trains nor buses should be encouraged....

 

When I was talking about it being advantageous if more trips shifted from bus to subway, it was implicit that I was talking about cases where capacity existed.

So what.... Such a statement still suggests the shifting of more people onto the subway... This changes nothing in your attempt to try to clear things up here....

 

I never would want anyone to leave a comfortable bus to be packed in like a sardine on the train. Many who do have the choice currently choose bus over train just because they are more comfortable even if the trip takes ten minutes longer.

Yeah, well then you should refrain from making remarks such as:

 

"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."

[B35 via Church]

I wasn't trying to imply that all stops shoud be two city blocks apart. Sometimes two blocks makes sense and in some cases three blocks makes more sense. It depends on how crowded the buses are and how well utilized the stops are.

 

In cases where bus stops are. moderately used, three block spacing makes the most sense.

In cases of stops that are heavily utilized, two block spacing makes the most sense since little time is saved with three block spacing.

 

People have to walk an extra half block or block and the dwell time increases at the remaining stops. In cases of lightly used stops, two block spacing makes the most sense since many stops are skipped anyway because no one is getting on or off, so why inconvenience anyone by reducing the spacing? The exception would be if parking is at a premium and it makes sense to reduce bus stops to increase the number of available spots. Then three block spacing may make sense. I can't see four or five blck spacing except if there is only park, cemetery, or industrial uses in the area and hardly anyone is getting on or off the bus in that area. And as B35 points out, you do have limited on heavy routes for that.

 

Yeah, fact of the matter is, is that you don't want to increase the amount of people walking to a (lesser) amount of stops... Increased walking to a bus stop can be a bit of a deterrent.... You want increased spacing between stops, take a LTD & walk back.... No LTD? Then you're just SOL.....

------------

 

 

current EB B35 local stops b/w a given stretch: new york, brooklyn, 38th, 40th, 42nd, troy, 46th, 48th, utica

current EB B35 LTD stops b/w the above stretch: new york, 42nd, utica

EB B35, if local stops were every 3 blocks: new york, brooklyn, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th

EB B35, if local stops were every 4 blocks: new york, 37th, albany, 45th, 49th

 

Nah, don't see a bus stop every 4 blocks working out over here.... it's only 2 more stops than the current LTD, but 4 less stops than the current local.... This was just an example, but still... probably better off leaving bus stop spacing at every 2-3 blocks.....

[checkmatechamp13]

Finally, someone else I can direct a post at in this thread....

 

My stance with that guy wasn't that he hates buses & wants to make the commute for bus riders worse to pack people on trains....

My stance was that you can't be pro-bus & pro-train & then sit here talking about reducing bus service to have more people on trains being such a good thing (for any reason).... I wasn't attacking the idea that he all of a sudden developed a hatred for buses (like he tried to make it seem), I was attacking his logical inconsistency.... He was flip-flopping throughout this discussion, then continually tried to make like there was this big misunderstanding... When that didn't work, the *I'm an innocent victim card* was played.... I'm like dude, whatever....

 

Anyway, Yes the use of the train should be encouraged, but so should buses... In this thread, he was placing too much of the emphasis on trains regarding coordination of modes (that's one reason I mentioned that you can't try to redefine what a balance is)... I wasn't saying that he was in some sort of agreeance with the MTA with how they go about forcing people onto trains by killing bus service, because I remember the posts he made on this forum (and all the blog posts he forwards here) regarding the B36/B44/44SBS, and the B4, etc. etc....

 

 

I don't think he was really emphasizing trains when talking about coordination of modes, though. The only example he really mentioned about coordination between modes was subway-local bus.

 

When he said hierarchy, he wasn't talking about the order of importance for coordinating the service. He was just talking about the modes we should encourage the usage of. So when we have a bus and train paralleling each other, we should encourage use of the train. But that has nothing to do with coordination.

 

As for being pro-bus, but trying to encourage use of the subway where possible, I don't know how to really put this, but I get the sense that he feels that buses & trains should complement each other, and their general purposes shouldn't overlap. For instance, the B4 makes it easier to make east-west trips from Sheepshead Bay across southern Brooklyn. People shouldn't be forced to take the B44 to the to the to go across Brooklyn, because it's much more inconvenient than simply taking the B4. In that case, it's justified to spend the extra money to maintain B4 service in Sheepshead Bay. But in the case of a B68 limited, the additional money required to boost service on the route wouldn't be justified because the subway is a reasonable alternative for those medium-distance trips (in other words, the markets overlap). The same thing where he was questioning the B41 LTD. Yeah, there's an inconvenience involved in transferring to the subway, but it's not that large an inconvenience (because the subway is frequent and direct), and it's made up for by the fact that you get to Downtown Brooklyn quicker. Of course, the B41 shouldn't be cut back to The Junction or anything, but we should encourage usage of the subway over the B41 in that portion, because the markets overlap.

 

I understand everything you say here. Those who need to use the buses on short trips for the reasons you bring up have every reason to do. The thing is that the bus doesn't exist to solely cater to these folks and if buses have to stop once every 2 blocks because of that it lengthens the commute time for people who are on the bus for a considerable distance. My thought process here is that having 4 blocks between bus stops doesn't drastically affect people commutes yet cuts the number of local bus stops in half lowering commute times in the process. If you look at it having stops 4 blocks apart means that no stop is further than 2 blocks from a currently existing stop. For those folks whom end up having to walk a couple of extra blocks to reach a bus, it really shouldn't make a difference. As to how this all encourages able-bodied folks to walk for short trips I can reply with another post if you would like,

 

 

Well, that's pretty much the point of limited routes: To help the people traveling longer distances.

 

And you have to consider that it's 2 more blocks on top of the distance they walked to reach the route in the first place.

 

^^ I've heard that argument/point raised before.... While I'm not totally against it, I will say that you'd kinda bastardize the importance of LTD's by creating super locals (lol... by that I mean, increasing the distance between local stops) though.... Forgot who said it, but I hear that LTD's actually save the MTA money in the longrun.....

 

 

Limiteds save money because you have reduced runtime. So if it takes say, 60 minutes to complete a trip on the local, compared to 50 minutes on the limited, that means that the same driver can do 20% more trips with the same amount of resources (he's getting paid the same, and the same number of buses are on the road).

[B35 via Church]

I don't think he was really emphasizing trains when talking about coordination of modes, though. The only example he really mentioned about coordination between modes was subway-local bus.

 

When he said hierarchy, he wasn't talking about the order of importance for coordinating the service. He was just talking about the modes we should encourage the usage of. So when we have a bus and train paralleling each other, we should encourage use of the train. But that has nothing to do with coordination.

 

As for being pro-bus, but trying to encourage use of the subway where possible, I don't know how to really put this, but I get the sense that he feels that buses & trains should complement each other, and their general purposes shouldn't overlap. For instance, the B4 makes it easier to make east-west trips from Sheepshead Bay across southern Brooklyn. People shouldn't be forced to take the B44 to the to the to go across Brooklyn, because it's much more inconvenient than simply taking the B4. In that case, it's justified to spend the extra money to maintain B4 service in Sheepshead Bay. But in the case of a B68 limited, the additional money required to boost service on the route wouldn't be justified because the subway is a reasonable alternative for those medium-distance trips (in other words, the markets overlap). The same thing where he was questioning the B41 LTD. Yeah, there's an inconvenience involved in transferring to the subway, but it's not that large an inconvenience (because the subway is frequent and direct), and it's made up for by the fact that you get to Downtown Brooklyn quicker.

 

Of course, the B41 shouldn't be cut back to The Junction or anything, but we should encourage usage of the subway over the B41 in that portion, because the markets overlap.

 

First, we should try to get people on the rails were his own words.... If that's not emphasizing one mode over another, I don't know what is.

 

As for your last statement there....

Not if we're talking about balancing the system, we shouldn't..... It's still insisting that people take trains over buses due to the advantages they have over buses... Subways obviously stop at subway stations... Buses can stop at subway stations & points in-between subway stations at street level... It would be inconsistent for me to say that we should try to get people onto buses over trains because although buses can stop at subway stations & points in-between stations, it's slower than the train.... It would be inconsistent for me to say that we should try to get people onto trains over buses because although trains are faster & carry more people, there's a wider gap b/w two subway stations, compared to two bus stops (in general)... Not to mention that people generally live closer to a bus route over a subway line.... They both have their uses/usefulnesses, and we shouldn't automatically try to get people onto one over the other on the basis of their markets overlapping....

 

Take nostrand av for instance... From what I notice, the B44 south of Eastern Pkwy towards the junction gets quite the usage (I'll even go as far as to say SB usage on the 2/5 south of eastern pkwy is rather lacking, considering how much faster the train is over a bus).... I don't even have to mention the B25 & all that it does for fulton av riders..... You take which (mode) is more convenient for you..... Conveying the point that we should encourage usage of the subway first in such scenarios is not balanced at all.... It is simply telling people that they should take the train due to the advantages it has over a bus......

[checkmatechamp13]

First, we should try to get people on the rails were his own words.... If that's not emphasizing one mode over another, I don't know what is.

 

As for your last statement there....

Not if we're talking about balancing the system, we shouldn't..... It's still insisting that people take trains over buses due to the advantages they have over buses... Subways obviously stop at subway stations... Buses can stop at subway stations & points in-between subway stations at street level... It would be inconsistent for me to say that we should try to get people onto buses over trains because although buses can stop at subway stations & points in-between stations, it's slower than the train.... It would be inconsistent for me to say that we should try to get people onto trains over buses because although trains are faster & carry more people, there's a wider gap b/w two subway stations, compared to two bus stops (in general)... Not to mention that people generally live closer to a bus route over a subway line.... They both have their uses/usefulnesses, and we shouldn't automatically try to get people onto one over the other on the basis of their markets overlapping....

 

Take nostrand av for instance... From what I notice, the B44 south of Eastern Pkwy towards the junction gets quite the usage (I'll even go as far as to say SB usage on the 2/5 south of eastern pkwy is rather lacking, considering how much faster the train is over a bus).... I don't even have to mention the B25 & all that it does for fulton av riders..... You take which (mode) is more convenient for you..... Conveying the point that we should encourage usage of the subway first in such scenarios is not balanced at all.... It is simply telling people that they should take the train due to the advantages it has over a bus......

 

 

When I said "markets overlapping", part of it has to do with distance traveled as well (for a trip that's relatively short, it's not worth the extra walking and stair climbing on both ends of the trip). For the B44, the only real way the subway would really save that much time is if you're traveling most of the length of that corridor (and you're not going to a point too far south of Flatbush or north of President). If you're traveling from say, Church Avenue to Flatbush Avenue, it's a 10 minute ride on the bus vs. 5 minutes on the subway, and between walking up and down the stairs, you really don't save that much time. So the B44 covers the shorter distance market, and the cover the longer-distance market to Manhattan & Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Plus, there's the cost factor. Trains are obviously cheaper to operate per-person. If you have to add service on a bus line that parallels a train, it's that much less money you have to work with to add bus service in areas where the subway isn't an alternative. (But I guess funding/revenue is a seperate issue from the structure of a balanced system)

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

So let's delve into a hypothetical...

I am riding a northbound Bx31 bus from Westchester Square to Woodlawn, which is nearly the full length. Note that this route does not carry the frequency or demand for limited service. It's close to PM rush hour so usage is pretty strong on the route but the lightly used stops don't stop anywhere of real importance so at each of them there are only 1-2 people waiting for a bus and/or 1-2 people trying to get off there. The bus i'm on is forced to make every single stop because of the presence of passengers (the stops are only 2 blocks apart) and has to stop at traffic lights and such.

Now let's say that at Eastchester and Pelham Parkway a bunch of school kids get on the bus and they all proceed to get off at Eastchester and Mace (a stop within walking distance of the one they got on). These schoolkids made my commute longer because the bus had to stop to let them on and off and made the bus more crowded that it already was. These schoolkids could have easily walked to their destination and still have a commute that's 80% shorter (time-wise) than mine.

Now to my point...

1. If the bus stops were spaced every 4 blocks apart, those schoolkids would have never gotten on the bus because their destination would have been the next stop or the stop after next. It would have been a waste of their time to all dip their cards and stand when they would be off the bus at the very next stop.

2. Being that only 1-2 people were waiting at the lightly used stops you could easily move those people from their deceased stop to the neighboring stop and still have a lightly used stop with 3-4 passengers waiting. This would result in 50% less stops being made by the bus which would clearly save time

3. Local buses as a mode of transport need to be made more convenient for those who are more reliant upon it. In the scenario I gave the bus was clearly more convenient for the schoolkids and it it also clear that I am more reliant upon the bus than those kids were. Given points 1 and 2 we can clearly deduce if local bus stops were spaced 4 blocks apart then the bus becomes more convenient for me which should be the case because I have no reasonably fast alternative whereas the schoolkids did.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So let's delve into a hypothetical...

I am riding a northbound Bx31 bus from Westchester Square to Woodlawn, which is nearly the full length. Note that this route does not carry the frequency or demand for limited service. It's close to PM rush hour so usage is pretty strong on the route but the lightly used stops don't stop anywhere of real importance so at each of them there are only 1-2 people waiting for a bus and/or 1-2 people trying to get off there. The bus i'm on is forced to make every single stop because of the presence of passengers (the stops are only 2 blocks apart) and has to stop at traffic lights and such.

Now let's say that at Eastchester and Pelham Parkway a bunch of school kids get on the bus and they all proceed to get off at Eastchester and Mace (a stop within walking distance of the one they got on). These schoolkids made my commute longer because the bus had to stop to let them on and off and made the bus more crowded that it already was. These schoolkids could have easily walked to their destination and still have a commute that's 80% shorter (time-wise) than mine.

Now to my point...

1. If the bus stops were spaced every 4 blocks apart, those schoolkids would have never gotten on the bus because their destination would have been the next stop or the stop after next. It would have been a waste of their time to all dip their cards and stand when they would be off the bus at the very next stop.

2. Being that only 1-2 people were waiting at the lightly used stops you could easily move those people from their deceased stop to the neighboring stop and still have a lightly used stop with 3-4 passengers waiting. This would result in 50% less stops being made by the bus which would clearly save time

3. Local buses as a mode of transport need to be made more convenient for those who are more reliant upon it. In the scenario I gave the bus was clearly more convenient for the schoolkids and it it also clear that I am more reliant upon the bus than those kids were. Given points 1 and 2 we can clearly deduce if local bus stops were spaced 4 blocks apart then the bus becomes more convenient for me which should be the case because I have no reasonably fast alternative whereas the schoolkids did.

 

I also agree that local bus stops should be further spread apart. The problem is anytime it is done neighborhoods start going up in arms b*tching about it. I think the DOT decides where the stops are placed anyway, so they would have to make the changes.

[B35 via Church]

When I said "markets overlapping", part of it has to do with distance traveled as well (for a trip that's relatively short, it's not worth the extra walking and stair climbing on both ends of the trip). For the B44, the only real way the subway would really save that much time is if you're traveling most of the length of that corridor (and you're not going to a point too far south of Flatbush or north of President). If you're traveling from say, Church Avenue to Flatbush Avenue, it's a 10 minute ride on the bus vs. 5 minutes on the subway, and between walking up and down the stairs, you really don't save that much time. So the B44 covers the shorter distance market, and the cover the longer-distance market to Manhattan & Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Plus, there's the cost factor. Trains are obviously cheaper to operate per-person. If you have to add service on a bus line that parallels a train, it's that much less money you have to work with to add bus service in areas where the subway isn't an alternative. (But I guess funding/revenue is a seperate issue from the structure of a balanced system)

 

I suppose you can look at it that way, but ultimately it goes back to my point.....

 

With the subway, you have the 2/5 (from the junction, towards downtown Bk.), but you still have the B41 & the B103 covering that same market..... What I'm sayin is that you can have people bombard the 2/5 coming off either bus route, no problem.... And if anyone so choose, they can ride out either bus route to downtown brooklyn too, no problem.... Considering the # of people that take 103's b/w the junction & downtown (or vice versa), I wouldn't dare try to get those people onto the 2/5... Sure it's not near as many people compared to those that ride it out on the subway b/w the two destinations... However, that doesn't mean we should try to get those riders also to take the 2/5 over taking the 103 or vice versa - telling people that disembark 41's & 103's @ the junction for the subway, to stay on the 41 or 103 over getting off for the subway......

 

In this little scenario above, I would never sit there & say that we should try to get people on the 2/5 first & I would never sit there & say that we should try to get people on the B41 & B103 first....

 

Manhattan is a different ballgame, kinda.... While there's the BM2 @ the junction, northward - there's two things that's against the express bus.... Outside of the fact that the train is faster b/w *some point/area in manhattan* & the junction (some would argue that the commuting times are comparable, but I don't wanna get into that right now), the exp. bus fare is like 40% less cheaper (or, more expensive, however you wanna look at it)..... While the train has those advantages, I'm still not of the ilk that we should try to get people onto rails over buses first, or buses over rails first......

 

(I omitted the B44 b/c obviously that doesn't go downtown or manhattan)

 

Not really sure what more I can say about this, but I'll await your response.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well, I think part of his argument had to do with that hierarchy as well, and I think he's arguing that a well-balanced system should generally follow that hierarchy. That's part of the reason why before, he was arguing that SBS routes should have an extra free transfer incorporated, so if somebody lives at a local stop, and is coming from say, the B6, they could take the B6 to the B44 SBS, and then hop on the local for the last few stops. The MTA saves money by having to run fewer locals (because SBS & limited routes are cheaper to operate because they run faster), and the passenger saves time by only having to take the local for the last few stops, instead of the whole route.

 

And that's also why he wants better coordination between modes. The ease of the transfer might play a role in somebody choosing one mode over another. Say somebody was going from say, Foster & 18th to KCC. They could take the to SHB for the B49, or they could take the B49 directly. They would likely save some time if they took the to SHB and caught the B49 there, rather than walking to the the B49 and taking it straight down. However, if they think "If I take the train to the B49, I could just miss the bus and have to wait 10-15 minutes for the next one", then they might just take the B49 directly. But if there was better coordination between modes, and the guy knew that they would hold the connection for him, that would encourage them to take the train.

 

BrooklynBus said "People should take whatever mode is convenient for them", but he also says "Rail use should be encouraged over bus use". And encouraged is the key word. If somebody says "Well, I'll get a seat on the B49 and be able to relax all the way to KCC, even though the transfer would be fairly easy", then sure, that's no problem. The same way somebody might say "Yeah, the transfer to the subway is easy, but I'll be able to relax on this B41/B103 all the way to Downtown Brooklyn", that's cool too. And the same thing if somebody says "Yeah, the B44 SBS would save me some time, but I'd rather have a direct ride on the local", that's cool too.

 

But the thing is that those people are taking the bus because they want to, and they're not being forced because of poor coordination between the bus/subway, or an extra fare penalty or anything like that.

 

With the B41/103 vs. the , it's already a pretty well-balanced system. Most people transfer to the subway, but a sizable amount stay on the bus. The people who transfer to the subway have an easy connection because both the bus & subway are pretty frequent (so there's no real need for his idea for holding lights), and so it encourages subway use. But there are still people who take the bus all the way up there, and the bus service isn't super-crappy or anything.

[BrooklynBus]

 

 

Yeah, fact of the matter is, is that you don't want to increase the amount of people walking to a (lesser) amount of stops... Increased walking to a bus stop can be a bit of a deterrent.... You want increased spacing between stops, take a LTD & walk back.... No LTD? Then you're just SOL.....

------------

 

 

current EB B35 local stops b/w a given stretch: new york, brooklyn, 38th, 40th, 42nd, troy, 46th, 48th, utica

current EB B35 LTD stops b/w the above stretch: new york, 42nd, utica

EB B35, if local stops were every 3 blocks: new york, brooklyn, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th

EB B35, if local stops were every 4 blocks: new york, 37th, albany, 45th, 49th

 

Nah, don't see a bus stop every 4 blocks working out over here.... it's only 2 more stops than the current LTD, but 4 less stops than the current local.... This was just an example, but still... probably better off leaving bus stop spacing at every 2-3 blocks.....

 

 

I used to ride that portion of the B35 quite often in my younger days. I always thought that it was unnecessary for the B35 to stop every two blocks in that portion and it made the bus very slow and thought three block spacing would be optimal. That was long before any limited service. Now I don't know how well the limited is working on the B35. If its working, leave it and the two block spacing on the local. If its not working, then I would still propose three block spacing in that area and elimination of Limited service.

 

As for everything else, Checkmate seems to be the only one who understands everything I am saying. I am not being inconsistent and still believe what I said about a hierarchy. When I said rails should be higher than subways, I was saying that if someone lives near a LIRR station and hs destination is near another LIRR station, he should not be traveling further to use the subway or express bus instead just because it is cheaper and if we could encourage the use of the railroad by changing the fare policy we should. This is a separate issue from coordination. Similarly we should not be going out of our way to encourage someone who presently takes the subway to use the bus, but if we can encourage someone who takes the bus to use the train by making some improvements there, we should but not by making disincentives to use the bus. Really don't see any inconsistency in any of what I said.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

As for everything else, Checkmate seems to be the only one who understands everything I am saying. I am not being inconsistent and still believe what I said about a hierarchy. When I said rails should be higher than subways, I was saying that if someone lives near a LIRR station and hs destination is near another LIRR station, he should not be traveling further to use the subway or express bus instead just because it is cheaper and if we could encourage the use of the railroad by changing the fare policy we should. This is a separate issue from coordination. Similarly we should not be going out of our way to encourage someone who presently takes the subway to use the bus, but if we can encourage someone who takes the bus to use the train by making some improvements there, we should but not by making disincentives to use the bus. Really don't see any inconsistency in any of what I said.

 

It's just that I don't understand why you're even bringing this up to begin with because I don't see any examples of the forcing folks onto the express bus from the LIRR, or them forcing folks onto the bus from the subway, and if they are then give specific examples and stop being vague. If someone is paying for the LIRR they most likely moved there for the LIRR and don't have a problem with the cost. Most folks move to neighborhoods with transportation in mind knowing that they're either going to be driving, taking the bus (local or express), the subway or the commuter rails.

 

The only thing that I do see is some passengers having elongated trips from cuts to bus service (both local and express). If anything that's something that needs to be addressed and come next month some of those issues will be addressed with service restorations but there is certainly more restorations to bus service needed, more so than to the subways. In short this hierarchy that you're saying should exist is exactly what the has been doing. I'm just wondering if you've been out to lunch or what??

[BrooklynBus]

Just that I don't understand why you're even bringing this up to begin with because I don't see any examples of the forcing folks onto the express bus from the LIRR, or them forcing folks onto the bus from the subway, and if they are then give a specific example and stop being vague. The only thing that I do see is some passengers having elongated trips from cuts to bus service (both local and express). If anything that's something that needs to be addressed and come next month some of those issues will be addressed with service restorations but there is certainly more restorations to bus service needed, more so than to the subways.

 

 

I agree about the bus restorations being more important than the subway ones, but I am not sure if every bus that was cut needs to come back.

 

Where did I say anything about the MTA "forcing" people from express bus to LIRR or vice versa, or forcing people onto bus from subway? There is a difference between "forcing" and "encouraging". The only time I spoke of "forcing" was the case of eliminating the B4 from Sheepshead Bay so there was no other choice but the subway and you know I was against that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I agree about the bus restorations being more important than the subway ones, but I am not sure if every bus that was cut needs to come back.

 

Where did I say anything about the MTA "forcing" people from express bus to LIRR or vice versa, or forcing people onto bus from subway? There is a difference between "forcing" and "encouraging". The only time I spoke of "forcing" was the case of eliminating the B4 from Sheepshead Bay so there was no other choice but the subway and you know I was against that.

 

Well I would agree that not every bus needs to come back but I would say that some buses should be restored and perhaps tweaked. In any event "forcing" or "encouraging", I don't see either of that going on with the . The 's attitude historically has generally been one of getting folks onto the subway and commuter rails and NOT using express buses or local buses, so I'm just not understanding why you're bringing this up now as if this is something new or something that the has suddenly reversed course on?? The service cuts to numerous express buses and local buses not only back in 2010 but that has continued to occur illustrates this very point and if anything that is something that IMO is ******* up the so called balanced system that I believe we need of buses and trains.

[B35 via Church]

I used to ride that portion of the B35 quite often in my younger days. I always thought that it was unnecessary for the B35 to stop every two blocks in that portion and it made the bus very slow and thought three block spacing would be optimal. That was long before any limited service. Now I don't know how well the limited is working on the B35. If its working, leave it and the two block spacing on the local. If its not working, then I would still propose three block spacing in that area and elimination of Limited service.

 

As for everything else, Checkmate seems to be the only one who understands everything I am saying. I am not being inconsistent and still believe what I said about a hierarchy. When I said rails should be higher than subways, I was saying that if someone lives near a LIRR station and hs destination is near another LIRR station, he should not be traveling further to use the subway or express bus instead just because it is cheaper and if we could encourage the use of the railroad by changing the fare policy we should. This is a separate issue from coordination. Similarly we should not be going out of our way to encourage someone who presently takes the subway to use the bus, but if we can encourage someone who takes the bus to use the train by making some improvements there, we should but not by making disincentives to use the bus. Really don't see any inconsistency in any of what I said.

 

Don't know how many traffic lights existed along church av back then, but I can tell you now that there's almost a traffic light on every block b/w NY av & utica av (only one where there isn't any is on 37th).... so a bus stop literally on every 2 or literally every 3 blocks along that segment of church wont make that much difference..... It's moot.

 

As for the rest of what you say, I'm coming to the conclusion that you're basically in a perpetual state of denial... You keep trying to justify the beliefs of both an [encouragement of riders to one mode over others first where possible] & [the encouragement of riders taking one mode at their convenience & some other mode at their convenience] as being consistent.... You can't have a neutral stance with two entities & lead credence to favoring something over something else at the same time.... You agree with my point, but are still sitting here justifying this notion of a hierarchy.....

 

Checkmate in his last post himself has even resorted to pointing out your inconsistency.... You just don't want to come to grips that you weren't as sound as you normally are & would have liked to have been in this particular discussion...

 

But no matter, no point in either of us continuing to be repetitive with this....

 

 

Just that I don't understand why you're even bringing this up to begin with because I don't see any examples of the forcing folks onto the express bus from the LIRR, or them forcing folks onto the bus from the subway, and if they are then give a specific example and stop being vague.

How can he... Lol....

 

Because it's not done.

[checkmatechamp13]

It's just that I don't understand why you're even bringing this up to begin with because I don't see any examples of the forcing folks onto the express bus from the LIRR, or them forcing folks onto the bus from the subway, and if they are then give specific examples and stop being vague. If someone is paying for the LIRR they most likely moved there for the LIRR and don't have a problem with the cost. Most folks move to neighborhoods with transportation in mind knowing that they're either going to be driving, taking the bus (local or express), the subway or the commuter rails.

 

 

Well, he's always liked to use the example of a KCC student from East Flatbush having to take the B35-B49 directly, when taking the B35--B49 would be quicker for the student and cheaper for the MTA. However, the MTA doesn't want to revise its transfer policy to permit such a trip.

 

As for the commuter rail vs. express bus, well, there's the BxM4 vs. MNRR Hudson Line. If you need to get to Lower Manhattan, the BxM4 - subway is $5.50, whereas the MNRR - subway is $5.75 + $2.25 = $8, so the express bus is $2.50 cheaper off-peak (and $4.25 cheaper during rush hour), even though it is slower for the passenger and costs the MTA much more to operate.

 

And situations change. Maybe when they moved out to a neighborhood, they could afford the LIRR, but now they're trying to cut back on expenses. Or maybe they intended to use the local bus - subway, but eventually it became wearing on them and they're looking for an alternative. Or maybe they don't live in that area, but they work there, and would prefer a cheaper way to commute. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same price as the subway, but being able to avoid a double fare would be nice.

 

As for the rest of what you say, I'm coming to the conclusion that you're basically in a perpetual state of denial... You keep trying to justify the beliefs of both an [encouragement of riders to one mode over others first where possible] & [the encouragement of riders taking one mode at their convenience & some other mode at their convenience] as being consistent.... You can't have a neutral stance with two entities & lead credence to favoring something over something else at the same time.... You agree with my point, but are still sitting here justifying this notion of a hierarchy.....

 

Checkmate in his last post himself has even resorted to pointing out your inconsistency.... You just don't want to come to grips that you weren't as sound as you normally are & would have liked to have been in this particular discussion...

 

But no matter, no point in either of us continuing to be repetitive with this....

 

 

I don't really see where I pointed it out, though.

 

He's saying certain modes (in this case rail) should be encouraged over others (bus), but ultimately, the passenger should use what's most convenient. I'm not really seeing the inconsistancy there.

 

For instance, a passenger has a choice between the & B41/B103 between the Junction & Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Which would it be preferable (from the MTA's standpoint) for the passenger to take? The subway because it's faster and cheaper to operate per-person. The MTA should encourage use of the subway because of that reason. But they shouldn't do so by making the bus service super-crappy (e.g. Cutting the B103 back to The Junction and having the B41 run every 20 minutes north of The Junction). They should do it by making it free and easy to transfer between the bus and subway.

 

But if the passenger says "Nope, I still want to take the B41/103", that's still alright. It is preferable from the MTA's perspective that they didn't, but the MTA should still make reasonable accomodations (reasonably fast buses, non-crushloaded buses, etc).

[BrooklynBus]

Well, he's always liked to use the example of a KCC student from East Flatbush having to take the B35-B49 directly, when taking the B35- -B49 would be quicker for the student and cheaper for the MTA. However, the MTA doesn't want to revise its transfer policy to permit such a trip.

 

As for the commuter rail vs. express bus, well, there's the BxM4 vs. MNRR Hudson Line. If you need to get to Lower Manhattan, the BxM4 - subway is $5.50, whereas the MNRR - subway is $5.75 + $2.25 = $8, so the express bus is $2.50 cheaper off-peak (and $4.25 cheaper during rush hour), even though it is slower for the passenger and costs the MTA much more to operate.

 

And situations change. Maybe when they moved out to a neighborhood, they could afford the LIRR, but now they're trying to cut back on expenses. Or maybe they intended to use the local bus - subway, but eventually it became wearing on them and they're looking for an alternative. Or maybe they don't live in that area, but they work there, and would prefer a cheaper way to commute. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same price as the subway, but being able to avoid a double fare would be nice.

 

 

 

I don't really see where I pointed it out, though.

 

He's saying certain modes (in this case rail) should be encouraged over others (bus), but ultimately, the passenger should use what's most convenient. I'm not really seeing the inconsistancy there.

 

For instance, a passenger has a choice between the & B41/B103 between the Junction & Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Which would it be preferable (from the MTA's standpoint) for the passenger to take? The subway because it's faster and cheaper to operate per-person. The MTA should encourage use of the subway because of that reason. But they shouldn't do so by making the bus service super-crappy (e.g. Cutting the B103 back to The Junction and having the B41 run every 20 minutes north of The Junction). They should do it by making it free and easy to transfer between the bus and subway.

 

But if the passenger says "Nope, I still want to take the B41/103", that's still alright. It is preferable from the MTA's perspective that they didn't, but the MTA should still make reasonable accomodations (reasonably fast buses, non-crushloaded buses, etc).

 

 

Thanks for the examples. I still don't see any inconsistencies in what I stated. I think people are making too big a deal over what I said about hierarchy or else they are misinterpreting what I said. I am not going to repeat what I stated. I think I was clear. At least you understand me..

[B35 via Church]

^^ Too big a deal... smh.... Laughable stuff...

You made the statements.... You opened yourself up to that criticism.... You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

 

He's saying certain modes (in this case rail) should be encouraged over others (bus), but ultimately, the passenger should use what's most convenient. I'm not really seeing the inconsistancy there.

 

For instance, a passenger has a choice between the & B41/B103 between the Junction & Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Which would it be preferable (from the MTA's standpoint) for the passenger to take? The subway because it's faster and cheaper to operate per-person. The MTA should encourage use of the subway because of that reason. But they shouldn't do so by making the bus service super-crappy (e.g. Cutting the B103 back to The Junction and having the B41 run every 20 minutes north of The Junction). They should do it by making it free and easy to transfer between the bus and subway.

 

But if the passenger says "Nope, I still want to take the B41/103", that's still alright. It is preferable from the MTA's perspective that they didn't, but the MTA should still make reasonable accomodations (reasonably fast buses, non-crushloaded buses, etc).

 

That first "but" is where the inconsistency is, and it's not alright - if the claim is that they should get commuters to taking the 41/103 downtown (in this case/example we're using) or to taking the (2)/(5) downtown..... How can you tell (or implicate to) passengers that one mode of transportation should be encouraged, but at the same time tell them they should use what's convenient for them.... That right there sends a mixed message.....

 

If someone were to tell me that I should take the to west 4th & walk to work because it's the subway & it's faster, I'd tell em in a roundabout way to go kick rocks..... Same deal if the to canal (or the Q to the to 8th st) & a walk to work was suggested..... same deal if someone were to tell me to take the to the to christopher.... same deal if someone one were to tell me I should drive everyday.... same deal if someone were to tell me to take the B46 to the "BM's"..... Or if it were still around, the old B51 (after coming off the B41) to the old M6 to christopher, same deal..... See, I don't take the same commute going & coming 5 days a week, and I wouldn't suggest that any other commuter delve into taking a variable weekly commute.... Don't tell people how (and what) to spend their money (on); if the options are there, let them utilize them.....

 

....Me, I say If it's there, take it - bus or train..... and I have this exact thought process when considering taking LTD's over locals, or express subways over local subways.... The older I get, the less I'm caring about cramming onto a LTD or cramming onto the express subway because it's faster.... That isn't to say (other) people should abolish the "expressaholicism" ideology..... The gall of anyone to try to tell me (or anyone else) what mode any transportation agency should try to get people on first - regardless of w/e advantages one has over the other.....

 

Anyway, the money aspect of it (my point) is one reason why I always felt rather uneasy (burning gut feeling) giving people directions.... Like damn, I told them 'x', but maybe they should've taken 'y' instead..... someone that believes that a pecking order should be followed would have no second-thoughts suggesting 'x'.... I'm not on that boat.....

 

To answer your question, I don't believe that there should be this preference - regardless if one (mode) is cheaper to operate.... That's the essence of what I'm getting at... It's not just about BrooklynBus' commentary in this thread; he's not that important...... There's a much bigger issue here..... This guy just made a blog talking about the MTA's bias against buses... If a bias exists, obviously something aint balanced.... The MTA trying to get people on trains over buses (regardless of how they go about it) isn't balanced..... The MTA is running the buses & the subways anyway, so you may as well suggest either/or, instead of one over the other.....

 

Again, I'm not saying he's advocating worsening bus service to get people on trains.... and yes, that's what it's looking like the MTA is aiming to do..... However, you don't have to make bus service super crappy to suggest that there should be this pecking order of who the MTA should try to get riders onto which mode first... That's simply running to the extreme argument to make the point.....

 

I would be on here making the same argument if the situation were reversed.....

(if the MTA themselves were worsening train service to get more people on buses)