BrooklynBus Posted January 28, 2013 Share #1 Posted January 28, 2013 http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2013/01/our-mass-transit-future-part-1-what-is-wrong-with-select-bus-service/ Parts 2 and 3 will be posted in the Subway forum in coming weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #2 Posted January 28, 2013 You know I do take issue with you slamming the for trying to do something with limited resources. Since you have such an issue with SBS on the B44 and S79 what would you propose they do in the short term? As for 1st and 2nd Avenue sure you can argue that the time savings has been marginal, but I wouldn't go out and slam them when they're trying to improve bus service to some degree. The prepay system has been used in other countries for many years now and it has allowed buses to move quicker, but for some reason here in NYC it is constantly criticized and slammed which I really don't understand when one of the main issues as to why buses are slow is the amount of time it takes for people to board and pay. I realize that the S79 is just a over-hyped limited stop service, but it's all about marketing and I for one support the to improve bus service wherever they can because for whatever reason we don't seem to understand here in NYC that our bus system compliments our rail system. We can't just say ok well we need rail service and keep trying to cram folks onto the rails (be it commuter trains or subways). We need to focus on our buses more because the fact of the matter is rails don't work everywhere and take years to build and are costly especially with the budget crisis currently facing the . Buses may not move as many people, but they are cheaper to run and can be implemented much quicker in the meantime until funding can be secured to expand our rail system. The other issue that you've not mentioned about the "grand" SAS is the amount of havoc that damn line is causing on the daily lives of Upper East Siders as opposed to the implementation of the M15SBS service. Don't get me wrong, I realize the importance of rail service but I also realize that it isn't the answer for everything and we must attract more riders to our bus system because our rail system in some cases is at or over capacity. I would expect you to also bring up Bus Time in your retort to me and how they have failed to use that to better deal with bunching, but you have to remember that the union has pushed back hard against that whole set up so if folks know where the buses are I think that should suffice esp. if the bunching issue is being caused primarily by traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 28, 2013 Share #3 Posted January 28, 2013 LOL the bus network is incomplete complete that then the rail network. Then its good. Get rid of redundant services and focus on services people use perfect them then focus on moving people throughout the region by bus faster connecting easternqueens to the bronx better do not mention Q44/50 that again is an ignorant statement. Also speeding travel time between brooklyn and SI. People have to take way too many time consuming transfers to make the trip or get raped by $15 TOLLS!! If S53/93/79 weren't the only ways to reach brooklyn from SI and other parts of bk trust me more people would use transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compobus fan Posted January 28, 2013 Share #4 Posted January 28, 2013 Well thought out, and written. I do take issue withe the Second Avenue subway, IIRC it was fully funded at least once, maybe twice and each time the City, State, or some other group of thieves "borrowed against the money or redirected funds" and defaulted on payback. I believe the same thing is going on with the 63rd street project as we speak. As to Manhattan, in my humble opinion, the only thing that would work long term is to have light rail system on the crosstown majors, and traffic be dammed, re route them, we pay good money for these buffoons to say it can't be done all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #5 Posted January 28, 2013 LOL the bus network is incomplete complete that then the rail network. Then its good. Get rid of redundant services and focus on services people use perfect them then focus on moving people throughout the region by bus faster connecting easternqueens to the bronx better do not mention Q44/50 that again is an ignorant statement. Also speeding travel time between brooklyn and SI. People have to take way too many time consuming transfers to make the trip or get raped by $15 TOLLS!! If S53/93/79 weren't the only ways to reach brooklyn from SI and other parts of bk trust me more people would use transit. Oh please... Listen Staten Islanders are car centric overall and some of them would never ride a bus because they think they're too good to ride public transit and wouldn't even ride an express bus, let alone a local bus. The fact that transit isn't that great on Staten Island just gives them a convenient excuse not to use the system even though bus service at least in some areas has been improved recently. Hell even the ones that ride the express bus on SI, a lot of them hate the idea of using the subways (I know because they'll mention it in conversations) and so outside of the express bus, they drive everywhere even if public transit is convenient. Some of them just can't fathom folks not having a car on Staten Island even if you don't need one because they want to keep up appearances. Glad I left that place to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share #6 Posted January 28, 2013 You know I do take issue with you slamming the for trying to do something with limited resources. Since you have such an issue with SBS on the B44 and S79 what would you propose they do in the short term? As for 1st and 2nd Avenue sure you can argue that the time savings has been marginal, but I wouldn't go out and slam them when they're trying to improve bus service to some degree. The prepay system has been used in other countries for many years now and it has allowed buses to move quicker, but for some reason here in NYC it is constantly criticized and slammed which I really don't understand when one of the main issues as to why buses are slow is the amount of time it takes for people to board and pay. I realize that the S79 is just a over-hyped limited stop service, but it's all about marketing and I for one support the to improve bus service wherever they can because for whatever reason we don't seem to understand here in NYC that our bus system compliments our rail system. We can't just say ok well we need rail service and keep trying to cram folks onto the rails (be it commuter trains or subways). We need to focus on our buses more because the fact of the matter is rails don't work everywhere and take years to build and are costly especially with the budget crisis currently facing the . Buses may not move as many people, but they are cheaper to run and can be implemented much quicker in the meantime until funding can be secured to expand our rail system. The other issue that you've not mentioned about the "grand" SAS is the amount of havoc that damn line is causing on the daily lives of Upper East Siders as opposed to the implementation of the M15SBS service. Don't get me wrong, I realize the importance of rail service but I also realize that it isn't the answer for everything and we must attract more riders to our bus system because our rail system in some cases is at or over capacity. I would expect you to also bring up Bus Time in your retort to me and how they have failed to use that to better deal with bunching, but you have to remember that the union has pushed back hard against that whole set up so if folks know where the buses are I think that should suffice esp. if the bunching issue is being caused primarily by traffic. Actually, I am going to refrain from commenting right now. Sometimes I wish I could do these articles in one part, but there is a space limitation that prevents that. Therefore, you may be getting the wrong impression where I am going with this series. You may find yourself agreeing with me more after reading Parts 2 and 3. And actually I did not mention Bustime or bus bunching even once in any of the three parts and I'm not criticizing prepayment (except on 34th Street because it doesn't appear to be saving any time there.). So don't try to guess. That's all I am going to say right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #7 Posted January 28, 2013 Actually, I am going to refrain from commenting right now. Sometimes I wish I could do these articles in one part, but there is a space limitation that prevents that. Therefore, you may be getting the wrong impression where I am going with this series. You may find yourself agreeing with me more after reading Parts 2 and 3. And actually I did not mention Bustime or bus bunching even once in any of the three parts. So don't try to guess. That's all I am going to say right now. That's correct... I was referring to past articles in which you talk about the issue... To be honest I would like to see your other two parts because I get conflicting statements from you. In the Chicago series you talked about how buses need to complement the system more and now it seems as if you're saying that we need to expand on our rail system, which I agree but that's long term planning. In the short term we can't just accept things as they are esp. with the lack of funding at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 28, 2013 Share #8 Posted January 28, 2013 After that last thread in the subway section a couple weeks back, I'm not doing the whole bus vs subway discussion again... I'm just not.... I'm sick & tired of saying buses are just as important as subways.... As for SBS itself, yeah it's our mass transit future... I'm not too high on the glorified limited's either, but they aren't going nowhere.... Simply put, the thought process behind wanting/having SBS/POP isn't the problem - it's the fact that in reality, we have as many motorists traveling in & out of NYC clogging up the roads - making SBS' just about as ineffective as LTD service... Nothing can be done about that.... I'm just gonna come out & say it..... SBS should've been implemented before LTD's ever came to fruition.... My problem is more, the overhyping of SBS compared to LTD service, moreso than simply having SBS/POP..... There is not much of a difference time-wise it saves you over the LTD's AFAIC..... I wouldn't have much of a problem if SBS' were yesteryear's LTD's & LTD's never existed - meaning, POP machines would be at all of yesteryear's LTD stops, instead of today's SBS stops being a couple stops less than yesteryear's LTD stops (and going about that methodology as a time-saving tactic over LTD's).... All they did was "futurize" the concept of yesteryear's LTD's & are waxing poetic over that..... If the above is confusing, basically what I'm saying is, LTD service makes much less stops than local buses & SBS' make a couple stops less than the LTD's.... LTD's did more for riders that took locals, than SBS' did when the MTA made away w/ LTD service for those that took LTD's.... See, I believe the MTA knows/realizes this, and that's one reason I truly believe they're exaggerating said success of SBS...... In plain old everyday english, the MTA is a day late & a dollar short when they came out w/ SBS' for this city when they did....... LOL the bus network is incomplete complete that then the rail network. Then its good. Get rid of redundant services and focus on services people use perfect them then focus on moving people throughout the region by bus faster connecting easternqueens to the bronx better do not mention Q44/50 that again is an ignorant statement. Also speeding travel time between brooklyn and SI. People have to take way too many time consuming transfers to make the trip or get raped by $15 TOLLS!! If S53/93/79 weren't the only ways to reach brooklyn from SI and other parts of bk trust me more people would use transit. Not mentioning specific routes right now, but truth be told, I'd focus on this first - If we want to have a discussion on the future of mass transit, considering the needs for the masses (as it pertains to bus service, since this article is about buses/SBS).... I'm glad you brought this up & didn't get lost in translation w/ the SBS stuff.... But yeah, Outdated services should be looked into being modernized... Not sure what you consider to be redundant though.... But with all due respect (and you've been on this tip for a minute), you are gonna have to get it out of your head that you aren't gonna get people out of their cars to take public transportation on a large enough scale..... Again, I don't wanna get into specifics, but as far as SI-Brooklyn travel, guess what..... We only have the Verrazano Bridge that connects the two boroughs, dude..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #9 Posted January 28, 2013 After that last thread in the subway section a couple weeks back, I'm not doing the whole bus vs subway discussion again... I'm just not....I'm sick & tired of saying buses are just as important as subways.... As for SBS itself, yeah it's our mass transit future... I'm not too high on the glorified limited's either, but they aren't going nowhere.... Simply put, the thought process behind wanting/having SBS/POP isn't the problem - it's the fact that in reality, we have as many motorists traveling in & out of NYC clogging up the roads - making SBS' just about as ineffective as LTD service... Nothing can be done about that.... I'm just gonna come out & say it..... SBS should've been implemented before LTD's ever came to fruition.... My problem is more, the overhyping of SBS compared to LTD service, moreso than simply having SBS/POP..... There is not much of a difference time-wise it saves you over the LTD's AFAIC..... I wouldn't have much of a problem if SBS' were yesteryear's LTD's & LTD's never existed - meaning, POP machines would be at all of yesteryear's LTD stops, instead of today's SBS stops being a couple stops less than yesteryear's LTD stops (and going about that methodology as a time-saving tactic over LTD's).... All they did was "futurize" the concept of yesteryear's LTD's & are waxing poetic over that..... If the above is confusing, basically what I'm saying is, LTD service makes much less stops than local buses & SBS' make a couple stops less than the LTD's.... LTD's did more for riders that took locals, than SBS' did when the MTA made away w/ LTD service for those that took LTD's.... See, I believe the MTA knows/realizes this, and that's one reason I truly believe they're exaggerating said success of SBS...... In plain old everyday english, the MTA is a day late & a dollar short when they came out w/ SBS' for this city when they did....... I would certainly agree on that part... You see as far as I'm concerned, the real reason why SBS hasn't been as successful as it could be is because we haven't dealt with other main issues that make buses slow, one of them being traffic. Similar concepts have worked in other places particularly in Europe because people believe in using public transit and the service is efficient. Here however, as soon as a service isn't used to the max we look to cut cut cut without any sort of examination as to why the service is underperforming. That is not the answer for everything and that right there also doesn't encourage folks to use the service more. The should be reaching out more to communities when routes are failing and trying to understand how they can make them work. This is what pisses me off when I hear this from other people about well let's cut this and let's cut that (and not just buses either). The same is said for rail service too. When you cut there is no opportunity to get any sort of potential ridership because the service is gone, so I think two things have to be examined here. The needs to be more vocal and supportive on congestion pricing for starters. I keep hearing folks saying they're crying about the tolls but apparently some of them that can actually take public transit still drive anyway. Also, do we really need all of these cabs clogging up the streets? They drive terribly and make traffic worse. If it was up to me I would cut the number of medallions here in Manhattan or at least seek to reduce them at certain hours, but if the was running more reliable service to begin with you wouldn't have a need for as many folks driving in or using car service. What's even more ridiculous is that our system as a whole (both buses and subways) is becoming more and more unreliable, slow and delayed prone and the should not find this acceptable while they continue to raise the fares. They need to realize that this is a service and just like with anything else subpar service=less patronage. It is no different here. The only reason the subway patronage continues to increase is because some folks don't have a choice. To me it's also inexcusable to say well if the service isn't good enough then take a car or drive in instead of striving to be better. Why can't our service be as efficient as other countries? There's a number of reasons for that but part of it is the attitude that because it's public transit it has to be subpar, which I think is total BS and it just gives an excuse to provide poor service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted January 28, 2013 Share #10 Posted January 28, 2013 Select Bus Service is not a fad. Buses are indeed cheaper and the viable alternative for crowding. +SBS+ is also faster than the average bus. You must learn that buses are vital and are MUCH CHEAPER than a subway or other type of rail line. First of all, the government is despair with the constant "borrowing" of money. Their only option is taxing an average american more. The rate increases steadily, although subway and other rail lines that must be funded significantly increases that. Would you want significantly higher taxes FOR A SUBWAY LINE? On the other hand, the MTA's +Select Bus Service+ is clearly the option. It includes bus lanes, which are very fast when a bus uses them. Also, the MTA marks the bus lane with paint so it sticks out from the road. Select Bus Service includes payment before the boarding, rapidly decreasing idling. Think about this, the payment is equal. Both, subway and bus cost $2.25, meanwhile Select Bus Service costs less than a tenth of a new subway line. About the M34 and its issues with cars in the lane. This issue can be solved with COSTLY TICKETS. Any police man should be allowed to stop a driver in the bus lane. Also the lack of signage and flaws of signage is idiotic. THIS IS A BUS LANE in bold should be shown at every block after the light. Better signage and costly tickets are solutions that light should be showed upon. In conclusion, +SBS+ is the obvious solution, and rail networks are out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 28, 2013 Share #11 Posted January 28, 2013 Oh please... Listen Staten Islanders are car centric overall and some of them would never ride a bus because they think they're too good to ride public transit and wouldn't even ride an express bus, let alone a local bus. The fact that transit isn't that great on Staten Island just gives them a convenient excuse not to use the system even though bus service at least in some areas has been improved recently. Hell even the ones that ride the express bus on SI, a lot of them hate the idea of using the subways (I know because they'll mention it in conversations) and so outside of the express bus, they drive everywhere even if public transit is convenient. Some of them just can't fathom folks not having a car on Staten Island even if you don't need one because they want to keep up appearances. Glad I left that place to be honest. well you will never know for sure until you make transit convenient now wouldn't we them all you are doing is assuming. Do you really think $15 tolls vs $5.50 is worth it? cmon man you can't speak for people you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #12 Posted January 28, 2013 well you will never know for sure until you make transit convenient now wouldn't we them all you are doing is assuming. Do you really think $15 tolls vs $5.50 is worth it? cmon man you can't speak for people you don't know. LOL... I don't have to speak for them... I'm just talking about the mentality out there. Do you think it's really worth it to drive to the corner store if it's only a few blocks away?? Well that's what a lot of Staten Islanders do. The only time a lot of them will not use a car is if they're walking the dog or some other nonsense and when they actually try to improve service out there they complain about there being too many buses (that includes express buses BTW)!! Unbelievable. Smh Then they say that they don't get their fair share of transit. It's like you can't please them one way or another. I used to wonder why service was so sh*tty out there but after a while it became clear as to why. The politicians out there talk a good game about needing transit but they've got the same mentality. Molinaro says "Give me more buses"... In short none of them really press the issue and act as if they're simply powerless to do anything when it comes down to it and when they do actually work with the as is the case with Grimm, they cater to specific areas of Staten Island. Right now he's bending over backwards for the South Shore and isn't throwing a crumb to the North Shore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #13 Posted January 28, 2013 Select Bus Service is not a fad. Buses are indeed cheaper and the viable alternative for crowding. +SBS+ is also faster than the average bus. You must learn that buses are vital and are MUCH CHEAPER than a subway or other type of rail line. First of all, the government is despair with the constant "borrowing" of money. Their only option is taxing an average american more. The rate increases steadily, although subway and other rail lines that must be funded significantly increases that. Would you want significantly higher taxes FOR A SUBWAY LINE? On the other hand, the MTA's +Select Bus Service+ is clearly the option. It includes bus lanes, which are very fast when a bus uses them. Also, the MTA marks the bus lane with paint so it sticks out from the road. Select Bus Service includes payment before the boarding, rapidly decreasing idling. Think about this, the payment is equal. Both, subway and bus cost $2.25, meanwhile Select Bus Service costs less than a tenth of a new subway line. About the M34 and its issues with cars in the lane. This issue can be solved with COSTLY TICKETS. Any police man should be allowed to stop a driver in the bus lane. Also the lack of signage and flaws of signage is idiotic. THIS IS A BUS LANE in bold should be shown at every block after the light. Better signage and costly tickets are solutions that light should be showed upon. In conclusion, +SBS+ is the obvious solution, and rail networks are out of the equation. Actually, the bus is $2.25 and the subway is $2.50... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 28, 2013 Share #14 Posted January 28, 2013 I would certainly agree on that part... You see as far as I'm concerned, the real reason why SBS hasn't been as successful as it could be is because we haven't dealt with other main issues that make buses slow, one of them being traffic. Similar concepts have worked in other places particularly in Europe because people believe in using public transit and the service is efficient. Here however, as soon as a service isn't used to the max we look to cut cut cut without any sort of examination as to why the service is underperforming. That is not the answer for everything and that right there also doesn't encourage folks to use the service more. The should be reaching out more to communities when routes are failing and trying to understand how they can make them work. This is what pisses me off when I hear this from other people about well let's cut this and let's cut that (and not just buses either). The same is said for rail service too. When you cut there is no opportunity to get any sort of potential ridership because the service is gone, so I think two things have to be examined here. The needs to be more vocal and supportive on congestion pricing for starters. I keep hearing folks saying they're crying about the tolls but apparently some of them that can actually take public transit still drive anyway. Also, do we really need all of these cabs clogging up the streets? They drive terribly and make traffic worse. If it was up to me I would cut the number of medallions here in Manhattan or at least seek to reduce them at certain hours, but if the was running more reliable service to begin with you wouldn't have a need for as many folks driving in or using car service. What's even more ridiculous is that our system as a whole (both buses and subways) is becoming more and more unreliable, slow and delayed prone and the should not find this acceptable while they continue to raise the fares. They need to realize that this is a service and just like with anything else subpar service=less patronage. It is no different here. The only reason the subway patronage continues to increase is because some folks don't have a choice. To me it's also inexcusable to say well if the service isn't good enough then take a car or drive in instead of striving to be better. Why can't our service be as efficient as other countries? There's a number of reasons for that but part of it is the attitude that because it's public transit it has to be subpar, which I think is total BS and it just gives an excuse to provide poor service. Like I said many times before, bus travel is generally not encouraged in this city... Outside of the SBS routes & the M60, the MTA does a poor job in advocating travel by way of buses.... I say that also plays a part in the "cut cut cut" mentality b/c quite frankly, it's easier to save $$$$ by cutting bus service over cutting RR & subway service since less people on a day-to-day basis are affected per mode.... It is all about stats & monetary figures - One reason why I say when the dust finally settles, we're gonna be left with long ass, drawn out unreliable bus services (meaning, much less bus routes) carrying as many people as possible (w/ a few dinky B42, B74, Bx24, etc. type routes here & there) w/ SBS' all being implemented on them - With the same damn traffic problems that plague this city..... Jobs will be cut & people will have hellacious commutes on top of it..... Call me pessimistic, I don't care, but I do not see things getting any better.... What reason do I have, when I notice what's currently going on; I look at the regression w/ the whole Bx15/55 scenario (for example) & it only illustrates/magnifies my point..... The next couple generations, I'd stop to think that artics (and SBS) would be ran on whatever routes that are left over, outside of the dinky routes.... Bus routes having approx. hour long runtimes from end to end will be a thing of the past IMO.... So (for example) all the people that want the Q22 & Q35 combined will get their wish too (when they're dead, that is).... smh... Hope they realize what they're wishing for in the longrun will be indoctrinated system-wide - leading to nothing more than a mere detriment..... Then I'll wait for the people that'll make remarks like "at least I got my one seat ride" (Right, QJT?).... Anyyway...... ((I'll save the subway side of the argument for whenever dude puts up the other two parts of his article there... because it aint looking good for our subways either - I do not want to be in this city when the MTA has to hire pushers like were in Japan, having to see the imprints of people's faces on the goddamn door windows... Individuals can make all the threats of leaving the city all they want, but people en masse are going NO WHERE...)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted January 28, 2013 Share #15 Posted January 28, 2013 From your article: In Staten Island, along Hylan Boulevard, the other corridor where SBS was recently implemented, I wonder if more could have been accomplished simply by improving local bus access to Staten Island Rapid Transit stations, rather than by constructing an SBS line. It is really just a Limited bus with specially-marked SBS stops and buses painted in the SBS paint scheme. The exclusive lane is only in effect only for three hours a day and not a unique feature of SBS. There is no fare prepayment because usage is not heavy enough to warrant it. Also, there are no bus bulbs at stops to ease boarding. Its only distinguishing feature as SBS is the priority traffic signals for buses, which are not yet in effect. You fail to understand that bus lanes make routes faster by themselves. By the way, there are no "Elements of SBS" that state that stops must have off-board payment. Just because you see other SBS services with it, doesn't mean all will. Actually, the bus is $2.25 and the subway is $2.50... You are incorrect, sir. The following web page proves you incorrect: The fare for a subway or local bus ride is $2.25*. The fare for an express bus ride is $5.50... * The cost of a SingleRide ticket is $2.50. Sold at vending machines only. http://www.mta.info/metrocard/mcgtreng.htm well you will never know for sure until you make transit convenient now wouldn't we them all you are doing is assuming. Do you really think $15 tolls vs $5.50 is worth it? cmon man you can't speak for people you don't know. You do not argue very well without correct grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted January 28, 2013 Share #16 Posted January 28, 2013 ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #17 Posted January 28, 2013 Like I said many times before, bus travel is generally not encouraged in this city... Outside of the SBS routes & the M60, the MTA does a poor job in advocating travel by way of buses.... I say that also plays a part in the "cut cut cut" mentality b/c quite frankly, it's easier to save $$$$ by cutting bus service over cutting RR & subway service since less people on a day-to-day basis are affected per mode.... It is all about stats & monetary figures - One reason why I say when the dust finally settles, we're gonna be left with long ass, drawn out unreliable bus services (meaning, much less bus routes) carrying as many people as possible (w/ a few dinky B42, B74, Bx24, etc. type routes here & there) w/ SBS' all being implemented on them - With the same damn traffic problems that plague this city..... Jobs will be cut & people will have hellacious commutes on top of it..... Call me pessimistic, I don't care, but I do not see things getting any better.... What reason do I have, when I notice what's currently going on; I look at the regression w/ the whole Bx15/55 scenario (for example) & it only illustrates/magnifies my point..... The next couple generations, I'd stop to think that artics (and SBS) would be ran on whatever routes that are left over, outside of the dinky routes.... Bus routes having approx. hour long runtimes from end to end will be a thing of the past IMO.... So (for example) all the people that want the Q22 & Q35 combined will get their wish too (when they're dead, that is).... smh... Hope they realize what they're wishing for in the longrun will be indoctrinated system-wide - leading to nothing more than a mere detriment..... Then I'll wait for the people that'll make remarks like "at least I got my one seat ride" (Right, QJT?).... Anyyway...... ((I'll save the subway side of the argument for whenever dude puts up the other two parts of his article there... because it aint looking good for our subways either - I do not want to be in this city when the MTA has to hire pushers like were in Japan, having to see the imprints of people's faces on the goddamn door windows... Individuals can make all the threats of leaving the city all they want, but people en masse are going NO WHERE...)) Hell... You already have people trying to get rid of the shorter routes and merge this and that like the endless B2 and B100 merger discussions or better yet, let's make them longer because God forbid we have a short route that moves people to and from the subway. Somehow that's just not normal. I would certainly agree with you that this is the way the is thinking as well... Let's cut as many short routes as possible and extend them which in most cases will do nothing more but make those buses even more unreliable and less attractive to use. You're also seeing less and less overnight bus service as well... As you said they're just examining the stats and saying well we can move more people with the subways so who cares about the buses and the minute they see a slight dip in ridership during one segment of the day, they cut the service and then move it to a busier time instead of trying to keep that service and they call that being proactive and responsible meanwhile you deter ridership during other times because you keep cutting it. Furthermore, they can't even handle the demand and stress that they're putting on the rail system. Trains are becoming more and more delayed and slower so it's no wonder that folks don't want to use the system. They're encouraging people to go elsewhere and then they have the audacity to wonder why bus service is suffering and why their trains are so delayed? Smh This sort of bait and switch tactic I've been following by them for YEARS... I pay very close attention to the schedules and see how they operate. Cut service here and put it over there and who cares if it deters ridership. We've got to make sure that we're efficient and this is what they call being "efficient". Efficiency isn't just about trying to max out the number of riders using said service. It's about providing RELIABLE, ON TIME service, something that the has forgotten when it comes to buses esp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share #18 Posted January 28, 2013 That's correct... I was referring to past articles in which you talk about the issue... To be honest I would like to see your other two parts because I get conflicting statements from you. In the Chicago series you talked about how buses need to complement the system more and now it seems as if you're saying that we need to expand on our rail system, which I agree but that's long term planning. In the short term we can't just accept things as they are esp. with the lack of funding at the moment. Actually, we need both. Buses need to complement the subways more and we also need to expand our rail system. The two are not contradictory thoughts. I also agree that we shouldn't accept things as they are in the short term. We need to move ahead with SBS, but my problem is how we are moving ahead and the process we are following. This series is all about the long term as you will see in the next two parts. As far as the MTA being too late with SBS, the only reason they did it when they did and not sooner was because there was federal money available and they didn't want to lose out to other cities who would have grabbed the money if we didn't. If not for this money, the MTA never would have started the project on their own. The only thing they are paying for is the fare machines. The buses they need anyway. They are doing it just to save costs. That's why they are exaggerating its benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted January 28, 2013 Share #19 Posted January 28, 2013 @VG8 and B35 Via Church I find bus routes work best when they feed the subway system, as if both systems were intertwined. Many routes do not follow that mentality, and those are usually the ones that are cut. Look at the M14, see how it "feeds" the subway stops on 14th Street (mainly Union Square). It transports people from the Lower East Side that do not have subway service and brings them to their subway. Another option is the corridor uption, these routes like the M15 run have many attractions around and other things that make them significant along their route. Other bus routes do not generally succeed because they do not have the people and the supply of constant passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share #20 Posted January 28, 2013 Hell... You already have people trying to get rid of the shorter routes and merge this and that like the endless B2 and B100 merger discussions or better yet, let's make them longer because God forbid we have a short route that moves people to and from the subway. Somehow that's just not normal. I would certainly agree with you that this is the way the is thinking as well... Let's cut as many short routes as possible and extend them which in most cases will do nothing more but make those buses even more reliable and less attractive to use. You're also seeing less and less overnight bus service as well... As you said they're just examining that stats and saying well we can move more people with the subways so who cares about the buses. Meanwhile they can't even handle the demand and stress that they're putting on the rail system. Trains are becoming more and more delayed and slower so it's no wonder that folks don't want to use the system. They're encouraging people to go elsewhere and then they have the audacity to wonder why bus service is suffering and why their trains are so delayed? Smh Now you are sounding contradictory. One one hand you want short routes that can just get people to and from the subway. On the other hand you don't want bus routes to just take take people to the subway because too many people will use the subway and put too much demand and stress on the system. Yes, short routes are more reliable, but we also need those long routes to minimize trips requiring three buses and a double fare. The problem with short routes like the B2 is that while they work well during the rush hours. What about the rest of the day? It carries only a couple of people per bus the rest of the day. If it operated further west and made connections with more buses, it wouldn't be as empty as it is during non-rush hours. If the route is extended, there is no reason why you couldn't run a few extra buses in the rush hour just for the subway crowd so reliability does not decrease. We could also place borough bus maps on all the shelters to encourage bus use. Buses have to do both: feed the subway and be a mode on their own because they operate where the subway does not. They can't fulfill the second purpose if all we have are short routes. We need to have long routes and where demand is justified, have short services over those long routes with fewer buses going end to end. The MTA shies away from that because that increases operating costs, but it makes them much more reliable so they would attract more passengers. But the only thing the MTA is interested in is reducing operating costs, looking at the relationship between improved reliability and its effect on revenue. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 28, 2013 Share #21 Posted January 28, 2013 Now you are sounding contradictory. One one hand you want short routes that can just get people to and from the subway. On the other hand you don't want bus routes to just take take people to the subway because too many people will use the subway and put too much demand and stress on the system. Yes, short routes are more reliable, but we also need those long routes to minimize trips requiring three buses and a double fare. The problem with short routes like the B2 is that while they work well during the rush hours. What about the rest of the day? It carries only a couple of people per bus the rest of the day. If it operated further west and made connections with more buses, it wouldn't be as empty as it is during non-rush hours. If the route is extended, there is no reason why you couldn't run a few extra buses in the rush hour just for the subway crowd so reliability does not decrease. We could also place borough bus maps on all the shelters to encourage bus use. Buses have to do both: feed the subway and be a mode on their own because they operate where the subway does not. They can't fulfill the second purpose if all we have are short routes. We need to have long routes and where demand is justified, have short services over those long routes with fewer buses going end to end. The MTA shies away from that because that increases operating costs, but it makes them much more reliable so they would attract more passengers. But the only thing the MTA is interested in is reducing operating costs, looking at the relationship between improved reliability and its effect on revenue. . No, I'm not saying that I just want buses to be subway feeders. What I'm saying is why doesn't the hold HEARINGS to see what the community needs instead of just assuming that the answer is to extend the bus further westward? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing saying that extending B2s westward will make it that much more efficient when bus usage in the western part of Mid and South Brooklyn isn't that great to begin with. I mean what sort of patronage are you expecting to see on the B2 because quite frankly I'm not seeing such an extension being that huge of a difference. Then the other question is would the frequencies even be that attractive to get folks to even use the service? That's another issue as well and if you have buses showing up whenever they want and the attitude is well if that's not good enough then drive, then that's exactly what people do... Drive. West-East service in South Brooklyn is a joke and most would just drive rather than being bothered with that headache and quite frankly I don't blame them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 29, 2013 Author Share #22 Posted January 29, 2013 No, I'm not saying that I just want buses to be subway feeders. What I'm saying is why doesn't the hold HEARINGS to see what the community needs instead of just assuming that the answer is to extend the bus further westward? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing saying that extending B2s westward will make it that much more efficient when bus usage in the western part of Mid and South Brooklyn isn't that great to begin with. I mean what sort of patronage are you expecting to see on the B2 because quite frankly I'm not seeing such an extension being that huge of a difference. Then the other question is would the frequencies even be that attractive to get folks to even use the service? That's another issue as well and if you have buses showing up whenever they want and the attitude is well if that's not good enough then drive, then that's exactly what people do... Drive. West-East service in South Brooklyn is a joke and most would just drive rather than being bothered with that headache and quite frankly I don't blame them. First of all, the MTA won't make any changes without a public hearing. Also, you are assuming that everyone has access to a car which isn't true. While over half the households have a car, many times that car is used for work and those remaining at home have to rely on bus, train, or taxi to get around. If the trip is very inconvenient and not all that necessary, it just won't be made. There is some truth to the saying, "build it and they will come." And yes, more would use a route that runs frequently than one that doesn't run often. But by the same token, the MTA can't afford to start a new service and operate it at 5 or 10 minute intervals. Also, ridership does not appear overnight. It can take as long as a year before a route attains its potential. When I went to planning school I was taught that any trial service must operate for at least 6 months to determine if it is worthwhile. Even three months is not a long enough trial. The problem here is we never have any trials because the MTA fears that once a route is started, the public won't allow it to be discontinued no matter how unsuccessful. In my proposal to extend the B100 west along 65th Street, the plan was to run it at 15 minute headways along 65th Street and run limited by stopping only at even numbered avenues to reduce costs. I did not propose a local because the B9 operates a quarter mile away. If the service is reliable, it would be used and the additional costs may not be as great as projected because slightly reduced service may be warranted on other routes as travel patterns are rearranged. If it is successful, service would be increased as warranted. Given the MTA's finances, I just can't see a ten minute headway right away. But I can see it increasing from 15 to 12 to 10 eventually. (I proposed something else for the B2, but also to lengthen it to increase connections.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limitednyc Posted January 29, 2013 Share #23 Posted January 29, 2013 the reason why that has a better chance of happening is because it would be funded by the city who pay all the cost of routes opersrted by mtabus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 29, 2013 Share #24 Posted January 29, 2013 Hell... You already have people trying to get rid of the shorter routes and merge this and that like the endless B2 and B100 merger discussions or better yet, let's make them longer because God forbid we have a short route that moves people to and from the subway. Somehow that's just not normal. I would certainly agree with you that this is the way the is thinking as well... Let's cut as many short routes as possible and extend them which in most cases will do nothing more but make those buses even more unreliable and less attractive to use. You're also seeing less and less overnight bus service as well... With me, it's not so much the basic notion behind not wanting to extend (any) short route, as much as it is extending the shorter routes that are already efficient (short in length + on time + has a strong riderbase).... Of course, you have your exceptions like routes like the Bx18 & the (old) S60 grymes hill that brought residents to sought after areas down from secluded hilly areas..... Basically what I'm saying is, it is (or, it should be) a case by case basis w/ the shorter routes whether they should be extended to serve more people, or be left alone.... I'm going to stop here w/ this point b/c I don't want to make this an idea thread..... Got enough of them going already.... ....What I'm saying is why doesn't the hold HEARINGS to see what the community needs instead of just assuming that the answer is to extend the bus further westward? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing saying that extending B2s westward will make it that much more efficient when bus usage in the western part of Mid and South Brooklyn isn't that great to begin with. I mean what sort of patronage are you expecting to see on the B2 because quite frankly I'm not seeing such an extension being that huge of a difference. Then the other question is would the frequencies even be that attractive to get folks to even use the service? That's another issue as well and if you have buses showing up whenever they want and the attitude is well if that's not good enough then drive, then that's exactly what people do... Drive. West-East service in South Brooklyn is a joke and most would just drive rather than being bothered with that headache and quite frankly I don't blame them. Looks like you're combining two different issues here to make your point; I don't think anyone is saying/implicating that the B2 should be sent westward to aid in communal needs for the areas that the route serves.... I agree with you w/ the MTA's virtually non-existant community outreach efforts (or w/e you wanna call it) - But on the same token & as was alluded to, the problem w/ the B2 is midday usage (which includes Marine Park patrons, but is not limited to Marine Park).... It's one reason I would extend the B2 over the B31; Gerritsen is an "edge" community & those folks (for the most part) are simply trying to get to the subway from off the B31..... Neither is outstandingly whopping, but from what I see, the B31 gets better midday usage over the B2.... I personally would rather the B2 be sent elsewhere to keep the route from eventual extinction (IMO) over combining it w/ B100's, or leaving them as is.... This goes back to QJT's point of eliminating redundant routes - I just don't want to see that route bite the dust, be it through some funky combination or some gradual thinning of service leading to a discontinuation (you see what happened w/ the x29, for example)...... Even though they brought back weekend service on the B2, I'm still a bit worried about the future of that route, to be honest..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 29, 2013 Share #25 Posted January 29, 2013 @VG8 and B35 Via Church I find bus routes work best when they feed the subway system, as if both systems were intertwined. Many routes do not follow that mentality, and those are usually the ones that are cut. Look at the M14, see how it "feeds" the subway stops on 14th Street (mainly Union Square). It transports people from the Lower East Side that do not have subway service and brings them to their subway. Another option is the corridor uption, these routes like the M15 run have many attractions around and other things that make them significant along their route. Other bus routes do not generally succeed because they do not have the people and the supply of constant passengers. I get the gist of what you're getting at (although I question your use of the term feed/feeder).... As it reads, your post here (to me) in a nutshell is leading credence to the notion that grid systems work best.... M14 is not a feeder service, it's part of a grid system that serves subway stations along the way.... There's a difference between a grid/mod. grid/point to point route serving a subway station along the way & a subway feeder..... You say "Many routes do not follow that mentality" - I would say that it should stay that way because you don't want to have a bus system in a city this big where the vast majority of routes are subway feeders.... The Flushing feeders (Q13, 16, 28, etc) & the Jamaica center feeders (Q4, 5, 42, 84, 85) are as such, since our subway system doesn't pan out to NE & SE Queens.... What should be focused on more is, what can be done to have more patrons within a particular neighborhood utilize a bus route that runs in their area to nearby subway line(s), as well as other points of interest along/around said route (this can include xfers to other bus routes; I am not anti-transfer like some people here are) in the areas that don't have that steady high enough stream/supply of pax. throughout the day.... In laymen's, focus on rider's needs that doesn't solely consist of dumping pax. off at a subway station.... Few people here have stated that the MTA does a lackadaisical job at focusing on communal needs, and I'd have to concur w/ that assessment.... Some may not believe as such, but a bus route can represent a neighborhood.... We could also place borough bus maps on all the shelters to encourage bus use. Agreed.... Bee line (for example) does a good job with this very thing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.