SI Express Bus Plan Out!

[IAlam]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Let's see... More transfers equals longer travel times. I know personally from experience. There were times when it would take me two and a half hours via the local bus, ferry and the subway. I switched to the express bus for a faster commute. Of course they're going to put that, but commonsense says that the more times you have to change, the more likely you are to encounter delays.

 

I mean that not necessarily true When I was in High School I found this 3xfer route over the prefered 1xfer route to be faster. The reason behind that was essentially waiting time. While the 3Xfer was a route covering a longer distance, it was a short wait time for my connections. Essentially it boiled down to, the shorter the wait time, the short my commute regardless of distance. 

Based on current service patterns in the area, if you live on or near Victory Blvd, then its probably faster to go down to the x14 or to Hylan for the bus than to take the x30. Even though you're adding an additional transfer.  
 

[dkupf]

 

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Same as other major changes. Some will be happy, some will be upset, and some will be indifferent. According to one of the poster boards at the meeting, 92% of riders who have a one-seat ride would continue to have a one-seat ride, so that means 8% of riders will need to transfer to continue their trip.

In terms of the bus stops being eliminated, around 2/3rds of riders would continue using their existing bus stop (therefore it would take them the same amount of time to reach the stop as it does today), and 99.1% would have to walk less than 5 minutes to their new stop. (That 0.1% was probably the X23 along Woodrow and the X17/19 along Drumgoole). And then of course routing-wise, there's the benefits such as direct service from Tottenville to Downtown.

Again, you're giving percentages.  I want numbers.  I want the facts.

If 2/3 of riders would continue using their existing bus stop, that means 1/3 of total riders would not.  That's too many riders!

Did you read what I wanted you to read from the SEPTA website?  I think not.

I want NYCT to use SEPTA's Comparative Evaluation Process for Budget-Related Changes.

I want NYCT to compare current costs for express bus service in Staten Island with what they project.

I also want them to compare current ridership numbers and what they project.

And, I want these numbers broken down by current non-Hawk ridership Weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays and what they project.

And, the amount of people who currently ride during the Hawk hours (daily 1AM-5AM) and what they project for these three periods.

And, the amount of people NYCT project would have their travel time increase and decrease for these three periods.

And, those NYCT project who would have their walking distance increase and decrease for these three periods.

And, those NYCT project who would have their transfers added and negated for these three periods.

Then, I want the current and projected numbers annualized.

This would give the Final Benefit Score (FBS) for the current and the projected.  The higher the FBS, the higher the overall net community benefit.  The lower the FBS, the lower the overall net community benefit.

Please, first, read what I wanted you to read from the SEPTA website.  Then, ask me what you think.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 hours ago, dkupf said:

 

Again, you're giving percentages.  I want numbers.  I want the facts.

If 2/3 of riders would continue using their existing bus stop, that means 1/3 of total riders would not.  That's too many riders!

Did you read what I wanted you to read from the SEPTA website?  I think not.

I want NYCT to use SEPTA's Comparative Evaluation Process for Budget-Related Changes.

I want NYCT to compare current costs for express bus service in Staten Island with what they project.

I also want them to compare current ridership numbers and what they project.

And, I want these numbers broken down by current non-Hawk ridership Weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays and what they project.

And, the amount of people who currently ride during the Hawk hours (daily 1AM-5AM) and what they project for these three periods.

And, the amount of people NYCT project would have their travel time increase and decrease for these three periods.

And, those NYCT project who would have their walking distance increase and decrease for these three periods.

And, those NYCT project who would have their transfers added and negated for these three periods.

Then, I want the current and projected numbers annualized.

This would give the Final Benefit Score (FBS) for the current and the projected.  The higher the FBS, the higher the overall net community benefit.  The lower the FBS, the lower the overall net community benefit.

Please, first, read what I wanted you to read from the SEPTA website.  Then, ask me what you think.

I want numbers too. It's BS. He's fine with the set up because his commute doesn't change much and he thinks that the so called savings will be used for more service (for some reason he trusts the to do so). They want to cut costs. 

[dkupf]

32 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I want numbers too. It's BS. He's fine with the set up because his commute doesn't change much and he thinks that the so called savings will be used for more service (for some reason he trusts the to do so). They want to cut costs. 

I agree.

Operations Planning (OP) is a division of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB).  The Senior Vice President of this department reports to the Executive Vice President, who then reports to the NYCT President.  The OMB people are accountants.  They only want to cut service, not improve it.  This is why OP should be its own department under the Executive Vice President.

Mr. Byford could do this with the stroke of a pen!

Which, again, brings us to this question: what would the new Staten Island Express Bus Redesign look like if the accountants weren’t breathing down the service planners’ backs?  This is the plan that Staten Islanders, as well as NYCT’s current and future riders, deserve.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 minutes ago, dkupf said:

I agree.

Operations Planning (OP) is a division of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB).  The Senior Vice President of this department reports to the Executive Vice President, who then reports to the NYCT President.  The OMB people are accountants.  They only want to cut service, not improve it.  This is why OP should be its own department under the Executive Vice President.

Mr. Byford could do this with the stroke of a pen!

Which, again, brings us to this question: what would the new Staten Island Express Bus Redesign look like if the accountants weren’t breathing down the service planners’ backs?  This is the plan that Staten Islanders, as well as NYCT’s current and future riders, deserve.

I worked with the in their offices so I know the deal of how they operate.  At the end of the day, the will sell this as Staten Islanders getting faster service with "a few riders" being inconvenienced, and if Oddo and the other politicians and residents believe that, they'll be duped. Don't get me wrong... The service should be faster, but not the way they're doing it.

[B35 via Church]

Quote

Customer feedback for these improvements has been overwhelmingly positive. In a survey of more than 1,000 express bus riders, 76 percent of respondents supported the project. Customers also provided additional meaningful input that helped us further refine the redesign.

76% I wouldn't deem as being overwhelmingly positive & the fact that the MTA categorizes the amt. of feedback as such, tells me that they expected LOWER.

Quote

Extensive data analysis and input from nearly 2,500 riders led to the creation of the redesigned network, which will offer customers travel times that are similar to, or faster than, their trips today, thereby improving their commutes and quality of life.

I don't doubt they got input from riders (although I don't necessarily buy from appx. 2500 of 'em, but let's run with that), but the question is: How much of that external input did they actually consider!

Quote

Are you cutting service?
No. We're changing the network to better meet our customers' needs. In fact, by redesigning the network, we're able to make better use of our resources. This will enable us to add more daily trips between Staten Island and Manhattan than we currently offer today.

Especially w/i larger corporations, re-allocations in the longrun often lead to layoffs (or in this case, cuts).... These types of declarations (regardless of whatever industry is being talked about) always concern me.....

I'll blurt out two terms: Outsourcing & diversified duties.

Quote

Why can't you just keep the existing network and add more buses?
Our goal is to create a network with more reliable service and shorter commute times so our customers can get to their desired destinations in the most efficient way. Rather than just adding more slow-moving buses to poorly performing routes, this plan addresses many of the fundamental problems with the current system and will vastly enhance the commute for our express bus customers.

....let's not forget to mention that COSTS MORE MONEY.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

16 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

76% I wouldn't deem as being overwhelmingly positive & the fact that the MTA categorizes the amt. of feedback as such, tells me that they expected LOWER.

I don't doubt they got input from riders (although I don't necessarily buy from appx. 2500 of 'em, but let's run with that), but the question is: How much of that external input did they actually consider!

Especially w/i larger corporations, re-allocations in the longrun often lead to layoffs (or in this case, cuts).... These types of declarations (regardless of whatever industry is being talked about) always concern me.....

I'll blurt out two terms: Outsourcing & diversified duties.

....let's not forget to mention that COSTS MORE MONEY.

 

What makes me skeptical is with all of these changes, the management at the depots won't change, so when regulars call out and the runs aren't filled, it'll be hell. I'd be shocked to see generous service levels.

[dkupf]

I agree with you both.

The recently-retired Norman Silverman was also arrogant.  But at least he stood up to the accountants.  And, he usually won.

Before Silverman came to NYCT, in the 1980's, the Q3 operated half-hourly, and only during the weekday peak.

When he came to NYCT, Silverman proposed to extend this route into JFK Airport, add more service, and increase span to all times except hawk.

The OMB refused to back it, claiming that it would increase operating costs.  But, like the accountants they are, failed to think of the increase in ridership and revenue that would occur.  They were overruled, and what Silverman proposed was implemented.

Now, the Q3 has hawk service, and riders continue to use the Q3.

This shows that the accountants should stay out of planning transit service, and go back to hiding under their ledgers.

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I worked with the in their offices so I know the deal of how they operate.  At the end of the day, the will sell this as Staten Islanders getting faster service with "a few riders" being inconvenienced, and if Oddo and the other politicians and residents believe that, they'll be duped. Don't get me wrong... The service should be faster, but not the way they're doing it.

thing 1: Funny, that was their M.O. for SBS too .... Sure it's faster than local service (which isn't really saying much), but it simply isn't that much faster than the service it replaced (for the routes that had it, and that is LTD service)... The not too many riders being affected/inconvenienced bit is their "go to" statement for any service change - no matter how drastic....

thing 2: In general, that's my issue with the plan....

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What makes me skeptical is with all of these changes, the management at the depots won't change, so when regulars call out and the runs aren't filled, it'll be hell. I'd be shocked to see generous service levels.

Same (here).....

I'm still disturbed by the lesser number of stops buses will be making overall..... Since they can't do shit about the traffic on the Gowanus & within Manhattan, this I suppose is the next best thing..... The irony is, this plan aims to try to get more SI patrons driving to these routes..... The more those P&R variants end up getting utilized, the more they will try to justify cutting service on the core variant/non P&R variant..... This, I strongly believe is the end goal......

This is where SI-ers gotta put the car away, or else they're gonna end up sealing their fate (as far as overall exp. bus service is concerned)...

12 hours ago, dkupf said:

I agree with you both.

The recently-retired Norman Silverman was also arrogant.  But at least he stood up to the accountants.  And, he usually won.

Before Silverman came to NYCT, in the 1980's, the Q3 operated half-hourly, and only during the weekday peak.

When he came to NYCT, Silverman proposed to extend this route into JFK Airport, add more service, and increase span to all times except hawk.

The OMB refused to back it, claiming that it would increase operating costs.  But, like the accountants they are, failed to think of the increase in ridership and revenue that would occur.  They were overruled, and what Silverman proposed was implemented.

Now, the Q3 has hawk service, and riders continue to use the Q3.

This shows that the accountants should stay out of planning transit service, and go back to hiding under their ledgers.

Yes, number crunchers & politicians are the bane of this agency's existence.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

24 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

thing 1: Funny, that was their M.O. for SBS too .... Sure it's faster than local service (which isn't really saying much), but it simply isn't that much faster than the service it replaced (for the routes that had it, and that is LTD service)... The not too many riders being affected/inconvenienced bit is their "go to" statement for any service change - no matter how drastic....

thing 2: In general, that's my issue with the plan....

Same (here).....

I'm still disturbed by the lesser number of stops buses will be making overall..... Since they can't do shit about the traffic on the Gowanus & within Manhattan, this I suppose is the next best thing..... The irony is, this plan aims to try to get more SI patrons driving to these routes..... The more those P&R variants end up getting utilized, the more they will try to justify cutting service on the core variant/non P&R variant..... This, I strongly believe is the end goal......

This is where SI-ers gotta put the car away, or else they're gonna end up sealing their fate (as far as overall exp. bus service is concerned)...

Oh this is exactly how I see it too and Staten Islanders are so car centric that they will likely fall for it.  The fact that they basically got rid of the X14 Midtown segment is no surprise.  They've been messing around with that route for while, especially in the AM. Lots of missing runs not filled, thereby forcing you to wait or take the X30. Under this plan they got exactly what they want.

[checkmatechamp13]

On 3/18/2018 at 8:54 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Let's see... More transfers equals longer travel times. I know personally from experience. There were times when it would take me two and a half hours via the local bus, ferry and the subway. I switched to the express bus for a faster commute. Of course they're going to put that, but commonsense says that the more times you have to change, the more likely you are to encounter delays.

You're comparing two different things. The ferry is slow and infrequent. The subway generally isn't. I can't stand the ferry and try to avoid it wherever possible (if I can't take the express bus for whatever reason, I try to use the S93 via Bay Ridge). Transferring to a service that runs every 15-30 minutes is different from transferring to a service that runs every 3-5 minutes or less.

By the logic of more transfers = longer travel time, I should just stay on the train from Lower Manhattan instead of switching to the  at Chambers and back to the  at 96th Street, since that's 2 extra transfers. 

23 hours ago, dkupf said:

Again, you're giving percentages.  I want numbers.  I want the facts.

If 2/3 of riders would continue using their existing bus stop, that means 1/3 of total riders would not.  That's too many riders!

Did you read what I wanted you to read from the SEPTA website?  I think not.

I want NYCT to use SEPTA's Comparative Evaluation Process for Budget-Related Changes.

I want NYCT to compare current costs for express bus service in Staten Island with what they project.

I also want them to compare current ridership numbers and what they project.

And, I want these numbers broken down by current non-Hawk ridership Weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays and what they project.

And, the amount of people who currently ride during the Hawk hours (daily 1AM-5AM) and what they project for these three periods.

And, the amount of people NYCT project would have their travel time increase and decrease for these three periods.

And, those NYCT project who would have their walking distance increase and decrease for these three periods.

And, those NYCT project who would have their transfers added and negated for these three periods.

Then, I want the current and projected numbers annualized.

This would give the Final Benefit Score (FBS) for the current and the projected.  The higher the FBS, the higher the overall net community benefit.  The lower the FBS, the lower the overall net community benefit.

Please, first, read what I wanted you to read from the SEPTA website.  Then, ask me what you think.

1

First of all, you could've just said "Go to page 33-39 of this PDF" instead of going through all those steps.

Also, the "transfer factor" doesn't make any distinction between transfers between high-frequency services vs. transfers between low-frequency services (and also timed vs. untimed transfers). It's just a universal +/-0.6 per passenger. As I stated (and what should be common sense for somebody who is studying urban planning), the frequency of the services offered plays a large role in how easy it is, and the resultant ridership loss/gain. 

And what are percentages if not numbers? I would think such an esteemed urban planner such as yourself would be able to do the simple calculations to figure out the number of passengers affected.  But why bother doing that when you can keep spouting out nonsense? 

And only 0.1% of existing riders would have to walk more than 5 minutes to their new stop. Since you apparently can't do simple calculations, I'll do it for you: That's 33,507*0.001, which is about 34 riders per weekday. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

17 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

You're comparing two different things. The ferry is slow and infrequent. The subway generally isn't. I can't stand the ferry and try to avoid it wherever possible (if I can't take the express bus for whatever reason, I try to use the S93 via Bay Ridge). Transferring to a service that runs every 15-30 minutes is different from transferring to a service that runs every 3-5 minutes or less.

By the logic of more transfers = longer travel time, I should just stay on the train from Lower Manhattan instead of switching to the  at Chambers and back to the  at 96th Street, since that's 2 extra transfers. 

First of all, you could've just said "Go to page 33-39 of this PDF" instead of going through all those steps.

Also, the "transfer factor" doesn't make any distinction between transfers between high-frequency services vs. transfers between low-frequency services (and also timed vs. untimed transfers). It's just a universal +/-0.6 per passenger. As I stated (and what should be common sense for somebody who is studying urban planning), the frequency of the services offered plays a large role in how easy it is, and the resultant ridership loss/gain. 

And what are percentages if not numbers? I would think such an esteemed urban planner such as yourself would be able to do the simple calculations to figure out the number of passengers affected.  But why bother doing that when you can keep spouting out nonsense? 

And only 0.1% of existing riders would have to walk more than 5 minutes to their new stop. Since you apparently can't do simple calculations, I'll do it for you: That's 33,507*0.001, which is about 34 riders per weekday. 

The subway isn't slow and infrequent? I think you need to base that on which line you use.

[checkmatechamp13]

13 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The subway isn't slow and infrequent? I think you need to base that on which line you use.

Like I said, I'll take the  to Bay Ridge for the S93 before I take the ferry (which says a lot considering I live further from the S93 compared to the S44 and S62), and the isn't exactly known for its speed and frequency. But at the same time, it's not on the same level of slowness and infrequency as the ferry.

In any case, most of the riders have multiple subway options available. Even the SIM5/15/35 which only stop at Battery Place still have the  for West Side service and the  for East Side service (and for the lines up Church/Broadway, they also connect to the ). So riders have their pick of subway lines if there's an issue with one. (Not to mention they can also make the transfer on the Staten Island end, since most of the current Manhattan stops are still covered by one of the SIM lines.

[B35 via Church]

I can't remember the last time I've taken the (SI) ferry, it's been so long.... How long is that ride nowadays anyway?

I'd like to try out some of those NYC ferry services sometime though.

[checkmatechamp13]

23 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I can't remember the last time I've taken the (SI) ferry, it's been so long.... How long is that ride nowadays anyway?

I'd like to try out some of those NYC ferry services sometime though.

It's still around 25 minutes or so. Late at night, it's a couple of minutes quicker (e.g. The 10:30pm ferry from Manhattan might let people out at St. George 10:53pm). The slowest part is still getting into the slips at both ends, with the boat grinding against the docks as they try to get it lined up right. 

I'd say that aside from really foggy days (when the trip can take 30-35 minutes or more), most of the delays are from passengers boarding and alighting at the terminals and the delays cascading during the day, not really from "harbor traffic" holding up the boats en-route (though it does happen from time to time). When I'm coming from the subway, I have a good idea of which ferries leave on-time and which don't (for example, the weekday 6pm from Manhattan is almost always delayed, so if somebody is on a  train pulling in at 6:00pm exactly, you still have a good shot at making it if you run for it). Of course, as I've always said, one of the advantages of the old South Ferry station is that it was close to the surface, so it's fewer stairs to climb to reach the ferry.

A few months ago, they allowed lower-level boarding from (I believe) 7-9am on the St. George side and 12-8pm on the Manhattan side, so I'm not sure how much that's improved on-time performance (probably a decent amount since like I said, boarding/alighting is one of the main causes of delay).

[dkupf]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

You're comparing two different things. The ferry is slow and infrequent. The subway generally isn't. I can't stand the ferry and try to avoid it wherever possible (if I can't take the express bus for whatever reason, I try to use the S93 via Bay Ridge). Transferring to a service that runs every 15-30 minutes is different from transferring to a service that runs every 3-5 minutes or less.

To the layperson, it doesn't matter.  You're still transferring.  Which, SEPTA considers.

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

By the logic of more transfers = longer travel time

That's true too.  Therefore, they will also have an increase in travel time.  That also has to be factored as well.  Which, SEPTA also considers.

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Also, the "transfer factor" doesn't make any distinction between transfers between high-frequency services vs. transfers between low-frequency services (and also timed vs. untimed transfers). It's just a universal +/-0.6 per passenger.

As stated above, to the layperson, it doesn't matter.  You're still transferring.  Which, SEPTA considers.

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

As I stated (and what should be common sense for somebody who is studying urban planning), the frequency of the services offered plays a large role in how easy it is, and the resultant ridership loss/gain.

But what are those numbers?  NYCT refuses to inform us about this.  Probably, because they don't care to analyze this.  But SEPTA does.  And that's what makes them "service planners".

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And only 0.1% of existing riders would have to walk more than 5 minutes to their new stop. Since you apparently can't do simple calculations, I'll do it for you: That's 33,507*0.001, which is about 34 riders per weekday. 

But what about those who have to walk less than five minutes more?  They matter too.

To the layperson, it doesn't matter.  You're still walking a greater distance.  Which, again, SEPTA considers.

Yes, with SEPTA, you may not like where you stand.  But, at least, you know where you stand.  And, have the full picture.

Because knowledge is power.

====================================================================================================

NYCT's so-called service planners should stop spewing propaganda, and give us the facts.

But they won't.  Because if we had that knowledge, NYCT's service planners won't have the power over you.

And will continue to have you believe what they want you to believe.

We are all New Yorkers, and deserve to be treated better.  Plain and simple.

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, dkupf said:

To the layperson, it doesn't matter.  You're still transferring.  Which, SEPTA considers.

 

The layperson can tell the difference between waiting 1 minute for their connecting transit vehicle, or waiting 30 minutes for their connecting transit vehicle, which is apparently more than you are capable of.

1 hour ago, dkupf said:

That's true too.  Therefore, they will also have an increase in travel time.  That also has to be factored as well.  Which, SEPTA also considers.

 

Tell that to all the people (myself included) who willingly get off the local at a transfer point and transfer to the express instead of staying on the local. I guess we all enjoy riding the subway so much that we want to spend more time riding it. We're definitely not doing it for a logical reason like saving time. 

For the record, if you ride a Downtown Staten Island express bus in the AM rush hour, easily over 50% of the bus empties out at Battery Place (which, since you apparently can't do math, on a 57-seat coach, that amounts to 29 people or more). A good portion of those people are traveling to points further north, and willingly transfer to the subway as-is. You should tell those people to sit on a bus all the way up, and (if they don't knock you over running to the subway), they'll probably laugh in your face. In total, transferring riders account for approximately 27% of Staten Island express riders (which since you can't do math is around 9,700 riders).

1 hour ago, dkupf said:

But what about those who have to walk less than five minutes more?  They matter too.

 

And what about the people who have to sit through those extra stops. They don't matter? 

1 hour ago, dkupf said:

To the layperson, it doesn't matter.  You're still walking a greater distance.  Which, again, SEPTA considers.

 

Again, the layperson can tell the difference between a 3 minute walk and a 30 minute walk, something you are apparently also incapable of.

1 hour ago, dkupf said:

Because knowledge is power.

 

Then you better open your mind a little bit if you want to get anywhere in life, because with your know-it-all attitude, I wouldn't trust you with any power whatsoever, and I would hope anybody in a position to hire you for a planning position wouldn't either.

[dkupf]

55 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The layperson can tell the difference between waiting 1 minute for their connecting transit vehicle, or waiting 30 minutes for their connecting transit vehicle, which is apparently more than you are capable of.

But, you're still transferring.

57 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Tell that to all the people (myself included) who willingly get off the local at a transfer point and transfer to the express instead of staying on the local. I guess we all enjoy riding the subway so much that we want to spend more time riding it. We're definitely not doing it for a logical reason like saving time. 

That's true.  Some people would see their travel time decrease.  Which, SEPTA considers.

But, others could see their travel increase, which, also, SEPTA considers.

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

For the record, if you ride a Downtown Staten Island express bus in the AM rush hour, easily over 50% of the bus empties out at Battery Place (which, since you apparently can't do math, on a 57-seat coach, that amounts to 29 people or more). A good portion of those people are traveling to points further north, and willingly transfer to the subway as-is. You should tell those people to sit on a bus all the way up, and (if they don't knock you over running to the subway), they'll probably laugh in your face. In total, transferring riders account for approximately 27% of Staten Island express riders (which since you can't do math is around 9,700 riders).

We're not talking about those who CURRENTLY transfer and continue to do so, because their trips wouldn't have a significant overall impact during the weekday rush.  Just those who currently do not transfer but will, as well as those who currently transfer but won't with what's being proposed.

 

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And what about the people who have to sit through those extra stops. They don't matter? 

Yes, they would have a decrease in travel time.  Which, SEPTA considers.

But SEPTA also considers those who would have an increase in travel time, as well as those would have their walking distance increase, due to the fewer stops a particular route makes.

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Again, the layperson can tell the difference between a 3 minute walk and a 30 minute walk, something you are apparently also incapable of.

But, nonetheless, there's still an increase in walking distance.

In fact, for SEPTA's FY2018 Annual Service Plan, the Hearing Examiner recommended to defer the addition of a bus route in order for Service Planning to further study the impacts.

Sometimes, there are proposals that have some negative impacts, but an overall net positive benefit.

And, there also proposals that have some positive impacts, but an overall net negative benefit.

As I said before, we need a full picture ALL of the positive AND negative impacts.  Not propaganda, but the facts.

And, we, as New Yorkers, still deserve to be treated better.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 hours ago, dkupf said:

But, you're still transferring.

That's true.  Some people would see their travel time decrease.  Which, SEPTA considers.

But, others could see their travel increase, which, also, SEPTA considers.

We're not talking about those who CURRENTLY transfer and continue to do so, because their trips wouldn't have a significant overall impact during the weekday rush.  Just those who currently do not transfer but will, as well as those who currently transfer but won't with what's being proposed.

 

Yes, they would have a decrease in travel time.  Which, SEPTA considers.

But SEPTA also considers those who would have an increase in travel time, as well as those would have their walking distance increase, due to the fewer stops a particular route makes.

But, nonetheless, there's still an increase in walking distance.

In fact, for SEPTA's FY2018 Annual Service Plan, the Hearing Examiner recommended to defer the addition of a bus route in order for Service Planning to further study the impacts.

Sometimes, there are proposals that have some negative impacts, but an overall net positive benefit.

And, there also proposals that have some positive impacts, but an overall net negative benefit.

As I said before, we need a full picture ALL of the positive AND negative impacts.  Not propaganda, but the facts.

And, we, as New Yorkers, still deserve to be treated better.

That's exactly what I'm getting at.  It's one thing to have a preference in commuting.  If he's fine transferring good for him, but what he's trying to do is minimize the fact that others DON'T want to transfer and say that those people represent a small percentage overall. I don't buy it.  The only time I transferred was because I was running late.  If I had a choice I would take an express bus that gets me to my destination without transferring even with a bit of transferring.  

[checkmatechamp13]

12 hours ago, dkupf said:

But, you're still transferring.

 

Yes, and there are two components that make transferring undesirable: The physical moving from one vehicle to the other, and the wait time for the connecting vehicle, or (as your own document put it)

Transfers rank ahead of the other two convenience factors because the need to transfer sometimes adds to the cost of transit travel and because linking trips adds an element of uncertainty when completing travel.

The degree of that uncertainty correlates with the frequency of the connecting route (and in the case of infrequent routes, whether there is coordination between the modes or not).

12 hours ago, dkupf said:

That's true.  Some people would see their travel time decrease.  Which, SEPTA considers.

But, others could see their travel increase, which, also, SEPTA considers.

 

Which is another issue with their methodology: Instead of using total passenger-minutes, they add or subtract benefit points based on whether the threshold of 5 minutes of added travel time is met. That means somebody who loses 6 minutes of travel time, and somebody who loses an hour are treated equally. If I build a 30 minute cushion into my commute, in one case, I'm early, and in the other case I'm late. I'm pretty sure the "layperson" can tell the difference, or if not their boss certainly can.

12 hours ago, dkupf said:

We're not talking about those who CURRENTLY transfer and continue to do so, because their trips wouldn't have a significant overall impact during the weekday rush.  Just those who currently do not transfer but will, as well as those who currently transfer but won't with what's being proposed.

1

No, we're talking about this idea that avoiding transfers is more important than saving time "to the layman". If that were true, people wouldn't voluntarily get off a vehicle that provides a slower, one-seat ride in order to transfer to a faster vehicle. 

12 hours ago, dkupf said:

Yes, they would have a decrease in travel time.  Which, SEPTA considers.

But SEPTA also considers those who would have an increase in travel time, as well as those would have their walking distance increase, due to the fewer stops a particular route makes.

 

Yes, and the methodology should be passenger-minutes, not just benefit points based on some arbitrary cutoff. It's good that they publish their methodology, but it's flawed.

13 hours ago, dkupf said:

But, nonetheless, there's still an increase in walking distance.

 

I'll put it to you this way: As a young, able-bodied male, I would have no problem walking an extra 3 minutes (as a matter of fact, I do it whenever the S89 is running so I have the option of taking the limited instead of depending on the local). A 30 minute walk on the other hand (when I'm under time constaints) will have me resorting to some form of motorized transport for part or all of the trip.

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's exactly what I'm getting at.  It's one thing to have a preference in commuting.  If he's fine transferring good for him, but what he's trying to do is minimize the fact that others DON'T want to transfer and say that those people represent a small percentage overall. I don't buy it.  The only time I transferred was because I was running late.  If I had a choice I would take an express bus that gets me to my destination without transferring even with a bit of transferring.  

As I said, 9,700 Staten Island express bus riders willingly transfer every weekday. Some others don't want to transfer and many of those people won't have to. What about the Downtown riders who have to wait for delayed buses coming from Midtown? They have to stand at a bus stop waiting for a delayed bus because some other people want a one-seat ride (not to mention standing at the stop is obviously less comfortable than sitting on a bus, considering that hardly any of the bus stops in Lower Manhattan have seating)? 

Not to mention that every bus covering Manhattan streets is one fewer bus available for Staten Island coverage. The off-peak plan is barely any better than the current setup. In exchange for better coverage of Westerleigh, Travis, and Tottenville, the entire Richmond Avenue corridor on the X17 has to sit through extra stops along Gannon Avenue (and that's a busy corridor that's seeing an overall negative impact). Had all the express buses been cut to Downtown, there would've been more buses available on the Staten Island end, allowing for expansion of off-peak service to areas such as Mariners Harbor, Woodrow/Rossville, and the maintenance of the quicker ride for Richmond Avenue patrons (which includes people coming from as far away as Annadale who have long commutes as-is) 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

As I said, 9,700 Staten Island express bus riders willingly transfer every weekday. Some others don't want to transfer and many of those people won't have to. What about the Downtown riders who have to wait for delayed buses coming from Midtown? They have to stand at a bus stop waiting for a delayed bus because some other people want a one-seat ride (not to mention standing at the stop is obviously less comfortable than sitting on a bus, considering that hardly any of the bus stops in Lower Manhattan have seating)? 

Not to mention that every bus covering Manhattan streets is one fewer bus available for Staten Island coverage. The off-peak plan is barely any better than the current setup. In exchange for better coverage of Westerleigh, Travis, and Tottenville, the entire Richmond Avenue corridor on the X17 has to sit through extra stops along Gannon Avenue (and that's a busy corridor that's seeing an overall negative impact). Had all the express buses been cut to Downtown, there would've been more buses available on the Staten Island end, allowing for expansion of off-peak service to areas such as Mariners Harbor, Woodrow/Rossville, and the maintenance of the quicker ride for Richmond Avenue patrons (which includes people coming from as far away as Annadale who have long commutes as-is) 

That's them.  Stop trying to convey the idea that because some riders are okay with transfers that it's okay to force other riders to have to transfer.  It's not ok.  I'm not sure where you get this from, but you have a habit of trying to imply that because X amount of people are okay doing something that should make it ok for others to go along with it.  If that was the case when the majority went along with things when the minority didn't... 

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's them.  Stop trying to convey the idea that because some riders are okay with transfers that it's okay to force other riders to have to transfer.  It's not ok.  I'm not sure where you get this from, but you have a habit of trying to imply that because X amount of people are okay doing something that should make it ok for others to go along with it.  If that was the case when the majority went along with things when the minority didn't... 

The MTA bending over backwards to satisfy those riders is negatively impacting other riders. That's my point. When the bus gets stuck in traffic in Midtown, it affects those who board Downtown (whether their origin was Downtown or whether they took the subway Downtown). 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The MTA bending over backwards to satisfy those riders is negatively impacting other riders. That's my point. When the bus gets stuck in traffic in Midtown, it affects those who board Downtown (whether their origin was Downtown or whether they took the subway Downtown). 

As if this plan somehow means that express buses won't still be stuck in traffic... 

[checkmatechamp13]

6 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

As if this plan somehow means that express buses won't still be stuck in traffic... 

I'd rather buses be stuck in 5 minutes of traffic than 30 minutes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'd rather buses be stuck in 5 minutes of traffic than 30 minutes.

You're giving this plan wayyy too much credit without seeing the details.