Update on the Release of the Bronx Bus Network Redesign Final Plan

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm asking what you're comparing the BxM7 to in terms of alternatives? You seem to be all over the place. If we're comparing it to Metro-North from Co-Op City, the two go to completely different places, with totally different stops.  I'll use myself as an example. Do I have an alternative to the express bus? Not really... Metro-North really only makes sense if you're going to Grand Central, otherwise you're transferring a few times, so the time savings is negligible. 

I gave a bunch of potential alts above -- you can pick and choose which you think is most viable or which you think makes the best straw man for your case. 

I want to zero in on your last sentence there. The express bus isn't making all that much of a time impact vs MNR -- it's saving transfers, to be sure, which is something worth considering, but it's not going to take 40% off your travel. I think there's a real conversation to be had about, considering the magnitude of the per-rider subsidy incurred in express bus operation, whether the funds are better spent making improvement to more efficient services. Of course, this is not a conversation that should be had in areas where there does not exist a time-competitive alt or combo of alts, but in areas where there do exist alternatives, it is certainly worthwhile.

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

And so you have so much faith in the  that they're going to fix these local buses suddenly, as if they really give a damn?  Even on lines like the Bx12SBS with high frequencies, the service is still a mess. The buses still bunch like crazy. I think you talk a good game and it all sounds good, but I know first hand what it is like to have to make several transfers to reach my destination.  One transfer goes wrong, and there's your commute. That's precisely why I switched to the express bus in the first place.

I don't have much faith in the MTA. But I think there's a difference between saying we don't have faith in general and that there's no chance a targeted advocacy effort could get them to commit to redistributing funds in a fair manner -- I would agree with the former and disagree with the latter. I again completely agree that service can be disastrous at times, but I a) think this is why I've qualified this entire conversation with there being some legit improvements to alt services (even something so simple as expanded bus priority, better bus lane enforcement or just active dispatching), and b) I don't think you can entirely divorce shitty service from the fact that the budget isn't being efficiently allocated. Trust me when I say I understand that transfers can be risky, but they don't have to be that way. Many a transit system requires you to make many of them in the course of a given trip.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

1. I gave a bunch of potential alts above -- you can pick and choose which you think is most viable or which you think makes the best straw man for your case. 

I want to zero in on your last sentence there. The express bus isn't making all that much of a time impact vs MNR -- it's saving transfers, to be sure, which is something worth considering, but it's not going to take 40% off your travel. I think there's a real conversation to be had about, considering the magnitude of the per-rider subsidy incurred in express bus operation, whether the funds are better spent making improvement to more efficient services. Of course, this is not a conversation that should be had in areas where there does not exist a time-competitive alt or combo of alts, but in areas where there do exist alternatives, it is certainly worthwhile.

2. I don't have much faith in the MTA. But I think there's a difference between saying we don't have faith in general and that there's no chance a targeted advocacy effort could get them to commit to redistributing funds in a fair manner -- I would agree with the former and disagree with the latter. I again completely agree that service can be disastrous at times, but I a) think this is why I've qualified this entire conversation with there being some legit improvements to alt services (even something so simple as expanded bus priority, better bus lane enforcement or just active dispatching), and b) I don't think you can entirely divorce shitty service from the fact that the budget isn't being efficiently allocated. Trust me when I say I understand that transfers can be risky, but they don't have to be that way. Many a transit system requires you to make many of them in the course of a given trip.

1. That depends on the time of day and where. The express bus can most certainly be faster if traffic isn't a factor. Late nights, the express bus is faster by a mile. Not even close...

2. Right, but realistically speaking, until the  becomes more efficient and transfers, this is all talk.

[RR503]

26 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. That depends on the time of day and where. The express bus can most certainly be faster if traffic isn't a factor. Late nights, the express bus is faster by a mile. Not even close...

2. Right, but realistically speaking, until the  becomes more efficient and transfers, this is all talk.

1. Point stands: are the subsidies worth it in the long run for such a limited gain?

2. Agree, aside from the handful of express routes that do literally just duplicate LIRR/MNR. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

20 minutes ago, RR503 said:

1. Point stands: are the subsidies worth it in the long run for such a limited gain?

2. Agree, aside from the handful of express routes that do literally just duplicate LIRR/MNR. 

1. Yes, not unless you support subway rich areas having better access to transit over transit deserts.  You can talk about the subsidy all you want. The fact of the matter is there has been no subway expansion in the outer boroughs in decades and there are none planned, not to mention the abysmal cost and turnaround time. It is the  that has turned down opportunities to make the subway more accessible citing the cost, so in short you can talk about the express bus costs, but it seems as if anytime transit improvements are suggested in the outer boroughs in transit deserts, the "cost" is always thrown around, and I'm tired of it.  The Second Avenue Subway came in over budget and well behind schedule, and it seems as if no one complained about that, but of course that's Manhattan where no cost is spared.

2. And which lines would those be?

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. Yes, not unless you support subway rich areas having better access to transit over transit deserts.  You can talk about the subsidy all you want. The fact of the matter is there has been no subway expansion in the outer boroughs in decades and there are none planned, not to mention the abysmal cost and turnaround time. It is the  that has turned down opportunities to make the subway more accessible citing the cost, so in short you can talk about the express bus costs, but it seems as if anytime transit improvements are suggested in the outer boroughs in transit deserts, the "cost" is always thrown around, and I'm tired of it.  The Second Avenue Subway came in over budget and well behind schedule, and it seems as if no one complained about that, but of course that's Manhattan where no cost is spared.

2. And which lines would those be?

1. Express buses =/= transit access. Setting aside the fact that their capacity is but a statistical error, (yes, even in transit deserts), one extremely pernicious myth propagated throughout all transit discourse in this city is the notion that everybody wants to go to Midtown Manhattan. That simply is not true. If you want the greatest bang for your buck when it comes to outer borough transit access, help people in Co-Op City get around the outer boroughs -- only about 30% of them work in Manhattan, and likely an even smaller percentage undertake their non-work activities (shopping, going to school, dining out) there. We of course shouldn't ignore core-bound flows, but we should be cognizant of the tradeoffs that come with serving the core with an extremely expensive mode of transport rather than aggregating folks by, say, having people take a bus to a train -- an alt that may yield similar (or even, in some cases, lower) trip times, but requires more transfers. 

I totally agree that subway expansion should happen, and it should happen into transit deserts. And there is no need to lecture me on the importance of controlling construction costs. But when we're allocating bus service hours to carry tens or hundreds of people to Manhattan rather than carrying thousands or tens of thousands of people around the outer boroughs -- an allocation that can frequently increase the accessibility of core-bound services, mind you -- I absolutely think we need to have a conversation about our priorities and the efficacy of our budget. Realistically, there will be no massive increase in the operating budget to allow a "both/and" approach, nor will there be major subway construction. So understanding these tradeoffs and leveraging them to maximize transit's benefit to the communities it serves incrementally is absolutely key to the next 5-15 years of outer borough transit. 

2. [Insert SE Queens route here]

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

1. Express buses =/= transit access. Setting aside the fact that their capacity is but a statistical error, (yes, even in transit deserts), one extremely pernicious myth propagated throughout all transit discourse in this city is the notion that everybody wants to go to Midtown Manhattan. That simply is not true. If you want the greatest bang for your buck when it comes to outer borough transit access, help people in Co-Op City get around the outer boroughs -- only about 30% of them work in Manhattan, and likely an even smaller percentage undertake their non-work activities (shopping, going to school, dining out) there. We of course shouldn't ignore core-bound flows, but we should be cognizant of the tradeoffs that come with serving the core with an extremely expensive mode of transport rather than aggregating folks by, say, having people take a bus to a train -- an alt that may yield similar (or even, in some cases, lower) trip times, but requires more transfers. 

I totally agree that subway expansion should happen, and it should happen into transit deserts. And there is no need to lecture me on the importance of controlling construction costs. But when we're allocating bus service hours to carry tens or hundreds of people to Manhattan rather than carrying thousands or tens of thousands of people around the outer boroughs -- an allocation that can frequently increase the accessibility of core-bound services, mind you -- I absolutely think we need to have a conversation about our priorities and the efficacy of our budget. Realistically, there will be no massive increase in the operating budget to allow a "both/and" approach, nor will there be major subway construction. So understanding these tradeoffs and leveraging them to maximize transit's benefit to the communities it serves incrementally is absolutely key to the next 5-15 years of outer borough transit. 

2. [Insert SE Queens route here]

There are some people that simply cannot use the subway and won't and those people are basically being forced to now drive. This either or attitude is exactly why we're where we're at now.  In Europe, you have tiered options to those who would otherwise drive. I don't understand why it has to be a either or situation.

[limitednyc]

subway expansion see second ave , say mo more

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

1. Express buses =/= transit access. Setting aside the fact that their capacity is but a statistical error, (yes, even in transit deserts), one extremely pernicious myth propagated throughout all transit discourse in this city is the notion that everybody wants to go to Midtown Manhattan. That simply is not true. If you want the greatest bang for your buck when it comes to outer borough transit access, help people in Co-Op City get around the outer boroughs -- only about 30% of them work in Manhattan, and likely an even smaller percentage undertake their non-work activities (shopping, going to school, dining out) there. We of course shouldn't ignore core-bound flows, but we should be cognizant of the tradeoffs that come with serving the core with an extremely expensive mode of transport rather than aggregating folks by, say, having people take a bus to a train -- an alt that may yield similar (or even, in some cases, lower) trip times, but requires more transfers. 

I totally agree that subway expansion should happen, and it should happen into transit deserts. And there is no need to lecture me on the importance of controlling construction costs. But when we're allocating bus service hours to carry tens or hundreds of people to Manhattan rather than carrying thousands or tens of thousands of people around the outer boroughs -- an allocation that can frequently increase the accessibility of core-bound services, mind you -- I absolutely think we need to have a conversation about our priorities and the efficacy of our budget. Realistically, there will be no massive increase in the operating budget to allow a "both/and" approach, nor will there be major subway construction. So understanding these tradeoffs and leveraging them to maximize transit's benefit to the communities it serves incrementally is absolutely key to the next 5-15 years of outer borough transit. 

2. [Insert SE Queens route here]

 

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There are some people that simply cannot use the subway and won't and those people are basically being forced to now drive. This either or attitude is exactly why we're where we're at now.  In Europe, you have tiered options to those who would otherwise drive. I don't understand why it has to be a either or situation.

If the goal is to eliminate car trips, the case for express buses becomes even weaker. The nature of core-bound travel means that people are already heavily incentivized towards mass transit -- the massive majority of people entering Manhattan use trains/buses already, and that's a trend that has only grown with time. Wanna hit car trips? Deal with intra-outer borough corridors.

There's a lot to be gained through multimodality, yes. But I think multimodality can't be seen as an inflexible goal -- if we're suffering an ops budget crisis as we are now, this isn't the time to preserve options for the sake thereof, it's the time to double down on what we do best and allocate resources to services that reap the greatest benefit. If you can figure out a way to make express buses less of a budget suck, then let's by all means do that, but you've gotta, well, figure that out. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

If the goal is to eliminate car trips, the case for express buses becomes even weaker. The nature of core-bound travel means that people are already heavily incentivized towards mass transit -- the massive majority of people entering Manhattan use trains/buses already, and that's a trend that has only grown with time. Wanna hit car trips? Deal with intra-outer borough corridors.

There's a lot to be gained through multimodality, yes. But I think multimodality can't be seen as an inflexible goal -- if we're suffering an ops budget crisis as we are now, this isn't the time to preserve options for the sake thereof, it's the time to double down on what we do best and allocate resources to services that reap the greatest benefit. If you can figure out a way to make express buses less of a budget suck, then let's by all means do that, but you've gotta, well, figure that out. 

Express buses are commuter buses. Always have been, and they're being used as a scapegoat for a situation that the  has created. Their fiscal house is a mess. The costs for everything the  does are absurd.  Do you think spending $78 million dollars on ONE elevator is cost effective? I certainly don't, but at the same time, I wouldn't turn around and blame ADA advocates and disabled riders as you are blaming express bus riders and say OH well, you shouldn't have elevators because of the cost to install them. We have to prioritize, which is your argument.  It's the  that should be working to get these costs down, not using their riders as the scapegoats and pitting riders against one another. It's funny how you are fixated on this service that serves thousands of riders in transit deserts, but don't seem to take issue with the wasteful spending that the  continues to perpetuate year after year. We just had a fare hike in 2019 with the  crying that they were broke in part because of fare beating, and what do we see this year? That number has grown from ~$225 million to ~$250 million this year with no end in sight.  I don't know about you, but $250 million annually sounds like a lot of money to let walk out of the door.

[RR503]

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Express buses are commuter buses. Always have been, and they're being used as a scapegoat for a situation that the  has created. Their fiscal house is a mess. The costs for everything the  does are absurd.  Do you think spending $78 million dollars on ONE elevator is cost effective? I certainly don't, but at the same time, I wouldn't turn around and blame ADA advocates and disabled riders as you are blaming express bus riders and say OH well, you shouldn't have elevators because of the cost to install them. We have to prioritize, which is your argument.  It's the  that should be working to get these costs down, not using their riders as the scapegoats and pitting riders against one another. It's funny how you are fixated on this service that serves thousands of riders in transit deserts, but don't seem to take issue with the wasteful spending that the  continues to perpetuate year after year. We just had a fare hike in 2019 with the  crying that they were broke in part because of fare beating, and what do we see this year? That number has grown from ~$225 million to ~$250 million this year with no end in sight.  I don't know about you, but $250 million annually sounds like a lot of money to let walk out of the door.

If you go back through my post history, I daresay you'll find some content relating to cost efficiency issues across the whole agency . And if you knew where to find other things I've written, you'd find much, much more. This is to say that I absolutely agree with you that the MTA's cost structure must get a serious dose of reform. However, I think that taking a singular -- rather than a structural -- perspective on costs is the wrong approach. The MTA has been tackling individual inefficiencies on a case by case basis for years, and....well, here we are. Shit like that doesn't work. If you're actually going to do something about cost levels, you have *got* to take an agency-wide view on costs, which means considering ridiculous procurement costs and maintenance inefficiencies alongside issues like poorly allocated service. Costs, after all, exist on a structural level; if you do not address them as such, you'll end up just putting out fires rather than addressing the root causes of ignition (if that metaphor makes some sense?). 

More generally, I think there's a distinction to be drawn between advocating against expansion of the express bus network and advocating against universal accessibility. The former -- as I have been saying pretty much this whole time -- is an issue where there is an equivalent/better replacement service available at lower cost to the agency. The latter is literally a matter of transit system accessibility. No elevators, no dice for wheelchair users/strollers/people carrying heavy objects and the like. But this is tangential to my main point. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

If you go back through my post history, I daresay you'll find some content relating to cost efficiency issues across the whole agency . And if you knew where to find other things I've written, you'd find much, much more. This is to say that I absolutely agree with you that the MTA's cost structure must get a serious dose of reform. However, I think that taking a singular -- rather than a structural -- perspective on costs is the wrong approach. The MTA has been tackling individual inefficiencies on a case by case basis for years, and....well, here we are. Shit like that doesn't work. If you're actually going to do something about cost levels, you have *got* to take an agency-wide view on costs, which means considering ridiculous procurement costs and maintenance inefficiencies alongside issues like poorly allocated service. Costs, after all, exist on a structural level; if you do not address them as such, you'll end up just putting out fires rather than addressing the root causes of ignition (if that metaphor makes some sense?). 

More generally, I think there's a distinction to be drawn between advocating against expansion of the express bus network and advocating against universal accessibility. The former -- as I have been saying pretty much this whole time -- is an issue where there is an equivalent/better replacement service available at lower cost to the agency. The latter is literally a matter of transit system accessibility. No elevators, no dice for wheelchair users/strollers/people carrying heavy objects and the like. But this is tangential to my main point. 

Well I could argue that express buses are just as important in terms of accessibility for the disabled folks who aren't near subways. We have quite a few wheelchair express bus riders in my group, and they have shared HORROR stories of lifts being broken or the driver leaving them or telling them that they need to "call ahead" so that they can prepare to remove the seats.  I know you're a rail guy, but we don't need rail everywhere. Simply isn't feasible in some places for one reason or another.

[checkmatechamp13]

19 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

As for your last point, that only works on a good day. Let's be honest, with how terrible local bus and subway service is, how many days of the year does this realistically apply to?

I don't agree with the BxM7 service reductions but let's not pretend the traffic situation on the Bruckner is nice and peachy, and let's also not pretend like the subway and local bus are this insanely unreliable system that never works.

14 hours ago, SoSpectacular said:

That they are... But, from experiences- there are places where bus stops are so close together it makes zero sense for them to even exist when there could be one stop in between. Practically less than the length of a 8-car train!

Check out the M116 at 116th & Pleasant. Stops twice on the same corner...

13 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Regarding the Bx6SBS proposal,

Are they going to add bus lanes onto Story Blvd and not convert the Bx5 into SBS anymore, or will the Bx6SBS just continue with no bus lanes?

No bus lanes on Story Avenue but the real concern is the stint on Bruckner Blvd crossing the Bronx River and how that will impact reliability across the route.

11 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

Some places in the Bronx are far from subways and places that the subway serves (especially at the ends of subway lines) takes a while to get out of The Bronx. For example, afternoon BxM7 riders in Co-op City will have to take a local  train 18 stops just to get out of The Bronx. They also have to take a local bus to reach the . Don't also forget about the frequent "service changes" in the subway.

Well, why should people have to pay to drive into the busy business districts of Manhattan if the  decides to not provide quick and efficient transit options for people that live in transit deserts. The city should tell the , No service = No congestion pricing.

And the MTA would just turn around and cut service even more...

8 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Bx11 to West Farms Road is okay on paper. 

You mean the Bx35?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't agree with the BxM7 service reductions but let's not pretend the traffic situation on the Bruckner is nice and peachy, and let's also not pretend like the subway and local bus are this insanely unreliable system that never works.

Co-Op City is a two fare zone (at least prior to the Metrocard) anyway, not to mention that there are many seniors in the neighborhood that rely on the express buses, in addition to the subway not serving the same areas as the BxM7 does.

[RR503]

47 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well I could argue that express buses are just as important in terms of accessibility for the disabled folks who aren't near subways. We have quite a few wheelchair express bus riders in my group, and they have shared HORROR stories of lifts being broken or the driver leaving them or telling them that they need to "call ahead" so that they can prepare to remove the seats.  I know you're a rail guy, but we don't need rail everywhere. Simply isn't feasible in some places for one reason or another.

In this conversation, have I ever said we need rail everywhere? Has that been anywhere near my point, aside from the fact that commuter rail sometimes can present a very feasible alt to exp bus service?

FWIW, you dug your own grave on the "express buses as an accessibility solution" argument. They're shit for that -- they were not designed to accommodate wheelchairs, and the issues you describe frequently arise when they do. Working from anecdata here, but it seems that the best experience wheelchair users have are on local buses, the subway, and commuter trains. It's almost as if............

Edited October 24, 2019 by RR503

[Lawrence St]

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Bx18, MTA's first circulatory route.

[checkmatechamp13]

41 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Co-Op City is a two fare zone (at least prior to the Metrocard) anyway, not to mention that there are many seniors in the neighborhood that rely on the express buses, in addition to the subway not serving the same areas as the BxM7 does.

I was stating a fact, that traffic along the BxM7 route has its own issues. There's no need to trash talk the subway and local bus in order to prove that the express bus service is needed. 

6 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Bx18, MTA's first circulatory route.

The Bx24 already exists (and the Bx14 also used to run a loop). There is also the B74 and there used to be the S60. I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, checkmatechamp13 said:

I was stating a fact, that traffic along the BxM7 route has its own issues. There's no need to trash talk the subway and local bus in order to prove that the express bus service is needed. 

Who is "trashing" the subway when Co-Op City doesn't have one to begin with?  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

33 minutes ago, RR503 said:

In this conversation, have I ever said we need rail everywhere? Has that been anywhere near my point, aside from the fact that commuter rail sometimes can present a very feasible alt to exp bus service?

FWIW, you dug your own grave on the "express buses as an accessibility solution" argument. They're shit for that -- they were not designed to accommodate wheelchairs, and the issues you describe frequently arise when they do. Working from anecdata here, but it seems that the best experience wheelchair users have are on local buses, the subway, and commuter trains. It's almost as if............

Oh please... Listen, if a driver knows how to operate the lift and they are maintained properly, the wheelchair is on the bus in 5-10 minutes.  We have had multiple situations where we had TWO wheelchairs on our express bus, so they are indeed used as an accessibility option. What you left out was the  has upgraded their local bus fleet substantially (all low floor buses), versus an aging express bus fleet. When you have buses that are 4 years old versus buses that are over 10 years old and more wheelchair friendly, obviously the experience will be better for local bus riders, but again, the lifts work just fine if they are maintained and the drivers are trained to use them.

[Lex]

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please... Listen, if a driver knows how to operate the lift and they are maintained properly, the wheelchair is on the bus in 5-10 minutes.  We have had multiple situations where we had TWO wheelchairs on our express bus, so they are indeed used as an accessibility option. What you left out was the  has upgraded their local bus fleet substantially (all low floor buses), versus an aging express bus fleet. When you have buses that are 4 years old versus buses that are over 10 years old and more wheelchair friendly, obviously the experience will be better for local bus riders, but again, the lifts work just fine if they are maintained and the drivers are trained to use them.

Not even the RTS was that slow (and so long as the lifts worked, that was slow).

Perhaps this talk about accessibility wouldn't be such an issue if we hadn't doubled down on those coach platforms...

[Lawrence St]

23 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I was stating a fact, that traffic along the BxM7 route has its own issues. There's no need to trash talk the subway and local bus in order to prove that the express bus service is needed. 

The Bx24 already exists (and the Bx14 also used to run a loop). There is also the B74 and there used to be the S60. I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out.

In the same manner as this one though? The s60 didnt have high ridership, whereas this ones projected ridership is high.

[B35 via Church]

23 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Bx18, MTA's first circulatory route.

31 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

In the same manner as this one though? The s60 didnt have high ridership, whereas this ones projected ridership is high.

Outside of what I already said about it in the draft plan thread, I'm not really sure how much more I can add to it..... The new segment appended to the route is simply a replacement for the Bx11 (that connected High Bridge patrons to the & the ).... The demand for those respective 170th st. stations doesn't trump the demand for Washington Hgts, up there, so those folks will still bombard Bx13's up there.... Connecting Morris Hgts. & High Bridge may benefit some folks, but not enough IMO for a circulator to have been created for that particular purpose....

Projected ridership being high? I mean, even if it were to garner the same amounts of usage of that of the current Bx13 + that of those that currently use the Bx18, it can't be too high, so I'm not going to give this particular route alteration any more praise than it deserves.....

[Future ENY OP]

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

You mean the Bx35?

Yep! Just noticed that the 11 and the 35 swap terminals.

The 11 to Parkchester doesn't sound too bad either.. *artic conversion alert*

[checkmatechamp13]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Who is "trashing" the subway when Co-Op City doesn't have one to begin with?  

I'll quote it again.

On 10/22/2019 at 11:59 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

As for your last point, that only works on a good day. Let's be honest, with how terrible local bus and subway service is, how many days of the year does this realistically apply to?

Sounds like trash talk to me.

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

In the same manner as this one though? The s60 didnt have high ridership, whereas this ones projected ridership is high.

Can't be too high. It's still running every 20 minutes for most of the day, which is generally considered coverage-level headways or just short of them (30 is usually the maximum headway the MTA runs during daytime hours for local routes)

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Sounds like trash talk to me.

Seriously, show me what was "trash talk". You may be content and maybe even encourage with making multiple transfers (including/bus transfers) but it doesn't work when the buses don't have the frequency of SI express buses (at the very least), and when the subway service is unreliable. This statement comes off baseless at best, just for the sake of doing so.

Absolutely no one here said anything about express buses coasting on the Bruckner or this grandiose walk in the park or whatnot. I may be wrong, but if I said that, quote what I said that states that. We're all aware of the problems on the expressways, and it goes without saying, since all the express bus routes encounter some form of traffic problem on the expressways. Even with the highway traffic, the BxM7 is still a better option over the (and especially the ) to/from Midtown and even the Upper East Side, more so during the AM. 

The Lexington Avenue line is terrible to rely on. There's problems almost every single day, and you can look through their Twitter account to see all the different service changes, all which delay every service running up and down the trunk. Even a relatively innocent service change creates chaos at times because of the amount of trains, and the amount of people. It's not an exaggeration, I've seen it happen before while on the Lex, and I'm sure a number of others can also attest to that. At some point during the week, you'll be stuck in some sort of problem on any of those services.

Then you have to transfer to a local bus to continue on from the subway. Pelham Bay has better availability, but outside of the rush, buses tend to not show up very frequent, even with the routes there. You're waiting, and if you're lucky, you'll catch the bus very quickly. During the rush, there's an issue of traffic and potential bunching. 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[RailRunRob]

On 10/23/2019 at 12:36 AM, RR503 said:

Your experience is certainly not unique, which is why I wouldn't eliminate Co-Op express service until MNR comes. But then...

To everyone in this thread, being a good transit advocate means advocating strongly for what you believe in, but it also means being able to contextualize your beliefs/priorities in those of a transit system or region at large. I would, for example, love to see massive investment in regional rail, but I understand that current cost structures make that a piss poor use of funds when compared to more targeted interventions. This of course shouldn't mean you sacrifice everything for some understood "greater good," but it does mean you should be somewhat responsible in your advocacy. 

Indeed. I definitely get it objectively I think the hard balance is access to the holistic view for most people even for me as I become more of a civilian away from the day to day the planing and transportation industry sometimes I have to catch myself from thinking about it from my personal point of view that's naturally what we base our opinions off. I think the way forward is providing the data and information followed by context I had a quick chat yesterday with folks from the CB guess how many of them knew how subsidized express bus service is? When asked if the MTA provided ridership or headcount data to support the service cuts no response. So my question was if we don't know how many people are riding the 5:30 PM out of Co-Op how do you justify it? Too many people don't understand the process and too many people in the process aren't educating. We have to do better to take the mystery and superstition out of the process IMO Especially if in reality, it's data mixed with cause-and-effect

Edited October 24, 2019 by RailRunRob