MTA to Eliminate 400 Bus Stops in the Bronx as Part of Bus Network Redesign

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

So what exactly is your point? That walking an additional 45 seconds is insignificant? 

What about my other points? That many would be beyond the quarter mile standard to walk to a bus stop; some have difficulty walking and can't walk at 3 mph; why pay $2.75 to walk for half your trip?, what about inclement weather?, the greater chance of missing a bus the longer you walk, that buses may not stop anyway at lightly used stops so eliminating them is of little benefit, that eliminating heavily used stops would overload remaining stops increasing fare abuse, etc. Also, some stops are still 500 feet apart, so the extra walking would be more than 45 seconds. 

Even lightly used stops are a problem if a lot of passengers getting off at many of them consecutively on a single bus. Passengers on a bus aren't an even random distribution of destinations, and anecdotally this isn't infrequently. 

Who is making a trip where less than an additional minute, or a few, increases the proportion of walking to "over half your trip?" I have a hard time believing any significant portion of bus riding is going to be make-it-or-break-it at an additional two minutes, and that's before you account for shorter journey times on the bus.

If inclement weather is such an issue why aren't we moving the stops 200 feet close together? Why don't we just turn buses into taxis?

[BrooklynBus]

13 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Even lightly used stops are a problem if a lot of passengers getting off at many of them consecutively on a single bus. Passengers on a bus aren't an even random distribution of destinations, and anecdotally this isn't infrequently. 

Who is making a trip where less than an additional minute, or a few, increases the proportion of walking to "over half your trip?" I have a hard time believing any significant portion of bus riding is going to be make-it-or-break-it at an additional two minutes, and that's before you account for shorter journey times on the bus.

If inclement weather is such an issue why aren't we moving the stops 200 feet close together? Why don't we just turn buses into taxis?

Because of irregularities in the grid system, there are many instances where we cannot meet the maximum walking guidelines to a bus stop of a quarter-mile, known as transit deserts. Increasing bus stop spacing will greatly increase the numbers not within acceptable walking distances to a bus route and will decrease the attractiveness of bus routes. And since the average local bus trip is only 2.3 mikes, the amount of time saved for the average passenger by eliminating bus stops is minimal at best. The purpose is mainly to save operating expenses, not to help the bus rider. Still this wouldn't be bad if those savings were put back into providing more service. But it is not. The savings will go to reducing the deficit. Why have walking guidelines, if you are just going to ignore them? There are no plans to operate routes closer together to maintain the walking guidelines. 

[dkupf]

Here is the longer version of my critique of "Bus Stop Spacing" that was published on October 9, 2019 by The Bronx Daily.

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

                Bus Stop Spacing is a mindless implementation of standard practices by the MTA and NYCDOT without the consideration of the effects of their actions.

There is a big difference between the number of times that a bus stops along a route and the number of bus stops along a route.  If a bus route has many bus stops, but only stops at a few of them, the elimination of bus stops has little, if any, effect on bus speed.  Hence, there is little benefit to their elimination.  Potential passengers, however, must walk further, on average, to reach a bus stop, increasing passenger travel time.  This also significantly increases the chance of a missed connection.  For infrequent service, a missed connection could also discourage bus usage.  Increased walking distance to bus stops negatively impact the elderly and the permanently or temporarily infirmed, e.g., someone using crutches due to an injury.

                For proof that that there is no correlation between bus stop spacing, bus speed, and service reliability, one can look no further than the city of Philadelphia.  The average distance between bus stops within this city is 500 feet.  But in the Center City it’s as close as 450 feet.  Though bus service reliability is just as bad as in New York City, at approximately 75%, weekday bus speed in Philadelphia is much faster.  According to the Philadelphia Bus Network Choices Report, their bus service speed averages less than 12 mph, 50% faster than in New York City!

                To determine where a bus stop should be located, one of the factors is the topography.  Pockets of New York City, especially in the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island, are known to be hilly.  This is the reason as to why bus stops for the Bx11 in the neighborhood of Highbridge are well-utilized.

                Another example, in central Queens, is the Q18.  When traveling northbound from its southern terminus, the Q18 has a bus stop on 65 Place at 53 Avenue.  The route then travels eastbound on 53 Avenue.  The next bus stop is at 68 Street, a distance of 550 feet.  After that, it turns north onto 69 Street and stops at 52 Drive; the previous bus stop was 600 feet away.  If you look at a bus map, you wouldn’t know that 53 Avenue has a steep rise at the western end.  Hence, the bus stop at 68 Street is well-utilized.

What about cases where bus stops are spaced very close together but usage for each is very high?  Should some of those stops be eliminated, buses would make fewer stops saving only the few seconds each of acceleration and deceleration, but dwell time would significantly increase at the remaining stops.  They could become dangerously crowded, possibly resulting in increased fare evasion due to impatient passengers entering the rear door.

In-route travel time could be slow for many reasons.  These include, but are not limited to, excessive double parking, blocked bus lanes, inadequate service levels causing excessive dwell time, and schedules that do not adequately reflect running times.  It would be irresponsible and too simplistic to conclude that a bus route with very slow speeds and close stops should have some of its stops removed to speed service in the absence of analyzing other data.  What matters more than the number of bus stops or the distance between them are the volume of those stops, boarding and exiting, and the impacts, positive and negative, of a stops’ removal.

                Let us consider a bus stop with a combined total volume of 50 passengers boarding and exiting, and the bus route that utilizes the stop operates every five minutes for the four peak hours, every ten minutes for another eight hours, and every 20 minutes for the final four hours.  This means that 108 trips (48 + 48 + 12) pass that bus stop at an average of more than two passengers per trip.  The result is an average of more than 25 trips, or more than one in four trips, that would stop at this stop.  Therefore, a majority of trips would save no time if the stop was eliminated.  Also, the time saved by the buses not stopping, i.e., a few seconds each for acceleration and deceleration, would be negligible.

And, if there are half-dozen adjacent lightly utilized bus stops, the elimination of some stops could result in a bus stopping at Stop A instead of Stop B, saving no in-route travel time.  The only meaningful effect of the elimination of the stop is that 50 passengers daily now have a longer walk to or from a bus stop.

                The best bus stop candidates to be considered for elimination are moderately-utilized stops that are very close together.  The elimination of those bus stops would reduce passenger travel time, because most buses would make fewer stops, and dwell time would not significantly increase at the remaining stops.  The only realistic benefit of the elimination of a bus stop would be the increase of the number of available parking spaces, assuming that there is no fire hydrant at the bus stop.

Bus stop spacing must always be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in order to increase in-route travel time without significant negative impacts on passenger travel time.  Such analyses have to be based on a variety of factors, not exclusively bus stop usage.  No formulas.

                In conclusion, Bus Stop Spacing has demonstrated that the MTA and NYCDOT are only concerned about bus travel time, not passenger travel time.  They are pretending that they will make “improvements” and “speed travel”.  It is dishonest and wrong.  They cannot be trusted.

[Trainmaster5]

On 11/26/2019 at 12:55 AM, dkupf said:

Here is the longer version of my critique of "Bus Stop Spacing" that was published on October 9, 2019 by The Bronx Daily.

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

                Bus Stop Spacing is a mindless implementation of standard practices by the MTA and NYCDOT without the consideration of the effects of their actions.

There is a big difference between the number of times that a bus stops along a route and the number of bus stops along a route.  If a bus route has many bus stops, but only stops at a few of them, the elimination of bus stops has little, if any, effect on bus speed.  Hence, there is little benefit to their elimination.  Potential passengers, however, must walk further, on average, to reach a bus stop, increasing passenger travel time.  This also significantly increases the chance of a missed connection.  For infrequent service, a missed connection could also discourage bus usage.  Increased walking distance to bus stops negatively impact the elderly and the permanently or temporarily infirmed, e.g., someone using crutches due to an injury.

                For proof that that there is no correlation between bus stop spacing, bus speed, and service reliability, one can look no further than the city of Philadelphia.  The average distance between bus stops within this city is 500 feet.  But in the Center City it’s as close as 450 feet.  Though bus service reliability is just as bad as in New York City, at approximately 75%, weekday bus speed in Philadelphia is much faster.  According to the Philadelphia Bus Network Choices Report, their bus service speed averages less than 12 mph, 50% faster than in New York City!

                To determine where a bus stop should be located, one of the factors is the topography.  Pockets of New York City, especially in the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island, are known to be hilly.  This is the reason as to why bus stops for the Bx11 in the neighborhood of Highbridge are well-utilized.

                Another example, in central Queens, is the Q18.  When traveling northbound from its southern terminus, the Q18 has a bus stop on 65 Place at 53 Avenue.  The route then travels eastbound on 53 Avenue.  The next bus stop is at 68 Street, a distance of 550 feet.  After that, it turns north onto 69 Street and stops at 52 Drive; the previous bus stop was 600 feet away.  If you look at a bus map, you wouldn’t know that 53 Avenue has a steep rise at the western end.  Hence, the bus stop at 68 Street is well-utilized.

What about cases where bus stops are spaced very close together but usage for each is very high?  Should some of those stops be eliminated, buses would make fewer stops saving only the few seconds each of acceleration and deceleration, but dwell time would significantly increase at the remaining stops.  They could become dangerously crowded, possibly resulting in increased fare evasion due to impatient passengers entering the rear door.

In-route travel time could be slow for many reasons.  These include, but are not limited to, excessive double parking, blocked bus lanes, inadequate service levels causing excessive dwell time, and schedules that do not adequately reflect running times.  It would be irresponsible and too simplistic to conclude that a bus route with very slow speeds and close stops should have some of its stops removed to speed service in the absence of analyzing other data.  What matters more than the number of bus stops or the distance between them are the volume of those stops, boarding and exiting, and the impacts, positive and negative, of a stops’ removal.

                Let us consider a bus stop with a combined total volume of 50 passengers boarding and exiting, and the bus route that utilizes the stop operates every five minutes for the four peak hours, every ten minutes for another eight hours, and every 20 minutes for the final four hours.  This means that 108 trips (48 + 48 + 12) pass that bus stop at an average of more than two passengers per trip.  The result is an average of more than 25 trips, or more than one in four trips, that would stop at this stop.  Therefore, a majority of trips would save no time if the stop was eliminated.  Also, the time saved by the buses not stopping, i.e., a few seconds each for acceleration and deceleration, would be negligible.

And, if there are half-dozen adjacent lightly utilized bus stops, the elimination of some stops could result in a bus stopping at Stop A instead of Stop B, saving no in-route travel time.  The only meaningful effect of the elimination of the stop is that 50 passengers daily now have a longer walk to or from a bus stop.

                The best bus stop candidates to be considered for elimination are moderately-utilized stops that are very close together.  The elimination of those bus stops would reduce passenger travel time, because most buses would make fewer stops, and dwell time would not significantly increase at the remaining stops.  The only realistic benefit of the elimination of a bus stop would be the increase of the number of available parking spaces, assuming that there is no fire hydrant at the bus stop.

Bus stop spacing must always be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in order to increase in-route travel time without significant negative impacts on passenger travel time.  Such analyses have to be based on a variety of factors, not exclusively bus stop usage.  No formulas.

                In conclusion, Bus Stop Spacing has demonstrated that the MTA and NYCDOT are only concerned about bus travel time, not passenger travel time.  They are pretending that they will make “improvements” and “speed travel”.  It is dishonest and wrong.  They cannot be trusted.

This should be an integral part of any official DOB, NYCDOT proposal or forum thread about redesigned bus networks.  I've been trying to point, along with a few others, the concept off and on but you nailed it. Sorry I missed it when you originally posted it. Thank you.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Trainmaster5
additional thought