Emergency Town Hall Meeting to Protest Proposed Express Bus Cuts

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It was a dreary, cold night, but our outreach was fantastic! I am extremely proud of everyone who spread the word from the Express Bus Advocacy Group and beyond...

 

This was the Riverdale Temple tonight...

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Follow-up letter to Andy Byford... Some members of the advocacy group have also written letters to the Riverdale Press to counter Andy Byford’s piece, and we will write one as well. This is from some of the elected officials: 

 

 

 

 

[dkupf]

The goal for a "redesign" is to MAXIMIZE operating efficiency.

The best example, so far, where there was a political backlash to a "redesign" was Dublin.

Over there, the draft plan reduced the amount of routes from 130 to 100.  But, they were simpler and easier to understand.

After the backlash, additional routes were incorporated into the Final Plan.

Jarrett Walker, in his blog, https://humantransit.org/, acknowledges the backlash, and thought that it was a great thing.

Besides, if service planning was easy, anybody would be able to do it.

First, read his posts for Dublin from 10/22/2019 and 9/23/2018, then draw your own conclusions.

[dkupf]

The express bus redesign portion seems to shift routes to where the people live.

But, of course, service via Mt. Sinai Hospital leaves much to be desired.

If I am wrong, please critique.

Edited November 25, 2019 by dkupf
add sentence

[Via Garibaldi 8]

12 hours ago, dkupf said:

The express bus redesign portion seems to shift routes to where the people live.

But, of course, service via Mt. Sinai Hospital leaves much to be desired.

If I am wrong, please critique.

I have no idea what you are talking about quite frankly.

[B35 via Church]

16 hours ago, dkupf said:

The goal for a "redesign" is to MAXIMIZE operating efficiency.

.....with current resources

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about quite frankly.

I have no idea why he's on the nutsack of whoever the hell this guy is that he won't STFU about.....

[bobtehpanda]

11 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

.....with current resources

I have no idea why he's on the nutsack of whoever the hell this guy is that he won't STFU about.....

He's a consultant who does these types of redesigns quite often. Wrote a book on them and such.

However, most of the ones he works on also come with an increase in service hours, and in any case he's not currently being employed by the MTA. He also generally does this type of work in places that don't already have a grid network. NYC already has one, and while it does need to be changed up a little NYC has never been a town where all the buses run downtown/midtown anyways.

[Mtatransit]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

However, most of the ones he works on also come with an increase in service hours, and in any case he's not currently being employed by the MTA. He also generally does this type of work in places that don't already have a grid network. NYC already has one, and while it does need to be changed up a little NYC has never been a town where all the buses run downtown/midtown anyways.

I actually really respect Jarrett Walker, I think he is doing a phenomenal job across the US redesigning systems

Systems in Anchorage and Houston were all redesigned with no increase in operating cost, but service was also transformed into one that has a grid of buses running every 15 min instead of the old 30-45-60 min headway.

Going to MTA’s presentation its obvious, they read his book too... they try to pull the coverage vs frequency BS in NYC... I would like to know which route in NYC is ACTUALLY coverage

They also have a poster saying they want to create a grid vs huh and spoke... I was like WHAT? Did they look at their bus system or they just want to get philosophical with us.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Mtatransit

[B35 via Church]

Walker himself isn't the problem... At the same time, consistently mentioning the guy in posts that have nothing to do with him or his work is quite annoying.

Anyway.....

33 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Going to MTA’s presentation its obvious, they read his book too... they try to pull the coverage vs frequency BS in NYC... I would like to know which route in NYC is ACTUALLY coverage

They also have a poster saying they want to create a grid vs huh and spoke... I was like WHAT? Did they look at their bus system or they just want to get philosophical with us.

In a grid network, a coverage route is basically a route that doesn't nicely / quote-unquote perfectly fit into that grid.... In a hub & spoke network, a coverage route is basically a route that isn't, well, a part of the hub & spoke network.... To sum it up, outliers.

When you have an ultimate bus network that's comprised of differing network types operating concurrently, it makes it less feasible to discern which route is operating as a coverage route....

To me, when the MTA brings up coverage vs. frequency, that's their way of conveying that they ultimately want to cut costs simplify the individual bus/borough networks....

[checkmatechamp13]

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I actually really respect Jarrett Walker, I think he is doing a phenomenal job across the US redesigning systems

Systems in Anchorage and Houston were all redesigned with no increase in operating cost, but service was also transformed into one that has a grid of buses running every 15 min instead of the old 30-45-60 min headway.

Going to MTA’s presentation its obvious, they read his book too... they try to pull the coverage vs frequency BS in NYC... I would like to know which route in NYC is ACTUALLY coverage

They also have a poster saying they want to create a grid vs huh and spoke... I was like WHAT? Did they look at their bus system or they just want to get philosophical with us.

They screwed up the Anchorage redesign IMO. They put out an 80/20 frequency/coverage split that everyone liked and then cut off a whole bunch of areas and went with a 90/10 split.

Back when they proposed the 2010 service reductions, there were a bunch of routes that said "Required for network coverage" (Q84, Bx16, and a bunch of Staten Island routes). That being said, the Staten Island express redesign had the issue of concentrating routes onto one corridor (Church/Broadway for Downtown and 5th/Madison for Midtown) and how far they should go with spreading them out.

[dkupf]

13 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about quite frankly.

The stops at East 97/99 Sts & 5th/Madison Aves.

[dkupf]

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

They screwed up the Anchorage redesign IMO. They put out an 80/20 frequency/coverage split that everyone liked and then cut off a whole bunch of areas and went with a 90/10 split.

They claimed, based on a legitimate news report I saw on YouTube, that ridership for some routes were low to the point when it would have been cheaper to send them in taxis.  Bus service in that corridor was, rightfully, eliminated.

Edited November 26, 2019 by dkupf
eliminate erroneous quote & add comma

[dkupf]

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Walker himself isn't the problem... At the same time, consistently mentioning the guy in posts that have nothing to do with him or his work is quite annoying.

Anyway.....

In a grid network, a coverage route is basically a route that doesn't nicely / quote-unquote perfectly fit into that grid.... In a hub & spoke network, a coverage route is basically a route that isn't, well, a part of the hub & spoke network.... To sum it up, outliers.

When you have an ultimate bus network that's comprised of differing network types operating concurrently, it makes it less feasible to discern which route is operating as a coverage route....

To me, when the MTA brings up coverage vs. frequency, that's their way of conveying that they ultimately want to cut costs simplify the individual bus/borough networks....

            Mr. Rosen’s analogy of the Coverage-Vs.-Ridership concept is valid.  It is also a compromise.  But service within the city limits of New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., for example, like Budapest, Singapore, and Vienna, are dense to the point where the concepts’ use is impractical and unnecessary.  For smaller USA metropolises, e.g., Cleveland, Columbus, and Miami, service per capita is already very poor, and funding is relatively scarce.  The service planners in these cities, therefore, have to explicitly decide the correct service balance.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 hours ago, dkupf said:

The stops at East 97/99 Sts & 5th/Madison Aves.

What about them? They are proposing to make it more difficult for thousands of Mount Sinai workers and patients to reach their appointments by removing the stop on the BxM2. Nothing good about that. We want the BxM2 to serve that stop and not have patients be forced to walk further after doctor’s appointments. The whole idea is outrageous.

[checkmatechamp13]

7 hours ago, dkupf said:

They claimed, based on a legitimate news report I saw on YouTube, that ridership for some routes were low to the point when it would have been cheaper to send them in taxis.  Bus service in that corridor was, rightfully, eliminated.

And which corridor was this? Since you want to make such a general statement.

[Mtatransit]

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

They screwed up the Anchorage redesign IMO. They put out an 80/20 frequency/coverage split that everyone liked and then cut off a whole bunch of areas and went with a 90/10 split.

I think Mr Walker is only responsible for showing the communities the options they face 90/10, 80/10 or 50/50. I think the city of Anchorage went with 90/10 in the end. 

 

Not sure how the ridership is doing there now, but I know they don't have the biggest budget to fill in those service gaps now, without going back to 80/10.

16 hours ago, dkupf said:

            Mr. Rosen’s analogy of the Coverage-Vs.-Ridership concept is valid.  It is also a compromise.  But service within the city limits of New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., for example, like Budapest, Singapore, and Vienna, are dense to the point where the concepts’ use is impractical and unnecessary.  For smaller USA metropolises, e.g., Cleveland, Columbus, and Miami, service per capita is already very poor, and funding is relatively scarce.  The service planners in these cities, therefore, have to explicitly decide the correct service balance.

Then why bring Jarrett Walker to Nyctransitforums?

[bobtehpanda]

22 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I think Mr Walker is only responsible for showing the communities the options they face 90/10, 80/10 or 50/50. I think the city of Anchorage went with 90/10 in the end. 

 

Not sure how the ridership is doing there now, but I know they don't have the biggest budget to fill in those service gaps now, without going back to 80/10.

Then why bring Jarrett Walker to Nyctransitforums?

Quite frankly, because a thin layer of bullshit and FUD make everything seem more legit. At least for some people.

It's a very strange argument to make, because Walker and Rosen are basically at odds on certain topics, like the fact that NYC has very close stop spacing compared to peer agencies in other parts of the country and the world.

[Italianstallion]

http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/mta-builds-robust-public-outreach-efforts-first-ever-digital-open-house