Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[B35 via Church]

10 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I know where the layover is. My point is that to turn around the bus has to go all the way to Canarsie Pier anyway. That’s where the last stop should be, at least during times when people use the pier. When I was a kid, we would visit the pier all the time and I never saw a reason why we had to walk the last 600 feet when cars got to drive right up to the pier and park there. It made no sense. city. 

I understood your point.

To be frank, I don't see B42's not terminating down there as any real issue, nor do I take issue with where b/o's decide to layover on that end of the route.

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The  to the Pier is a very cheap extension that can become reality if done properly. Most of the ROW is already there, and the money they use to run the B42 can be put into this project. Win-Win. Regarding the 3rd Ave Elevated, my point is the fact that they thought they could replace the whole thing with a bus and it would've been fine, except now the  is barely running the Bx15 efficiently. Same thing with the Myrtle El and now the B54.

I know why, because most projects the  does is always met with red tape. Heck, the only expansions we've had in the last few decades have all been within Manhattan. 

This is more of a rhetorical question, but why should rail always be extended to some edge community? I've grown sick & tired of this mindset over the years where folks are always looking to find some way to bastardize public buses... We're currently going through these bus network redesigns now where they're ultimately looking to cut, cut, cut as it is...

Now I don't believe we should be sitting up here suggesting whole trains be replaced with buses either (old Bx55, current Q53), but if it isn't someone suggesting doing away with a public bus route with some form of rail, it's with microtransit (which are usually mini/vans), or with bikes (yes, I've seen posts on reddit suggesting this).... Waiting for someone to seriously suggest getting rid of some bus route by claiming the route isn't necessary b/c people can WALK the route from end to end....

Edited January 16, 2023 by B35 via Church

[Via Garibaldi 8]

18 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

This is more of a rhetorical question, but why should rail always be extended to some edge community? I've grown sick & tired of this mindset over the years where folks are always looking to find some way to bastardize public buses... We're currently going through these bus network redesigns now where they're ultimately looking to cut, cut, cut as it is...

Now I don't believe we should be sitting up here suggesting whole trains be replaced with buses either (old Bx55, current Q53), but if it isn't someone suggesting doing away with a public bus route with some form of rail, it's with microtransit (which are usually mini/vans), or with bikes (yes, I've seen posts on reddit suggesting this).... Waiting for someone to seriously suggest getting rid of some bus route by claiming the route isn't necessary b/c people can WALK the route from end to end....

I would take this as people not caring about practical reasons and simply thinking about some rail fantasy route.  That's my guess.  As a commuter, my perspective is different.  Buses are practical for a host of reasons, but I agree with you.  Even if there was a subway extension, there would still be a need for a bus.  People take buses for a host of reasons.  Shopping, ability to walk to and from with shorter walks, not to mention that sometimes taking the subway involves a ton of backtracking.  The subway is only practical for long distances or in cases where it is right there. If you have to do a decent amount of walking to reach it, then back track once you get off, it may not be all that practical.

[BrooklynBus]

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I would take this as people not caring about practical reasons and simply thinking about some rail fantasy route.  That's my guess.  As a commuter, my perspective is different.  Buses are practical for a host of reasons, but I agree with you.  Even if there was a subway extension, there would still be a need for a bus.  People take buses for a host of reasons.  Shopping, ability to walk to and from with shorter walks, not to mention that sometimes taking the subway involves a ton of backtracking.  The subway is only practical for long distances or in cases where it is right there. If you have to do a decent amount of walking to reach it, then back track once you get off, it may not be all that practical.

Also, if someone is taking a bus and needs to transfer for the last quarter mile, given the choice, they would rather complete their trip by bus rather than changing for the subway for one stop. 
 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I attended a CB meeting tonight and people in Sea Gate, Coney Island, Gravesend, etc. were very pissed about the B49 and B68, along with the express buses (X28 & X38).  Supposedly there is a petition already circulating to keep the B49 and B68 as is. The B49 because KCC and the B68 because of lost access to Brighton Beach.  Thanks to @BrooklynBus for attending as well.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Via Garibaldi 8

[BrooklynBus]

I just searched B49 and B68 on change.org and came up with nothing. I know CB 15 would be against the swap, but CB 13 surprised me. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

12 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I just searched B49 and B68 on change.org and came up with nothing. I know CB 15 would be against the swap, but CB 13 surprised me. 

May not be an online petition.  Yeah I was surprised also, but at the same time, I went to IS43. We had lots of kids that came from Sea Gate and Coney Island, so they most definitely use the buses in Sheepshead Bay, Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach.  Also lots of Russians in Sea Gate but also Coney Island and they definitely still go to Brighton Beach for shopping, etc.

[Blitzer120]

Where are the meetings being held at? I'd like to observe how the others are impacted by the revisions to bus routes in brooklyn.

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, Blitzer120 said:

Where are the meetings being held at? I'd like to observe how the others are impacted by the revisions to bus routes in brooklyn.

Mostly online Zoom meetings for the time being. (The Community Board and MTA ones). There is one tonight for Bushwick.

https://new.mta.info/project/brooklyn-bus-network-redesign

https://mta.zoom.us/j/87221443989?pwd=L014cXlGQittY2pML3pSNlk1UTVjdz09

[BrooklynBus]

Let’s support our Bed-Stuy neighbors protesting service elimination

https://nextdoor.com/p/pKcQx4DFbGx-?utm_source=share&extras=NDc2MDIxNTE%3D&fbclid=IwAR1vRiB74kUJBACuE28uWzMcgNtrx-7JAHnNY_YX4lusfk2dro5IAbayac4

By eliminating one way service on two separate routes, they are in effect eliminating a north south bus route in Bed Stuy. 

According to the MTA they aren’t eliminating or removing bus stops either. They are just “consolidating” and “balancing” them. They just continue to mislead.

This is what the petition says:

Save Bus Access to Bed-Stuy & Crown Heights!

Under the proposed Brooklyn Bus Route Redesign all bus service to Tompkins and Lewis Avenues will be eliminated. The plan calls to shift the southbound B43 from Tompkins to Marcus Garvey and the northbound B15 from Lewis to Throop, in effect eliminating one of the few North-South bus routes in Bed-Stuy by merging the two. Crown Heights residents and businesses will also be impacted by moving the B43 from Brooklyn to Albany Avenue.

This proposed change will dramatically increase the distance needed to access public transportation and eliminate service to two important and up-and-coming commercial corridors. As residents, business owners, commuters, and consumers we demand the maintenance of bus service to Tompkins and Lewis Avenues. We do need to improve bus service in Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, and in Brooklyn, but eliminating routes for the mirage of decreased wait times is not the change we need.

Please sign our petition, enter a comment in the MTA portal, and attend a Zoom meeting about the plan. (Bed-Stuy 1/17; Crown Heights 2/2; Crown Heights South 2/7. All from 6:30-8:30) 

[BrooklynBus]

More criticism of the Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign

https://www.brooklynpaper.com/brannan-southern-brooklyn-mta-bus-redesign/

https://bklyner.com/bus-talk-connect-red-hook-to-manhattan/

https://www.drove.com/campaign/63cc1060b9846701601c2032?fbclid=IwAR1S-gJjlErQD7_573yEE-NKvFIJ6jPWghj96QQ72sj4xLISqsfBfinE8yU

Also, 

MTA is planning to reduce the bus service in Coney Island and Brighton Beach.

Friends of Asser Levy Park do not agree with the proposed draft and invite our community to participate in three workshops creating our own Community Proposal:

MTA DRAFT. COMMUNITY VISION.

We will be collecting the ideas in one draft to let MTA know WHAT WE NEED.

It will be presented to MTA on February 21st during the meeting with the agency.

First two workshops will take place in the Coney Island Library, meeting room #2, Saturday February 4 and 11, 2-3pm. Capacity is limited to 20 people. Please register to attend. We will discuss the area between Stillwell Ave and West 37th street.

Third workshop will be covering the area from Stillwell Ave to Coney Island Ave. Tentatively it will be on Sunday, February 19th, we will post an update on time and place.

 

Also, 

It is plainly obvious that the MTA does not want its passengers to know about or attend their virtual meetings about the Redesign since they won’t even post notices on the buses with the meeting schedule.

So I asked them at yesterday’s meeting why? Their response was that prior to the first meeting, the digital screens (which aren’t even on all the buses) flashed the schedules. Therefore the assumption must be that all bus riders rode the buses that week or so and memorized the schedules, so printed notices were not necessary.

How dumb does the MTA think its customers are? They just continue to insult our intelligence, and no one calls them out. Any wonder why hardly anyone attends these meetings with more reps from the MTA and DOT, than there are from the public?

[N6 Limited]

I see arguments indicating that removing bus stops does not speed up buses. If that were the case, wouldn’t Limited routes have equal running times to locals? Why are limited routes more popular than locals?

[BrooklynBus]

5 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I see arguments indicating that removing bus stops does not speed up buses. If that were the case, wouldn’t Limited routes have equal running times to locals? Why are limited routes more popular than locals?

Of course removing bus stops speeds up buses in some cases and Limited do move faster than locals. But where is your proof that Limited are more popular? Yes, they are more popular for longer trips, but most trips are short not long. The average local bus trip is only 2.3 miles. And as I’ve said many times before, the issue isn’t how fast buses travel, but how fast is your trip. They are not the same. Removing nine bus stops saves you two minutes @20 seconds per bus stop. But if half the riders walk three minutes longer at each end, the average trip is now one minute longer. The only one who saves money is the MTA. It is not being done for the good of the bus passenger. 

[checkmatechamp13]

On 1/30/2023 at 3:12 PM, BrooklynBus said:

Of course removing bus stops speeds up buses in some cases and Limited do move faster than locals. But where is your proof that Limited are more popular? Yes, they are more popular for longer trips, but most trips are short not long. The average local bus trip is only 2.3 miles. And as I’ve said many times before, the issue isn’t how fast buses travel, but how fast is your trip. They are not the same. Removing nine bus stops saves you two minutes @20 seconds per bus stop. But if half the riders walk three minutes longer at each end, the average trip is now one minute longer. The only one who saves money is the MTA. It is not being done for the good of the bus passenger. 

And part of the reason the average bus trip is so short is because they're so slow that most people making longer trips end up using the subway or driving. If buses were to be sped up, logic would dictate that the average would shift upward (to the exact extent is yet to be determined)

[BrooklynBus]

39 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And part of the reason the average bus trip is so short is because they're so slow that most people making longer trips end up using the subway or driving. If buses were to be sped up, logic would dictate that the average would shift upward (to the exact extent is yet to be determined)

And it is good that most making longer trips use the subway rather than the bus because it is cheaper to operate. The MTA shouldn’t be encouraging long bus trips when the subway is an alternative. And my proposal for a state law requiring non-emergency vehicles the right of way to buses leaving bus stops would save buses more time than removing all those bus stops without inconveniencing bus riders. Besides, it’s myth that buses are slow. They are only slightly slower than cars since the speed limit was reduced to 25 mph. Seven for buses in Brooklyn as compared to about ten for cars. Local buses in Queens are even faster, like about 9 mph on average. 

[FLX9304]

On 1/27/2023 at 3:01 PM, BrooklynBus said:

More criticism of the Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign

https://www.brooklynpaper.com/brannan-southern-brooklyn-mta-bus-redesign/

https://bklyner.com/bus-talk-connect-red-hook-to-manhattan/

https://www.drove.com/campaign/63cc1060b9846701601c2032?fbclid=IwAR1S-gJjlErQD7_573yEE-NKvFIJ6jPWghj96QQ72sj4xLISqsfBfinE8yU

Also, 

MTA is planning to reduce the bus service in Coney Island and Brighton Beach.

Friends of Asser Levy Park do not agree with the proposed draft and invite our community to participate in three workshops creating our own Community Proposal:

MTA DRAFT. COMMUNITY VISION.

We will be collecting the ideas in one draft to let MTA know WHAT WE NEED.

It will be presented to MTA on February 21st during the meeting with the agency.

First two workshops will take place in the Coney Island Library, meeting room #2, Saturday February 4 and 11, 2-3pm. Capacity is limited to 20 people. Please register to attend. We will discuss the area between Stillwell Ave and West 37th street.

Third workshop will be covering the area from Stillwell Ave to Coney Island Ave. Tentatively it will be on Sunday, February 19th, we will post an update on time and place.

 

Also, 

It is plainly obvious that the MTA does not want its passengers to know about or attend their virtual meetings about the Redesign since they won’t even post notices on the buses with the meeting schedule.

So I asked them at yesterday’s meeting why? Their response was that prior to the first meeting, the digital screens (which aren’t even on all the buses) flashed the schedules. Therefore the assumption must be that all bus riders rode the buses that week or so and memorized the schedules, so printed notices were not necessary.

How dumb does the MTA think its customers are? They just continue to insult our intelligence, and no one calls them out. Any wonder why hardly anyone attends these meetings with more reps from the MTA and DOT, than there are from the public?

More like converting bus routes to operate with articulated buses. 

[checkmatechamp13]

21 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

And it is good that most making longer trips use the subway rather than the bus because it is cheaper to operate. The MTA shouldn’t be encouraging long bus trips when the subway is an alternative. And my proposal for a state law requiring non-emergency vehicles the right of way to buses leaving bus stops would save buses more time than removing all those bus stops without inconveniencing bus riders. Besides, it’s myth that buses are slow. They are only slightly slower than cars since the speed limit was reduced to 25 mph. Seven for buses in Brooklyn as compared to about ten for cars. Local buses in Queens are even faster, like about 9 mph on average. 

I said using the subway or driving. If the bus is the only available mass transit option, but is slow, then many will drive even if the bus is available.

To say it's a myth is overgeneralizing. There's areas where buses are slow and areas where they aren't. There's areas where delays merging back into traffic are significant, and there's areas where they aren't. If they get a lot of feedback for certain stops, they can always restore them.

[BrooklynBus]

48 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I said using the subway or driving. If the bus is the only available mass transit option, but is slow, then many will drive even if the bus is available.

To say it's a myth is overgeneralizing. There's areas where buses are slow and areas where they aren't. There's areas where delays merging back into traffic are significant, and there's areas where they aren't. If they get a lot of feedback for certain stops, they can always restore them.

As I said, buses are not slow if you compare them to cars using local streets. Since Vision Zero, we no longer have arterials where cars were much faster than buses. Now it’s either the highway or local streets for cars. If you don’t compare the two, you can say both cars and buses are slow on local streets with buses being slightly slower because they make stops. It doesn’t matter how fast or slow a bus is, if someone has a car available they will always choose to drive over the bus no matter how fast it goes with the following exception. People will choose a bus over driving if parking at the destination is scarce or expensive, or they would rather not give up their parking space, fearing they won’t get another one when they get back.

The reasons for driving are the ride is more comfortable, no transfer required, you always get a seat, and if you got gear, it’s much easier.

Even if you could double the speed of buses which you won’t be able to do even if you eliminated all stops and it only stopped at the terminals, people would still drive if they were able to with the exception mentioned above. Getting people to switch from cars to local buses if they were faster is only wishful thinking. Express buses is another story. 
 

And you and the MTA keep forgetting, it’s not the speed of the bus that’s important, it’s your total travel time that matters. 

[jaf0519]

26 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

And you and the MTA keep forgetting, it’s not the speed of the bus that’s important, it’s your total travel time that matters. 

You always say this, as if that makes it true. Why should the MTA care about total travel time? They aren’t involved in what you do outside this bus, whether you go to one store or two, or whether you feel the trip was worth the journey. They provide a public service, not a shuttle to your doorstep.

[N6 Limited]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

And you and the MTA keep forgetting, it’s not the speed of the bus that’s important, it’s your total travel time that matters. 

Yes and no. This argument is always presented with the assumption that:

1)  Someone is always going to walk from the defunct bus stop to the new one.

2)  During the “longer” walk to the in-service bus stop that they’ll automatically have a longer trip because the walk may be longer, and they will automatically miss a bus because the walk may be longer.

I disagree with both notions.

1) Someone may live half way between two stops, and if one is eliminated, they’ll have the same walk to the still-in-service stop. They’re not going to walk to the old stop, then walk to the new stop, they’re going to take a path that makes sense. 

2) If someone has a 10 min walk to a bus stop and they wait 10 mins for a bus, the time from origin to boarding the bus is 20 mins.

If the bus stop becomes defunct and they have to walk to the next or previous bus stop, which adds 5 min to the walk, and they now wait 5 mins for the bus, there still a 20 min origin to boarding time period.

There is nothing set in stone saying they will always wait for the bus for a fixed amount of time at a particular stop and by moving the stop their trip becomes extended indefinitely simply because their walk may be extended.  Their trip can be shortened by decreased headway even though the stop is further and/or because the route has less stops, etc.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by N6 Limited

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, jaf0519 said:

You always say this, as if that makes it true. Why should the MTA care about total travel time? They aren’t involved in what you do outside this bus, whether you go to one store or two, or whether you feel the trip was worth the journey. They provide a public service, not a shuttle to your doorstep.

The MTA should care about travel time because they are in the business of serving the public and that’s what the public cares about the most. No one is asking for a shuttle service to their doorstep, so that is not a relevant comment. People are asking for reasonable distances to walk to and from the bus. A half mile or three quarters of a mile is not reasonable for local bus routes, which are the maximum distances after all the stops are eliminated. You say they are not interested in if you believe the trip is worth the journey. They should be interested in that because if it is not worth the journey, you won’t be on the bus.

33 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Yes and no. This argument is always presented with the assumption that:

1)  Someone is always going to walk from the defunct bus stop to the new one.

2)  During the “longer” walk to the in-service bus stop that they’ll automatically have a longer trip because the walk may be longer, and they will automatically miss a bus because the walk may be longer.

I disagree with both notions.

1) Someone may live half way between two stops, and if one is eliminated, they’ll have the same walk to the still-in-service stop. They’re not going to walk to the old stop, then walk to the new stop, they’re going to take a path that makes sense. 

2) If someone has a 10 min walk to a bus stop and they wait 10 mins for a bus, the time from origin to boarding the bus is 20 mins.

If the bus stop becomes defunct and they have to walk to the next or previous bus stop, which adds 5 min to the walk, and they now wait 5 mins for the bus, there still a 20 min origin to boarding time period.

There is nothing set in stone saying they will always wait for the bus for a fixed amount of time at a particular stop and by moving the stop their trip becomes extended indefinitely simply because their walk may be extended.  Their trip can be shortened by decreased headway even though the stop is further and/or because the route has less stops, etc.

 

1) No. the assumption is not everyone will first walk to the old stop and then the new stop. The assumption is that some will first walk to the old stop, the; the new stop. 

2) Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is also true provided they don’t miss a bus walking the xtra five minutes which could add six or up to 30 minutes to their trip. There is also no guarantee that the MTA will. Shorten the headway, after eliminating stops. Headways are based on ridership, and if ridership does not increase, the headways remain the same. 

[checkmatechamp13]

19 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Yes and no. This argument is always presented with the assumption that:

1)  Someone is always going to walk from the defunct bus stop to the new one.

2)  During the “longer” walk to the in-service bus stop that they’ll automatically have a longer trip because the walk may be longer, and they will automatically miss a bus because the walk may be longer.

I disagree with both notions.

1) Someone may live half way between two stops, and if one is eliminated, they’ll have the same walk to the still-in-service stop. They’re not going to walk to the old stop, then walk to the new stop, they’re going to take a path that makes sense. 

2) If someone has a 10 min walk to a bus stop and they wait 10 mins for a bus, the time from origin to boarding the bus is 20 mins.

If the bus stop becomes defunct and they have to walk to the next or previous bus stop, which adds 5 min to the walk, and they now wait 5 mins for the bus, there still a 20 min origin to boarding time period.

There is nothing set in stone saying they will always wait for the bus for a fixed amount of time at a particular stop and by moving the stop their trip becomes extended indefinitely simply because their walk may be extended.  Their trip can be shortened by decreased headway even though the stop is further and/or because the route has less stops, etc.

Exactly. If a stop is eliminated, people will walk directly to/from the next-closest stop without backtracking. Plus, a good portion of riders are heading to major cross streets (transfer points, large commercial areas, etc) which are pretty much always going to have the stop maintained, so the extra walk (if any) only applies on one end of the trip.

51 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

You always say this, as if that makes it true. Why should the MTA care about total travel time? They aren’t involved in what you do outside this bus, whether you go to one store or two, or whether you feel the trip was worth the journey. They provide a public service, not a shuttle to your doorstep.

No, he has a point on that. If too many people see an increase in total travel time (which isn't balanced out by a similar or greater number seeing decreased travel time), then you'll end up with ridership losses.

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

It doesn’t matter how fast or slow a bus is, if someone has a car available they will always choose to drive over the bus no matter how fast it goes with the following exception. People will choose a bus over driving if parking at the destination is scarce or expensive, or they would rather not give up their parking space, fearing they won’t get another one when they get back.

Or if they plan on drinking and won't be capable of driving their car back. Or if they're stopping at another destination before or after that has hard/expensive parking. Or if there's heavy traffic and the bus has reliable bus lanes (e.g. Parts of Hylan Blvd or Webster Avenue).

The other thing is that "available" is subjective, and also not a fixed constant. Somebody may have a car that they share with their spouse or a relative. They could decide to run the errand immediately using mass transit, or wait 2 hours for their spouse/relative to return the car. They could decide whether or not to buy a car based on the comparable trip by mass transit. And of course, calling a taxi/Uber/Lyft can make a vehicle available to you if you're willing to pay the extra cost. (Nowadays, there's even sites where you can rent cars by the hour for fairly cheap prices...a 1 hour rental for $11 might be enough to make a run to the supermarket and pick up a couple of weeks worth of food).

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

The reasons for driving are the ride is more comfortable, no transfer required, you always get a seat, and if you got gear, it’s much easier.

Again...making generalizations as to what people may prefer. Yes, those are things you'll get with a car. The question is, will it be worth the cost? (Again, not everybody who has a car "available" necessarily has it sitting in their driveway ready to go).

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Even if you could double the speed of buses which you won’t be able to do even if you eliminated all stops and it only stopped at the terminals, people would still drive if they were able to with the exception mentioned above. Getting people to switch from cars to local buses if they were faster is only wishful thinking. Express buses is another story. 

I disagree. See above. 

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

And you and the MTA keep forgetting, it’s not the speed of the bus that’s important, it’s your total travel time that matters. 

And total travel time includes waiting as well. The faster the buses go, the more frequency can be run with the same fleet.

1 minute ago, BrooklynBus said:

No. the assumption is not everyone will first walk to the old stop and then the new stop. The assumption is that some will first walk to the old stop, the; the new stop. 

That assumption may hold for the first couple of days that the stop is eliminated, but in the long-term, nobody will backtrack to a location that they are fully aware is no longer a bus stop.

1 minute ago, BrooklynBus said:

Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is also true provided they don’t miss a bus walking the xtra five minutes which could add six or up to 30 minutes to their trip. There is also no guarantee that the MTA will. Shorten the headway, after eliminating stops. Headways are based on ridership, and if ridership does not increase, the headways remain the same. 

We've been through the math on this many times before. The total amount of extra travel time is the amount of the extra walking, minus the amount of time that the bus takes to cover the same distance. If the headway is every 30 minutes, and it takes you 2 extra minutes to walk to the new bus stop (while the bus takes 30 seconds to travel that distance), then the chances that a bus passes in the time you are traveling is (2.0 - 0.5) / 30 = 5% That means there is a 95% chance that you will wait zero extra time, and a 5% chance you will miss the bus. The 1.5 minutes is the same amount of time as if you were starting your trip 1.5 minutes further down the side street.

As for headways being based on ridership, a lot of these redesigns (not just MTA) are taking the approach that frequency on its own can generate ridership. That's why back in 2019, they added extra off-peak service to the Q6, Q69, S93, B17, and B65 (which actually did lead to some ridership increases on those routes before COVID came and wiped those out). 

[BrooklynBus]

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Exactly. If a stop is eliminated, people will walk directly to/from the next-closest stop without backtracking. Plus, a good portion of riders are heading to major cross streets (transfer points, large commercial areas, etc) which are pretty much always going to have the stop maintained, so the extra walk (if any) only applies on one end of the trip.

You just stated “a good portion” are headed to major cross streets. Then you said the extra walk only applies on one end of the trip. It would apply only on one end of the trip if it were “all”, not “a good portion.

No, he has a point on that. If too many people see an increase in total travel time (which isn't balanced out by a similar or greater number seeing decreased travel time), then you'll end up with ridership losses.

Or if they plan on drinking and won't be capable of driving their car back. Or if they're stopping at another destination before or after that has hard/expensive parking. Or if there's heavy traffic and the bus has reliable bus lanes (e.g. Parts of Hylan Blvd or Webster Avenue).

Yes, or if they drink. I already mentioned parking. It is very rare that a bus in a bus lane would be faster than a car. 

The other thing is that "available" is subjective, and also not a fixed constant. Somebody may have a car that they share with their spouse or a relative. They could decide to run the errand immediately using mass transit, or wait 2 hours for their spouse/relative to return the car. They could decide whether or not to buy a car based on the comparable trip by mass transit. And of course, calling a taxi/Uber/Lyft can make a vehicle available to you if you're willing to pay the extra cost. (Nowadays, there's even sites where you can rent cars by the hour for fairly cheap prices...a 1 hour rental for $11 might be enough to make a run to the supermarket and pick up a couple of weeks worth of food).

Available means available. The car is either available or it isn’t available. End of discussion. No need to make it more complicated than it is. Do these one hour rentals deliver the car to your door and pick it up from your house? If not, what you are stating regarding shopping is not feasible. It would be cheaper just to have the food delivered. 

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Again...making generalizations as to what people may prefer. Yes, those are things you'll get with a car. The question is, will it be worth the cost? (Again, not everybody who has a car "available" necessarily has it sitting in their driveway ready to go).

A car being worth the cost is an entirely different discussion and has nothing to do with the points I was making. I was only talking about scenarios where a car was available. 

I disagree. See above. 

And total travel time includes waiting as well. The faster the buses go, the more frequency can be run with the same fleet.

As I said, frequency can be increased. There is no guarantee it will be. 

8 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That assumption may hold for the first couple of days that the stop is eliminated, but in the long-term, nobody will backtrack to a location that they are fully aware is no longer a bus stop.

Why do you keep talking about backtracking. I never mentioned backtracking. You walk to the corner. There used to be a bus stop there. It is no longer there. You have to walk three minutes to the next bus stop. In that three minutes there is a chance you could miss the bus. If the headway is 30 minutes, the chance is slight, but the effect on your trip time is great. It may be a five percent chance. But your trip time could easily be doubled if you do miss the bus. If the headway is six minutes, meaning the average wait is three minutes, walking the extra three minutes there is a 100 percent chance you will miss the bus. So your trip is now three minutes longer. If 20 seconds are saved for each stop removed, you would have to pass nine removed stops to make up the three minutes, assuming the bus would have stopped at all stops that were removed. And that assumes all buses run on time. Buses can and do bunch even if the headway is 20 or 30 minutes, making your trip even longer if you miss both buses if they are running together.

We've been through the math on this many times before. The total amount of extra travel time is the amount of the extra walking, minus the amount of time that the bus takes to cover the same distance. If the headway is every 30 minutes, and it takes you 2 extra minutes to walk to the new bus stop (while the bus takes 30 seconds to travel that distance), then the chances that a bus passes in the time you are traveling is (2.0 - 0.5) / 30 = 5% That means there is a 95% chance that you will wait zero extra time, and a 5% chance you will miss the bus. The 1.5 minutes is the same amount of time as if you were starting your trip 1.5 minutes further down the side street.

As for headways being based on ridership, a lot of these redesigns (not just MTA) are taking the approach that frequency on its own can generate ridership. That's why back in 2019, they added extra off-peak service to the Q6, Q69, S93, B17, and B65 (which actually did lead to some ridership increases on those routes before COVID came and wiped those out). 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

50 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

The MTA should care about travel time because they are in the business of serving the public and that’s what the public cares about the most. No one is asking for a shuttle service to their doorstep, so that is not a relevant comment. People are asking for reasonable distances to walk to and from the bus. A half mile or three quarters of a mile is not reasonable for local bus routes, which are the maximum distances after all the stops are eliminated. You say they are not interested in if you believe the trip is worth the journey. They should be interested in that because if it is not worth the journey, you won’t be on the bus.

2) Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is also true provided they don’t miss a bus walking the xtra five minutes which could add six or up to 30 minutes to their trip. There is also no guarantee that the MTA will. Shorten the headway, after eliminating stops. Headways are based on ridership, and if ridership does not increase, the headways remain the same. 

Here's a question I have for you... Why has there been such inconsistent distances between local bus stops in NYC historically? I never understood having some stops where you have a bus stop literally a block away.  Something else I wonder about is has the  ever tried to sabotage local bus service when they've introduced limited stop service? I remember years ago waiting at a local bus stop and wondering where all the local buses were because nothing but limited stop buses were passing me by.

I support some bus stop consolidations, but I also am acutely aware of the fact that removing too many of them could deter ridership.  Yes, people want faster service, but there are also a number of people that take the local buses because they don't or can't walk as far, and that is something that the absolutely must consider.  Now I am an able bodied individual that is used to walking several blocks to get my express bus, but if I am talking the local bus in Manhattan, I am doing so with the goal of not walking that much,  If I wanted to do a ton of walking, I'd take the subway, so there needs to be a balance found between speed and convenience.

  

6 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Available means available. The car is either available or it isn’t available. End of discussion. No need to make it more complicated than it is. Do these one hour rentals deliver the car to your door and pick it up from your house? If not, what you are stating regarding shopping is not feasible. It would be cheaper just to have the food delivered. 

We actually have a service like this in my neighborhood that was introduced. It sounds great if you live near one of the locations where they have a rental parked, but often times, you have to either take a bus or a taxi to get to the rental, so it is not all that convenient and it can defeat the purpose of even renting the car in the first place, especially if the car doesn't work and you have to go elsewhere to find one that does (apparently common from what I have heard and read lol).  Personally I'm either driving or taking transit (not interested in any rental services), but because parking is such a pain, they are trying out these rental services to try to get people who only drive occasionally to consider selling/giving up their car.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Via Garibaldi 8

[BrooklynBus]

17 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Here's a question I have for you... Why has there been such inconsistent distances between local bus stops in NYC historically? I never understood having some stops where you have a bus stop literally a block away.  Something else I wonder about is has the  ever tried to sabotage local bus service when they've introduced limited stop service? I remember years ago waiting at a local bus stop and wondering where all the local buses were because nothing but limited stop buses were passing me by.

I support some bus stop consolidations, but I also am acutely aware of the fact that removing too many of them could deter ridership.  Yes, people want faster service, but there are also a number of people that take the local buses because they don't or can't walk as far, and that is something that the absolutely must consider.  Now I am an able bodied individual that is used to walking several blocks to get my express bus, but if I am talking the local bus in Manhattan, I am doing so with the goal of not walking that much,  If I wanted to do a ton of walking, I'd take the subway, so there needs to be a balance found between speed and convenience. 

Regarding sabotaging local service, if the schedule shows to much limiteds relative to local service, then the answer is yes. I think a more likely reason is that the buses are just not running on schedule. 
 

People don’t realize how much bunching there is. My friend who uses the Q101 showed me once that bus time showed six buses on the line. They were running in two clumps of three buses each. The MTA has to pay more attention to situations like that, rather than being obsessed with removing bus stops.
 

There is no doubt that some bus stops need consolidation, but it has to be done correctly. It is not enough to just consider the space between bus stops. You have to see where the parallel routes are, if there are any. If there are nearby parallel routes, there should be no problem in changing two block spacing to three blocks, accounting for major uses like schools, hospitals, etc. If there are no parallel routes, like on Northern Boulevard, the stops need to be every two blocks to keep the walking distance to the bus reasonable. Buses stopping every for blocks on Northern have increased the walk for some to 3/4 of a mile which is unreasonable. Just check Google maps and you can figure out maximum walks for yourself. 
 

Spacing between routes is one reason why bus stop spacing varies. Another is through accidents of history. Bus stops have not been looked at in over 50 years. It is long overdue, just as changing routes are. Some stops are too close just because routes have changed. For example, prior to 1978, the B49 ran straight on Ocean Avenue before I diverted it to serve Sheepshead Bay Station. It now runs on an Avenue Z. The B36 stopped at Avenue Z and E 19 Street, so they had the B49 stop there too. The old B49 stopped at the far side of Avenue Z on Ocean. So now when the B49 turns from Avenue Z to Ocean, it stops on the far side of E 19th and again about 100 feet later on Ocean Avenue after it makes the turn. Only the B36 should stop at E19 St. It is not necessary for the B49 to make both stops. 
 

I will give you another example. There is a stop at E 16 and Emmons westbound for the B4 and B49. The B49 stops again after it makes the turn onto Shore Road. When there were only bus stop signs with no route numbers indicated back in the 1960s, the B49 always skipped the stop at E 16. It was only for the B36 which stopped there at that time because the B49 would have to shift to the left to make the turn. When they added route numbers for the stops, someone looked at a map and wrongly assumed the B49 stopped there and signed it for both buses. So now the bus had to stop there. And since no one ever decided to correct that mistake, it has now been stopping there and shifting to the left to make a turn for over fifty years. 
 

Who knows how many similar situations there are like that in the city. So it is actually good the MTA is taking the opportunity to review all bus stops. But as I explained in the petition, they are not doing it correctly and removing far too many bus stops. About five percent need to be relocated or moved, not 33 percent. 
 

As I stated before, when I was Director of Planning, I moved two bus stops. I eliminated a B49 bus stop that was 200 feet from another one. Originally one stop was for the old B1 that ran to Sheepshead Bay and the other was the old B49 terminus on Emmons Avenue. In 1969 when the B49 was extended to Manhattan Beach it stopped at both stops until I removed the old terminal stop in 1981. No one complained and residents were grateful for six additional parking spaces which were again removed when it became a stop for the BM3. The other stop I moved was the B1 from Brighton 7 to Coney Island Avenue. I saw a notice that a new escalator was opening at Coney Island Avenue in five days. Why should someone walk a block from the bus stop to the escalator, I reasoned. So I promptly sent a letter to DOT asking they move the bus stop. The new stop was in place the first day of escalator operation. Had I not done that in 1981, most likely riders would be walking that extra half block today, over 40 years later, from Brighton 7th halfway to Coney Island Avenue. 

[checkmatechamp13]

50 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Available means available. The car is either available or it isn’t available. End of discussion. No need to make it more complicated than it is. Do these one hour rentals deliver the car to your door and pick it up from your house? If not, what you are stating regarding shopping is not feasible. It would be cheaper just to have the food delivered. 

As I said, frequency can be increased. There is no guarantee it will be. 

I see a car available 2 blocks away. I'll walk the two blocks, pick up the car, drive to the supermarket, drop my groceries off, and then drop off the car and walk back two blocks. Not the end of the world if it's not right at my door. My point is it's cheaper than round-trip cab ride to the supermarket (or whatever destination you are looking to reach).