What is the status on getting us the universal 3-legged transfers that were originally promised at the June 2018 Community Board 2 meeting? (And also getting that information published somewhere. Three months after the changes, and we’re still passing around screenshots of somebody’s email because the transfer information isn’t posted on the MTA website). Also, can we get a full list of the official transfer points between express buses (on both the Staten Island and Manhattan side. Also, have BM1/2/3/4 operators been informed that they need to accept transferring riders? Apparently, the BM1/2/3/4 are considered Queens Division even though the routes serve Brooklyn out of a depot physically located in Brooklyn and some operators have not been informed)?
We will seek to clarify the information on the website for the public, but universal 3-legged transfers would require a change in fare policy approved by the MTA Board. For the express network redesign, specific three-leg transfers were programmed to prevent someone who only paid one fare prior to August 19 from paying an additional fare under the new network.
Hopefully the MTA Board will consider that as part of the upcoming fare hike or with the smartcard technology coming out. People paying two fares to make certain trips is not acceptable, even if it was a problem that we "had before".
We never received a full report of all of the statistics that were used to justify any of the decisions made throughout the planning process (both before the August 2018 implementation and afterwards). When will such a report be available? Northeast Queens and Co-Op City received reports of over 100 pages for relatively minor changes that affected only portions of boroughs, and in the meantime, we only received a little 25 page PowerPoint. I understand that the planners wanted to keep the report simple to get the basic concepts across, but the more detailed data should be available for those who are interested. We can’t have a full discussion without statistics.
A report on the express bus redesign proposal was released in May 2017. Requests for additional information can be submitted through the FOIL Request page on the MTA website.
You guys are seriously going to make me go through the hassle of filing a FOIL request when you've had no problem releasing this type of data publicly in the past? Back when service reductions were made in 2010, there was a (fairly) detailed analysis of each individual reduction (how many people would have to walk further, how many people would have to transfer, etc). This should've been done for every single change (positive or negative, cost-increasing or cost-saving) made as part of this new network.
The entire structure of the off-peak service needs to be reevaluated. I actually like the concept of limiting the length of the express bus routes on Manhattan surface streets even during off-peak hours, and I believe that the discussion of Staten Island coverage vs. Manhattan coverage needs to be had. There are more alternatives on the Manhattan side than the Staten Island side, and so I think it makes more sense to provide express bus service to the entire swaths of neighborhoods where the only off-peak alternative is a Staten Island local bus that runs every 20-30 minutes, as opposed to duplicating Manhattan subway and local bus lines that run every 5-10 minutes. Some of the planners expressed concerns that this may be hard politically, but you know what, this is politics right here, and you can’t assume everybody has the same concerns. Back in the June 2017 Community Board 1 meeting when this plan was first presented, the primary concern wasn’t that the X12/SIM34 was cut back to Downtown, it was that we weren’t getting enough in exchange for it. We wanted later service, more frequent service, and an overnight express bus route for the North Shore, and we were told “If you didn’t have it before, you probably won’t get it now”, so on the surface, it looks like an excuse to cut service. Andy Byford said that you guys learned a lot of lessons from this restructuring, and using those lessons, we need to have that discussion about the off-peak service structure, if not now then at least when the local bus study gets completed.
Consideration was given to this idea during the planning process and there was strong opposition to eliminating the one-seat ride to Midtown for existing off-peak riders. Destinations in Manhattan are more widespread off-peak (particularly on weekends).
People are selfish and don't care about others if what they have now "works for them". What else is new? I don't care about "opposition", I care about what works. As I said, if somebody is that insistent on having a one-seat ride then they likely have a car (because otherwise, I don't see how they can live their entire life around one or two routes without ever having to make a transfer). You can set it up in a manner so that there's still some service to Midtown in the general area. (I will say this, splitting the SIM1C into the SIM1C to 23rd Street and the SIM10 can definitely work and save money if done properly. I think the SIM6 might work a little better than the SIM10 because it covers more areas on the Staten Island end, and also because Lexington Avenue generally has fewer parades and detours compared to 5th Avenue). But I think you should create multiple proposals implementing this concept (complete with a rough idea of the spans and frequencies) and put it out there for discussion. Many of the problems in this new system are because you blindly tried to hold onto some elements of the old system regardless of whether they "worked" or not, and then tried to blend those elements with elements of the new system and it created a mess.
One of the issues that has always been the case (especially on Downtown buses for some reason in my experience) is that when two buses pull into the stop at the same time, the driver in the back is afraid to open the doors because the passengers will yell at them for messing up the line. That causes delays for all of the passengers. Has there been any progress on getting platform conductors/dispatchers at busy stops to direct people to board the back bus properly and leave the driver alone?
I don’t have a response for this one yet.
OK
What is being done about excess runtime on schedules systemwide? BusTime doesn’t tell you if a bus is on-time because the schedule is actually accurate for the conditions at the time, or if the driver had to “drag the line” and operate slowly and wait at stops in order to avoid running early. With all of this emphasis on speed, it makes sense to avoid excess runtime. I had mentioned this issue on the evening SIM8, and the October schedules were the same as the August schedule in that regard.
Run time continues to be evaluated, and with comprehensive GPS data, this should not be an issue. Having not enough run time creates far more problems than excess run time so we are cautious when cutting run time.
And more runtime also costs you more money (and also increases the number of physical buses required to operate the service). You can't say "Buses being slow is a problem" and then on the other hand, not care enough to see if buses need to "drag the line" and purposely drive slow to stay on schedule. You guys are working on it for the MTA Bus express routes from Queens, and you need to do it systemwide.
Can we get real-time information on how well the HOV lane is moving? Right now, Google Maps shows the general traffic, but not the HOV lane traffic? (So the regular lanes might be congested, but the HOV lane may or may not be congested, and people need this information in order to make their travel decisions).
This suggestion should be directed to NYCDOT.
Any particular division?
On days when the travel via Brooklyn is congested, can the SIM2 & SIM4 be rerouted via the Bayonne Bridge & Holland Tunnel (along with other routes if warranted)? Right now, there’s plenty of days when traffic is backed up so badly that you can see it from the Richmond Avenue overpass, and you’ll see a whole crowd of people let SIM4 buses go by even if they work Downtown because they know on those days, the HOV lane gets backed up and it is quicker to take the SIM8 to Midtown and backtrack (which causes overcrowding on that route). If people knew the bus would take an alternate route to avoid the traffic, they would be more likely to stay on the SIM4 (which was one of the issues the planners brought up with the redesign, people switching off between routes and making it difficult to schedule proper service levels).
We have used the Holland Tunnel in the past and continue to have that as a detour option. It can be hit or miss, as delays on the V-N and/or Gowanus can cause traffic backups on the New Jersey crossings as drivers divert to other routes into Manhattan.
Fair enough.
Has any progress been made with NYCDOT restriping Deppe Place approaching Richmond Avenue to create an additional lane and ease the congestion that affects SIM3/34 riders? (Especially those who need to make local bus connections at the stop around the corner at Richmond & Armand?)
This is a question for NYCDOT.
OK
Can the SIM4X/8X be extended to the South Shore (and the SIM4/8 cut back to the SI Mall when the SIM4X/8X operate)? This would allow for more balanced loading between the routes (of course, assuming adequate service levels were provided on all variants). Right now, one of the major complaints is that service on the regular SIM4/8 was reduced, and those buses are overcrowded while the SIM4X/8X have spare capacity. This would especially be useful on the SIM8X where the SIM23/24 have been shifted to 34th Street, this would allow Arden Heights to maintain a relatively quick connection to the 42nd Street corridor (which has the less congested approach out of the Lincoln Tunnel).
The SIM4x and SIM8x do not operate frequently enough to do this. One of the major benefits of the park-and-ride service from the mall is that the scheduled departure time can be relied upon since it is the first stop. Extending the route south would eliminate that benefit. We do continue to monitor the SIM4x and SIM8x and for January 13 will be adding an additional stop on Richmond Avenue just before the expressway.
Right, but if you cut the regular SIM4/8 back to the SI Mall during the timeframe that the SIM4X/8X operate, then everybody south of the SI Mall will take the SIM4X/8X, thus increasing ridership on those routes and the amount of service justified. Somebody told me that the 7:40am SIM8X regularly has almost all of its seats taken, so I guarantee that if it were extended south, it would justify headways lower than 20 minutes. Also it makes no sense for the shorter route to operate as the super-express while the longer route operates as the "local". The SIM4/8 aren't designed for intra-island travel, so this doesn't make sense. The buses can still keep the Lamberts Lane stop and be extended further south, with some trips shifted from the SIM4/8 to the SIM4X/8X to account for the shifting ridership patterns.
Can the SIM4/4X be extended to Arden Avenue & Drumgoole Road to provide Downtown coverage for riders who used to take the X19 from that area? (Ideally even further into the South Shore, such as the SIM23 terminal or the Huguenot SIR station). This can be considered in conjunction with the restructuring mentioned above (which is why I said “South Shore”)
Downtown service to this area is provided by the SIM2. Beginning January 13 off-peak and weekend downtown service will be provided by the SIM4c extension.
The SIM2 runs down Woodrow Road. I'm talking about the area by Drumgoole Road (and remember that there's people who live south of Drumgoole Road as well and have an even further walk)
Can the outbound SIM22/23 be routed to bypass “Checkpoint” in the afternoon and use the Arden Avenue exit of the West Shore Expressway? (With proper schedule adjustments to the SIM24/25 of course) This idea seems to have worked fairly well on the SIM26 (except for the first few and last few trips in both directions, which will hopefully be remedied when the SIM25 receives a span extension)
Generally we do not like to serve an area in one direction but not in the other, but this is something we can look into further. The Checkpoint stop is very popular (as an informal park-and-ride) so we would be hesitant to reduce service to that stop for a minor time savings.
Fair enough.
The inbound SIM8 stop at Woodrow & Shotwell does not have a corresponding outbound stop. Can this be addressed?
This stop did not exist prior to the redesign. This request is currently under consideration.
OK (I see as part of the stop changes announced that it will be added)
Can a stop be added at Woodrow & Arthur Kill for the SIM8, since it has a longer span than the SIM22? (It also covers more of the Aspen Knolls development)
This request is under consideration as the existing stops are not located where the SIM8 can safely access them.
I'm assuming new stops would be added along Woodrow Road itself instead of Arthur Kill Road.
Can the SIM2/24 stop at Hylan & Luten be moved from its current desolate location to the centralized location originally proposed at Hylan & Huguenot.
Traveling north buses cannot safely make the stop at Hylan/Huguenot and turn left. The northbound and southbound stops should match where possible. Luten is also a better location for parking.
So put the northbound stop after the turn. It doesn't have to be at the S59/78 stop.
Can the Hylan & Lincoln drop-off stop on the SIM1/7/10 be moved to Hylan & Midland, for easier transfers to the S51 towards Midland Beach (the SIM5/6/9 can remain at Hylan & Lincoln since those routes already serve Midland Beach).
We do not want to split these routes apart given how many riders take the first bus that comes.
Outbound buses are drop off-only so no, people wouldn't be "taking the first bus that comes" for the express buses. That's what the local buses are for, which would remain unaffected. People are missing their connection to the S51 because of this. Unacceptable when all that's required is to shift the stop back a block.
Can the SIM23 be extended slightly to Pollion Avenue (or even Arburtus Avenue or Huguenot Avenue) to provide better service in Southeast Annadale (at little to no cost)
We can forward this request to NYCDOT and Academy Bus who control the SIM23.
Any particular division of NYCDOT? I want to make sure the affected riders can help push for this.
Can the Church Street & Park Place stop be restored for easy subway connections? I've mentioned numerous times that if somebody is on the fence about taking the subway, having them run up and down through numerous passageways instead of entering through a simple entrance isn't going to make them a huge fan of making that transfer.
We have not heard much about this stop but will make sure it is on the list to consider as we evaluate bus stop adjustments. Access to the PATH, E, 4, 5, R, and W trains is available at the Church St/Fulton St stop and access to the A, C, 1, 2, and 3 trains is available at the Church St/Chambers St stop.
I am aware of that. However, the Park Place stop is the most convenient place to transfer to the 2/3 (instead of walking to Chambers & West Broadway), and you have the flexibility to switch off between the A/C and 2/3 at that same entrance if you find out of a delay at the last minute. I know that Church Street opens up once you pass Vesey Street and there would be a time penalty for stopping at Park Place (which only affects people going to Chambers Street on the peak buses). All I'm asking is for you to be objective when you decide whether or not to keep it.
Has there been any progress made on better communications between the Port Authority and MTA regarding the closure of the Dyer Avenue bus lane?
We have held meetings with the Port Authority and continue to stress the importance of keeping the bus lane open as scheduled.
Great!
Is it possible to at least run some reverse-peak trips on the SIM2 since they're deadheading from the Charleston Depot to Manhattan anyway? Reverse-peak service in general (on the old X1/10/17 and the new SIM1C/3C/4C) is inadequate, especially considering how poor the other alternatives are. Even if those trips were short-turns to Downtown, it would help greatly.
Unfortunately this is not possible without negatively impacting peak service.
Have the buses pull out from the depot a few minutes earlier to account for the extra stops. Especially with the trips at the beginning of rush hour, those are pretty much all pull-outs (and not second trips).
Off-peak buses use Battery Place even when the Rector Street exit is open (which wasn’t the case under the old system). The timepoint should be moved back to Rector Street so they can save time and bypass Battery Place. Additionally, what is being done about the closing of that exit during rush hour? It was my understanding that the only issue was that buses couldn’t safely make it over to the right lane in time to use the exit, but apparently, that’s not the issue and the NYPD is closing the lanes of their own accord (even though that Rector Street exit is MTA/TBTA property)
Off-peak buses are instructed to use the Rector Street exit when it is open. There is no new information to provide on tunnel operations.
OK
Will the SIM25 be coordinated with the SIM26 when the span is extended? Right now, many trips depart 57th & Lexington at the same time, even though both routes serve the same general areas. In the evening, the SIM26 runs every 25-30 minutes, so the SIM25 buses should be coordinated to fill those gaps (e.g. SIM26 at 7:20pm, 7:45pm, and 8:15pm, and a SIM25 at 7:30pm, 8:00pm, and 8:30pm).
Schedules have not been finalized yet for the January service, but tentatively that is the plan.
OK
The same question applies to the SIM3C & SIM33C. Will there be any attempt at coordination between these off-peak routes so they don't arrive together?
Same as above. This will be done where possible, but given that there is not much overlap between these two routes, service will primarily be allocated to match demand patterns.
Weekday service and weekend inbound service is ridiculously uncoordinated for no reason on the draft schedule. Back-to-back buses for most of the day.
Will the SIM33C take West Street or Church Street/Broadway in Lower Manhattan (Church Street/Broadway would be better, more centrally located, more convenient for subway transfers and more similar to the old off-peak X10)?
Same route as the old X10. Church, 6th Av, 23rd St, Madison Av.
Great, but why does it terminate at CPS & 6th instead of 57th & Lexington?
What will be the turnaround route for the off-peak SIM33? Will it take Holland Avenue like the S48/98, but continue to end at South Avenue & Richmond Terrace? If it's going down Holland Avenue anyway, can a stop be considered near the Arlington Terrace Apartments? (Late at night, apparently the Request-A-Stop policy doesn't officially apply to express buses. Can we at least get that policy to apply on the drop-off portions of express buses systemwide?)
Given the way off-peak service is scheduled, all trips are pull-ins, meaning that there will not need to be a turnaround at this location.
Is this in general or for the SIM33C specifically? Also, when the schedules were written and the SIM33C is basically a copy-paste of the old X10 schedule, was it considered that Mariners Harbor is further from Manhattan (and harder to reach the highway) than Port Richmond? I know some SIM3C runs (and old X10 runs) involved an outbound trip, a deadhead, and another outbound trip.
The extension of the SIM1 & SIM34 to Houston Street has brought concerns about reliability (especially from SIM34 riders), since you have the crosstown traffic (between the Manhattan/Williamsburg Bridges and the Holland Tunnel). How will this be addressed?
The original redesign plan attempted to address these issues by avoiding the most congested areas at peak times. In response to rider feedback we have decided to extend two routes north. Houston Street was selected (instead of say 14th Street or 23rd Street) to try and minimize the impact of this extension on reliability.
So buses will sit in crosstown traffic trying to reach the terminal at West Houston Street then? I see nothing in this response that addresses what will be done about the crosstown traffic.
With the creation of the SIM11 covering the (northern) Hylan Blvd-East 23rd Street market, can the SIM10 and SIM31 be routed up West Street & 10th/11th Avenue to either 23rd Street or 34th Street (if it’s 34th Street, the SIM7/9/33 would have to be extended to 23rd Street). The SIM31 lost its West Midtown subway connections and also the flexibility to route buses through New Jersey when there’s issues in Brooklyn (which is often).
No changes to those routes are planned at this time.
Hopefully it will be reconsidered.
What is the status of splitting the SIM1/10 to operate “New Dorp via Hylan” and “Eltingville via Father Capodanno Blvd”?
There is no plan to do this as part of the January service changes.
Hopefully it will be reconsidered. It was mentioned that the SIM1 split is being worked on for April.
No comments:
Post a Comment