|
|
| Re: Queens Bus Network Redesign: Existing Conditions Report (335695) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Queens Bus Network Redesign: Existing Conditions Report |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 2 09:42:13 2019, in response to Re: Queens Bus Network Redesign: Existing Conditions Report, posted by Joe V on Mon Sep 2 07:00:38 2019. So farebox recovery for X buses is ~36%, local buses 13%,No, the fare recovery ratio (FRR) is approximately 34% for local, SBS and express buses. You did not properly account for the different fares. The subway FRR is approximately 73%. kill the the local and SBS buses, and the subway farebox recovery would drop like a brick due to lost riders. That depends on which buses are killed vis-a-vis the existing proximity to existing subway stations. For example, 98.1% of Manhattan residents live within 1/2 mile of an existing subway station. The figures for Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island are 78.0%, 77.0%, 47.3% and 25.5%, respectively. The percentages are slightly higher, if only workers or jobs are considered rather than the general population. There might be a justification for keeping Manhattan's crosstown bus lines because they do not duplicate existing subway service. However, it's difficult to justify the uptown/downtown buses, given that many duplicate existing subway service. Obviously, consideration would be given to keeping buses that would provide trips to the nearest subway for the 1.9% of Manhattan's residents who reside further than 1/2 mile from an existing subway stop. However, these routes would be rather short because 99.9% of Manhattan residents live within 1 mile of a subway stop. There are alternate first/last mile solutions that could provide alternatives for those not within the 1/2 mile walking distance. The percentages of Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island within 2.5 miles a subway stop are: 99.9%, 99.7%, 100%, 88.7% and 80.0%, respectively. The 2.5 mile threshold distance was chosen because that's the niche for such shared alternatives as bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, and self-balancing transporters. |
|
|
|