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.

I, however, prefer the service planners determine this based on hard evidence. And if the service planners already have this evidence, they should release it to the public.

Neither do I.

Also, I would like the MTA to pay Bee-Line to expand Boston Road service, eliminate the Bx30, and extend the Bee-Line 52 to Co-Op City with full boarding/alighting privileges, expanded service within the NYC city limits, and daily service.

What are your opinions regarding a Bx7/Bx9 switch north of 225 Street? Yes, local bus service would duplicate the subway between 215 and 231 Streets. But local buses have short-haul riders, and may reflect actual ridership patterns and trends. It all depends on the amount of people who currently transfer between 225 St and 231 St. Would it increase or decrease? Also, would such a change increase or decrease ridership? How would it affect ridership on the 1 and A Trains? Or would it simply shift riders around for better or worse? These are things the service planners, at the lower levels of NYCT, must examine. But they have do it objectively. In other words, they have to ask as to what must be done in order to implement the best strategy that MAXIMIZES OPERATING EFFICIENCY. Not to fear their supervisors, and give lame excuses as to why the status quo should be maintained.

Sorry, but doing nothing is too expensive to operate. Come up with something better!

I meant to come up with an idea that is an alternative to extending the B7 AND IS LESS EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE THAN THE CURRENT ROUTINGS AND NOT CUT SERVICE FREQUENCIES, I would like to know.

An NYCT Staff Summary dated February 27, 2008, titled "Request for Public Hearings for New Bus and Subway Service Proposals" discussed the current B32, originally designated as the B62. (Bear in mind that the current B62 didn't exist at the time.) The proposed span was weekdays 5am-1am, weekends 8am-10pm. It followed the current routing of the B32 south of Newtown Creek (except that it would have served the Bedford Ave L-Train Station in BOTH DIRECTIONS). North of Newtown Creek, however, it would have served Grand Central Terminal via the folowing routeing: To Grand Central: Pulaski Bridge, 11 St, 48 Ave, Center Blvd, 50 Ave, Queens Midtown Tunnel, E 37 St, and Park Ave. From Grand Central: E 42 St, 2 Ave, Queens Midtown Tunnel, 11 St, Borden Ave, 2 St, 50 Ave, Center Blvd, 48 Ave, Vernon Blvd, 50 Ave, Jackson Ave, 11 St, Pulaski Bridge. Proposed Implementation: Fall 2008. There were 10 other proposals throughout the NYCT network. All eleven would have cost $29.4 million annually. Then came the Great Recession. 'Nuff said.

I'm talking about ALL of the CURRENT Q59 riders. How many do you think would have their travel time increase? I believe it would be between 25% and 50 %! That's much too many for a service change like this. And how many do you think would be forced to transfer? I think that it would be between 10% and 25%! That's much too many for a service change like this. Based on the aforementioned, the service planners would soundly and logically reject this idea. My proposal leaves the Q59 intact, except for the short extension via 62 Dr/63 Rd due to the breakup of the Q38.

But the service planners have been wanting to eliminate B20 Fresh Pond service for years due to its relatively poor ridership. If you can find another alternative to extending the B7, I wish to know.

But shifting the Q59 would create a service gap on Grand Ave between 61 St and 64 St, discouraging ridership. Besides, too many current Q59 riders would be severely impacted and inconvenienced. Believe it or not, Cypress Ave represented 90% of the old B18's ridership, when the service planners originally claimed 25%. They later admitted to this deception. My proposal corrects this injustice. The B13 costs more now to operate than before its extension. Sending it via Cypress Ave and would make the B13 less expensive to operate and would be significantly faster, encouraging ridership. So, yes, I do believe my proposal is superior.

True. On June 27,2010, the M98 was cut back to Hunter College and the X25 was eliminated due to lack of ridership.

But that discussion is for a different thread, obviously.

The Bx31 routing would not change.

Then, it's settled. When it comes to Boston Road, the Bx30, and the Bee-Line 52, the routings should be maintained. Probably the best thing I said in this thread, eh? LOL. But I continue to insist that the Bx16 should operate via E 233 St between Webster and Baychester Avenues, with a Bx29 extension as a replacement for Bx16 Baychester/Nereid Avenues service.

It's okay that the M5 could operate from the GWB Bus Terminal all the way to South Ferry, but not okay to extend the B7 to Fresh Pond? Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly with me. The B26 would still operate to Ridgewood Terminal. Just every other trip during most hours, except the Weekday AM Peak, would operate to/from Bway-Halsey St. In fact, with the addition of the B7 extension, there would actually be the same or more bus service on Halsey St east of Bway during most hours. And, as that the B7 extension would serve as a partial replacement of B20 Fresh Pond service, it would be, overall, less expensive to operate. A win-win situation!

But how is ridership along Boston Rd within the NYC city limits? Are buses crowded? Does Bee-Line service need more span?

Brooklynbus and Nyctransitman floated this idea, but I'm willing to see it through. As most of you know, the service planners have been wanting to discontinue B20 Fresh Pond service for years but couldn't think of alternatives to mitigate the expected burden on riders. Here's what the two suggested: B20 - Cut back northern terminus to Broadway-Van Sinderen Ave. B7 - Extend via Halsey St, Wyckoff Ave, and the current B20 routing to 67 Ave-Forest Ave. B26 - Operate every other bus during most hours, but not the Weekday AM Peak, to Broadway-Halsey St. Bus requirements would be less than today, e.g. 4 less during the Weekday AM Peak and weekday midday, while increasing the mobility for central Brooklyn riders. A win-win situation for both parties. Yes, there will be some losers, but many more would benefit.

I have been always curious about ridership levels along Boston Rd within the NYC city limits. How is it? Is service just right? Should there be additional service and/or span within the city limits? I would change the Bee-Line 60, 61, and 62 to boarding only northbound, alighting only southbound. Should this be done, the Bx30 would have to be restructured to operate between Fordham Plaza and Ropes Ave-Boston Rd. I would also extend the Bee-Line 52 to operate via the current Bx30 within Co-Op City to Erskine Place with unlimited boarding and alighting privileges, but MUST have similar frequencies and span within the NYC city limits as the current Bx30, with reimbursement. (In this case, I think that it would be less expensive for the MTA to pay Bee-Line than operating a separate route.) However, if riderhip levels along Boston Rd are relatively poor, then I would prefer to maintain the status quo.

As I said, I also hate SEPTA's schedulers. But I do think that SEPTA's service planners are relatively better than the NYCT. At least SEPTA's planners are willing to try different things in order to get service to their standards. BTW, I don't like their cost recovery ratio "standards" either, because there will always be a bus route that doesn't meet them. But I digress. NYCT and MTA Bus have "guidelines", but they refuse to publish them. But what I do know is that if ridership doesn't meet all or part of certain minimums at the maximum load point (MLP), the point where a certain route has the most riders on board, NYCT and MTA Bus would simply eliminate span and/or discontinue the route. A major change in span (more than plus-or-minus 59 minutes) and/or route discontinuation is subject to a "public hearing". But NYCT and MTA Bus can get around this by incrementally adding or eliminating span 59 minutes at a time.

But the service planners here don't want to try anything. They refuse to look at the system holistically. For example, the northern terminus of the Bx46 is 1/2 mile from The Hub. They claim that there wasn't enough money, which is far from the truth. The service planners only do comprehensive studies when they are told to do so by the Brass, which is rare. And when comprehensive studies are done, the service planners present their results on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, resulting in no changes being made. In fact, the changes that occurred in the eastern Bronx in June 2010 was the result of a comprehensive study, and we all know what happened when it was implemented. This is why the service planners prefer to do incremental changes that affect one or two routes, while ignoring major service gaps, especially in the Bronx.

I shall reiterate that my proposal is superior, because it also restores Cypress Ave service, which was taken away over 10 years ago when the B18 was eliminated, something which noone at the public hearing supported.

Try telling that to the people of Maspeth, who would lose Q59 service. And try telling that to current Q59 riders, who would be forced to transfer to the Q58. This would also create a service gap on Grand Ave between 61 St and 64 St, as that Fresh Pond Rd goes as far north as Flushing Ave. (This is why the Q39 uses 61 St.) My proposal is superior, because it leaves the Q59 alone (except for the short Q59 extension via 63 Rd/110 St/62 Dr).

I think that Maspeth residents will be in an uproar if the Q59 is taken off of Grand Ave. Here's what I would do: Q59 - Extend via 63 Rd, returning via 62 Dr. Q72 - Takes over the Penelope Ave-Juniper Valley Rd portion of the Q38. Southern terminus at Fresh Pond Rd-Metropolitan Ave. Q38 - Extend Eliot Ave portion via Metropolitan Ave, Forest Ave, and the current Q39 routing to Cooper Ave-60 Lane. Q39 - Operate via Fresh Pond Rd and the current B13 routing to the Cypress Hills station. B13 - Operate via Cypress Ave between Cypress Hills St and the Ridgewood Terminal. B52 - Extend via Gates Ave and the current B13 routing to Fresh Pond Rd station. This would keep the Q59 on Grand Ave as well as restore Cypress Ave service, which was taken away over 10 years ago when the B18 was eliminated, something which noone at the public hearing supported. BTW, NYCT later admitted that Cypress Ave represented 90% of the B18's ridership. Currently, the B13 costs more now to operate than before the B18's elimination.

That's a great idea. But it should operate bidirectional via Hoyt Ave and 21 St. This would give the people who live in the Astoria Houses access to Astoria Park and their large swimming pool for the first time, especially during the summer months. Another great idea to boost ridership and revenue, making the borough more accessible by mass transit. It's a good idea, but I would operate the Q34 between Flushing and Fort Totten ONLY, and operate daily, in order to maintain good service reliablility. Additional Q25 service would be added south of Flushing to compensate for the loss of the Q34. The Q16 could then have is Francis Lewis Blvd branch eliminated, and the Utopia Pkwy branch rerouted from Fort Totten to Beechhurst.