dkupf

My logic behind this is to have a true HHE route that operates all times. For a route that traverses Utopia Pkwy, other structural changes would have to occur. BTW, the Q31 will have its weekend service restored effective Summer 2014.

A route between Woodlawn and Co-Op City would be possible if service is restructured to have one route traverse 233 Street, as that another route would have to cover the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the Bx16. I prefer the Bx29. It would serve the Baychester Ave station, which never had a bus connection. It would also provide a transfer to the Bx31. These changes would close service gaps without the unnecessary duplication of other bus routes. In the early 1990's NYCT proposed to extend the Bx34 in order to give a one-bus ride between Woodlawn and Mount Vernon. Based on ridership projections at the time, the extension would have payed for itself. At the public hearings, there was widespread support. But Westchester County DOT balked, as that they didn't want NYCT to operate local bus service within their borders.

The most important thing to do first is to close service gaps, not add layers of service, which would be a waste of our tax dollars. Nor should we extend routes that are currently excessively long and unreliable. Let's kill Operations Planning's notion that noone tells them how to plan.

The most important thing to do first is to close service gaps, not add layers of service, which would be a waste of our tax dollars. For example, there is no route that traverses 233 St, nor links Co-Op City and Wakefield. And, for the long term, to end the border discrimination between the Bronx and Westchester County. Let's kill Operations Planning's notion that noone tells them how to plan.

The most important thing to do first is to close service gaps, not add layers of service, which would be a waste of our tax dollars. For example, express bus service must be rationalized in the South Shore. S54 weekend service must be restored, and operate via the SI Mall. The S67 should be restored, and operate daily, with the S57 operating via Jewett Avenue. There should also be a local bus route that operates via The Outerbridge. Let's kill Operations Planning's notion that noone tells them how to plan.

The most important thing to do first is to close service gaps, not add layers of service, which would be a waste of our tax dollars. For example, there is no route that traverses Utopia Pkwy. Service in the Fresh Meadows area needs to be straightened out, the Q64 must be extended, and the Q75 must be restored during rush hours and extended to Queensborough Community College. Also, in central Queens, the Q38 must be broken up, and service via Cypress Avenue, which had 90% of the former B18's ridership, must be restored. And, for the long term, to end the border discrimination between Queens and Nassau County. Let's kill Operations Planning's notion that noone tells them how to plan.

Go www.septa.org main page, and drag the mouse to "Media", then click on "Reports". Scroll down to "Other Reports", and click "Service Standards and Process". In my humble opinion, it is a tried-and-true methodology, and I fully respect the opinions of their service planners. They apply their standards with consistency with one critique, however. If a suggestion for a new route is turned down because it isn't projected to cover operating costs, I counter that based on this logic, no mass transit agency in the USA, not even SEPTA, would exist. In other words, the service planners, as well as everone else who works at SEPTA, would be out of work. After reading the Service Standards and Process, scroll up to "Annual Service Plan". Currently, SEPTA has their Annual Service Plans (ASP) from FY 2010 through FY 2014 online. Effective the FY 2014 ASP, they are evaluating suggestions from the public. This compares to the NYCT's service planners' arrogant attitude that noone tells them how to plan. Sorry, but the deadline for suggestions to be evaluated for the FY 2015 ASP was August 31. (You have to wait until sometime next Summer for the suggestion period to reopen, i.e., for the FY 2016 ASP.)

Now if only the service planners realize that they're human, that they're fallible. You know, like the service planners at SEPTA. Fat chance that this would ever occur.

BrooklynBus, who was working for the Department of City Planning during the mid to late 1970's, did not want the B64 doing what it does now, because an O/D survey showed that it would inconvenience too many riders. And he was right. Not only did B64 riders lose their seat on the R train, but their trip times have increased--a double whammy. The drop in ridership, and the widening in frequency, proves it.

Note that the B15 is the most heavilly-used individual route in the NYCT network between 1AM and 5AM. It's even heavier than the M15 at these times!

I attended the public hearing for the proposed service changes this past Thursday, November 14. The only MTA Board Member in attendance was Alan Cappelli, along with NYCT President Carmen Bianco, DOB Senior Vice President Darryl Irick, OP Chief Peter Cafiero, and of course, MTA VP of Gov't and Community Relations Lois Tendler. Only 30 people, including myself, attended hearing. Noone spoke in favor of the northern terminus of the B37 being at Barclays Center. They all demanded it to be in Downtown Brooklyn instead. I spoke about the gaps in service in southern Brooklyn that could be remedied by restructuring service. For example, Maimonides Medical Center still doesn't have north/south bus service, there's no single bus route that traverses the both sides of 13th Avenue, and the gap that was created by the elimination of the B23, via 16th Avenue. I, like BrooklynBus before me, proposed straightening out the routes in the area. The old B23, in our proposal, would be broken up into two viable routes. The 16th Ave portion would be taken over by an extended B69, and the Cortelyou Road portion by the proposed 13th/14th Avenues route, with its southern terminus at 86th Street-4th Avenue. The B64 would, instead, operate via Brooklyn VA Medical Center and 7th Avenue, 92 Street, and 4th Avenue to 86th Street, returning via 86th Street and 7th Avenue. The current Bay Ridge Avenue portion of the current B64 would be covered by an extended B2, via Avenue P, 65th Street, New Utrecht Avenue, 62nd St, and 13th Avenue. This would close service gaps, serve new markets, and give more options to current riders; it would make southern Brooklyn more accessible by mass transit. Maybe now NYCT's service planners' attentions could be refocused to address the service gaps that exist throughout the current bus network. Go to http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/ for more details on our proposal.

I favor the B65 to be extended over the B45, as that the bus requirement for the AM rush would not change.

I know how the service planners think. THey like to throw cold water on everyone else's ideas. The current weekend service pattern complies with the Bus Loading Guidelines, and a simple extension to 96 St would add an extra bus on the weekend, increasing operating costs by $25,000 annually. In other words, it would require an extra 20,000 annual riders, or 385 extra riders each weekend to ride an extra half-mile in order to be cost-neutral!!!! I only see an extra 200-250 each weekend. Based on these, I don't think the service planners would recommend such an extension.

The head scheduler at Operations Planning is also the Treasurer of the Electric Railroaders Association, Michael Glikin. He is a corporate sycophant who will never change a single schedule without actual passenger counts solely from the traffic checkers, and solely using the MTA Bus Loading Guidelines. WARNING: don't waste your time doing your own passenger counts; he will gleefully toss them in the garbage!

Do you have a plan to restore the M104 via 42nd St that takes a cost-neutral, ridership-neutral approach? If not, Operations planning (OP) will laugh at your idea, and toss it into the garbage. Even I want the M104 to the UN restored. But I live on 42nd St, and, unfortunately, the current service pattern has worked beyond OP's expectations. And, as that the staff at OP are entrenched and have the confidence of their superiors, including Prendergast, M104 service via any part of 42nd St will not be restored.

Not with how entrenched they are at Operations Planning (OP). As I said, they have the full confidence of the beancounters, plus President Prendergast. We could forget about any new bus routes, unless it promotes a cost-neutral, ridership-neutral approach. As that this is policy set by Prendergast himself, no one can challenge it, except Lhota. I.e., if Prendergast's underlings wish to keep their jobs. Which is why even my proposal has an uphill battle of, at least, being analyzed by OP.

I was at the public hearings for the June 2010 in April 2010 at the SUNY Fashion Institute of Technology, and it was already closed. So, W 28 St from 8th Ave to 7th Ave has been closed for at least two years. I also forgot that between 10AM and 3 PM weekdays, Park Avenue southbound from 42 St to 41 St is closed for pedestrian use. An don't forget that the entire Park Ave and Park Ave South south of 42 St (including the overpass) is closed during certain summer weekends. This would force your M18 to divert to Lexington Ave, discouraging ridership. Based on these factors, I only see it have 1500-1750 daily riders, and much less on weekends. Which is why my proposal is superior.

For bus routes outside of Staten Island, to determine if there should be limited-stop service on a specific corridor, the overall frequency of its routes must be AT LEAST every five minutes. If there is one route, it's a no-brainer; every other bus would be limited-stop--every 10 minutes local, every 10 minutes limited-stop. But if the corridor has multiple routes, it's much more complicated. Then it must be determined of it's feasible based on origin-destination data. E.g., the M31 should have limited-stop service in the AM rush in the peak direction, but the B36 and Bx11 should not have limited-stop service at all.

Except for that reloop via Chambers St., I like the idea. Unfortunately, the MTA's service planners love to throw cold water on all ideas that come their way. They would ask, "How many riders do you think would have to use this new route in order for the route to pay for itself? Where's your proof" I've been able to answer these questions in my proposal. In it, I take the practical approach. As that some of the routes and corridors were recently discontinued, the service planners already have the ridership and origin/destination data, except for Greenwich St. But this would be relatively easy for the service planners to deduce, as that this would be the only unknown variable.

Problem: W 28 St between 7 Ave and 8 Ave is no longer a through street.

My Community Board has been complaining about M11 reliability for a long time, but failed. The problem is traffic entering the Lincoln Tunnel from the north, something beyond the MTA's control, and no one wants to do anything about it. But I'm talking about shifting the southbound M20 from 7 Av/7 Av S/Varick St to 9 Av/Bethune St/Greenwich St in order to make TriBeCa more accessible from Lincoln Square, Clinton, and Chelsea. Unfortunately, the M11 would have to have reduced service outside of the AM rush, as per the MTA Bus Service Loading Guidelines.

I'd use the M10 instead. Extend it instead. Even make it a limited downtown. It couldn't even be limited-stop because its too infrequent. But I'm neutral when it comes to re-merging the M10 and M20.

Threxxbus, unless you could find other savings that would offset the net operating cost of your M16, this route is a non-starter.

The elimination of Avenue B service was a big mistake, and wish to see it restored when the economy gets better.

When I lived in Brooklyn, some people had concerns about the B5-B50 merger. Now, the B82 is one of the most heavily-travelled routes in Brooklyn. For the M31-M57 merger, I believe that M31 would be to Manhattan, as the B82 is to Brooklyn. If it makes Manhattan that much more accessible by public transportation, it's worth it. Only the service planners have the resources to test it. But I will not give up on the implementation of AM peak-period peak-direction limited-stop service. As for my M9/M22 proposal, it would also make Battery Park City and the Lower East Side that much more accessible by mass transit. And I did state that it should be done when the economy gets better. Any 5th/Madison route that operates to South Ferry will be just as unreliable as any other route, and the restoring the M1 is a non-starter; the service planners have taken a radical stance, and have the confidence of the beancounters, i.e., their superiors. So, I chose the M2 to go to South Ferry, over the M1 and M5, as a compromise. Unless the the M5 and M7 routing is cut back and M11 service reduced, the restoration of Centre St bus service will not occur, and the status quo will be maintained, regardless of who's in charge or who owns our mass transit service, be it the MTA or the City of New York.