B35 via Church

Continuing on from the first part of my sentiments about this final proposed network... Back this past Saturday, I realized they made a remix map for it, but I'll continue my assessment of the impending network by scrolling down this PDF containing the route profiles for all the routes here....

Q41: After noticing what's going to happen with the new Q11, I didn't think they'd retain the current Q41 south of Rockaway Blvd ... Nonetheless, IDC for the new Q41 routing on the opposite end of the thing.... Quite frankly, even with the Q24, Q8, and Q112 in close enough proximity of each other, I still see a need for something panning in a northerly-southerly fashion east of Lefferts Blvd making its way to Jamaica... Another way of saying this is that there should be something else west of the Q9 running north-south in that part of Queens..... I don't really see the need to have had that gap along 109th be closed, by connecting it to Lakewood av.... What I do see is a routing going 109th-Lakewood-Sutphin being a deterrent for current Q41 riders going in/out of Jamaica proper... If you're a South Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park patron, the longer you spend on Sutphin, the worse off your commute will typically be... I fully expect the new Q41 to be less popular than the current Q41 for that reason alone.

Q43: I would be more supportive of this being a rush route if they kept the previously proposed running of it to LIJ.... To me, it doesn't seem worth it to have the (main catchment area for) the rush portion only be b/w Springfield & 268th.... I think the portion west of Springfield a] will be just as utilized as the impending Q1 b/w LIRR Jamaica & Hillside/Springfield, and b] more utilized than the portion east of Springfield....

Q44: Came in with the (unfortunate, IMO) expectation that it would end up running to Fordham... Instead, they retained the current routing.... I have no qualms here, because running it to Fordham would've made it that much more unmanageable....

Q45/Q46/Q48: Where do I even start with this shit? Right off the bat, I'm vehemently against the way service will be segmented along Union Tpke.... AFAIC, this is all being done to avoid having anything end at Springfield (because after all, they mention that combined service of these 3 routes will be an increase, compared to current Q46 service)...

While I actually like the Q45 route, it shouldn't be part of any main segment along the corridor - Instead, it should be a SUPPLEMENT along the corridor (and a local one at that, not a LTD).... Even though there are a lot of riders that use the current Q46 west of 188th, Union Tpke shouldn't be segmented with a LTD west of 188th & 2 rush routes east of 188th.... The core of the riderbase along Union Tpke is b/w Kew Gardens & Springfield... All you really have to do with Union Tpke (if you want to create complementary routes along the corridor, that is) is have one complement run b/w QB & Springfield, with the other complement running the current LIJ branch of the Q46.... Since they're doing this pigeonholing shit with all the routes (meaning, one route can only be a green route, a blue route, a red route, or a purple route), the QB-Springfield complement can be one of those red routes, with the complement running past Springfield being a rush route or whatever...

With that said, throughout the years, I have always thought that the Glen Oaks branch ran excessively; they do this as to not have have too many BPH running in/out of LIJ.... I personally wouldn't bother with the Q48 & (if push came to shove), just have the Q45 as a local & the Q46 as one of the red routes or whatever... If it means running more Q45 service over Q46 service (again, with the sentiment/surmisal that they don't want anything ending at Springfield) to avoid running too many buses in/out of LIJ, then so be it....

To sum it up, service shouldn't be segmented at 188th... If there's to be any line of demarcation along the corridor, it should be at Springfield.

Q47: So, swap northern terminals with the Q33.... This just makes the Q47 a junk route in the network; kind of like back in the day before you had to separate recyclables from regular trash... You threw the empty Domino's pizza box, the empty 2-liter bottle of Sprite, and the empty container having contained honey BBQ wings all in the same damn receptacle... Lol.... I mean, if you're gonna take it out of LGA, just have the thing continue up 80th to the GCP service road, to end with the Q69....

I will say though, that I do concur with taking the route off Roosevelt b/w 69th & Moore Terminal.... It's "waste"ful .... The masses want 74th over 69th (subway stations).... Putting the thing on Woodside av. instantly makes it more useful in that immediate area.... The SB direction shift from 73rd to 75th I'm alright with.... It should've never been running inside Bulova to begin with, for there to be a proposal suggesting service be eradicated from there....

Q49: Thank f*** this is going to remain a local... With as dense as the southern part of Jackson Heights is, with the thing particularly running along 35th av, having it run LTD would've been dumb as hell....

Q50: This has fail written all over it... The previous proposal to even have it running to LGA was bad enough, this final rendition is actually worse... Sever it from Co-op during off-peak hours, to have it virtually swallow up the entirety of the current Q48.... As crazy as this sounds, I'm now honestly of the belief that this has less to do with serving LGA & more to do with merely taking a bus route away from terminating in the heart of Flushing.... Some of you may know that I've not been a big fan of connecting Flushing & LGA with a (public) bus route (e/g the current Q48), but I'm not at all relieved with this new Q50, because they are severely underestimating its use in Co-Op..... Not to say that they should revert to the old QBx1, but the Bx23 experiment has been anything but successful... Still far too many buses carrying too lightly.... To subject the Q50 to current Q48 patronage b/w Flushing & Corona is just plain stupid.....

Q51: Well, I did say that I thought the previous proposal to have it running to Gateway would've been for naught, since SE Queens patrons patronize other shopping areas (such as Green Acres, and even RFM).... That much added mileage from Rockaway Blvd to Gateway IMO is just too big of a risk for an unknown (which I'd say is an extremely low) level of demand to have tried to cater to.... Yeah, you gotta start from somewhere in order to get somewhere (so to speak), which is what the rest of this Q51 route basically is - How many SE Queens riders are willing to abandon making their way to Jamaica for 's, 's, or 's, to embark on the instead... We'll find out soon enough, with how patronized this impending route will be.... Even though I'm not all that fond of it, I will admit that it's smart to not have it running on coverage headways to start out....

Q53: Yeah, retain the terminating of it at Woodside-61st.... The previous proposal to have both the Q52 & Q53 end in the general vicinity of Moore Terminal would've been chaotic.

Q54: Quite honestly, I'd have tried my hand at segmenting service along Metropolitan before doing so with Union Tpke... Hell, the blueprint's already there with the current short turns on the route....

Q55: Sigh of relief that it won't run to Jamaica.... Absolutely makes sense to have it directly connect to the at 121st; curious as to what the turnaround scenario will be though.

Q58/Q98: The thing about this coupling to me is that I don't have a problem with the routes individually - but I don't think there's necessarily a need for both these variants of the current Q58 to run between Ridgewood & Flushing either.... I would try my hand at combining the two core concepts into one route; as in, running b/w Ridgewood & Grand/QB making Q58 stops, to then doing the Q98 routing b/w Grand/QB & Flushing (putting it another way, maintaining the Q98 route, but have it make more stops south of QB).... If a concept like that ends up attracting more of the masses (than the Q58, which I would expect, because I find that significantly more of the masses that board in Flushing disembark at QB, moreso than any accumulation/total of pax that disembark along 108th or along Corona av, short of QB), then I'd have the Q59 run over the Q58 routing along Corona av, to circle back down towards the Rego Center, like this....

Q59: I can understand wanting to have it parallel the Q54 in Brooklyn... However, if it's going to do that, then I think the Q68 should continue along Metropolitan to at least Bedford/Driggs, to then get to/from WBP that way... I would not completely do away with having no east-west service west of the BQE in the immediate area - especially given that they have the proposed B62 bypassing WBP.....

As for the "change" to have Queens bound buses utilize Gardner, they already do that now!!! Wtf are they talking about?!?!?!? In the PDF here it says "Queens-bound in East
Williamsburg, the proposed Q59 would use Gardner Av to connect to Grand St to avoid a difficult turn."... I went to look at the stop list, and they have the current stop at Grand/Gardner eliminated due to the "new routing"....

The change that they're actually making to the Queens-bound Q59 in the immediate area, is to ELIMINATE the turn onto Gardner Av, to instead have buses turn on Stewart Av to get to Grand st... (a change I actually agree with btw; that right turn off Gardner on the Q59 is a hassle, to say the least.... Buses spend too much time at that corner (Gardner/Grand, before the right turn) waiting for trucks (especially) making that left off Grand to turn down on Gardner - which impedes traffic turning off Gardner to get EB on Grand, since Gardner is a 2-way street).... Idiots..

Q61: They proclaim that frequencies would resemble the Willets Pt. branch of the Q16, but the problem (as I see it) is that it won't garner (near) the amount of ridership of that branch of the current Q16.... Hell, I actually think it's going to perform worse than the current Utopia branch of the Q16... By having this be a rush route, they are severely overestimating the potential of this thing..... I'd say it needs to serve all stops along Union at minimum, to even have a chance (of being worth its existence).....

Q62: This is a shortened, rush version of the proposed Q20 in the previous draft.... I mean, the only redeeming quality to it AFAIC, is that it reconnects Flushing to College Point Center (since in the previous draft, they got rid of both branches of the current Q20a/b to run it over to Beechhurst).... There's nothing that says "rush" about having riders sitting in traffic along 20th av b/w the Whitestone Expwy. & the shopping center itself.... On top of that, ridership along the service area of the thing (as in, at & east of 20th/132nd) simply isn't strong enough to even warrant a rush route.... All in all, with this new network, while they've closed some service gaps in NE Queens, they've simultaneously dismantled the feeder network in Flushing (which was all that was really necessary up there) - and it's going to loom detrimental....

Q63/Q66: It says that the Q63 would be a new route complementing the (new) Q66, but unless I'm missing something, it looks like the new Q63 is nothing more than a renumbered (current) Q66.... For all that, they could've just numbered the rush route along Northern the 63....

Aside from route nomenclature, while this will be the unpopular opinion, I don't see this need for skip-stop service along Northern... I see far more of a need for a greater concentration of service along Northern Blvd. b/w Northern Blvd & Flushing proper.... I also think 35th av, at best, should've been served with another route - but that's neither here nor there.... It's something to be said that they could have those current Q95's (the 21st - QBP shuttle buses) terminating at 21st , but they can't have the impending Q63 end at 21st .... You do not need the Q63 & the Q66 running from QBP - especially now that they're scaling the Q69 back from serving Court Sq, running from QBP to the Queensbridge & Ravenswood PJ's the same way the current Q66 does / impending Q63 would....

To sum my sentiment of this part of the plan up, I'm not in favor of the complementary nature of it all... If they're that hell bent on running/retaining having a Northern Blvd. service run to QBP, then have it run the new Q66 routing & call it a day.... The current Q66 from the east, dies at 21st & Flushing bound Q66's from QBP, are quite noticeably used interchangeably with the current Q69 - and at a lesser extent on top of it, because there's still a greater demand for the Q69 over the Q66 at QBP....

Q64: The route is short... Plagued by traffic along Jewel av traffic by the GCP & the Van Wyck during certain times moreso than others... Stop spacing isn't remotely an issue on a route like this.... It should've remained serving all the current stops that it does.

Q65: I'm somewhat torn on this one, mostly in disagreement of it... Yes, the current route from end to end is a drag, but to swap the serving of the hospital with the Q26, to have it (the new 65) continue up 162nd to Sanford, yikes.... I'm not so sure if having the new Q65 do that would even be for the greater good... By that I mean, It may end up being a wash in terms of runtime, compared to the current Q65 routing b/w Downtown Flushing & 162nd/45th... I get decongesting that pocket of Flushing binding Kissena - Sanford - Parsons -  Holly, but holy crap.... And not for nothing, but I do notice a fair amt. of patronage seeking Flushing Hospital from off the current route from points south....

Q67: Yeah, agreed with cutting it back from QBP to Court Sq... Come to think of it, this is something I used to advocate for the Q39 to do also (but, compared to the Q67, I will admit that the Q39 is far more sought after at QBP than the Q67 is).... Anyway, especially being that I take the B32 from the first stop from time to time, I always see a sizable amt. of people waiting for Q67's right behind it.... Very few people take the Q67 to/from QBP.... Those that work in industrial Maspeth prioritize the over the & the anyway....

Q68: Quite frankly, I think this route's footprint should be slightly expanded in Brooklyn (see my commentary for the Q59) & sent elsewhere in Queens... I see the Q47's short stint on Woodside av. doing more for that route, than having this thing run on Woodside av for a longer stint for, it.... And not for nothing, but the immediate area around Elmhurst Hospital is not the greatest of places to terminate a bus route at... FWIW, I think they were on the right track with the QT76 in the very first draft, as far as connecting (points south of) QB & (up to) Northern is concerned.... Instead of turning this off for Elmhurst Hospital, I'd end this at Northern Blvd , via 46th st & 39th st & call it a day.... I can definitely see people coming off the Q66 (well, the impending Q63 & Q66) & xferring to a route that pans south of QB on down to industrial Maspeth & Brooklyn (in general) without having to go through Queens Plaza or QBP....

Q69: Doing this to the Q69 makes sense, given that the B62 (and the Q63, to an extent) fills in the blank (so to speak) along the lower portion of 21st st... The problem I have with this has less to do with this Q69 (especially in juxtaposition with eliminating the current Q100) & almost everything to do with the B62 being the route filling in the proverbial blank.... The B62 goes too deep into Brooklyn & pans up too much of 21st st. for this type of a setup to be (as) effective along 21st st..... Not sure how else to express this general sentiment.

For the sake of post length, I'll end this here & finish up my assessment of this new network in a 3rd post.

On 12/18/2023 at 6:56 AM, Janine Mantzaris said:

Please do not charge New Yorkers [who can not afford it] to drive to their essential jobs every day in order to serve the city.
Do not punish people for going to work. Punish people for illegal activity. Install red light cameras in every traffic light. Install more speed cameras all over the city. Make your money on illegal activity that is hurting others. Do not make your money by punishing people who are going to work.

Circular argument...

I get the basis of your outcry, but you'd have been better off leaving that part out.... These are two of the things that "punishes" those of us that you're trying to make a case for.

Shout out to @Cait Sith for shooting me a quick msg. about this.

Let's see what we got with this:

Q1: Far better than what was proposed in the draft plan, but AFAIC, they still got it wrong.... I get doing away with the Springfield Branch, but why the f*** is Braddock getting all that service????

Q4: I was actually looking forward to that slight extension to Elmont that was proposed in the 2nd draft; too bad it didn't fall through...

Q5: While I still think they're unnecessarily butchering service along Merrick Blvd, I don't see why this wasn't an original short turn of the current Q5 (instead of running buses to LIRR Rosedale) to begin with....

Q6: Sigh of relief when I scrolled down to see how they would change this route that they didn't change this route (given that they did away with that frugally, moronic Q1/Q6 combination in the draft plan)...

Q7: *nods head in agreement* upon looking at this new change.... It was time to cut the cord with the current routing west of Woodhaven/Cross Bay blvd's (as in, the Sutter av, etc. routing).... That part of Rockaway Blvd. north of the needs the service... Watch Q24 ridership in that immediate area almost instantly plummet (current Q24 needs less of a strain put on it anyway; route is rather long, drawn out, and rather sluggish...)... Also, the proposal in the draft plan that had it [Q7] running to Cedarhurst, glad that wasn't considered... It'd have been too much; tantamount to a waste of mileage AFAIC.... That shopping plaza over there at Rockaway Tpke/Burnside would've made for a poor terminal anyway.... I don't have too strong of an opinion either way about stopping it short of Cargo Rd....

Q8: Upon scrolling downward in this PDF, I thought that they'd maintain the current routing.... Instead, they maintained the routing in the prior draft of the proposal (as in, running it to New Lots instead).... I'm not complaining in the slightest, because I've been saying that the current Q8 in Brooklyn, for the most part, isn't much more than a B13 supplement... The new Q8 OTOH will fill a void in the current network that's going to instantly do away with having people take B15's to JFK for the Q3 to get to Jamaica (there are quite a number of people that do this; more than some of you might think).... Even if they would've added more stops than what was originally proposed, thank f*** they didn't revert back to what was proposed in the original QT5 routing-wise....

Q9: *snaps fingers*... I was hoping beyond hope for an extension to Lefferts AIRTrain... So it's just going to end where the current Q37 does, via 130th st.... It is what it is... Still will be a nice little route nonetheless...

Q10: If I would've scrolled down to see that they still had this being extended over the current Q64, I'd have just stopped posting altogether.... If someone told me going in that they scrapped that BS, I'd have figured that they'd just have it be a full on Lefferts Blvd. route....

Q11: Always thought that every trip should serve both Hamilton & Old Howard Beach, I've been proposing that for ages.... Surprised that they decided to include serving Lindenwood with such a route... Don't dislike it per se, but I'm not exactly high on it either... This looks good on paper (definitely better than that QT88 bullshit that was proposed in the original draft plan), but I want to see how this is going to end up panning out logistically...

Q12/Q13: Simply don't care for the Northern/Sanford swap.... I can see people in Flushing being quite pissed off at this.

Q14: From the prior rendition of the draft plan, it looks like they just scrapped the portion along Fresh Pond.... Anyway, I get filling the void in Corona, but something about this route still bothers me... Can't quite put my finger on it.... The whole route just screams filler to me.... *shrugs*

Q15: Ok, the demographics have significantly changed since the old Q14 terminated there, and I get wanting to scale the route [Q15] back from Beechhurst.... However, I still don't see having buses ending at Clintonville/7th on a full time basis being viable.... I'm not sure to what/where, but I don't see that particular change lasting all that long....

Q16: TBH, I wanted to see how things would work with having a route pan through the heart of Flushing, panning south along College Point Blvd.... In any event, I'm not sure I get the logic behind scrapping the more utilized branch of the current route (Francis Lewis) to overserve the branch that's significantly weaker... At least they have it still running to Ft. Totten & not stubbed to where the current Q31 ends at (27th/Francis Lewis), like as proposed in the prior draft plan...

Q17: SMH.... This was one of the routes I didn't want to have be retained.... I personally liked the prior proposed Q17 between College Point & Fresh Meadows.

Q18: Whatever.

Q19:  YGBFKM..... They retained the route [Q19], to have the Q50 go to LGA via Roosevelt & 108th???? I know that's more of a critique for the Q50, but that is utterly stupid... What would've been so hard to just have the Q19 diverted to run along that stretch in question?

Q20: Figured they'd revert service to Jamaica, but why introduce it to Jamaica av? That is going to slow the route down quite noticeably in Jamaica... On the other end of the route, interesting that they're keeping 14th av service & canning 20th av service... AFAIC, for all that, they may as well just have it completely replace the current Q34 at & north of Flushing proper, instead of just having it replace the Q34 through Mitchell Gardens....

Q22: To hell with (for the purpose of) LIRR Far Rockaway, those project heads will be the main ones benefiting from that northward extension in Far Rockaway (I do agree with the idea though).... On the western end of the route, yeah, even Ray Charles saw that shit coming.... They could at the very least have service to Riis Beach during the summer season....

Q23: Lol, yeah right, truncating this to terminate at Corona Plaza.... That's going to be quite the adventure.... I honestly think they resorted to this b/c they couldn't think of what else to do with the portion of the route south of QB.... From a usage standpoint, it makes far more sense to truncate the route at QB from the north, than to truncate the route at Roosevelt from the south...

Q24: Not surprised with the cutback to B'way Junction... The changes on the Jamaica end will have it spending less time in Jamaica, but at what cost to ridership... People do not use Q24's & Q56's interchangeably at all... I don't see many people bothering using Q56's to get to Jamaica Hospital....

Q25: Figured they'd maintain the current routing... Has no business running way down to Springfield Gardens, even if they previously proposed ending it over there by the Whitestone Expwy....

Q26: Previously proposing running it to Cambria Hgts. was just plain dumb, so I'm glad they rescinded that... At the same time, running this over the current Q65 route in College Point on those headways aint it. either.... The Q26 is a poor route choice to try to use as (what I like to call) a dual ended feeder; the demand for College Point & the demand for areas along it south of Flushing proper (especially sharing the same routing as the Q27 before turning off for Hollis Ct. Blvd) is quite stark.....

Q27: Taking buses off of Holly was one of those things that was long overdue, but I didn't actually see them ending up doing something about.... The truncation to Springfield/Francis Lewis is *whatever*, I guess....

Q29: I didn't think they'd actually revert it; thought they were going to keep that proposed Q80 TBH....

Q30: Strange choice for a rush route... While I don't necessarily have a problem with having it end at QCC, I do think they're overemphasizing QCC.... And what is this about "Splitting the Q30 branches into two separate routes allows riders to better differentiate which route to take based on their destination."? Didn't know service to QCC was considered a branch, but whatever....

Q31: I mean it's straighter & all, and it won't end in the middle of much of nothing anymore (as in the current Q31 terminal in Bayside), ending over there at the Bay Terrace library with the Q28 via the shopping center instead.... At the same time, I see this losing overall ridership, compared to the current Q31...

Q32: If you look at the strip map, it don't look like much of a change at all... But buses are gonna go straight to Manhattan from Queens Plaza, instead of serving Queensboro Plaza subway... I'm somewhat torn on that, agreeing with it more than disagreeing with it... Getting to Queens Plaza North from Queens Blvd heading west is very cumbersome.. That left turn off Northern onto Queens Plaza North is hell - and what exacerbates matters is cars going in/out of that parking garage for that Hilton....

Q33: LMFAO !!! This one came straight out of left field; didn't expect to scroll down to see this... This is likely an attempt to make it more useful, because north of Astoria Blvd, there is just too much air currently being carried on this thing.... Could also be an "answer" to the critique of the Q70 not serving Terminal A, who knows.... The Q33 was always more popular than the Q47 from Moore Terminal anyway...

Q35: Yes, straighter (in Queens), but I honestly think this is going to be a deterrent... I see Newport riders being petty enough to not even bothering with the new Q35 b/c of the shift down to Rockaway Beach Blvd. (looking at that stop list though, I'll admit I didn't realize there were that many stops along Newport)... I also think ending it at the ferry terminal is much ado about a bunch of nothing.... Not looking forward to the stop removals at Av S Queens-bound & Utica Av Brooklyn-bound, as it makes it more infeasible for me to catch the thing coming off the B46... Oh well...

Q36: Thank f*** they didn't retain that proposed Q57.... Also glad that they kept service along the 212's (212 pl, 212 st); albeit not being with the Q36, which will be shifted to Springfield, which is something I proposed (although I had it branched with the 212's, instead of it solely serving Springfield).... I'll admit, I'm surprised that they kept service to Little Neck with the Q36, instead of retaining that Q45...

Q37: I'm not as surprised upon seeing this change, because I was previously apprised of this possibly happening to the Q37.... Anyway, this instantly makes it more useful, but at the same time, it's meandrous as shit.... Quite sure most will still gun for the Q10, but I'm curious to see how utilized the new Q37 will fare in/out of JFK....

Q38: Meh, So they just got rid of the Eliot half of the route (to have that new Q14 cover it, from E. Elmhurst).... It'll still have its riders, but my outlook for this new Q38 is not all that great... I didn't expect it to be retained, but at the same time, I expected more to happen with the route....

Q39: Hmm.... While I'm okay with it being basically retained, I scrolled down with the expectation that the route would drastically change.... Only change to the thing was the course b/w Court Sq. & QBP, which was meandrous anyway, which I hardly see affecting ridership one way or the other....

-----------------------------------

I'll stop here for now... Will get to the rest of this later on..... Still don't care for all the stop removals & the whole red/green/blue/purple shit as separate route types for each individual route, but as far as the routings are concerned, I'm not nearly as miffed as I came in expecting to be (largely because of what I'm seeing so far, routes are being rolled back & the more idiotic proposals in the previous proposal/draft have been thrown out)... Hope the trend continues upon scrolling down the rest of this PDF.

On 12/2/2023 at 2:00 PM, hounddriver said:

This new route system seems to be a joke from my observations,at least on the north shore. Every time I see a bus,it's nearly empty or empty. I think one of the biggest mistakes is routing the 5 off Jericho Tpke down Old Willets Path instead of continuing on Jericho(previous S58) leaving that stretch through Commack with no service....

I'd say the larger issue is the waning demand for Jericho Tpke (namely, west of Commack).... Over the years, I've seen it completely crap out on the n79, come damn close to doing so on the old S29, and significantly wane on the old S54.... Only route that had/maintained any sort of decent demand for / patronage along it, was the S58.... I always thought there should've been a route b/w Whitman & Smith Haven anyway.... The dilemma was always that simply extending the S58 to Whitman would've that much more unmanageable.... AFAIC, the need to have the S6 specifically run b/w Patchogue & Whitman Mall has waned....

On 12/3/2023 at 8:21 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church Back in the day, what were ridership patterns like on the S20 (in its Babylon - Sunrise Mall form)? Was it primarily picking up/dropping off riders coming to/from Sunrise Mall, or was there some turnover?

What I'm particularly interested in is transfer activity between the S1 and S20 (I know it isn't quite a fair comparison since Montauk Highway isn't that close to the areas up by Oak Street and John Street, but just to get an idea of how many people in that general area are seeking access to NY-110). Most of the other connections which were previously available at Sunrise Mall are now available at Amityville LIRR station, but the one big benefit at Amityville (for a Montauk Highway route) is the connection to NY-110, which was available on the S20, but not the N19. 

Simply put, the S20, especially pre-2016, had way more people utilizing it anywhere b/w Copiague & Babylon (I don't ever remember the S20 getting great usage west of Sunrise, when it ended at the Kohl's in E. Massapequa).... Overall, I'd say the amt. of people [not going to Sunrise] & those that [were going to Sunrise], was about 40/60 back then.... Either way, S20's used to be PACKED...... In other words, the route wasn't nearly as close to being wholly reliant on Sunrise back then, than how it ended up becoming after a] those 2016 cuts (that featured the 1b, 35, 71, 90, etc) in general & b] specifically, when they turned the S20 into a loop route to replace the N19 routing east of Sunrise.... What also didn't help, was the decreasing popularity over the course of time of the Great South Bay shopping center; that place used to be a pretty big deal back then.... As an aside, the damage was already done when they decided to extend the S29 down to that shopping center... Just wasted mileage all around.

More to your concern/inquiry, TBH, I never really noticed much of anyone on the S20 from either end of the route xferring to the S1..... Now if people decided to take the train from Babylon to Amityville (instead of taking the S20) to get to the S1, IDK, but I wouldn't necessarily have doubted it..... Those from Sunrise (either of Suffolk patrons, or of folks coming off LIB's) that wanted the S1, would take the S33 for it instead... Why? Because the S20 stayed on Oak st. & didn't deviate to enter LIRR Amityville like the S33 did....

On 11/26/2023 at 10:27 PM, Mtatransit said:

On 11/26/2023 at 3:43 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Reason why the 2 isn't as high, is because of the section west of Babylon. I don't see it carrying nearly as much per bus as points east. I get that the S20 wasn't the most ideal route, but even with the boost in frequency up to three times of that of one of the S20 loops, I don't think any increase in ridership would be proportional. 

I don’t believe the 2 west of Babylon will do as bad as you envisioned. From my experience riding the buses out there n19 carried more ridership than the loop S20 along Montauk Highway, so hopefully this new 2 will get some of that ridership back.

I happen to agree with him; that ridership west of Babylon is spent... Not that the old S40 was that high in the efficiency department, but having an Amityville - Patchogue route  significantly makes a route of sorts that much more inefficient..... There's too big of a time lapse between [the current running of this new #2] & [the last time the n19 ran out to Babylon], to hope for this new #2 getting any of that ridership back... To be frank, the n19 along Montauk Hwy. wasn't all that strong anyway; the S20 was still the primary route of choice by most people b/w Babylon & Sunrise.... It is that rendition of the S20 (as in, before they turned it into a loop route) that lost more ridership throughout the course of time, I'd argue, than the n19 ever really garnered along Montauk Hwy....

On 11/27/2023 at 7:17 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The Brentwood - Bay Shore demand is divided amongst two routes, whereas the Brentwood-Babylon demand is still under one route. I would not write off the 5's segment between Babylon and Brentwood given how it serves it. The 5 is slated to garner most S29 ridership, a good chunk of S23 ridership, and some S27 and S33 ridership.  Between Bay Shore and Brentwood, the 7 tends to replicate more of the S41 than the S45 (which was the busier of the two route). I also wouldn't count out the effect the H10 and H40 can have on total ridership on the 7, because they overlap directly or very close to it north of Jericho Turnpike. That's not to say the 7 wouldn't hold on it's own, but I can't see it being fourth.

I'd wholly agree with this take if the #7 wasn't the only route serving South Shore Mall.... I'd be surprised if there aren't currently a lot of people xferring in Brentwood or Bay Shore for access to that mall.... Whitman is too upscale for the everyday shopper (which is what killed demand from off all the bus routes still serving it) & Sunrise is dead (which saw more Suffolk patrons than you might think in its heyday).... The people that don't go to Smith Haven, either go here, or a little further up to Deer Park Tanger...

Alright man... Be safe, Yuki.

What was going on along rt. 46 yesterday afternoon? I took the #198 (4:33 trip out of Willowbrook, if it matters...and I'm glad it beat the preceding #197 that was supposed to come at 4:30, because there's no way all those people were getting on an inbound #197 at that time of day) after getting off the #705 at Willowbrook..... I actually saw the preceding 4:03 #198 trip back to NY when I was on said #705, but there was no way I could've caught it.... That bus left Willowbrook with about 10 people on it... smh...

Anyway, the normal route back to NY is to take rt. 46 to rt. 3 before hitting 495....

• Instead, we ended up taking I-80... to rt. 19... to the GSP... to get to rt. 3....

The crazy part is, after doing all that, even given the (normal) traffic jams at/on 495 to the tunnel approach, we were only 11 mins. late... We were flying on I-80; I was surprised to see it that empty, to be honest...

On 11/25/2023 at 5:14 AM, Mtatransit said:

Finally SCT feels like a network of routes...

That was one of my biggest gripes of the old network; they felt like a bunch of routes running singularly/isolated within themselves in the network, instead of operating cohesively within a bus network....

On 11/25/2023 at 5:25 AM, Mtatransit said:

1) (what’s with the county not installing signs anyways)

2) CI and Brentwood I am conflicted. I do believe we should have atleast one pulse point here to provide connections between different directions, but having pulse points at both is too much

3) The 4 should either fit into Brentwood or Central Islip. It shouldn’t need to make both

1) The fact that you had placards for bus stops alone, is evident enough that the completion date of this new network was expedited...

2) I'll just be blunt here.... LIRR Central Islip was always a shit terminal in the old network & really has no business being a pulse point at all in the new network...

3) @Lex got the right idea with this, AFAIC... It, along with the #2, as major/vital east-west routes in the network that currently pan through multiple of these timed connection points, should have more service than the other routes at the respective timed connection points they gotta get to... That way, there'd be that much less of a need/reliance to have those 2 routes (route #2 & route #4) try to link up at these different timed connection points....

18 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

IDK how they went about scheduling things and at what point they started doing so, but as far as the pulse points, they should have started with the one with no through routes (Patchogue) and gone from there to see how it would play out. Babylon may have been able to work out a pulse point since the 2 passes in both directions around the same time, and then time the other routes could have been timed accordingly.

I don't have a problem with Brentwood, especially since under this new system they ended up mixing up the segments of many of the former routes together (both north and south of the LIRR station). It should stay to allow riders to transfer wherever needed, and this will likely be one of the more useful transfer points....

To be clear, my problem is not with Brentwood singularly - my problem is with multiple pulse points in one network.... Of the current pulse points, Brentwood potentially serves as the best one in the whole county... Brentwood as a pulse point shouldn't need to be graduated to, from having Patchogue serve as a pulse point first...

15 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

17: Out of the all the 30-minute routes that provided, I personally see the 17 as the weakest one out of all. I believe that part of the reason it even got it was because it managed to fit with the 11 in terms of total runtime, the timed transfers at the pulse locations and whatnot. With that said, I don't think truncating the route makes much sense without doing much else for the route. Even if it operate every 60 minutes I see this as a route that wouldn't get many people, more so with some of the changes you're proposing. 

As far as separating the 17 from the 11, I'm somewhere between indifferent and not opposed to it, because while I think the 11/17 interlining setup holds down the 17 in particular I don't know what could be done for the route. I don't think truncating the 17 though is the way, it will need as much direct service to as many locations as possible. Given that 2 doesn't connect to the 7, 11, and 12, extending the 17 out to Bay Shore may be an option because that may get you some ridership. If not for that, IDK what can be done going past the Hauppauge end of the route. However I would keep it serving Montauk Highway.

I don't think there's any question that the current #17 looms as the weakest of them.... But yeah, I can't agree with having that route running back & forth LIRR Islip & LIRR Central Islip all day either.... I don't remotely see LIRR Islip doing much of anything for it...

As far as extensions go, I would extend every other trip past the County offices to have it serve Siena Hospital... Unless actually requested, you don't revoke service from medical centers like that....  As for Bay Shore, I agree, that was a missed opportunity; I always thought there should've been a route running from either Bay Shore (Mechanicsville rd) or LIRR Babylon, running to the Federal courts in Central Islip... I could most certainly see folks xferring b/w #12's & #17's if it served Bay Shore....

In any event, I think it was hypocritical to have done away with north-south bus service from Sayville (which had buses formerly ending at Montauk Hwy), but have this new #17 end at Carleton/Montauk Hwy....

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) If you think about it, with the old 3C, there were two buses per hour heading south out of Central Islip LIRR (one towards Carleton Avenue and the courthouses and one towards Lowell Avenue and the South Shore Mall). Plus the S42 heading south, so I don't think they would've essentially taken three hourly routes and replaced them with one single hourly route that doesn't even connect to the LIRR on the southern end.

2) I think the route south of the Central Islip LIRR station holds its own, but I wouldn't be opposed to an extension to Bay Shore.

1) A better way of putting this is, is that you don't think they'd combine service from 3 corridors (Carleton av., Connetquot av., Islip av.) into one corridor, that doesn't even have it connecting to the RR....

2) Only between the LIRR station & the courts.... Carleton, south of the Southern state was, and I don't doubt still is just as dead as Islip av. was with the old S42.... I get the basic having of a bus route serve a RR station, but I think you're overemphasizing having the S17 serve LIRR Islip in particular...

2 hours ago, FlxMtroD said:

107 (NJT needs to get with PA for gate assignment change just to have artics run throughout the day and weekends. Currently, only a few inbound artics into NYC and outbound fro the PABT during rush hour)

I do not know why NJT continues to underestimate/shortchange the #107 in terms of capacity per trip... You hate the NABI's on the #171, but I've grown quite irritated with 40-footers (and the f***ed up ones at that) on the #107... While they're used interchangeably, the #37 is still secondary to the #107 - but yet they run 40'-ers on the #107 as if demand is equivalent to the #37 or something.... Quite maddening....

14 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church The first time was the opposite problem...the buses weren't waiting at all...there is a ton of padding in the schedule in the vicinity of the transfer points, so most buses treated that as a normal stop (so for example, that S92 heading towards Greenport ended up being a good 15 minutes early for the whole rest of the route once he passed Riverhead)

The problem is the scheduled runtime is too much...I know one thing that they mentioned is that the old system was unreliable and they needed to add some runtime to the routes to keep them on schedule, but they went overkill on it and now you have the problem of buses leaving early. 

With the way they had originally advertised the pulse system, they said buses would be waiting 3-5 minutes which I found to be reasonable...I asked them if this applied at terminals and they never got back to me...come to find out they're essentially treating all of these intermediate stops as terminals and giving them a good 10 minutes (not 3-5 as originally promised) of padding at each one...the S4 runs every 30 minutes and it's getting a good 20 minutes of padding at Brentwood/Central Islip....

The scheduled runtime is too much, because they're trying to have dissimilar routes (in terms of route length/mileage and/or in terms of runtime) all connect to each other at these timed connection points..... The way I see it, it's clear that it's all guesswork & it's going to take trial & error to get as close to having the routes at these timed connection points connect to each other in a reasonable timeframe.... To come out of the gate promising 3-5 min. waits when (at least in these two different fantrip instances of yours) the worst possible scenarios on both sides of the spectrum occurred, is a problem.... Let's see how serious (and with what amount of diligence) they'll take this matter....

Your inquiry (to them) is asking too much of them, when they apparently can't get these mid-route pulse points to reasonably pan out..... I mean, godspeed to this new network, but I'm going to remain being of the belief that any attempt to have 1] mid-route pulse points (plural), period, and 2] in a network that clearly isn't pulse point centric is infeasible, unworkable, and dare I say it - irrational...

14 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'd say the pulse system can work at Patchogue, Amityville, Riverhead (I think the S92 should be split anyway), and the setup they have at Bay Shore (the S7/11/12 time with each other but not with the S2). I believe Farmingdale State College has the S12 arriving at :26 and leaving at :41 while the S1 passes at :30, so I'd include that as an example of a successful pulse point even though it's not official. 

For Brentwood, I think the S7 & S11 should stay linked up (if they leave Bay Shore around the same time, they should get to Brentwood around the same time). The S58 I'd primarily try to schedule based on the Riverhead timepoint, but I think it could be reasonably scheduled to meet the S7/11 at Brentwood. The S5 as mentioned, I'd restructure the route entirely to end at Central Islip...it can be timed with the S17/52 since those end there. For the S4, I'd see if it can fit into those pulse points, but if not, then Brentwood & Central Islip would become like Bay Shore where some routes just don't fit into the pulse. 

To put things into perspective, the Trip Planner actually says the quickest way from Amityville to Smith Haven is to take the S4 to Wyandanch, LIRR to Central Islip, and then the S4 again to Smith Haven (so the LIRR will save you a full 30 minute interval on the S4). It's all due to that 15-20 minutes of padding they put in at Brentwood/Central Islip. 

I mean there was something to be said for the old system of "58 to the 66, I have 2 people needing to transfer" setup. (For what it's worth I did hear that type of language on the first trip...I don't believe I heard it on the second trip). If they can't make the connection in the 3-5 minute window, then it should be on a case-by-case basis that they hold (and in some cases, there might be some other stop the connection can be made at...for example, the S4 and S6 share the same route on Suffolk Avenue from Carleton Avenue/Wheeler Road to NY-454...if somebody is trying to get from the westbound S6 to the eastbound S4, they don't need to go all the way to the LIRR station). Or there might be some other route that they can take (e.g. If someone going from Brentwood to Patchogue misses the connection to the S6 at Central Islip, they can go to Smith Haven for the S51)

AFAIC, Amityville, Central Islip, Riverhead, and Smith Haven (which is the absolute dumbest one to me in this network) have no business being pulse points - and this is me being objective, because I'm clearly not a fan of multiple pulse points in one network.... You can have routes connecting to each other at terminals without this need to have them all depart at/around the same time.... Putting that another way, a major xfer point doesn't necessarily have to be a pulse point - Which is one reason why I strongly believe they've incorporated pulse points into this network for the wrong reasons.... In any case though, I *suppose* I'm alright with Brentwood (although IDK what side of the tracks the connection/pulse point is on... which is another thing - the Man line is at grade, which adds yet another variable to all of this), Patchogue, and Bay Shore.....

Multiple pulse points to me, suggest multiple sub-networks.... Not that it has to be, but that isn't what this new network is -  it's one network with multiple pulse points....

Yeah, when b/o's would have communications over the radio with the dispatcher for the purpose of having buses hold for connections, I didn't mind that all that much because there was never a time when/where a bus I was on, was sitting idle for too too many minutes on end... 5-6 or so may have been the longest.... Never was 10 or more, because I most certainly would've remembered that - and I've fanned the old system for about 20 years, more or less....

Notice that nothing I'm saying thus far has to do with the quality of any of the routes.... Although I'm obviously not all that thrilled about the coverage losses, I have more of a gripe with how this network is structured, over the individual routes themselves....

3 hours ago, 46Dover said:

HM for Harmon Meadow Park & Ride on the 320 (I’ve even allowed Secaucus folks to board with those tickets)

15 minutes ago, 46Dover said:

Also the 308 has GA for Six Flags. 

- Good call.... Thanks.... Never knew that about the #320 (never had a reason to want to get off there)

- Damn, completely forgot about the #308... I have not rode that route in over a decade.

3 hours ago, 46Dover said:

Another thing to consider is during the winter months where snow and ice get to a point where you can’t even use artics.  For example, in such weather conditions, the 13 would go all NABI and keep the artics sidelined.  NJT needs to be careful what they wish for because they might very well get it

Right, I mean 800 buses is a lot of damn buses.... I generally hate using this term, but this is the polar opposite of right-sizing your fleet - which only leads me to believe that service cuts will follow on whatever lines they plan on replacing 40'-ers with artics with....

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church How about if the #356 were still running? That would be $3.50 for the #129 and then $2.55 for the #356 (basically the same price as going through Union City but you get to ride both routes full). 

Even given that I like to ride full routes, with respect to @Lawrence St's question, I wouldn't have taken the #129 to the #356, just like I wouldn't take the #126 to the #85 if I were actually going to the mall, for the sake of going inside the mall; shopping purposes..... But for fanning purposes, well I've tried taking the #356 on three separate occasions.... Never got around to riding it, before they ended up "temporary suspending it"....

- first time, I simply didn't know where to catch it (after having came off the #2).... Didn't see any signs anywhere, so I got fed up & took a #129 to PABT.... Looking at my trip logs as I'm typing this, I turned that trip into a pretty good Manhattan fantrip....

- second time, I just missed the damn thing after having came off the #2... At least they had those folding signs leading pax. to where they could catch the #356.... Anyway, long story short, it (the #2) was a trip via the USPS bulk mail center, and the b/o was driving distracted the whole time (as in, carrying a whole conversation with these 2 USPS employees from JSQ).... Kept looking at my watch, and by time we even reached the mail center (as in, before circling inside it), I knew I was screwed... Surprised we even got as close to catching it (the #356) as we did, TBH....

- the third time, it just never showed up.... What gave me some hope at the time, was that there was an MCI on layover at the opposite side of the terminal (where all those EZride shuttles stop at).... Of course, it ended up being another #129 (the #129 I took to get there, never went on layover; it just darted out of Secaucus Junction & DH'd to wherever it went to).... Eventually came to find out that they had stopped running the #356 at that point.

The only trip out of the 3 that i had an itinerary for, was for that second one..... All three times were on a Saturday.

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Maybe this could've been mitigated if the routes were generally scheduled to be twice as frequent as they are, but they insisted on capping frequencies at every 30 minutes with these (generally) long routes.

You probably wouldn't need to resort to such a method (holding buses for timed connections) altogether if the routes were twice as frequent.....

9 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So if there was no other option, you still wouldn’t take the 355?

And I do agree with you. Even when I worked at NJT I found that price was outrageous.

Outside of driving there, I simply wouldn't go there if the #355 was the only option.

55 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So what would you do if you had to go visit American Dream Mall? Just curious.

By transit? Because I can just simply drive there (and end up paying those exorbitant parking fees)....

If you mean by transit, I would either take *whatever* route to Union City & xfer to the #85, or the #320 option (to the #85)... Depends on what mood I'm in (as with most things).... One thing I'm not ever doing again though is the #160 to the #703.

Not sure whatever you may be trying to get at by asking me this, but I'm telling you flat out that I would not take that #355... And it's not a matter of cost/affordability for me either, it's a matter of principle, like I said earlier..... Crazy that I can go significantly deeper into NJ on NJT from NYC than the Meadowlands for less.....

1 hour ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I agree i would bet its cheaper to go through hoboken 

Not for the purpose of going to the mall (as in, to go inside the physical stores or whatever), but I fan the #126 to the #85 with some regularity... Usually do the #772 afterwards.... Anyway, that's that 3.50 + 3.15, which is $6.65.... The #355 is $9.00... You do the math... lol

Hell, the #320 to the #85 is cheaper than 9 damn dollars... I think the #320 is $4.25, while it's still a 2 zone ride on the #85 b/w Harmon Meadow & American Dream (American Dream is its own zone on the #85).... So, 4.25 + 2.55, $6.80..... Cheapest way to go is to just make your way to Union City & xfer to the #85...

I still can't get over it being cheaper to take the #111 to Jersey Gardens, or any of the Wayne expresses to Willowbrook Mall, than it is to take the #355 to American Dream.... That markup is plain old ridiculous.

Quick question....

Just found out (through an old actionkid video on yt) that a ticket on the #355 has the letters ADM on it (I refuse to ride that route out of general principle)... Are there any other tickets that displays letters (on the part of the ticket where the zone number is) ?

On 11/22/2023 at 2:16 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

They're doing a somewhat better job of holding at the timed connection points, but the issue is that the wait times are generally too long...at Brentwood I get it, but at Central Islip, there is no need to  put a good 10 minutes of padding into the schedule when there was another connection point a few minutes away at Brentwood...we saw a train at Deer Park, and the next train after that caught up to us at Central Islip...that's how much padding there is at Brentwood & Central Islip (at Brentwood I get it...if anything there was still one of the two S11 buses that we should've waited for...but at Central Islip there's no need for all of that padding...on the S6 going back oddly enough nobody got on or off at Central Islip). The S58 also left early from Smith Haven (which meant anybody coming off the S51 who wanted to head out east had to wait the full hour). 

Well hell, if the wait times are still/generally too long, then how bad was it before (as in, compared to the first time you went out there) ?

Even with all the cuts to the system, SCT's bus system is still too large to organically pull off timed connections at multiple/major xfer points in the network.... While well-intentioned, it's just not realistic.... Weird feeling, but in regards to this particular facet of the new network, I'm sitting back reading this sneering & chortling, while concurrently irritated.....

Back when you & @Mtatransit were stoked, or otherwise (apparently) optimistic about these timed connections, the very thing you're now reporting here with this, is what I figured was going to end up happening - having buses sitting idle for minutes on end, mid-route, in an attempt to make these timed connections work... Too many variables at play to have it all be pulled off naturally smoothly, or otherwise within reason.... Speaking of which, I'd go as far as to say it's unreasonable to riders that aren't seeking those particular mid-route connections; I would personally be livid if I was sitting at one stop for 10 minutes in an attempt to guarantee a connection (I'd say 5 is even pushing it, but that's the greatest amount of leeway I'd give it)... Like how much time is some poor rider on the #4 traveling between say, Deer Park & Smith Haven, having being pissed away sitting at Brentwood and at Central Islip waiting for connections that he/she doesn't need.....

To me, all it shows is how the powers that be, views the bus system.... The new network is not *the little engine that could* (so to speak)... It is not small at all, but it appears to me that the decision makers in all this, views SCT as some small bus network....

My plan was to ride the new system the first week of the new year (while I'm off work), but the more I read your posts/reports & listen to pinepower's videos regarding the new network, I want no part of this crap.

On 11/20/2023 at 7:54 AM, MysteriousBtrain said:

Probably should have asked this a while back but thinking about it with around 800 artics planned for the next 5 yrs what other routes need artics?

800 artics in 5 years? Hell, at that point, I think the question has less to do with which routes need artics & more to do with what routes they plan on throwing all these artics on (whether current service levels & usage on whatever route{s} warrants them or not)....Given said sentiment, that's how I'm going to opine on/approach this.

Quite honestly, I don't feel like going down a list of every single NNJ NJT route, so I'm just going to (lazily) use (some of) your list here as a (sort of) template & go on from there.... 

Quote

 

1 - It's consistently a healthy mix of 40' & artics being thrown on it as it is... IME, ever since I started noticing #1's at JSQ being nothing but artics (I don't think I've ever seen a 40' out of JSQ since that point, come to think of it), I started saying to myself, so they eventually plan on making it an all artic route.... Still feel like that to this day, TBH.... AFAIC, it's not a matter of if, but when....

10 - Inevitable IMO

11/28/29 - Quite frankly, I don't see any of those Bloomfield av. routes having artics thrown on them....

25/70 - Not sure when it started, but there's a slow shift occurring where artics are being used more on the #25, and the #70 is seeing more #40'-ers being thrown on them.... Sure the #70 obviously travels further, but I've always said to myself that running so many artics on the thing (70), when #25's (with nothing but 40'-ers at the time) are packed to the damn brim, were a straight up waste.... So I say that to say, much like with the #1, I can also see the #25 being fully artic at a certain point....

39* - Likely remain an artic route

70* - Don't see this remaining as an artic route

80, 81, 87 - Don't see these becoming artic routes

123 - I'm torn on whether it should/would be a full on artic route, but I just wish they stop putting MCI's on this route.

119, 128 - 40 footers on either of these routes should be considered a crime.... lol...

 

===================================

On 11/20/2023 at 10:52 AM, Lawrence St said:

The 126 comes as a surprise, with how short the route is to begin with. I would think the 84 would get artics first, at least when I've done it, ridership was significantly higher on the 84 then the 126.

The #126 should perhaps be all artic in the peak direction (plus certain times/hrs. of the day on weekends).... Aside from that, meh.

You mention the #84.... Whenever that Union City garage opens up, I think NJT's gonna go stupid/go nuts (for lack of a better term) with throwing artics on whatever routes end up running out of there...

6 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

So SCT routes are now on Google maps 

Noticed it this morning.... It appears they rearranged where buses stop inside Whitman Mall...

Now that the S1 (or route 1) has less service now, they apparently bumped it back to where the S54 used to pick up (of the SCT area of the terminal, it's the very shelter the furthest away from the n79 & those HART routes).... It used to take up the closest 2 bus shelters; right before you make that left turn for the bus shelters for the HART routes.... I would go take a look for myself, but that's clearly not worth taking the LIRR to Huntington & walking to Whitman Mall from there, to then catch the n79 (even though I still like to fan that route, given that it's been a shell of its former self)....

Also saw one of the pine sniffer's videos, where he took one of the routes to Smith Haven... One of the gripes I've always had with Smith Haven mall with the old system, was that there was no rhyme or reason where buses would pick you up around the terminal area / all the differing bus shelters... I've seen more than my fair share of people miss buses, because they were waiting at the wrong shelter, because they weren't attentive and/or diligent enough.... For the most part, it was proximate to (the pathway to) the entrance of the mall, but you still had to be alert - especially when drivers would pull up with the destination signage off or whatever... In any event, judging by his video, it still looks to be more of the same...

It amazes me how ignorant some people are to public transit.... There was this lady in front of me on the BL-42, that was talking to this dude on the phone, that was apparently waiting at 233rd to meet up with her on said BL-42.... She, like everyone else that boarded in The Bronx, got on the thing at 241st.... She had to tell the dude that the 42 don't run to 233rd on weekends.... She, like half the bus, got off at 1st & 5th (and "was gonna stop off at the store first")... They sure enough sounded like locals of the area..... I was just sitting there shaking my head the entire time....

There's no way in hell that I'm not going to keep abreast of how the bus routes around me, operate - especially SPAN wise !

42 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Ahh got it.. Than mayor copy cat went along with it and boom here we go.  Since, I work in the vicinity of the area. Traffic is gonna be horrendous and there's absolutely NO parking on Livingston in both directions and since Schermerhorn Street is one direction (Eastbound Boerum to Flatbush) Parking in that area is gonna get very stupid.

Watch for (even more) cars abusing the loose non-enforcement of the buses only rule along Fulton, west of Flatbush av. extension.

Not sure how else to put this, other than by saying that Livingston was some motorists' last hope to directly (feasibly, enough to) get into the heart of Downtown.... This is only going to increase the amount of people backdooring their way to it... Even outside of peak hours, the B61 slogs its way to get to Livingston after it turns off Columbia.... I'm not sure what's going to be worse - Atlantic, or Tillary.....

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I've always thought the Q60 should be two routes, the Manhattan portion to Queens Center and Queensboro Plaza to Jamaica.

Many many moons ago, I used to think that....

Depending on how much service that would be ran on both, you potentially run the risk of running too much service on the overlapping portion (QBP-QCM).... If you run most of the service on the QCM - Manhattan portion, service east of QCM would be short-changed (which that usage isn't anything to sneeze at).... I'm not sure if there's even a numerical sweet spot (in terms of headways, so to speak) that would appease riders of both portions....

If it's any issue that I have with current Q60 service, it's that too many buses are delayed by them running over the 59th st Bridge (or whatever the heck it's called now)... That's the main reason why I would have some trips end at QBP... IDK if they still do them, but while I get why they have/had those 33rd st short turns, they were even more of a disservice than if buses were to be stopped short of Manhattan at QBP.....

53 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

First off, what was the previous Livingston Street Plan?

This new plan is just worse and it starts on Tuesday 11/14.

Livingston St. was a part of that Better Buses Action Plan that De Bozo (De Blasio) introduced, around 4 or 5 years ago.... It was an attempt to improve bus speeds along certain corridors throughout the city.... There were about 20 corridors or so that were to see improvements, with Livingston st. being one of them.

In laymans, the previous Livingston st. plan were the first set of bus lanes that were painted along it.

6 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

I know my stance earlier was extending it to Fordham was a bit much but in the last few weeks, having to make the schlep up there before the AM rush, it fills a hole created in the lack of Bx9 service. The Bx9 departures out of West Farms Sq at those hours are: 1:49, 2:34, 3:19, 4:02, 4:45, 5:27 then 5:42 and getting better and better so roughly every 45 mins overnight. I would support the Q44 being extended to Fordham during the overnight hours (12AM - 6AM) to help bridge the gap. You could increase the Bx9 frequencies but I think there's a reason why the MTA chooses to spam the Marble Hill to Riverdale trips. Less deadhead time, less cost. The Q44 also taps into a good chunk of the Bx9 market with the proposed routing and for those that live along Southern Blvd, they could take the Bx17 instead. 

Oh, I see people taking Q44's from Fordham over the Bx9 south of Fordham rd, simply on the basis of the proposed Q44 not running along Fordham rd...

IDK about ending Bx9's at the Bronx Zoo or whatever, but I don't doubt for a second that they're going to continue to tinker with Bx9 service/levels more than they've already been doing over the years, if/when this Q44 extension comes to fruition.... I've long been of the belief that they really solely want to run Bx9's up/down Broadway all day anyway....