Jump to content

The TransitMan

CONTRIBUTOR
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,888

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 Content Type 

Posts posted by The TransitMan

    Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

    in New York City Bus

    Posted · Edited by The TransitMan

    7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

    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 (A)... 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 (A) 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 (E)(F) & 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 (A) 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 (E)'s, (F)'s, or (J)'s, to embark on the (A) 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 (J) 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 (M)(R) & 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 (F) - QBP shuttle buses) terminating at 21st (F), but they can't have the impending Q63 end at 21st (F).... 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 (F) & 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 (7) over the (E)& the (M) 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 (M)(R), via 46th st (7) & 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.

    *****I'm responding to the quotes in boldface*****

    I think it's more of catering to Fresh Meadows if anything. The fact that SOME riders like the short-turn Q17 and their personal express route. Also, I agree with the Springfield Blvd idea. I mean BOTH Q46 and Q48 as "rush" routes?

    The Q50...I see short-turns as in the original Q48 and original Q50. Also, there needs to be some clarification because I read that the Q50 was suppose travel along the Grand Central Pkwy into LaGuardia Airport. You're right...this is a problem.

    I'm on the N/W lines frequently and when I leave/enter 39th Av I can see WESTBOUND traffic on Northern Blvd as far back as around the corner to possibly Steinway St...maybe beyond that. I see sometimes up to THREE Q101s and an occasional Q94/Q95 shuttle deadheading towards Queens Plaza. So if you're having the Q66 travel down Northern Blvd, then the Q63 is a "great idea"!

    0

    MTA Bus Operations: Fleet & Depots

    in New York City Bus

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Ultimategamer12c said:

    Yes that was what I was implying, and also to the fact that I would like to see the Q54 get some artics in exchange.  There's a large chunk of routes that Brooklyn Depots can benefit from if they were to run artics I've been keeping a close eye on most routes as of late and specifically those routes I've mentioned and they definitely need them. It's only a mater of time if they'll give the green light on it and make a change.

    I agree with the Q54. I think that B25 would also benefit too. Would you agree?

    0

    MTA Bus Operations: Fleet & Depots

    in New York City Bus

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, Ultimategamer12c said:

    With the big expansion of artics coming in for the orders I still have my eye on ENY Depot. With the whole situation of the B82 I remember hearing that for the future they'd see artics and it would either be Nova or Xcelsiors but times has changed. Also I'd say FP Ik they technically can't artics but with the new redesign of the routes I couldn't help but wonder how they'll do with them, my concerns is with the amount of people that Q58 gets and how jam packed it could get but that's just me.

    That Q58 needs artics. I agree with you...IF that's what you're implying.

    0

    Queens Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

    in New York City Bus

    Posted · Edited by The TransitMan

    I like how they implemented the NEW Jamaica Bus Terminal into the redesign. Finally putting that bus lane on 168th St to good use. So on that note....this...this...this...this...UGH! Let me begin...

    Q1...I kind of like this idea. That Q1/Q6 idea was not going to work. There would be a lot of turn-arounds at Jamaica LIRR IF that proposal went through. THIS idea is better and...well maybe take some pressure off the Q43. 

    Q2...didn't the "rush" portion start at Francis Lewis Blvd in the previous plan? Just curious.

    Q3...I feel bad for the Q3 operators having to serve much of the airport due to the construction.

    Q4...What? It's not going to Elmont? Surprise...surprise...surprise. Who didn't see that coming? (Being sarcastic here) "B35 via Church" you feel me here?

    Q5...Eh

    Q6...yeah, and?

    Q7...now THAT's more like it! An actual Rockaway Blvd route!

    Q8...New Lots Av....didn't realize there was a demand. Wonder if there will be enough room with the B6, B15 and B6's assistant...the B5.

    Q9...I guess.

    Q10...Even though they got rid of the alternate routing, I still see a short-turn along the route once this is implemented.

    Q11...Lord!

    Q12...What? No service to Great Neck LIRR Station? ;-)

    Q13...swap streets...same result

    Q14...LMAO!

    Q15...Whatever

    Q16...that Utopia Pkwy branch still exists?

    Q17...this will give me a good excuse to ride the Q44 SBS between Jamaica and Flushing because Kissena Blvd alone will kill this route once this is implemented.

    Q18...Life is good in Maspeth!

    Q19...Figures

    Q20...the reroute to follow the Q60 on Jamaica Av then Queens Blvd is suspect. Have to experience this to really give a take on it. As far as Flushing portion goes, it's the "Q44FS via Mitchell-Linden" to me is how I see this.

    Q22...Really? Far Rockaway LIRR?

    Q23...I have to see this for myself. I mean you are shortening the route for reliable service but via Forest Hills...that won't change.

    Q24...Why do I feel like I'm living in the 1980s? Once this is implemented, I expect to see a Flxible OR GMC New Look. ;-)

    Q25...You smell that? I smell artics in the future,

    Q26...well now, 24 hour service again, huh? Using Sanford Av again too I see. Ok. This could be good.

    Q27...THANK GOD! Yank that route off Holly Av! About time! Also putting Sanford Av to good use as well. I like this! However, in Cambria Heights...really? I mean you built that area up for the Q27 and now you pull service back towards basically Linden Blvd.

    Q28...the "RUSH" route is good but in terms of students for I.S. 25 and Bayside H.S....I know students use the Q28 along Northern Blvd. We'll see.

    Q29...you survived? I mean "you survived!" Congratulations!

    Q30...This is a little personal for me as I grew up on 169th St between Gothic Drive and 84th Av. I went to P.S. 131, two blocks east of me, Jamaica H.S. (which has been closed) and Thomas Edison H.S. two blocks west of me. The proposal is to cut Gothic Drive bus stop and then have the Q30 RUSH through this area is not going to fly. Then I see that the Q30 will travel along Hillside Av and then along Merrick Blvd to pass by the bus terminal. I guess they are maintaining that bus lane. That I like.

     

    I'll post more later.

    4

    Bee-Line Bus Fleet Replacements (2023)

    in Other Transit Systems

    Posted

    On 12/4/2023 at 7:28 PM, Cait Sith said:

    Source? Last I read, it was supposed to be less than 50 XDE40s and 10 XDE35s to send the short Orion Vs into retirement.

    So "maybe"..."maybe"...that sounds like a replacement of the 2005 Orion 05.505 and the 2008 Orion 05.501 Suburbans? I mean they are what 27 2008 Orion Suburbans left?

    0

    Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

    in Suffolk County Transit

    Posted · Edited by The TransitMan

    7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

    @The TransitMan Starting the last two trips at Bridgehampton would mean that East Hampton and Sag Harbor see their last buses shortly after 5pm...not acceptable given that one of the main selling points of this new network was later evening service.

    For the 66, how long of a layover does the B/O take at the medical center and at Riverhead? If the bus goes out as the next trip, that means there is roughly a 20 minute layover on weekdays (and a 59 minute layover on weekends). 

    Well then maybe the LAST trip because that ridership going towards Orient Point is basically dead. Maybe in the summer would be different. As for the layover in Riverhead, there's a 7-11 and Dunkin Donuts with the hospital for a restroom so since #7029 (66) past by the station, then came back to pick up on it's way to Patchogue...it took about maybe 15? Remember, this was the 9 PM bus to Patchogue. 

    0

    Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

    in Suffolk County Transit

    Posted · Edited by The TransitMan

    So I was in Riverhead last night while waiting for the 9:32 train to Ronkonkoma and I must say that seeing buses after at least 8 PM is very weird to me. Also, they are now rerouted to stop at the train station...again. The 62 (westbound), 66 (BOTH directions), 80 (loop-de-loop...LOL) and 92 (westbound) ALL stop across the street from the station. Only the 58 (westbound) stops in front of the station like before. Not sure if the 92 (eastbound) stops in front of the station...looks like it as I saw a sign that says that attached to the old bus stop. Should have taken a picture of that.

    By the way, the last stop for the 66 in Riverhead is Peconic Bay Medical Center. I THOUGHT per the schedule it was Riverhead LIRR...apparently not. The 58 sits in the parking lot...like what #1037 did last night (that bus...WHOA! What a sound!) Honestly, I like that arrangement better AND the 66 does carry although that could stay 30 minutes ALL day. The last two westbound trips on the 92 should start from Bridgehampton. When I got on in Southampton, the driver had to close his partition...which means the bus was empty. LOL! 

    0

    Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

    in Suffolk County Transit

    Posted

    16 minutes ago, 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. 

    Well at least they're using regular buses on the 10. Saw #7017 on the 10 this morning. Eh, it's Sunday I know but still I was expecting an ARBOC?

    0

    Promotion to Train Operator exam 4700 ( postponed)

    in Transit Employment

    Posted

    8 hours ago, train1290 said:

    Hi guys, so earlier this evening I received an email that the Promotion to train operator exam no. 4700 has been postponed until further notice. Any one else get a text message or an email? Also as for studying for the exam besides studying the signals in the blue rule book that you get when you get hired, What else should we study besides the signals? Thank you

    I got the same message via text. The majority is not happy but hey...we get more time to study.

    As for what else to study...start looking at bulletins. I was told to go back at least a couple of years worth. However, I was not given a specific bulletin number if you will. Good luck to you!

    0

    Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

    in Suffolk County Transit

    Posted

    2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

    Some more updates:

    * Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 80 in Riverhead will operate as a hourly one-way circulator route beginning and ending at the Riverhead LIRR timed transfer. Service on Route 80 will now be available at Calverton Hills, the Riverhead Plaza shopping center (Gala Fresh), and Suffolk County DSS offices. See route notice here and timetable here for more information. (The weekday 58 diversion to Calverton Hills will no longer operate starting Monday).

    * Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 3 will no longer operate on Half Hollow Road south of the Long Island Expressway. Route 3 will now continue along Deer Park Avenue (north of Half Hollow Road) and the Long Island Expressway Service Roads (between Deer Park Avenue and Half Hollow Road). See route notice here for more information.

    * Beginning Sunday December 3rd, Route 53 will loop into College Plaza in Selden both northbound and southbound to serve a new stop near Wren Kitchens/ShopRite.

    THAT did not take long either. I knew that was going to happen by bringing service back to Calverton Hills...just a matter of when.

    0

    Suffolk County Draft Plan Released

    in Suffolk County Transit

    Posted

    On 11/7/2023 at 1:18 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

    Just spoke with Suffolk Bus and there's two eastbound trips on the 58 that are diverting to serve Calverton Hills (they will arrive at 9:45am and 4:45pm). No westbound service will be offered (Riders will have to backtrack through Riverhead or one of the transfer points heading west). 

     

    On 11/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

    Service Adjustment: The eastbound 58 departing Brentwood LIRR at 8:05 AM will stop at Toppings Path and Edwards Avenue at 9:45 AM. The eastbound 58 departing Brentwood LIRR at 3:05 PM will stop at Toppings Path and Edwards Avenue at 4:50 PM. There will be no service to NYS25 between Edwards Avenue and Riverhead LIRR on these trips. For access to NYS25, please transfer to a westbound 58 at Riverhead LIRR

    ...and THAT didn't take long! I knew those residents in Calverton Hills were not going to go quietly! Taking away the 8A and replacing it with...nothing. Yeah, that did not take long. I'm surprised that is not on Google maps yet...LOL!

    I see more changes coming.

    1

    MTA Bus Operations: Scrapped Equipment List

    in New York City Bus

    Posted

    Greetings!

     

    The FIRST PAGE has been updated! Submitted for your approval! Enjoy!

     

    On 9/28/2023 at 10:59 PM, Schooltripper7989 said:

    Just for the online roster still have 3749 active out of jfk that bus has been retired and no longer in service since February

     

    "Schooltripper7989" that bus has been on the list since at least April or May.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept