Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Q43 Floral Park

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About Q43 Floral Park

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. it's great that they claimed the route needed no adjustments via the redesign, just to announce a cut service on the low where most riders won't read about it. imo the bx3 unreliability is largely self-inflicted and is used to justify reducing its service. it's easier to say 'service is delayed because of 181 st traffic' nearly every day than to admit its because: a) they've been randomly ending runs at kingsbridge rd for 5+ years and won't build them into the schedule, make them trackable or have them serve the VA Hospital b) telling operators to battery run and skip stops instead of putting some type of limited service together c) won't use any artics to address the crowds (i've seen more artics wind up on the Bx32 tbh) d) won't put a dispatcher at 238 street to make sure buses don't arrive and leave together.
  2. well they could but that would decrease ridership and increase the deadhead (its the shortest one after the BxM7) for starters. After looking at this report, they'd probably use the new terminal at 262 as a means to cut the AM Super Express runs (saying it won't carry well from 262-246 only), then we have less buses that are more crowded running the whole route... my BxM3 stop is still on the chopping block after going to the meeting and explaining it's on an isolated hill without any alternatives. so I don't we need trade, I think we need to demand an explanation for how we are supposed to accept 400+ stop cuts without seeing stop by stop ridership for every route or these drastic midday/sunday express cuts without seeing the average passenger counts on the runs in danger
  3. I’ll add this one: Southbound BxM3s left Getty Square at ~5:15 (missed it because I wasn’t expecting it) and 5:35 (caught at 6pm). The former tracked on the transit app until it hit the Deegan, vanished until 125, reappeared then vanished again by 62 st. (I should have gotten the bus number from the MTA app) and the latter is the actual run. There’s nothing tracking on the s/b 6:35 run and 2 n/b buses coming up Madison now. not really sure how this happened but if it’s true we’re looking at a 2 hour south bound service gap.
  4. SBS going 262-WF is the best scenario for everyone but is it feasible for them to not short turn runs? On paper all the peak Bx12 SBS runs go to inwood but some runs end up short turning at Sedgwick/University (some runs from inwood go via 225 to university). Also, the last couple of Bx41s end at Fordham Plaza and the Bx6s end at Hunts Point . Plus KB is right there. Apart from bunching, the AM Peak schedule works (although I'm not sure why there are 5 262 bound runs bet. 5:58 and 6:08a). The issue is the PM. S/B it's running more frequently between 2:27-4:45p (peak school hours) than it is between 4:51-8pm (peak commuting hours). By the time you hit 630, every other S/B run starts dropping at 225. You then have 4-5 minute service 262-225 and 7-10 minute headways 225-WF. While we don't have the ridership data in front of us, I think it'd be logical to assume that the bulk of ridership is on the latter stretch and correspondingly that portion should have more service. The schedule also says only 3 w/b runs short turn between 5-8pm and that can't be the case when there are buses turning at 242. 50/50 doesn't work so what would be a realistic split for service?
  5. Gotcha. I think it's a lower than the Bx19 but higher than the Bx40/42. I always thought some local routes should have LTD service installed before SBS is implemented because it's a quick way to speed up service and allows them to determine if SBS is really needed. I'll have to check it out! I've been meaning to post in the redesign thread but this came up and the table agreed it wouldn't be the best approach
  6. did the B44 riders complain about that? it sounds inconvenient esp. for the elderly... I mean technically it's uphill going east from broadway between 230-238 to cross over the Deegan (not nearly as steep as east of bailey) but since it was done with 2x the distance and a larger hill, I can see the case for the Bx9 via Bailey. although if you've got a way to redesign the intersection further so the Bx3/9 don't impede each other, (nothing comes to mind other than the Bx3 not making the U-turn there), SBS via Kingsbridge Av would be a lot more ideal than Bailey. I've heard good things about s&s but always ended up having junior's.
  7. am I missing something or... split frequencies on different streets = service cut to Broadway (225-240 aka the direct connections) and service boost to Bailey/addition to Kingsbridge av? I actually can't see how to SBS it without cutting service though... there's too much service between 262-242 as is, the ridership just isn't there (in comparison to the rest of the route) and I'm not sure that segment can get any faster. imo I think we're going to need some short turn (local and sbs) runs that don't go to Riverdale before returning east in order to stop the bunching. Side note saw an op get stuck for 2 mins trying to bang the U at MCP last week so that clearly isn't best place to be turning buses either. I was under the general impression that the area around the B44 has the same elevation (can someone confirm?) whereas one would have to walk up hill to get to Bailey or Kingsbridge (which may be challenging for some people). lol if the bolded part ever happens, I will gladly direct every angry Bx3 rider to you... in all seriousness, you can't have the Bx3 making u-turns (that can already take 2-3 light sequences) and the Bx9 trying to stop + make diagonal turns at the same narrow intersection (it's gotten better and worse since the redesign). B7* and that might be a slightly bad comparison only b/c getting from Midwood to Bed-Stuy would be tedious without it (the one time I took that route, it did just seem like an after thought to the B82 & i still don't get why it ends at Flatbush like that...) this is a tad redundant because riders usually want the subway and the Bx9/10 hit the same ones (lex, 6th and 7th). there might be some people along the Bx10 on bailey who want a direct x-fer to the Bx15/17/19/21/36/40/42/Q44/beeline, but I see that group being a lot smaller than riders along the Bx9 who want a faster ride to Broadway and those connections.
  8. Yes, I think some part of it is still active between 225-230 but it turns into a trail by the time it hits VCP
  9. oddly enough they did extend Putnam Av... just south of 236 St and not far enough to have it intersect 234 St (it gave 50th more parking spaces I guess). Walking over the overpasses, there still appears to be some room (1 lane each direction). Phase 1: add a connecting roadway between 236-237 going around the BJs and make an intersection at 234 St so those plazas have a bypass road (you'd need a light at 238/putnam). Phase 2: South of 234 St run it at ground level (skipping 233-231) to intersect with Verveelen Pl. Phase 3: elevate it (I'm assuming some part of the ROW is still active) and extend Putnam Av until it ends at the 225 St overpass with an intersection at 230 St. In theory, drivers using the Deegan/coming from the east to get to the shopping plazas wouldn't have to touch Broadway (you can get in/out of every parking lot from the side streets). I know new roadways tend to generate more traffic, but it could divert enough people for them to come up a viable bus lane solution under the el. I'm glad I can bike/skate along the park if I want to but yeah... I'm also not sure adding traffic light after traffic light is the best move if they aren't synced to have traffic flowing properly.
  10. The pdf is great and I agree with the stops (small note its mosholu av). I see the logic in routing it via Bailey because it'll be faster, but in terms of pressure I think that the opposite may happen (west of GC): 1. the SBS won't serve a well utilized stop. 2. the local service will get cut down and will still have to deal with the traffic on Broadway. 3. SBS service doesn't tend to hold due to bunching or wait for passengers. IIRC one of the first issues that had to be corrected with the Bx12 SBS was that they wanted people to walk for better service when it should have been provided in the first place. Sedgwick was a LTD stop, Cedar & University were made SBS stops and people were told to use the local for Sedgwick or walk. That ignored the hill/bridge, the riders who already had to walk to the stop at Sedgwick, & the fact it made no sense to go east to get the / . The stop had to be added back. I say this because the ridership at 225/Bway is a lot higher than the ridership at Sedgwick/Fordham. SBS via Bailey = most Bx9 service not connecting current riders to the , Bx7/20, BxM1/2/18 and Hudson Line. It's about a 6-10 minute walk along 225 St between Bailey and Broadway (depending on the destination/connection and walking pace). In that amount of time, an eastbound rider could miss 1-2+ SBS buses with the possibility of a service gap (there generally won't be a crowd at the stops or traffic on Bailey to hold them). Some people won't mind but add inclement weather/bags/work fatigue + the fact that people may still have to walk when they get off the bus and I think a decent amount of people are going to stay on the local. One possible solution is having split terminals: most SBS service ends at Marble Hill-225 and some go to Riverdale-262 via Bailey. It's the only way I can think of the SBS keeping all the current direct connections while serving the whole route and making sure too much service isn't going to 262 or on Bailey. imo turning runs back east at 225 now, would improve things drastically. SBS via Broadway would be doable if you remove the parking 230-239 St for bus lanes, make turns at 231 bus only (during SBS hours) and add another N-S street between Broadway and the Deegan (extend Putnam av south to exterior).
  11. BxM1/2: Riders north of 246 St have less service north of 254 and it'll only goes to 5th av (Bxm3/18). The BxM3 might take about same amount of time to hit the Deegan as the current BxM1 via 236/Riverdale does. If the BxM1/2 start at 246/HHP, I feel like all service would end up via Spuyten Duyvil. They'd cut those AM via Riverdale Av runs and justify it by saying they won't fill up on 5 stops/were there to speed up the rides of North Riverdale riders). BxM3: Broadway will have no service (north of Mosholu) and will probably lose service once MTA sees it not carrying. The new BxM4 will be late after getting stuck on the Deegan between 233-VCP and could have Sedgwick riders standing in the AM. Woodlawn would love this though, it's the only way they'd have a chance at <30 min headways. BxM4: riders on the Concourse/Norwood willingly pay 6.50 for the route with the shortest express section and this forces them to the if they want the East Side. I wonder if putting the stops on the main road would speed it up...
  • Create New...

Important Information

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