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

    840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Q43 Floral Park

  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...
  12. Thanks, guess I'll be leaving early... I'm off Sedgwick/Bailey so same.
  13. No, the schedule says "night" paving Wednesday-Friday...
  14. lol I know but the Peak AM BxM3 has 2 service patterns (Getty Sq SX vs. VCP local) with the same designation signs. I'm sure it'll end move around but YON operators generally like to take the same bus on the same day (so assuming it stays longer than a week, there's a decent chance it might be back on the BxM3 next Thursday). The issue becomes that even if 0023 has a tracker, the only way to know where a BxM3 originates (without a rider/operator's help) would be to check the bustime app before the run gets south of Fordham.
  15. If true: Bx36: I see the short turns still being 40fts. Bx19: needs all the help it can get. Bx15/39: I'm definitely biased on this as a KB rider but IMO they consistently gets the short end of the stick... they lost Bx55 LTD runs for Bx15 local runs which sucked for operators (I also can't think of another route where the locals are at 1 depot and the LTDs are at another). Then the Bx41 for the Bx39 which meant no SBS runs and longer deadheads. Every time a new order comes in either GH gets them first (NGs/LFS), they have to split it with GH (47xxs) or they get hand me downs that have been walloped elsewhere (the LFSAs). Putting the Bx15 out of KB would be a step in the right direction. Bx17: see below Bx35: makes sense That's what I'm trying to figure out.... The only route that can move to KB without them needing a lot more buses is the Bx32 (which would make more sense). I feel like it's like the Bx9, you might see 1-2 daily.
  16. the same thing happened when they paved Broadway 238-242 a few weeks back... 8pm Mid week, nothing on the site and I'm waiting for a S/B Bx9 at 234 (buses keep going north). 15 mins in and the N/B buses start turning off onto random Kingsbridge Streets, 20 minutes in and we see a S/B Bx9 get to 242 and just sit there. 30 mins in the dispatcher drives by and yells out theres no Bx9 service at all and causes a panic because people don't know how to commute outside their regular routes. I get to 238 for the Bx3 and there are elderly people who got taken up to North without warning and had to take the Bx10 back. Saw the BxM3 on Bailey so I guess it went VCW-Bailey-230 and then via the 1/2/18. An hour later when I get home, I see the detours finally posted and come to find the Bx9 was stopping at 231(didn't see a single one make the right turn though). I understand that the assumption is everyone has access to the internet but not posting paper signage is lazy, having the dispatcher/operators misinform or not inform people is wild.
  17. Nice. Was it on a SX or local run? Trying to see my odds of catching it next week.
  18. I'll get around to riding the SX one of these days to see how it goes... my 2 worst express rides were: sitting in the rear stairwell on a SRO YON 92xx w/ mix-match seats and no heat in the dead of winter and a O5 CNG with local seats on the old 1A that hit every pothole to the point where a panel dislodged from the undercarriage and dragged from QB to Main. We don't have suburban 40 fts anymore so I just don't understand how you interline them and don't give the operator enough time to swap out buses... You pretty much have to pass BP to get from the Q64/110/112 to Rochdale and if its a Brewer run I can't fathom why you would just end at the Depot. QM1/2/9: don't know too much about the current routes but this looks good on a map QM3: Pros: it skips Northern west of Flushing-Main Neutral: While I've never seen anyone use it on LN, it's a long walk to Northern or HHE. Cons: Like B35 said it not serving Northern west of Utopia would kill it. PW service is better East of Bayside (hence the QM3 ridership being higher west of there). The time we save off Northern (w/o Flushing), we lose meandering to get to Northern by Broadway. Now you could put it on Sanford and still get the Northern riders but idk where you go from there (I imagine Sanford-Kissena-HHE would just be stuck in traffic)... All day service is ambitious when most people would probably just want a Q12 LTD. QM4/C/S/X: QM4 Extension to OG is perfect. I'm confused... I get the service patterns but if the QM4C/S/X don't make QM4 stops, why label them the same? For the X variant you could stop at Bell and go express from there (Oceania and F Lewis are dead) QM6: eh.. LIJ is a good Q46 terminal but I'm not sure how many express riders are getting on/off there. It takes 2 minutes to go from 260-LN on Union; via GO will take 10-15 minutes and it'll be hard to stop at LN Eastbound and still make the left (unless you have it do Union-80-LN and use the Q36 stop). The stop at 75th can go but you need one at 73rd. I know it's an awful routing but the whatever serves LN has to either end at the Plaza and not serve the parkway or go to Glen Oaks because... QM8/14/37: the GCP service road is narrow east of LN and NST would lose it w/all those buses terminating there. The problem w/ ending downtown service at the plaza is the current QM8 gets good ridership in GO. I'm not sure where you have the QM14 ending but there's no GCP/LN stop at all... you can't expect the people on the service road to walk to NST, 260/LN or LN/61. QM12: Something needs to be on Yellowstone North of QB. QM21: would Rochdale be okay only having service along one side (idk how long it takes to walk through). I always wondered why there's no FL/250 st stop for the x63 but why cut Hook Creek out? QM22: I think an East Elmhurst/Jackson Heights route might fare better... QM64/68: Peak, I'd probably have the QM68 as the route at Main St and then the next stop at Midland. Let the QM64 stay the same but just run express from the Van Wyck to the city.
  19. I want to say they simply don't want to... Once they started running the Bx24 late nights, there was no reason not to kill 2 birds and interline them.
  20. They make the same stops now but I was saying if you change the QM5 route to make less stops and leave the SX with one pick up would it still be worth it (idk if the people using it are west or east of 188). Thanks for the breakdown on the hypothetical service. On side note: someone mentioned this in another thread but BP had an O7 on the QM21 this AM... While I get interlining, it seems kinda messed up to have people paying 6.50 to hit every bump on the LIE... Had to be glad it can't happen on my express route(s).
  21. I think all 3 routes already run more frequently than that in the AM (if you were to avg the 6-8am runs)... in the PM, the QM5 SX runs would be serving half the stops it serves now. Might be better off having a QM1 or QM6 SX... my comprehension of scheduling is minimal so maybe someone can break it down for me: if a route (in general) is shortened and then covered by 2 other routes, I would think it would require less buses per hour (unless the stops it's keeping to itself are the high generators) because you're going to need more buses on the 2 other routes. ex. if you split the Q27 in half at QCC; made the Flushing portion a branch of the Q26 and extended some Q83s up to old Q75 terminal to give Oakland Gardens direct Jamaica service and left the Q27 as a standalone bet Murdock-120 (an obv. horrible idea), wouldn't the branched Q26 and extended Q83 require more service than the Q27?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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