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.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Excellent

About engineerboy6561

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm personally partial to the 108 because it was my ride out of the Ironbound if I didn't feel like taking the commuter rail
  2. It's interesting; I'm not sure I agree about optimal stop spacing being that far apart. I agree with him that in theory having a network comprised of long, strong gridded corridors and short-hop coverage lines with forced transfers can work pretty well, but I share his skepticism about the MTA's ability to pull it off, and I also worry that cutting the connection between the Mid-Bronx and 125 St is just going to overcrowd the even worse than they already are. I also have feelings about redundancy and reliability, and I worry that since the DOT is only haphazardly (at best) committed to keeping streets clear for buses it might make more sense to have multiple services serving different parts of affected corridors (like the Bx15/55 pair where the Bx55 was exempted from Manhattan congestion, the old Bx1/Bx2/Bx41 alignment where the Bx2 insulated the upper Concourse from issues on the lower and insulated Melrose from issues on Webster, and theoretically the Bx28/30 pairing where Gun Hill west is insulated from delays on the segment east of Boston Road), and I'd honestly prefer more arrangements like that than having singly covered corridors and spawning three-legged transfers everywhere.
  3. General comments: It really seems like the MTA is trying to move to a model where all the routes are either long through-running corridor routes with high frequency or shorter coverage routes that require a transfer to use to get anywhere outside of the neighborhood. That model can work (and in some cases in places like Phoenix where thru streets are half a mile to a mile apart it may be the best model) but doing that model well would require the through corridors to be fairly closely spaced, very reliable, and quite high frequency so that the high wait time for the coverage route is basically the only nonnegligible wait time in your trip, and the transfer policy needs to let people use three to four routes on one fare because a single continuous trip, especially a longer one is now much more likely to require three to four routes. For instance, going from Pennyfield Av or Robinson Av in Throgs Neck to the UWS or West Midtown used to be doable on one fare (Bx40 or Bx42 to West Farms, to the UWS or West Midtown) and now that's a two-fare trip (Bx42->Bx40-> ). Similarly, anyone going from Flushing to the Central Bronx now has a two-fare trip (Q50->Bx23->Bx26/28/30 instead of Q50->Bx26/28/30). The Bx30 suffers from this less because its diagonal orientation gives it connections to north-south and east-west through routes, but it's also a stub that's cut off from major ridership generators and is going to suffer from it. Converting the Bx18 to a circulator is probably a good thing in the long run because that route wasn't doing very much to begin with, and the service through its circulating area hasn't actually changed that much, but leaving the Bx46 as a short-hop route is a missed opportunity, converting the Bx30 into a diagonal stub route that ends about two thirds of a mile from heavy ridership generators and transfer points on one end and about 1.2-1.3 miles from a huge hub on the other end is irresponsible, and truncating everything leading into Co-op City down to the bare minimum is just plain dumb. More generally, the whole Co-op City proposal takes the corridor-circulator model to a somewhat ridiculous extreme. I get having a neighborhood circulator to provide internal and some limited amount of external connectivity, especially considering that the way Co-op City is laid out is more conducive to circular routings than through routings, but I think forcing everyone onto the circulator is a really bad idea; granted, so is making everything circulate through the whole neighborhood before leaving but I feel like there's a better middle ground, where most of the through-running buses serve some chunk of the circular area based on what makes the most sense for the routing. This is actually a pretty big service cut for Co-op City, and while building it as a fractal loop of cul-de-sacs was a pretty poor idea as far as transit connectivity is concerned we can do better than this. As far as specific routes are concerned, my thoughts are below: Bx6: Looks interesting, and ties back into the idea of Bruckner/Story/161 St serving as an SBS corridor that we saw presented initially; I'm not sure how this is going to affect people coming from Hunts Point across to Harlem though, nor am I sure how wise this is in the long run. Bx8: Are we sure we want to do that, and is ridership on the segment south of Bruckner/Crosby light enough that it makes sense to kill the 8 there as opposed to running it all the way down? I'm slightly sensitive to this as someone who used to go from Van Cortlandt Village to see a friend in Throgs Neck from time to time; walking to the 26 and taking the 26 to the 8 was the fastest way between those two points on buses (and also the most direct), but I don't know how much use the 8 gets below Crosby/Bruckner. Bx11/36/40 mid-Bronx: This looks pretty good overall; nobody's losing Manhattan coverage or a one-seat crosstown ride. Everyone does reasonably well, and the areas on the Bx36 that are getting swapped to the Bx11 are all walking distance to the and have connections to the at 174 St, so unless riders need Harlem/Washington Heights access specifically they'll be fine; if they do need that their commute got about ten minutes longer but that's probably OK. The 36 and the 40 have the same train connections; the only issue would be that people currently taking the 36 to a Manhattan bus would now need to take the 40 to the 3 or walk an extra quarter mile; it's most likely not a big deal in the greater scheme of things. Also, now that the Bx40 is off that narrow stretch of Tremont it could really use Limited service from Randall Av to University Av. In general, the benefits from straight running are more than likely to outweigh the small new inconveniences. Bx15: Unsure. On the one hand, 125 St is a disaster and needs to just not have parking and have real bus lane enforcement all the way from 12 Av to 1 Av, otherwise everything suffers. In the interim, disconnecting the Bx15 route from Manhattan is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it means that 3 Av passengers aren't seeing bunched/missing buses because of the clusterf**k on 125 St and the bridges, but on the other hand that's a whole pile of passengers having to make another three-legged transfer and/or completely reengineering their commutes (and piling onto already packed trains) to avoid the reliability issues the M125 is gonna have. Bx18: This is an interesting change; I'm not sure how making this a circulator like the Bx23 is going to work but it's an interesting idea. Bx23: The frequency boost is nice, but using this route to connect a whole pile of truncated routes isn't a decision I agree with much at all. Bx24: This is interesting; it's effectively the southern half of the post-2010 Bx8 routing (which got a whole pile of complaints at the time); I'm not sure how this is gonna go over or if it's a good idea to pick this fight. Bx29: Not sure if this is a good idea, since Bay Plaza is basically the only place to do non-grocery shopping for City Island residents and you're saving maybe five to seven minutes each way. Sure, it's not technically now a two-fare ride to Bay Plaza now, but it's a two-fare ride to anywhere north of Pelham Parkway and west of I95, which doesn't really make sense. Bx26: This is silly; you're chopping off seven stops each way and it really shouldn't matter very much, especially since if they're smart they'll extend it right back once the Metro-North station goes in on Erskine Pl; just leave it alone. Bx28: Cleaning up the Mosholu Parkway segment is nice, but Clinton HS and Tracey Towers are definitely a ridership generators and I'm not sure how much sense it makes to cut the only direct connection those places have with Co-op City. Also, the 28 really needs LTD/SBS service and a frequency boost; if you ran 10bph total across Gun Hill Rd then you could run 5bph limited and 5 local. Bx30: This is pretty dumb; it's now running only from Dreiser to WPR/Pelham and that doesn't make sense; if you're going to bring bus service back to the southern half of Boston Rd then connect it to something real. You could probably end it at any of Fordham Plaza, West Farms/Bronx Zoo or Parkchester; I'd suggest Fordham Plaza because that would completely duplicate the open-door segment on the 60/61/62 and thus it would be closer to a direct substitution; then again, I'm not sure what the ridership from WPR/Parkchester or WF would look like as opposed to the ridership along Fordham, but it would probably be worth looking at. On the east end, cutting it to Dreiser costs you useful connections; for that reason I'd probably run it down to either Bay Plaza or Erskine (for the new MNR connection). Bx34: This makes good sense and moves bus service only two blocks; it also directly connects Woodlawn to Fordham while getting the bus off of two one-lane streets. Bx38: Getting rid of this is pretty dumb; I'd run it at 5bph during the day as a local counterpart to the Bx28 LTD/SBS/whatever, and run it to Bedford Park/Paul-205 via the old Bx28 segment (if you take the Bx28 off Mosholu). Bx40/42 Throgs Neck: I understand why this looks good on paper, but I'm not sure we gain much from that; instead maybe run the Bx42 local and have the 40 run limited east of Randall Ave. Bx46: This is a pretty big missed opportunity; if you extended it to Yankee Stadium during the day then the Bx6 local would have some backup; maybe even bump the frequency to every 20 during rush when service on the Bx6 is likely at its least reliable. M100: I can see chopping it off 125 St to increase reliability, but the solution is to eliminate parking on 125 St and have regular ticket blitzes up and down 125 St to keep people out of the bus lanes; I'm wondering how many people use the M100 vs the M101 for through service between eastern 125 St and lower Amsterdam (considering that they're basically identical from 163 St/Amsterdam down to 125th and Lexington) and whether we should crowd the M101 further. M125: Interesting idea; to be honest I'd probably want to send this north up Amsterdam or Broadway at least a little bit (or at least be prepared to if the M101s start packing worse below 168 St because people heading to 125 all have to wait for the M101 now. Q50: Just no. Stop cutting everything off just outside Co-op City. Again, this one is kind of personal because I regularly met up with friends in Flushing while living in Van Cortlandt Village and I could do an hour 25 door to door by getting the Q50 to the Bx26, and with the three legged transfer I can't do that anymore. More generally, the Q50 carries between Co-op and Bruckner and it makes no sense to force people there onto another bus. If there's concern about the full run down to Erskine being excessive then maybe cut it back to Dreiser alongside the BxM7 but preserve the direct connections to the crosstown buses. BxM4: I don't mind the BxM4 taking over the old BxM11 terminal loop, but I think cutting out the Concourse is overkill and takes away a solid half of the ridership on the line, which then leaves it as a peak-only line because Woodlawn and the tip of Wakefield aren't enough to sustain all-day service. Honestly, bring back 1-2 super express trips a day and see how those run, and if those are self-sustaining then maybe look at using the 4 for Woodlawn and Wakefield only but I really doubt that will be self-sustaining in any meaningful way. BxM2: If a lot of people use it to the museums and Mt Sinai I don't see it making sense to throw all that ridership away. BxM5: Looks fine to me; it also no longer has half the walkshed for the route occupied by parks; basically the BxM5 covers everything from Laconia to WPR, while the BxM10 covers everything from Laconia to I95. BxM17: Looks like it would be fun to fan but a disaster during rush hour; Google Maps says that the run from Grand/FDR to Dreiser would be 55-100 minutes during rush on the given route, giving us 120-minute runtimes during rush; the BxM7 to the BxM18 would be faster by about 20 minutes. BxM18: This is a bad idea; Hudson Yards isn't a growth market like they think it is; honestly if you want to boost BxM18 ridership run it on York Av north of 57 St and have it make the old X90 stops to 92 St, then take the FDR to Bruckner to either the Deegan or Dyckman. Hell, you could do that with the BxM17 and send it Downtown-FDR-Yorkville-FDR-Bruckner.
  4. We need to have enough separate work done by DOT on things like bus lanes that we can keep our key corridors reliable for bus service while still maintaining decent frequency on most of these corridors, but we really also shouldn't be doing things like cutting the 30 back into the 1980s Bx7 and using the Bx23 as the only thing serving all of Co-op.
  5. That's kind of concerning, since if you want to run a network with no backups and minimal overlap you need really solid frequency and reliability on each individual line if you want to keep ridership over the long haul.
  6. I really don't like what they did with Co-op City because unless they're prepared to make the Bx23 a three-legged transfer, there's a whole lot of connectivity that's just gone; also people coming from the south and east Bronx to use the new Co-op City Metro-North station aren't gonna be able to come straight into the station on their existing crosstown buses, and you'll lose a lot of connectivity. Also, just dead-ending the 30 at Dreiser Loop and White Plains Rd isn't the best idea; I'd be tempted to through-run it to Fordham Plaza on the south end and run it via Co-op City Blvd to Erskine for the MNR connectivity (or at least Bay Plaza like CheckmateChamp suggested) rather than stubbing it out. I'd also suggest both adding a limited to the Bx28 at least on weekdays and maintaining at least some school trips to and from Clinton HS. Honestly, you could just rename the 38 the Bx28 local and drop the headways a little to an even 12 minutes middays on each line, and you'd do fine there. For the Q50 it might make sense to trim a few of the Co-op stops but not to cut it back to Pelham Bay Park (though I am slightly biased because I used to use the Bx26 -> Q50 for a one-fare ride from Bedford Park to Flushing and I want that to still be a viable option). I'm open to a fair number of the other local bus changes, though I really don't like what they've done to the BxM4. Honestly, I'm fine with the BxM5 and expanding the 4 to cover Wakefield, but the 4 really should be left as a full time express bus route on the Concourse; there's not really enough there for either the northern or southern halves of the BxM4 to exist, but when combined they work really well.
  7. Thanks! Yeah, my thought process with doing things this way is that you'd be able to build something that would basically be universal. Hell, if you add a forward converter-based power system, options for low-platforming doors and the option for a QSK19 or similar under the bogies to the M8 then you'd basically have a universal multiple-unit family that you could sell to anyone in America who was interested instead of needing to do one-off special designs for every individual commuter rail agency.
  8. Random geeky question about the M8 electrical systems; the main reason that the M8s are no good below Harold is because they're only equipped with 60Hz transformers, and the 25Hz transformer would be too bulky to fit. To my knowledge, the train is set up so 25kV is transformed down to some intermediate voltage, then rectified and fed into an inverter that drives the traction motors by means of what I'm assuming is a buck converter . I'm mostly wondering if there's a reason the propulsion system is configured in that way; you could also rectify the input voltage coming off the pantograph (giving you about 35.4kV DC north of Mill River and 17-18kV DC from Mill River down to DC), and then use a push-pull converter to drop down from 17-36kV down to the 2-3kV bus voltage (which uses a buck converter back end, four switch stacks and a transformer). The key difference is that the push-pull transformer would be operating at 20-40kHz instead of 60Hz and so would be much smaller, thus giving you a frequency-independent drive system. What are people's thoughts?
  9. Sheepshead Bay isn't a transit desert, but the B49 moves at the speed of molasses and I suspect that the market for Far Rock to the B68 would be much less than for Far Rock to the B46/B47 currently is. There may be more value from the B4 connection because I think the new bus to the B4 might serve a different market from the Q35 to the B3/B9 or offer a time savings. I'm somewhat skeptical of the size of that market though, because the vast majority of the B4's route is zoned for R4 or R5 and there's not much of a commercial corridor there other than a few doctor's offices and the like. I agree with you about the B2 and the stop moving though.
  10. Except using morning rush timetables Flatbush to Chambers St is a pretty consistent 30-31 minutes: That is fair, but the isn't meaningfully faster; it's scheduled for 35-36 minutes from Brighton to Grand St, so maybe 34.5-35 from Sheepshead Bay. The Belt Parkway is an option from Flatbush, but to make that work would then mean basically making the bus a subway shuttle only and would mean that anyone who uses the Q35 to connect with the B2, B3, B41, B46, and B47 wouldn't be able to make those connections and so you'd wind up restricting the clientele for the route to exclude people who need to get to places like the hospitals near Downstate Medical Center. Then there's the question of how frequent you want it to be; does a subway shuttle straight to Brighton carry much of anything outside rush hours, and then does it make sense to add an additional 3-6bph to Rockaway Beach Blvd or Newport Av? You'd need 4bph minimal for this to be viable because if people have the choice between the to the Q35 (which comes every 10 during rush) and a bus that comes every 20-25 minutes they'll likely default to the Q35 to avoid being the poor bastard waiting 25 minutes for the bus because of delays at DeKalb. That means you'd need 7-9 buses to operate this new route (35 minutes end to end each way, plus ten minutes swing at each end makes this a 90-minute round trip, which mandates six buses, if you want to try to match the Q35 at 6bph you'd need 9) ; are there better places for those buses to be sent? I personally think so. Alternately you could split the Q35 between Sheepshead Bay and Flatbush, but now you've dropped to 2.5-3bph on each Brooklyn branch and you've just screwed everyone. You could also extend the Q22 to Sheepshead Bay to do this, but now the reasonably reliable intra-peninsula shuttle is dealing with Brooklyn traffic and you've just shot its reliability.
  11. A couple things about that. First off, basically everything on the peninsula west of Beach 125 St is single-family homes. They already have bus service every 7-10 minutes to Brooklyn via the Q35 (every 15 on Sundays) and then service every 15-25 minutes to the via the Q22. To be honest, unless we're going to upzone the Rockaways that's really all it makes sense for them to have. As far as the I also don't necessarily know how many transit-length trips that start on the Rockaways end there; if you had a situation where there were a ton of jobs (offices, factories, shipyards, etc.) down near Arverne or Far Rock and enough housing density in Rockaway Park that the full-length Q22 was starting to get overwhelmed in its current operation then you could expand the Q22 to send all trips down to Riis Park and then look at adding additional capacity along the Q22 route by extending the Q35 along the Q22 route down to Arverne. Also, if you were going to extend the Q35 you'd basically need to put that along the same route as the Q22 because there isn't really anything of note north of Rockaway Freeway that can't easily be walked to from Rockaway Beach Blvd, and so extra capacity along the freeway or Beach Channel would go to waste. I'm also not really sure it makes sense to connect Sheepshead Bay to the Rockaways specifically because I'm not sure how many people would really be willing to take the over the ; Sheepshead Bay to Canal St is 38-40 minutes on the while Flatbush to Chambers is 30 minutes even. Also, the additional runtime from Sheepshead Bay to Kings Plaza looks to be schedule to be about 18-20 minutes, while the Q35 run from Kings Plaza to Nostrand Av is scheduled at 14 minutes. Add in the transfer option at Atlantic-Pacific, and it looks like the only reason to try to route Rockaway passengers to Sheepshead Bay would be as a relief valve if the Flatbush/Nostrand/Eastern Parkway corridor were running at or over capacity (and/or travel time and OTP on that corridor were degrading to the point that Brighton offered a clear advantage over Nostrand/Eastern); I'm not really convinced that either of these is the case at the moment. Honestly, I really don't think it works that way; for the most part people want reliable buses with nice things. There's an appreciable difference between a bus with announcements, USB ports, and WiFi and a bus without these things; however, the dividing line between those things isn't really between NGs and OGs, but rather between the 2017 and 2018 buses. Also, if the route is poor-performing and unreliable you could probably put a golden chariot on it and people would still take them if they showed up but for the most part will still refuse to plan their commutes around something that doesn't show up. Also, in general, what's the consensus on bus service in the Rockaways? Are the buses out there actually running with a low enough frequency and reliability that the network out there needs an overhaul?
  12. I'm pretty sure the idea was basically to use the as a bootleg Gateway supplement/replacement or to share the Meadowlands crowds with NJT, but considering how packed the NJT 1, 126, and PATH are a relief line through JC and Hoboken is a much better use of that capacity. As a former commuter to/from the Newark Ironbound my dream would be a to Irvington via Springfield Av/Ferry St/JFK Blvd/Newark St/Washington St; you'd effectively take enormous loads off the NJT 1, 25, and 126 this way and provide a backup for the PATH (especially considering that PATH runs every 15 on the weekends). One of three things would happen; either the neighbors would pitch an epic shitfit and it wouldn't happen, the trains would be running mostly empty to Bell Blvd and the build would have eaten money that could have gone to SAS, fixing the or other projects, or Douglaston and Little Neck would get heavily upzoned and we'd need to build northern Queens relief lines ASAP to manage the resultant crowding.
  13. I still think the sweet spot for the is around Bell Blvd; that's enough to let you reconfigure the bus network around Bayside/Flushing/Auburndale and it wouldn't make sense to go all the way out to Little Neck unless you upzoned the f**k out of it (and frankly if you did that you'd need to add new subway relief for northern Queens because the is bursting at the seams as it is.
  14. That's true; I think that was a dumb idea and stand by my assertion that you'd be carrying a lot of air if you did that, whereas a Jersey City-Newark via Hoboken connection would take a load off the 126 (which I think is one of the busiest NJT short-haul routes; that route runs buses every 1-2 minutes in peak direction and most of them are full) as well as off the PATH and the 1 bus (which runs something like every 15-20 to Jersey City and those buses are super full because the Newark stretch of the 1 does a lot of heavy lifting)

  • Create New...

Important Information

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