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

Everything posted by 67thAve

  1. And it would probably still be the same 3% - you'll just be spending an extreme amount of money to run empty buses on a good chunk of these routes.
  2. This is, to be blunt, an awful redesign. Firstly, there are no bus connections to the subways in Queens (except for Far Rockaway). Most of the frequent corridors make little sense. For instance, the Foxhurst Line deviates southwards to serve Baldwin Harbor, an area with less ridership potential than the Merrick Road corridor. But for brevity, here are some gripes I have with my local area (West Hempstead): 1) The H55 (a replacement for much of the N6) doesn't need to deviate to serve West Hempstead LIRR. And honestly, why did you decide to effectively split the N6 into two when it's objectively a well-designed route as it is (high frequencies, heavy ridership, and 24/7 service)? 2) I actually don't mind the idea of a circular service serving parts of Hempstead (the H11). The problem is that the route you chose for the circular serves the portions of Hempstead with the lowest densities and highest incomes, and therefore the lowest possible ridership. 3) The H80 (a replacement for the N31/32) is a complete waste. Most of the 31/32's ridership north of Five Corners are long-haul riders coming from Far Rockaway/Inwood and heading to Hempstead. Since the H80 does not run south of Lynbrook, ridership is effectively castrated. You also deviated the route from West Hempstead's secondmost important street (Hempstead Avenue), which also has some high levels of poverty (particularly north of Poplar) and routed it down Nassau Boulevard and Cherry Valley... two roads with little to no commerce (except for a Stop and Shop), higher incomes, and less density. 4) Lakeview has no bus service. NONE. Lakeview is a relatively impoverished area with no rail access. On a sidenote, I designed my own new NICE network a while back: https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1pCzXd7Coxy9IFy0lfZZICs0GbxmQi6be"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"111641702466247885006"}&usp=sharing
  3. I actually think that subway and bus service will remain (relatively) unchanged. Commuter rail passengers are going to take the brunt of the cuts this time around, and they're going to be severe. I'm talking potential permanent branch closures (West Hempstead and Belmont, for instance), elimination of nearly all ticket offices, and elimination of off-peak fare severe.
  4. With the MTA's currently dire financial situation requiring the reallocation of limited financial resources in a particularly acute manner, what are some potential "doomsday" cuts we could see to the LIRR and MNR in the coming year or two? Here are some ideas which I floated in my head for the Long Island Railroad: LIRR: Systemwide: Eliminate CityTicket program, eliminate Atlantic Ticket program, implement higher fares, increase parking fees, remove off-peak discounts, and close all ticket offices besides Penn Station, Jamaica, and Atlantic Terminal. Babylon Branch: Eliminate all mid-day and reverse-peak express service. Montauk Branch: Reduce service east of Speonk to one train a day, Monday through Friday outside of summer months. Summer weekend service remains, but "premium fares" with a different pricing structure than regular LIRR fares will be put in place. Oyster Bay Branch: Eliminate all non-peak service. Port Washington Branch: Reduce train service between Great Neck and Port Washington from every half-hour to every hour during non-peak hours. Ronkonkoma Branch: Eliminate all service east of Ronkonkoma, with the exception of summertime weekend service between Ronkonkoma and Greenport, which will be operated with a "premium fare" structure. West Hempstead Branch: Reduce service to two round-trip trains a day, weekdays only (1 AM Peak, one PM Peak), from West Hempstead to Jamaica. Belmont Park Branch: Eliminate all service except during the Belmont Stakes. Of course, the easiest way to solve any budget crunch would be to simply do the following: rein in the unions, and install turnstiles at all LIRR stations so conductors are no longer needed, thus saving on labor costs.
  5. Since the coronavirus pandemic is going to severely impact the MTA's already-dire financial straits, what are some potential solutions we can think of from the bus front to save cash? For me, the most obvious one is to shift all bus operations to private contractors, as NYCDOT used to do, on a depot-by-depot basis to ensure market competition. As controversial as it sounds, this may be the best course of action, as if the pandemic lasts as long as it is expected to, the MTA isn't getting back on its feet without massive cuts which will make 2010 look like a minor service reduction. Another possibility is simply to abandon territory where the MTA competes with dollar vans, as many cash-strapped transit agencies did in the ex-Soviet Union during the 1990s. Neither of these are very appealing, but they may need to be done. Of course, the obvious answer is to break up the unions, but that's never getting off the ground.
  6. Finally, a reason to cut the N57 and put that money somewhere more useful, such as better bus service in Elmont.
  7. I made some pretty severe typos in this post. Next time, I ought to proofread a bit more!
  8. Baldwin Harbor, yes. West Hempstead, no. The West Indians you see in West Hempstead are typically home aides and babysitters for the area's rapidly expanding Orthodox Jewish community, which probably is about 1/3th of the population in the area as whole now, and a sizable majority in the triangle of Hempstead Avenue, Woodfield Road, and Eagle Avenue.
  9. There would be a terminus somewhere north of Delancey Street for laying over. As for where, I am not certain. The reason for the use of the term "unidirectional loop" has to do with the length of the one-way portion.
  10. To clarify, the map itself was not for a university project, per se... it's the outgrowth of a 24-page group paper I (mostly) wrote. The M4 and M105 run south to 125th Street to provide connectivity to the IND at 125th Street. Yes, the M5 is explicitly designed as a coverage route. It's also designed to replace the current north-south portion of the M57 along West End Avenue. I took in your suggestion for the M9 and cut it back to Fulton/Broadway, and also adjusted the M11 to terminate on the south side of 125th instead of by Amsterdam Depot. The city could always make more layover space for the M14A/D with some "political maneuvering" (i.e, removal of parking spaces). The M15 was cut back to the foot of Allen Street because Water and Pearl Streets because the M103 is better-aligned to serve those portions in terms of street patterns and traffic patterns. As a concession to demand, I have decided to reinstate M20 service through the southern portion of Battery Park City... but only for the southbound direction. Waiting to turn left out of BPC onto West can take a while, so northbound service via West is retained. The M34 serving Bellevue was apparently a mistake. It doesn't. Might want to get my eyes checked... The new M98 is designed to provide a frequent and direct to Lex/125 from the north-south routes in the Heights. The service was designed explicitly with transferring in mind (if this network was implemented in reality, one trip would give you unlimited transfers in a 90 minute period). For the reason the M103 was extended south, see what I wrote up about the M15. I wouldn't have the M110 run north-south through Harlem, since that makes the route fight two different traffic flows (north-south and east-west). You'll notice that almost all routes in this new network are almost entirely north-south or east-west, with the exceptions being the M14A and M14D. The M111 is a coverage route and effectively a partial replacement of the M55. It's also designed with tourists in mind to an extent, hence why it terminates at the Met. With the M116, I felt that serving the subway at 110th was an improvement over running it down 106th. It also makes the route faster through increased directness.
  11. I chose that as a place for a terminal since it's an existing layover point. May not be the best option, though feel free to suggest others.
  12. 1) Per your suggestion, I decided to realign much of the southbound M20 routing along West Street onto Greenwich. Service will still be eliminated into Battery Park City due to service redundancy, as the Downtown Connector already serves those areas (though I would increase service hours on the Downtown Connector to make up for this via city subsidy). 2) The M103 would see service levels increase to that of the current combined M101/M102/M103 trunk along its existing route. The M101 has to go, since the route effectively serves both as a crosstown along 125th and two separate north-south services (Amsterdam north of 125th and Lexington/3rd south of 125th), making it three routes bundled into one in its current form. The M102 is rendered redundant by the existence of a realigned M3 providing bus service along Lenox Avenue, while also providing service to East Midtown, albeit via 5th/Madison instead of Lexington/3rd. 3) M7 service to South Ferry is designed to replace the existing southbound alignment of the M20 and the northbound alignment of the M55.
  13. Inspired by what the MTA did in regards to Queens, as well as by a university project I worked on this semester, I decided to come up with my own (probably shoddy) redesign for the Manhattan bus network. Feel free to roast me. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cnrGwH4jgXU9KeiFLqCTcyXatcMTfq7y&usp=sharing
  14. No 1. It helps 2 save $$$ for d MTA, as u dont need 2 hir a prufreder.
  15. This is shaping up to be a bigger disaster than Baltimore or Wellington. While Queens does need a bus network redesign, some of these ideas seem downright asinine, looking good on paper but not in reality, though the map is also very unclear. Route numbering is also going to be a big problem if these proposed changes are correct - relocating the Q83 from Eastern Queens to Woodhaven Boulevard will cause a ton of confusion. That being said, I do like the idea of a Q43 extension to LIJ. However, the big disaster with this will be the first day of operation. The MTA, befitting of its current state, will release an "interactive online map" with the bells and whistles, but no printed publicity. No schedules and no maps, because "everything is online". That's not a damn excuse when you're implementing the biggest changes to the Queens bus network in history. I would also opt to begin all Queens bus services with a set of numbers starting in the 200s, simply to avoid confusion upon implementation.
  16. A lot of that increased traffic congestion is due to recent efforts to improve pedestrian safety through the reduction of speed limits and removal of traffic light synchronization along Hempstead Turnpike, similar to Vision Zero's negative impact on buses in New York City.
  17. Never thought I would see the day that NICE became slightly more competent than the MTA at something (not that there's a high bar).
  18. Anyone here wanting to take bets as to what gets to live and what gets to die, especially since these could be worse than 2010?
  19. Printed publicity, in this day and age, is something that still needs to be taken seriously - even if the Internet has reduced how often people use it. By making customers wholly reliant on real-time tracking (knowing the MTA, they'll probably stop creating full PDF timetables for each bus route once the new site is fully up and running), the agency is no longer beholden to any set schedule - the only guideline for service the customer would be aware of would be the frequency charts listed on the back of the bus maps. Of course, that's only for Luddites, so the MTA thinks - everything is online, as everyone has (and loves!) to use their cellphones, even when they are sleeping. Who cares if the bus is 15 minutes late - whoops, it cannot be late any longer, for there is no longer any fixed schedule! Also, notice how little money this saves the MTA. Many transit agencies (more often abroad - in particular, this was the case when I went to Germany in May) are able to cover the costs of printed publicity by including advertisements and/or charging a nominal fee for the publication. Notice how many Guide-a-Ride cases have empty panels with nothing at all? Why not use that as ad space to cover the costs?
  20. What should scare you is that the n31/32 are probably among the most reliable services that NICE operates.
  21. I would say this is actually a very good set of service changes for NICE, especially considering that about a year ago, every service change was just a service cut. Splitting the n22 into a inner local section and an outer express section will speed up trips a lot for passengers going east of Roosevelt Field, but I'd local services to get more crowded because the n22x doesn't service 165th Street. Splitting the n24 into two weekday legs basically returns weekday service on the route to its previous form (minus the East Meadow branch). I'm not familiar enough with this route to see how it will play out. Swapping the alignments of the n41 and n43 services in Roosevelt is a solid booster for frequency along Main Street (since the n43 was not synchronized time-wise with the n40 along that leg), and since the frequency on the n41's Babylon Turnpike leg is about the same as the n43's frequency (every 30 minutes on weekdays, though with some minor variations in the case of the n43), the frequency of service remains the same. However, Babylon Turnpike and Grand Avenue passengers now have to transfer to reach Hempstead and Mineola, but they do gain a one-seat ride to NCC and Roosevelt Field (I'd say that the former two are slightly more important to the average passenger). NICE should've also done away with the n41 designation here, as the route is now the exact same as the n40. Shifting the n6 to a headway system isn't terrible due to the route's frequency: every 10 minutes weekdays and Saturdays, and every 12 minutes on Sundays. I saw that they only did the change for weekdays, when I think changing it for weekends as well would have been acceptable! Alas, I cannot praise the headway management system on my own route (the n31/32), as since September, despite the service increase to every 15 minutes (which it didn't need, if you ask me), what was likely once one of NICE's more reliable routes has really sagged (there are regular 30 minute gaps in service now). The Shore Road shuttle (basically an extended variation of the old n28) was not something I thought I would ever see coming to light, and the reality is that this route will likely not last very long. Based upon the different style of publicity (the online timetable is completely different from the rest of the routes in terms of layout, font, etc...), as well as basing the service around connections to the LIRR, the Shore Road shuttle is clearly an attempt to capture the LIRR commuter market... but the service's two main intermediate stops are a retirement home and an industrial park, which are places where LIRR riders will likely not be coming from or going to. And even if it was a commuter shuttle similar to the n57, it would almost certainly fail, because most LIRR passengers would rather not use a bus. If this route somehow manages to get some riders, I could see it becoming a secondary rush-hour branch of the n23 (the n23a?). Otherwise, I'll give it a year tops before it gets cut. If NICE really wanted to find a better place for its minibuses, mid-day service on the Elmont Flexi would be a good start.
  22. The MTA would never consider "bustituting" train services if they were on the chopping block because the bus operations of MTA are designed to facilitate travel within New York City, not from the suburbs. On a different note, perchance this is a good time for NICE to get itself into providing express bus services that run along/near the Queens/Nassau boundary and go head-to-head with the MTA...
  23. Now that's one hell of a surprise... and one stupid maneuver! It surprises me that the MTA would rather cut reasonably well-patronized express bus services in New York City rather than, for instance, various mid-day and weekend trains that get low ridership (for instance, the 10:46 outbound from Valley Stream to West Hempstead, which I have used, is a six-car consist... but I've never seen more than five passengers aboard at the same time on the damned thing).
  24. Surprised that no big service cuts have been announced yet, especially since I have heard the budget is more dire right now compared to 2010. If that is the case, say goodbye to weekend Greenport service, all off-peak West Hempstead service, and so on...
  25. Well, I guess that means goodbye to printed schedules (both Guide-a-Ride and regular leaflets) for MTA bus services, unless they do print-on-request. Then again, there's really little need for them outside of late night hours, express routes, and some outer borough local service. Wouldn't be surprised if they begin charging a dollar or so for hard copies of bus and subway maps. What I would like to see, however, is a third-party organization take up the challenge of creating some sort of "late-night transit guidebook" with full subway/bus maps and timetables for the five boroughs. I'd pay money for that!
  • Create New...

Important Information

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