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

1,702 Excellent


About checkmatechamp13

Profile Information

  • Location
    Planet Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

1,837 profile views
  1. Interesting little note: Back when NICE conducted a survey in 2013, the n32 had one of the highest percentages of "choice riders" (Following the n57/58). See page 34. Things like this definitely serve to turn those riders away.
  2. Q47 to Serve Bulova Corporate Center

    Hence why he said "claim" they're bringing in extra fares. Of course, the MTA just uses the general "average fare" statistic to calculate how much additional revenue those passengers would generate (which goes under the assumption that a certain percentage of those riders are attracted to the system due to an improvement on one component of their trip (whether it's the bus or subway), while others will simply transfer as opposed to walking and not bring in additional revenue. In this case, if there's already a shuttle, then the additional revenue generated would be even closer to zero (if it doesn't simply result in tons of ridership loss from points north of Bulova).
  3. BUS - Random Thoughts Thread

    The thing is that those particular areas, there was/is subway service available for those who wanted to travel longer distances quickly. For those shorter-distance trips to connect to the subway, speed doesn't make as much of a difference compared to longer trips (If you travel one mile at 10 mph, it takes 6 minutes. If you travel at 20 mph, it takes 3 minutes). Compare that to a 10 mile trip across the borough, where 10 mph means it takes an hour, compared to only 30 minutes at 20 mph. It's a helpless feeling to catch (for example) an S48 or S62 from the western end of Staten Island, only to hit a traffic jam and know you have 5-6 miles left before you reach the ferry and have no choice but to sit it out. Or even just getting a slow driver on the bus, knowing that the 10 minute cushion between the bus arrival and the ferry departure (which only runs every 30 minutes for most of the day) is slowly being eaten up.
  4. Select Bus Service Discussion

    While I see what you're saying, but with the way the MTA looks for excuses to cut things, I highly doubt they would give you both the B9 and B91 as full-time routes. The B9 has slightly less service than the B41 Bergen Beach branch (as unreliable as they are, that branch has both local & limited-stop service, so combined, they offer more buses per hour than the B9 does on its own) What I think will happen is they'll bring in artics so they can reduce the headways (I can picture the B41 running similar to the Bx41 with 10-12 minute headways for most of the day on both the local and SBS, with a slight bump in favor of the SBS). The thing that really screws over the B41 is the fact that it runs near the subway once it gets north of The Junction. They'd probably figure that since the B91 covers Flatbush between Avenue N & Avenue H, and the Q35 runs all the way to Kings Plaza, they can skimp on frequency north of The Junction. The money they save from not having to run all those B91 buses between Flatbush/Nostrand & Downtown Brooklyn (and off-peak period) would likely go back to their general budget. BTW, didn't you say that long routes like the B41 shouldn't be split or shortened, because people might have built their travel patterns around not having to transfer? Why the support for their proposed B91?
  5. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    I believe the quotation marks should be around "travel" and not "claim".
  6. Select Bus Service Discussion

    I think it would just make more sense to just run the B9 24/7 (to connect riders to the Avenue M train station). Less confusing than operating a route to Flatbush/Nostrand that runs rush hours and overnights only. If that poster that somebody found a while back is any indication, the B91 (Flatbush-Bergen Beach) would only run rush hours only, and the B9 would be the primary route serving Bergen Beach. I hope they don't eliminate overnight service on that portion (when they swapped the Bx39/41 on WPR in The Bronx, the "accidentally" eliminated overnight service, and ended up just running a stupid Bx39 shuttle between Gun Hill Road & 241st Street instead of running it the full route so it can also benefit people on the southern end). At the very least, hopefully they run a B9 shuttle to Avenue M, but really, at that point, they might as well run the whole route and provide better overnight east-west service in that part of Brooklyn.
  7. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    Logically, I have to take the express bus to either Lower or Midtown Manhattan and transfer to the subway there to reach Upper Manhattan. Or am I not allowed to work and live in one borough and attend school in another? (**shrugs**) Too late, I guess, already done. In any case, a couple of more proposals: There used to be trolley tracks down the west end of 181st Street, leading down the hill that leads to Riverside Drive. I think the M5 should be extended a couple of blocks west in order to serve this neighborhood (which is geographically close to the M4/98 and train, if it weren't for the hill) Also, going back to the M101 split discussion we had before, one alternative to branching the M98 to Inwood and Washington Heights (whether it's 168th Street/NY Presbyterian or the current terminal) would be to have it run up Broadway and terminate in Inwood (that way, it serves both Washington Heights & Inwood without branching).
  8. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    Sure, believe what you want to believe. Maybe in some alternate universe, some version of me is using the M34 on a regular basis.....Last I checked, I live on Staten Island, work on Staten Island, and attend school in West Harlem, none of which is anywhere near the 34th Street corridor....but whatever floats your boat...... Alright, and I'm also hell-bent on providing benefits to riders on a route that doesn't go where I go (and would remain doing so).
  9. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    Last I checked, shorter wait times are a benefit, not a "benefit". And the only way for your proposal to benefit West Midtown and Waterside Plaza riders (which we've already established I'm not one of them, so therefore, this proposal has nothing to do with my self-interest) more than mine is for you to double (or more than double) the existing frequencies....mathematically, that's the only possible way. But you don't understand numbers (and are proud of it), so it's like talking to a wall. The thing to consider is that the PABT is physically at 40th Street, not 42nd Street. So you're talking an extra 6 blocks of walking from 34th Street (and that's assuming you actually catch an M34A and don't just give up and walk from the M34 anyway). Additionally, depending on which side of the terminal your bus arrives on (there's slightly more gates on the 8th Avenue side. For example, the 300-level gates are all on 8th Avenue), you also have to backtrack a block to 9th Avenue to catch the M34A (and also cross 42nd Street regardless) But true, I will say that at least that branch connects to a major hub and gets its share of riders. And I would also tend to agree with bringing back the M27. With how slow they are, a lot of the ridership on crosstown routes depends on the frequency, so by bumping up the frequency on the core part of 49th/50th Street, that should bring back ridership to that corridor. But I'd leave it ending at 1st Avenue with the M50. The M50 had low ridership to the UN, and heading north towards the Queensborough Bridge would only serve to add another source of congestion and delays.
  10. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    Right, so the buses that currently run to the PABT would be redirected to 34th & 12th (which is in West Midtown), and the (remaining) buses that run to Marginal Street would be redirected to Waterside Plaza (but in a manner that still serves riders at 34th & 1st eastbound, which is one short block from Marginal Street). So Waterside Plaza and West Midtown would be the primary beneficiaries of this plan (which I so selfishly created) , but riders along the core portion benefit from less bunching, because at least the buses have two consistent terminals (and also, 9th Avenue doesn't have a bus lane, whereas the western part of 34th Street does). Funny though, adding more frequent service (and just blindly doubling the amount of buses to both branches) would happen to benefit you, who works in Midtown.....
  11. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    Good, then those people (in addition to the majority of M34/34A riders) will have better service, because that's exactly what I'm proposing: More service to both of those destinations.
  12. Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

    Last I checked, I don't live or do business at Waterside Plaza or in West Midtown, Mr. Selfish.....
  13. Byford: ‘Overcrowding’ Is Not at the Root of Delays

    OK, I checked the track map and it makes sense. The advantage of the being the ones down the Brighton Line is that 4th Avenue riders can take the to DeKalb to connect to 6th Avenue, while Brighton Line riders still maintain a cross-platform transfer to a Broadway service (albeit one via Lower Manhattan). Plus it keeps the part-time Brighton Express lined up with the part-time CPW Local. Under the opposite scenario, DeKalb Avenue would only have Broadway-bound service, so Brighton Line riders looking to travel to 6th Avenue would have to transfer at Atlantic Avenue (or 34th Street).
  14. SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Do those supplements affect the run pay of the T/Os and C/Rs operating that line? I don't see why they wouldn't just install a conductor board facing the middle track, if there's that much potential for confusion.
  15. Select Bus Service Discussion

    Right, and I'm not denying that. I didn't say SBS made service worse, but I'm saying it didn't make service significantly better in the case of those particular routes. Likewise, even for the M60 and M86, ridership has remained relatively steady (but it was relatively steady even before SBS was implemented). The MTA released a Powerpoint showing fare evasion pre- and post-SBS. What it doesn't show is how it came about those numbers. If you barely patrol the buses, then of course, the number of fare evaders is going to be lower, and if you just compare it against total ridership, then percentage-wise it'll be lower. If, on the other hand, you tell the Eagle Team to report how many fare evaders and how many non-fare evaders are on the bus (which I doubt), then that would give a more accurate picture. So for that, they have a number, but it's questionable. For local vs. SBS ridership a few members did a FOIL request (See this thread and I believe @JubaionBx12+SBS did a FOIL request as well), but I agree they should make the numbers more easily available. I believe they do compare the SBS to the old limited (for example page 18 of the Bx41 One Year Progress Report). I agree that patronage of the SBS should be compared to the old limited where possible, but that would only work where the preexisting limited ran a similar span to the SBS service (the Bx12 Limited didn't have Sunday service, the Bx6 didn't have a limited, the Bx41 Limited ran rush hours, and the S79 and Manhattan crosstowns became pure SBS). So the only ones you could compare would be the Q52/53, B44, B46, and M15. (I might be missing one) Travel times of other vehicles were mentioned towards the end of the Bx41 report (not sure if they were mentioned in the other SBS reports). They don't specify the exact time the travel speeds were taken at, though (if they wanted to put forth honest statistics, they would take them at the same time, during rush hour)


Important Information

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