checkmatechamp13

2 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I totally disagree with you. Talking to people at subway stations just to ask them questions to support your predetermined conclusions does not qualify as community participation. Covid cannot be used as an excuse to avoid in person meetings to avoid discussions. They will ask the people if they would like the buses to be faster and 95 percent say yes, they will say that proves the people want fewer bus stops which is totally not the case. 

If they can’t have personal meetings because of Covid to introduce the Redesigns, why can they have personal meetings to introduce Omni? 

I worked for them for 25 years and know how hypocritical they can be. They can have the meetings on Zoom as long as they also meet with communities in person. They should be making presentations at every Community Board.

I didn't say anything about "just" asking them so predetermined questions...they should get the same level of engagement as they would at an in-person meeting. 

For the record, I remember going to a Manhattan community board where information on the Bronx redesign was being presented. As soon as I mentioned an idea outside the community board limits (which I had discussed with the community board in question and they had no problem with it), the MTA representatives put their coats on and left the meeting, and I had to chase them out into the street to get them to listen to my comment.

My point is that it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever as to where the meeting is held. If the MTA wants to engage with the attendees meaningfully, they will do so, and if they don't want to engage, they won't do so. That is the issue that needs to be addressed.

As for OMNY, they're trying to make a use of the station agent position. If they want to give them information on the bus redesigns and have them engage with the customers, I have no issue with it. 

9 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

They are all on-line. They are calling asking people questions and distributing flyers at subway stations “in-person.” Anything not to directly meet with the public. Remember how they used to make live presentations before community boards which they did before introducing new SBS routes? This is much more important and affects much more riders, yet no in-person meetings. Elected officials must make sure they happen or they should be voted out, 

I mean if they engage with the people at the subway stations the same way they engage with the people at the Zoom meetings, I have no problem with it. The future of everything is virtual...as long as the work gets done, who cares where exactly the meeting takes place?

3 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

You mean they actually answered questions and didn’t just ask you to submit them on remax or as a comment? The ones I attended, all they did was tell you what you could find out on line and didn’t answer any questions. Virtual is okay as an option but not as a substitute for on line. In virtual they don’t even have to recognize you if they don’t want to. In person, they can’t really ignore you. 

Yes, they actually engaged meaningfully at the virtual meetings. I agree they should also have some in-person events, but if the majority are online, I think that's perfectly fine.

On 12/22/2022 at 8:25 AM, BrooklynBus said:

Exactly why they don’t want to have in person meetings, but we can’t let them get away with this virtual shit where you can’t tell them how bad their plan is. 

I don't have a problem with virtual meetings. If anything it makes it more accessible, since you can do it from the comfort of your own home. And there was decent dialogue at these meetings (there was back and forth on the merits of running the Q101 to Brooklyn vs Manhattan, etc)

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

With that logic, Croton to Poughkeepsie should be the Poughkeepsie branch.

Wassaic only sees direct trains during rush hour (similar to Danbury and New Canaan). Poughkeepsie sees direct trains all day. 

Is there anyone interested is joining a Transit Advocacy Group for NJ? Message me if you are. It is in the preliminary stages (the current ones like the Lackawanna Coalition seem to focus on rail, which is definitely important, but I was looking to start something that focused equally on all modes)

@N6 Limited There's a bus to Stewart Airport from the Beacon station, and then of course the BL-12 (soon to be microtransit) to HPN.

From NYC there is a direct bus to Woodbury Commons, but you are right that there might be some demand for Westchester- Woodbury travel. (I forget offhand, maybe the Orange - Westchester Link from White Plains serves it as well)

3 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

There is a simple way to prevent people from attacking others. You don't allow to comment on someone else’s comment. You have only three actions you can take. You enter a new comment or you can thumbs up or thumbs down someone else’s comment. Anyone who doesn’t abide, has his comment deleted. But not allowing you to see what other people think is a flagrant attempt at preventing discussion. 

That's how it's set up. All of the comments are their own individual comments (but you can place a pin right next to someone else's comment and then state your own comment...which can be a response to that comment, or an entirely separate comment). I've put down next to a few that I agree with their comment, and a couple that I disagree.

I saw what they were mentioning where the guy was going around commenting all over the map (which is his right, though most of his ideas weren't that great, but a few did have something that could open a reasonable discussion about service in certain corridors), but people were going off unnecessarily strong on him.

23 hours ago, I Run Trains said:

Its Unconfirmed yet. I was just asking a supervisor about that. They may not want too many Nassau buses out there since the n54/55 goes to Amityville already.. that's what I was told thou!

Hopefully they just go through with it. By that logic, there shouldn't be too many buses terminating in Jamaica or Flushing, despite those being major hubs. With Amityville being advertised as a timed transfer point, I think it would greatly increase ridership on the n71 and n80 if those were to be extended out there. (The n80 to the S2 would basically be a substitute for the minimal service on the Central Branch between Hicksville & Babylon, and the n71 to the S2, S4, or S10 would somewhat substitute for the loss of the old n72.

10 hours ago, The TransitMan said:

That S66 is long enough as it is WITH the extension to the LIRR (which is about time) and I'm kind of ok with the Peconic Bay Medical Center...BUT that S80? Removing service from Calverton will not go over well. I know some people who live in that area and again it will not go over well.

Part of it is mitigated with the timed transfer point at Riverhead (so a bit of recovery time will be built into the schedule at Riverhead LIRR station)

If the S92 were split at Riverhead, perhaps one of those splits could head over to Calverton. 

On 12/15/2022 at 3:56 AM, aemoreira81 said:

Curious: with Sunrise Mall’s demise imminent, what does NICE plan to do with all the routes that currently terminate there?

Also, how high is that Gillig order going? Replacing 1840-1884 as well?

N71 is getting extended to Amityville as per SCT plan (presumably they discussed it with NICE). I believe the N54/55 already go to Amityville, so it's just the N80 that needs to get extended (S1, S2, S4, and S10 will terminate at Amityville from the SCT side)

20 hours ago, jass said:

Have you heard why its a year late?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nj.com/news/2022/09/nj-transit-bus-route-redesign-is-late-in-one-city-but-improvements-are-on-the-road.html%3foutputType=amp

6 hours ago, MNR Beacon Line said:

Does anyone know if New Bus Newark is still moving forward or have they given up on it?

It's still in progress. Definitely haven't given up on it. 

11 hours ago, danielhg121 said:

Oh they had a presentation a couple days ago. They made some changes to the draft plan. Some new routes being added or routings being amended. I believe this is the Final Network Presentation.

https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/pdf/TWG Presentation on Final Network_Reimagine Transit_Final.pdf

I hope they didn't cut corners in terms of the service span, since it looks like it's all added service compared to the draft plan (Some of it necessary, some of it definitely questionable)

The S5 extended to Smith Haven via Hauppauge makes more sense than duplicating the S4 (and LIRR) to Central Islip, but I think it's a bit overkill to have the S4, S5, and S58 all running between Smith Haven & Brentwood.

The S52 turned into a bidirectional loop (similar to the present-day S20) makes a lot of sense (and also helps cover the Farmingville portion of the present-day S63)

I hope the S77Y doesn't do the same thing the present-day S68 does, where they just widen the headway and extend the trips out to Horseblock Road (they should add an extra bus to account for the branch/diversion to Yaphank)

The S3 and S10 meander a lot unnecessarily (especially the S10...they should've just branched the S2 in that area, or extended the S3 or S5 to GSB Shopping Center rather than do all the meandering). 

Glad to see the S62 was maintained (and with Sunday service added)

The S80 is really pointless. There's barely anything along Middle Road, and if they wanted to serve the senior apartments just north of the hospital, they could've extended the S66 there. (On the bright side, I definitely agree with making the transfer point at the LIRR station rather than the County Center)

16 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Isn't Saddle Liver out of business?

I don't know, is it? Their website is still up: https://www.srtbus.com/commuter.php

Can anyone confirm that Saddle River Tours is still operating its #55 route to Bloomfield & Belleville: https://www.srtbus.com/_content/commuter_schedules/55 Line from NJ to Midtown Manhattan.pdf

On Tuesday December 13th from 12pm - 1:30pm

https://www.njtransit.com/sustainabilityplan

13 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

That's my commentary for the local routes...

I'll comment on the express bus changes in my reply to others' replies in this thread thus far.

Any comments for the eastern portion of the B103? They seem to consider it a replacement for the Van Siclen portion of the B83 (I have no idea how...I guess because it goes from Van Siclen & Cozine over to the train). 

If anything, I think it should end around the Breukelen Houses (likely 105th & Farragut by the train...might as well provide the direct connection from the eastern portion of Canarsie over to the  )

22 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Do they even really need them?

Yes because the main 190 bypasses Union City heading into Manhattan. 

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I don’t know I’ve only done the 190 twice and that was the short turns.

So then you would know about ridership on them...or did you do a different short-turn?

7 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

and the fact they merged the 2 and the 100 is shocking 

That was a long time coming

5 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Also, the B68 makes fewer bus connections than the B49 causing some to have to pay additional fares like those transferring in Crown Heights. And diverting it to NY Avenue, further increases travel time for those transferring from the B49 to the B35 going toward Sunset Park. They talk about straighter more direct routes, but they rejected my proposal for the B49 to go straight on Ocean Avenue and are causing more indirect travel. 

For anyone coming from Kingsborough, the B68 to the B35 would be the way they would get to Sunset Park. For those coming from Ocean Avenue, most of them are near the Brighton Line (and the connection to the hospital does have some value). 

For any extra fare issues, they usually provide 3-legged transfers. (Hopefully they're smart about it and allow people to use the subway...for the Bx15/M125 split, they insisted that people use the M125 to get the second transfer)

4 hours ago, Kriston Lewis said:

Some armchair thoughts:

• B5/6 Limited expanded to Sundays: Took them long enough. Not sure why the 5 and 6 have different spans, that's going to get confusing.
• B15/43 in Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights: The justification of moving the northbound B15 to Kingston Avenue is to provide a better connection to the  at Kingston-Throop Avenues. But the existing route on Troy Avenue puts you about one block away from the Stuyvesant Avenue entrance of the accessible Utica Avenue station, where you have both local and express service. Moving the B43 southbound below Fulton Street takes it away from the Brooklyn Children's Museum.
• Overnight B25 truncation: I see that idea being shelved quickly, otherwise, I am happy that it's mostly left alone. Lots of older folks rely on the line since the Fulton Street Line isn't very accessible.
• B26 changes: I wanted the B26 to be re-routed to directly serve the Nostrand Avenue  station for years. Happy about that. The idea to turn it into a daytime limited on Fulton Street is also kind of interesting, the bus priority has be there for that idea to actually work out.
• B44/B49/B68: Ocean Avenue is very sleepy after a certain hour. I have serious doubts that those overnight buses will carry anyone. I don't like the idea of using the B68's resources for this. I also don't get the move of southbound service to Nostrand Avenue, having the B44 Local, B44 SBS, B49 and the subway is overkill. I have come to terms with the move of the B44 Local to Rogers Avenue.
• B55: Church Avenue finally gets its SBS to the Airport. That's also going to be a nightmare without bus priority.
• New B81: I have a strange suspicion that they created this line based on my MetroCard data, lol. I am happy about the return of local service on Coretlyou Road (and a connection between my old and new home), but I don't want it at the expense of the B103.
• Neutering of the B103: I hate it. The B103 was great, it was a point-to-point limited stop line that connected far-flung areas. If there was an example for an SBS conversion (with some tweaks), this was it. Also, why no overnight service?
• B71: This was a wasted opportunity to restore east-west service through Prospect Heights, Park Slope and Gowanus. There are no options between Ninth Street and Atlantic Avenue. What a shame.
• Express buses on Beverley Road: Beverley Road homeowners are going to fight to the death on this one. They raise hell whenever a truck manages to get onto the street, I can't imagine the reaction to a bunch of MCIs.
• Other express notes: I'm surprised that they didn't try to re-route the former Command expresses off the FDR to Sixth Avenue and Broadway. I am happy about the BM4 being re-routed to Coney Island Avenue which will maintain some Cortelyou Road service and restore part of the X29.

I agree with the B5/6 limited expansion (except I think the B5 has a really stupid routing around Gateway Mall...it should take Schenck to Vandalia and serve the mall that way.

For the B15/43, I think they were trying to provide a super-frequent corridor in between the B44 & B46.

I think the B25 should be truncated to Flatbush Avenue as was mentioned by @BM5 via Woodhaven, so that riders have the connections to the subway lines in that area.

Agree with the B26 changes.

I agree with you on the B49...it doesn't make sense to have all those services on NY Avenue. I would've routed the B49 to Brooklyn Avenue and just ended it at the hospital.

I was expecting something like the B15/35 restructuring they came up with, and I think it'll work out. The B55 makes connections to most of the subway lines in southern Brooklyn (with the exception of the 4th Avenue Line), and the B15 could use the truncation for more reliable service.

I think they want everyone to transfer to the subway for Downtown Brooklyn access, but realized the value of a Flatbush - Park Slope connection.

I agree with you on the B71...they should've also extended it to Lower Manhattan.

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

B16: Sending it to KCH is interesting, and I agree with rerouting it via Church Avenue  instead of the current route which avoids it and receives little ridership However what I wanted to see that didn't get addressed here is the lack of service on Fort Hamilton Parkway and at least some coverage service on 13th & 14th Avenues. 

B40 Rush, B41 Local, and B41 SBS: Now, I had a feeling they were going to split up the Veterans Avenue branch of the B41 from the main route, however I had a total different thing in mind (I personally thought it was going to become a feeder to/from Kings Highway  as part of modifying the B2/31/100 there). However, I question if this amount of service is necessary. Yes, I know the B40 isn't that frequent during off peak hours, however Flatbush Avenue from Empire to Nostrand can get pretty congested, especially when you have truck activity and deliveries ongoing. Even with it being a "rush" route of sorts, it's not going to matter because of the delays, and I doubt that many riders (if any) from Avenue N/Veterans Avenue will ride to Empire for the  or .

What perhaps could have been considered, is if they want to serve both, have the B40 feed into the Brighton line at Kings Highway, and then maybe either have some rush hour variant to Flatbush Avenue  , or have some B41 locals serve that area during the day. I don't see there being sufficient ridership to/from Avenue N and Veterans Avenue for the B40 to be running effectively as a LTD. 

B46: Disagree with this, they should have kept it to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. However with the B53 first coming out in the Queens redesign it was only anticipated I suppose.

B49: Umm, lol. It looks like they tried to keep this route more useful but somehow managed to make it more indirect than the existing route. This could have been handled some other way, there was no reason to swap route segments with both the B44 local AND the B68 in order to make the B49 more efficient/useful. That is up there with one of my least favorite changes. 

B53: They seriously need to let this proposal die. This is a mash of several segments together but not really being compared to the services it's replacing. 

B60/B66/B76: I'm leaning more on the indifferent side with this split. However if they're going to split the existing B60 the way they did, and they're having the B76 (East 80th Street B17 branch split off) operating via Rockaway Avenue north of Rockaway Parkway as well, why don't they just make that routing THE Rockaway Avenue route. I don't recall getting riding B60s which had a significant amount of through-riding at Rockaway Parkway . Those riders would have the B5LTD, B6 LTD, B82 local, and B82 SBS to connect to the B60 from Breukelen Houses.

B61, B81: What's the point of having both the B61 and the B81 overlapping for as much as they do between Red Hook and Park Slope. It's not even a corridor which warrants it, the heaviest portion of the B61 is between Red Hook and Downtown Brooklyn. The B61 as is can handle it, no need to add another route to it. They're eliminating like a few blocks off the B61 and adding this B81. Honestly a complete waste of resources. If this B81 is supposed to be a replacement of the B103 north of Flatbush & Nostrand, well this doesn't cut it at all. The ridership headed north of that point is overwhelmingly headed to Downtown.  

Agree with you on the B16.

I was actually expecting them to have the B9 run out to Bergen Beach.

I don't think a truncation to Woodhull Hospital is the worst idea, but I definitely agree the B53 has no business running past WBP.

Agree with you on the B76. For the Breukelen Houses, I would have a route running from Canarsie to Euclid Avenue via Glenwood Road, East 108th Street, Stanley Avenue, Eldert Lane, Sutter Avenue, Crescent Street, and Pitkin Avenue (return south via Euclid Avenue). Maybe swing over to Linden Blvd between Ashford & Fountain the way they have the proposed B20 doing. That would allow the B14 to run straight across Sutter (with that slight series of turns in Ozone Park) and terminate at Cross Bay & Rockaway (or better yet, Aqueduct Racino, or Lefferts Blvd AirTrain station).

For Pennsylvania Avenue, I actually think the B13 should be providing the Gateway - Starrett City connection, and have a route down Van Siclen providing the connection to the rest of ENY.

I agree with you on the B61/81...I think the B61 should go no further than 4th Avenue. I think their general argument is that Park Slope (and Red Hook) - Flatbush is relatively difficult by mass transit (I know Red Hook specifically was mentioned in the ECG as an area they wanted to focus on), but Downtown Brooklyn - Flatbush has the subway and B41.  

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And not only that, but also routes could’ve been straightened out on Fort Hamilton Parkway and on 13th Avenue, so both corridors get one route each rather than what we have now and in the draft plan. More direct trips.

I agree.

2 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well they aren’t. I also wanted more Avenue N/Veterans Avenue service on weekends, but that didn’t work out well. Also no Avenue K local service straight to Ralph Avenue to fill in major east-west service gaps in my area (Flatlands Avenue is in a diagonal orientation).

I think they're of the belief that the slight B82 reroute onto Avenue K (and the frequency of the route) is sufficient compensation for the lack of through Avenue K service (though I do agree that it should exist for the purposes of connecting to Flatbush/Nostrand).

4 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

What does nwk bus redesign proposal do?

The Bloomfield Avenue routes (#11/28/29) run every 30 minutes individually, and every 10 minutes on the combined portion between Montclair and Newark Penn. (That much I agree with...the go28 remaining I can also understand, but I think the #72 needs to be completely restructured)

5 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Random proposal regarding the 11 and 28 

Have them both go to Willowbrook fulltime 

Keep the 11 on 23 all times making the straight shot 

And the route the 28 takes when extended from Montclair state it will take it full time and the 11 stays straight on 23

I actually agree with the Newark Bus Redesign proposal...just boost service on both of those routes slightly, but leave the #28 ending at MSU. The #11 is the quicker of the two routes anyway.

14 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I'm thinking the LIRR need to standardize it's schedule anyways. Under the current schedule, it's an absolute mess of some trains stopping at Woodside, some Woodside, Kew Garden, some Forest Hills, Kew Garden, etc. So I agree with you, we should have a standardized local, express setup. Not looking at the track patterns, here is what I am thinking

Main Line service would look like 

Grand Central - Hempstead, all local stops to Floral Park every 30 minutes

Penn Station - Huntington (Penn Sta, Jamaica, QV or Floral, all local to Huntington) every 30 minutes

Grand Central - Ronkonkoma (Penn Sta, Jamaica, Mineola, Hicksville

The Huntington train would connect with Hempstead train at Floral Park, and the Ronkonkoma train would connect with the Huntington train at Hicksville. Kind of similar to the zone setup by Metro North. it would also eliminate the Jamaica backtrack people from Queens need to do to go further east.

Regarding Oyster Bay, don't they all continue out to Jamaica? In some ways that is even worse because it needs to navigate all the tracks presenting potential conflicts with main Line locals and expresses

On weekends with the headway LIRR is proposing, I am wondering how many people under the schedules the MTA planned will actually get off at Jamaica to transfer to a GC/PS train versus just waiting for the train to the correct terminal or getting off at GC and walk.

I agree...the MTA needs to standardize its service, both peak and off-peak. You have these busy Main Line trains from Huntington and Ronkonkoma making stops in Hollis for crying out loud. During rush hour, the local stops from Floral Park to Hicksville should be covered by Huntington, Farmingdale, and East Williston trains (maybe with some Huntington & Farmingdale trains running express west of Mineola), with trains from Port Jefferson & Ronkonkoma (and of course, any point off the Montauk Branch) making express stops. (Ideally Mineola would've been built with island platforms, but of course that ship has sailed)

For Kew Gardens, Forest Hills, and Woodside, perhaps a second branch (maybe Long Beach) could provide local service with service to Penn. (Or alternate trains, some running express and bypassing Rosedale, Laurelton, Locust Manor, Kew Gardens, Forest Hills, and Woodside, and others making those stops). 

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The one thing I found interesting was that, of the old Red & Tan routes that ran along portions of current NJT routes, there was seldom any interchangeability going on... You either had the riders that was anti-NJT or anti Red&Tan (for whatever their reasons).....

I think a good part of it has to do with the fact that (to my knowledge) there's no cross-honoring, so if you have a pass or ticket for one, you can't use it on the other service. For a lot of these services (Lakeland, DeCamp, Red & Tan, Coach USA Suburban, etc) it would be nice if NJT took them over (maybe even contracting with them to provide the service, but at least integrating the fares)

10 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Question.....How come University Heights and Morris Heights are listed as being stations in the Bronx...But Marble hill is listed as being in Manhattan?? Can someone explain that to me

The neighborhood of Marble Hill is politically part of Manhattan, though geographically it is The Bronx (I think something like 7 of the 11 buildings of the Marble Hill Houses are in Manhattan). It has to do with the Harlem River originally running a bit further north, and when the course of the river changed, the neighborhood ended up being attached to The Bronx, but is still considered Manhattan. (Same thing with the train stop)