checkmatechamp13

It's the BL-31 that goes to Indian Point right now (though to be fair, the two routes are interlined, so it's the same physical bus serving both routes). At tonight's meeting, they seemed to be lumping "Those waterfront areas west of Route 9" all together. Obviously Verplanck is residential, while the area around Indian Point is industrial. (Though they did seem open to the possibility of running microtransit to that area). But in any case, if they want all the long-distance passengers to take Metro-North anyway, I don't see the harm in having the BL-14 make the deviation to Verplanck. If it runs to Mount Kisco, it'll be able to serve Yorktown Heights proper and still offer the connections to Metro-North and the BL-19. FWIW, they did mention at the meeting that they were having regular meetings with the MTA about this, so it's possible. I will say, you are right about the contrast. I remember a rush hour Metro-North training pulling into Port Chester and a whole crowd of people got off, and not a single one transferred to the BL-13. (Granted, Metro-North doesn't exactly make it easy considering it has all these random stopping patterns that make it hard to use for intra-Westchester travel, especially on the New Haven Line) Because in some areas, fixed route service may not be the most efficient method of serving the transportation needs of that area. If you have a meandering route with a bunch of deviation that are hit-or-miss as to whether a single person wants to get on/off there on a given trip, running it as a fixed route is going to waste time going through every single deviation. In the age of smartphones, it is a lot easier to call the dispatcher and have a more efficient trip than it was way back when the route was first established. I think a certain amount of that is related to how hard bus-train connections are in that part of the county to begin with. Peekskill MNRR is only served by buses during rush hour, (and for all the distance that the BL-14 runs near the Hudson Line, it doesn't actually serve any of its stations). Between the lack of connections and the extra fare (not to mention that intra-Westchester commuters need to transfer again at Croton-Harmon), the current setup isn't conducive to using a train-bus combo. But if there were consistent all-day service connecting to the train, and it was the train heading directly to White Plains, and you had a free transfer, I think you could get people on-board (no pun intended) with the idea. That being said, I do agree there should at least be some direct rush hour service between Peekskill & White Plains (e.g. Run the BL-77 through the heart of Yorktown Heights, then head up towards JVM and back down to Peekskill)

And when was that? I know they are slowly and obviously trying to eliminate it but I don't recall them actually directly proposing it's elimination until this draft plan.

Under the NewBus plan, they would have a microtransit zone replace the section through the Port of Newark, so that would be less of an issue, but I agree it's better to leave the setup as the #40 running to Jersey Gardens and the #62 running to the Elizabeth NJT station. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the #40 actually serves the passenger terminals at Newark Airport. I definitely think something should be covering the section from the passenger terminals to Elizabeth, so it makes sense to leave the #62 running to Elizabeth (or like you mentioned, potentially a bit further south).

@BM5 via Woodhaven The BL-5 is likely interlined with something in White Plains. I'd be shocked if they gave it all that layover time for the whole day. That being said, it seems like it's the resources of multiple routes being used to add that extra BL-13 service (BL-5 & BL-14 to Elmsford, BL-1W to Tarrytown), though they have the BL-103/104 (moreso the 103) competing with it to a certain extent.

@B35 via Church The microtransit zone extends to Hudson Valley Hospital and essentially takes the two buses that the BL-16 is assigned and has them run on-demand (or at least somewhat on-demand, my guess is that there would be a timed transfer in Peekskill) between JVM and Peekskill. The same attention to topography seems to apply to the Ossining microtransit zone as well (and obviously the BL-32/South Yonkers microtransit replacement) @BM5 via Woodhaven While I can see the use in an extension of the BL-108 to Port Chester, I don't think it would be worth getting rid of the Port Chester microtransit zone for it. The King Street corridor could definitely use some type of transit service. For the BL-5 being routed away from White Plains, I think the big idea is to encourage use of the added BL-13 service. (I didn't check the map but depending on the routing of the BL-3, perhaps a stop or two can be added along Nepperhan, especially if the alternative is diverting it to the Yonkers MNRR station)

I mean the microtransit is pretty much like a shared taxi. The same way somebody can request an Uber is the same way someone can request a microtransit pickup.

They want White Plains - Fordham riders to take Metro-North (as part of their fare parity program with Metro-North)

@BM5 via Woodhaven @Mtatransit It ultimately comes up to a tradeoff between productivity and reliability. It is definitely possible to have a microtransit route that leaves the hub at a fixed time (for example, out in Suffolk County, they were going to do that for the microtransit routes proposed out of Patchogue). But effectively for the 12, I think something like that is what it would end up being in practice. Most of the time, they give you a "virtual bus stop" which is located along a street that a fixed route would typically run along. So in White Plains, it's virtually guaranteed that they would have people walk to the streets that the 12 (and all those other bus routes) run along, and then at the far northern/eastern end, the buses pretty much have to run up King Street to the airport. The big question is whether you want to use the extra cushion time to pick up passengers, or simply as layover time? (e.g. If a particular trip doesn't have anybody heading to/from the office parks, or to/from the airport, should the trip head straight back to White Plains and make another trip or should it layover for an extra 10-15 minutes to have it leave the terminals at a consistent time?) That being said, I think it is a good idea to split off the Armonk portion of the BL-12 into its own zone, and use that to provide more coverage in the eastern part of the county. (One of the things that is often overlooked is that a lot of these wealthier areas often have people who use the services of nannies, tutors, maids/butlers, so while ridership may be low, it might not necessarily be abysmal...and of course you may even get some wealthier riders using it to connect to Metro-North for work in Manhattan) For the BL-16 microtransit replacement, I think it would be reasonable to have its schedule oriented around the Peekskill train station (presumably the BL-14 and BL-15 will be timed and perhaps even interlined at Peekskill, and hopefully they will take Metro-North schedule into consideration when they write the bus schedule, so it makes sense to have the BL-16 microtransit replacement oriented around that schedule as well).

I'm confused by what you say "keep it exactly the same" and then go onto compare the routing of the microtransit vs the existing BL-16. The thing is that a large one way loop (which might have to change direction based on time of day) is also confusing to riders. Regarding the app, they usually have a call center as well (and then payment takes place on the bus itself, so you don't have to worry about cancelations). The other benefit is if you're making the same trip on a regular basis, you can usually put in a recurring request (and the other thing is that you can request it for a time that works better for you. If you get out of work at 3:30pm, you can request the next available pickup after 3:30pm (rather than catching an hourly bus that passes by on say, the :20s). It's essentially a modified Uber/Lyft, and I'm sure people in those areas use regular Uber/Lyft. Regarding transfers, these zones are usually designed around one or maybe two transfer points per zone. So any trips involving connecting at (in this case) Peekskill would take priority. The way I see it, your options are either a meandering fixed route (which has to make every deviation on the schedule regardless of whether people actually want it), a deviated fixed route (which can bypass certain deviations, but you either have lots of padding in the schedule, or you end of with reliability issues...even with the padding, it kind of defeats the whole purpose if the bus skips the deviation, only to wait at the next timepoint), or microtransit. While the BL-16 might not be a prime candidate (compared to say, those Hartsdale & Scarsdale zones), I don't think it's the absolute craziest idea to make it a microtransit route/zone.

Here is the full packet with a route-by-route description: https://www.westchestermobility.org/_files/ugd/b59736_3756f1a6cc7449a4b1ae1f85c3b17e67.pdf Also some more public outreach: July 25, 2022 2:30-4:30 p.m. in Peekskill by the Field Library July 26, 2022 2:30-4:30 p.m. on plaza outside Dunkin Donuts in Getty Square (Yonkers) July 27, 2022 2:30-4:30 p.m. at Mount Vernon City Hall July 29, 2022 12:30-1:30 p.m. at Westchester Medical Center (top of the oval) Note: in case of inclement weather the events in Peekskill, Yonkers, and Mount Vernon will be held the following week. The Westchester Medical Center event will be held at the same time in the basement cafeteria. Join an online forum: August 16, 2022 at 7 p.m. Click here to register via Zoom. August 17, 2022 at 12 p.m. Click here to register via Zoom.

That's where we disagree....I consider the microtransit route (or I guess microtransit zone might be a bit more accurate) to be a Bee Line route. You can get off the PART #2 at Jefferson Valley Mall and take the microtransit route to Peekskill, the same way you could get off the PART #2 at JVM and take the BL-16 into Peekskill (For example, that BL-16 trip that short-turns at JVM around 5pm...for connections to/from points east, you would have to connect to the PART #2 along Main Street). In other words, the two vehicles that are dedicated to the BL-16 would end up being used for microtransit in the portion/zone/region west of JVM. The thing with microtransit is that if the trips are only going to be following one path, you might as well make it a fixed route and call it a day. For the South Yonkers microtransit zone, on any given trip, buses might be going down Rumsey Road, Van Cortlandt Park Avenue, or Park Hill Avenue (and it might vary with the direction depending on if they're going towards or away from Downtown Yonkers). For a corresponding North Yonkers route,, you're pretty much guaranteed that every trip will have somebody who needs Walsh Road, and every trip will have somebody who needs Vineyard Avenue, and every trip will have somebody who needs Executive Blvd. I agree with you on that. But that's the thing: The buses being used to provide the microtransit are generally the same as those being used to provide the fixed route service, but you have the added flexibility. Think about it this way: Let's say we're talking about the last westbound trip of the evening (passing through Shrub Oak/Mohegan Lake), and you have people on the bus with the following destinations: 3 to the hospital (might be overnight workers, or nearby residents) 3 to Downtown Peekskill 2 to the Peekskill MNRR station 1 to Dunbar Heights 1 to Division & Oakwood Let's say that you have 2 people waiting at the hospital, 3 people waiting at the Peekskill MNRR station, and one in Downtown Peekskill, and they have destinations at Dunbar Heights and Division & Oakwood. In this case, the bus is routed straight down U.S.202 to serve the hospital first, then continues to Downtown Peekskill, continues to the MNRR station, and then gets onto the highway to go to Dunbar Heights, and then gets back on the highway to get to Division & Oakwood and drop off the remaining passengers. When you compare it to the current BL-16, the people heading to the hospital would've been served last, the people heading to Downtown Peekskill would've still had to loop through Oregon Road, the people heading to the MNRR station would've had to walk from Downtown Peekskill, the westbound passenger to Dunbar Heights would've had to walk from Division Street, and all of the eastbound riders would've been completely stranded because the last BL-16 of the evening is a westbound one. With microtransit, you have the flexibility to adjust the service to where the passengers are at any given time, rather than just sticking to the same route every single time. For those four trips each way that serve Strawberry Road, I doubt they actively consulted with the residents in that area to figure out when exactly they need to travel. They probably just picked a few random trips to provide minimal coverage in that corridor and called it a day. For some trips, probably nobody gets on/off on that segment, while at other times, there's people walking from the main alignment on U.S.6. For Jefferson Valley Mall, depending on where the passengers are, they probably won't need to make the full loop down Hill Blvd in both directions. For Downtown Peekskill, there might be times when nobody at all is going up Division Street, and buses can run straight down U.S.6.

That area will be accessed by microtransit. The purpose of the deviation was to allow people to transfer to the BL-19 or Metro-North, which provide a more direct ride to White Plains. North of Peekskill, it might not be so bad if they have it timed with the BL-15. That being said, they definitely need to have the coverage on U.S.6 match (or exceed) the span of the present-day BL-14 (whether with expanded BL-15 service, or expanded microtransit hours). For that matter, there's a few other areas seeing a span reduction (e.g. BL-20 route). If anything, they should be looking to make some of the busier routes 24/7. The question is, how many people actually get on/off between Pleasantville & Yorktown Heights? Not eliminating it. The areas it serves will be covered with microtransit. This I actually agree with you on. The Concourse Line provides access to the west side of Manhattan. I think part of it is that the BL-101 would cover the Downtown Yonkers - riders. But yes, I agree that combination is rather odd, considering the BL-7 and BL-101 provide more direct east-west service in that general vicinity. Key phrase, since fare free... That being said, it's been a long time coming unfortunately, even though it doesn't perform quite as poorly as they make it out to be. Replaced with microtransit. It'll be like the Westchester version of the Q38....I don't think it's necessarily confusing, though. Buses are still either generally heading northbound or southbound. (Not saying I agree with how they handled it....I think it should be handled with school tripper service). The BL-16 isn't fully cut...it's vehicles are repurposed as microtransit for that same area (with the exception of areas east of JVM). The remaining route will run more frequently (and have Sunday service) which is good for those in Yorktown Heights. That being said, I definitely agree with extending it to the Harlem Line on the eastern end. The purpose of ending it at the bowling alley is for park-and-ride purposes. It's not like they expect people to come off the bus and go bowling every night. I wouldn't consider Verplanck to be redundant. That being said, the point of the Pleasantville deviation is to allow people to connect with Metro-North for a quicker ride to White Plains. I'm not sure if those new numbers will be the final numbers. Agree with you on that. It mentions that the current trips serve Rye. The new route will only cover Tarrytown - Port Chester, with the Tarrytown - Ossining portion being covered by the BL-111 (which apparently is doing some stupid double-loop in Ossining) Midland Avenue in Port Chester is covered by a microtransit route, but for Rye itself, nothing is covering it.

What exactly is the problem with microtransit?

I can actually understand the general logic of how they structured the service in northern Westchester, if their goal is to encourage people to use Metro-North for most of their trip. For the BL-16, I think the reason for its conversion to microtransit has more to do with where the major destinations are in Peekskill. You have northern Peekskill, the hospital, and the railroad station, and a fixed route serving all three would have to meander a lot. (Plus you have some areas within Peekskill that are rather far from current fixed-route service, such as the Dunbar Heights development, and the Hudson Avenue corridor, which heads uphill from Washington Street, so it's just simpler to have a microtransit route cover it). Plus you have the Strawberry Road trips, and even in the area around Jefferson Valley Mall, you can skip the area along Main Street if nobody is getting on/off there. I think the main issue in northern Westchester is that there's no connection to the Harlem Line, even though they're taking away the direct bus routes to White Plains (BL-14/15/77). A simple extension of the BL-15 to Mount Kisco (maybe even interlining it with the BL-19, and having riders at Bedford Hills & Katonah take Metro-North or that microtransit service) would make it a lot easier, versus having to backtrack all the way to Peekskill. It would actually be quicker than the current BL-14 & BL-15 (though still slower than the BL-17 and BL-77). I would pick Mount Kisco over Katonah. You cover a bit more of Yorktown Heights along Hanover Street, and Mount Kisco is a bit more of a destination in and of itself compared to Katonah (Plus it has the hospital, and a bit more of a transit-dependent population in general). All of those areas you mention (with the exception of Verplanck and the eastern part of U.S.6) are covered by the microtransit route. (And the populated areas of U.S.6 near Jefferson Valley Mall and Baldwin Place are covered by the PART #2 route, though admittedly with much less service compared to the BL-16, and also not listed in the actual report, though they do mention it for the BL-77 section). The BL-9, I can actually understand why they're keeping it (It's a steep hill from Nepperhan up to Vineyard, and most streets don't even go through to begin with, plus it allows you to access Executive Office Park from both points east and points west). Plus Walsh Road is rather isolated from the rest of the street grid in Yonkers and has a bunch of apartment buildings along it. Though they'll probably have to ban parking on one side of the street if they expect two buses to pass each other. For the BL-53, I agree. If there is a need for service to Mount Vernon High School, they should run more of the trippers (400-series routes) For the BL-107, I definitely agree. They could just run the BL-101 straight across Nereid Avenue and call it a day. (They should be doing that anyway...the only extra Bee Line route they cover with that deviation is the BL-42, which it connects with further down the line anyway, and there's more subway service available at 238th Street anyway). For the BL-103, I kind of see what they're trying to accomplish (Tap into the BL-13 demand between Tarrytown & White Plains while reducing duplication in that area). I think the best way of going about that would be to run the BL-103 between Elmsford & White Plains, and the BL-104 between Tarrytown & Valhalla, and just reinvest the remaining resources elsewhere. It depends. If they offer enough money, they might consider it.

Are there any #161/165/166 trips that end in Union City/Weehawken? On the schedule, I only see some that start there (in the morning rush heading northbound), but nothing ending there.

Man, the difference in speed between the #10/119 and the #81 is like night and day. I took the PATH to Grove Street and caught the 6:45pm out of Exchange Place (rather than the 6:50pm #10 out of JSQ) and by the time I got off and walked to the Bayonne Bridge, I saw the 7:10pm out of JSQ pass by.

Also, excess runtime on the inbound SIM33C on weekdays between Slosson Avenue & Fingerboard Road has been removed.

Pressing needs or "pressing" needs?

IIRC offhand, any SIM route to Midtown, just has it as "Midtown" and doesn't differentiate between East and West.

Over in Philadelphia, one of the things they are considering for their Regional Rail redesign is having Amtrak trains function as the express trains, and off-peak would be all-local service on the SEPTA end, but you could use your SEPTA ticket on Amtrak if you lived near an express stop. (I think the scheduling would be in a way that makes the Amtrak trains come consistently every hour, compared to now where they run at fairly random times).

There is also a similar plan for the Hudson Line, with two stations (one around 62nd Street and one at 125th Street), but it is not as far in the process to my understanding.

I thought there was a train around 8:11pm from Port Jefferson if I'm not mistaken (and I know there's a 6:42pm or 6:49pm out of Stony Brook that can be reached with SCT if necessary)

@BM5 via Woodhaven @N6 Limited @jaf0519 @B35 via Church @Mtatransit @NewFlyer 230 @67thAve @User For any comments on the new changes (or in general), you can use the online form. They are actively seeking feedback on these changes: https://www.nicebus.com/Contact

Bronx bus schedules for the redesign have now been posted: https://new.mta.info/schedules/bus/bronx @BM5 via Woodhaven

Which they will.