cotb16 Posted January 27, 2010 Share #51 Posted January 27, 2010 On the topic of doomsday cuts, I would take advantage of this by restructuring the Bx15 and Bx55. Currently, the Bx15 faces more delays than the Bx55 since it goes to Manhattan. In my mind, I would have the Bx15 shortened, running between Fordham and 138th St-3rd Avenue station. As for the Bx55, I would have it run from Fordham to Park Avenue-125th St (Harlem MNRR) station. The Limited stops would also change in order to speed up service on the Bx55 and to better match some demands. Bx55 route: 3rd Av, 138th St, Madison Av Bridge, Madison-Park Avs, 125th St New LTD stops Fordham Plaza (Bx9/12/15 LCL/17/22/41/Bee-Line 60/61/62/MNRR) 183rd St/3rd Av (St. Barnabas Hospital/Little Italy) 180th St (Bx36) East Tremont Av (bx40/42/MNRR) Claremont Pkwy (bx11) 168th Street (bx35) 163rd Street (bx6/21) 149th Street (bx2/4/19/41/(2)/(5) trains) 138th Street (bx1/32/33/(6) train) Grand Concourse/138th Street (Bx1/(4)/(5) trains) 135th Street/Madison Avenue (M1/Bx33/Harlem Hospital) 125th Street/Park Avenue (M35/60/100/101/103/(4)/(5)/(6) trains/MNRR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share #52 Posted January 27, 2010 On the topic of doomsday cuts, I would take advantage of this by restructuring the Bx15 and Bx55. Currently, the Bx15 faces more delays than the Bx55 since it goes to Manhattan. In my mind, I would have the Bx15 shortened, running between Fordham and 138th St-3rd Avenue station. As for the Bx55, I would have it run from Fordham to Park Avenue-125th St (Harlem MNRR) station. The Limited stops would also change in order to speed up service on the Bx55 and to better match some demands. Bx55 route: 3rd Av, 138th St, Madison Av Bridge, Madison-Park Avs, 125th St New LTD stops Fordham Plaza (Bx9/12/15 LCL/17/22/41/Bee-Line 60/61/62/MNRR) 183rd St/3rd Av (St. Barnabas Hospital/Little Italy) 180th St (Bx36) East Tremont Av (bx40/42/MNRR) Claremont Pkwy (bx11) 168th Street (bx35) 163rd Street (bx6/21) 149th Street (bx2/4/19/41/(2)/(5) trains) 138th Street (bx1/32/33/(6) train) Grand Concourse/138th Street (Bx1/(4)/(5) trains) 135th Street/Madison Avenue (M1/Bx33/Harlem Hospital) 125th Street/Park Avenue (M35/60/100/101/103/(4)/(5)/(6) trains/MNRR) Cotb one question? What bus serves the length of 125 from the Henry Hudson Pwy to 1st Avenue if you shortning the BX15/55? In few times i taken the BX15 quite a few people get off at 125-Lenox/Macolm X Blvd station and Powell Blvd(state office buliding) as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted January 27, 2010 Share #53 Posted January 27, 2010 Cotb one question? What bus serves the length of 125 from the Henry Hudson Pwy to 1st Avenue if you shortning the BX15/55? In few times i taken the BX15 quite a few people get off at 125-Lenox/Macolm X Blvd station and Powell Blvd(state office buliding) as well. I've been thinking of extending the M35 to 12th Avenue to replace the Bx15 along 125th Street. This way, it reduces delays on the Bx15 and it better serves its Bronx riders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share #54 Posted January 27, 2010 Also Cotb did you read the rest of the 300-plus page pdf document on remaining planned cuts? Any other reactions to other proposed Bronx or other Citywide bus cuts?:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted January 27, 2010 Share #55 Posted January 27, 2010 Also Cotb did you read the rest of the 300 page pdf document on remaining planned cuts? Any other reactions to other proposed Bronx or other Citywide bus cuts?:confused: There's several reactions that I have in which I will mention later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoodciti Posted January 27, 2010 Share #56 Posted January 27, 2010 The changes to the Bx 26 and 30 make sense although I'm sure many passengers that use the Bx26 and 28 in northern Co-op will complain because of the lose of service. I'm sure the Bx38 won't run as frequently as the bx28 did by itself. But they still have the BxQ1 and the Bx30 as well. The changes to the Bx5 and Bx8 to compensate for the removal of the Bx14 seem interesting. I used to enjoy the speed of trip between Castle Hill and Pelham Bay on the Bx5 but I guess serving Crosby Avenue would actually be a better use of the route. The Bx8 re-route is also pretty interesting. I remember when the Bx8 only ran from Westchester Square and 225th /White Plains Rd then eventually merging with the Bx23 extending it to Locust Point. Now it'll be absorbing part of the Bx14. The BX41 under its current format is way too long. A compromise could be running a new bus between Wakefield and Fordham. About a decade or so ago(1999/2000) I read somewhere the MTA proposed a new Mt Vernon/Wakefield bus to/from Fordham before it got turned down by then Mt Vernon Mayor.On the BX39 extension to 241, I agree with the (NYCT) on that idea. It gives WP Road riders a through bus and options for the ADA/senior citizen community since only the Pelham Pwy station on the subway line is ada accessible. You could also 'short turn' the BX39 as well with short trips ending at Gun Hill. If the BX41 is shortned the BX55 should resume all day service to/from Gun Hill as well. Maybe someone like Cotb who knows the Bronx better can think of the route tracking. One option imo could be running via current BX41 route between 241 St, Gun Hill, Allerton, then along BX34 route to Fordham Center. Just my takes. Actually re-routing the bx34 up White Plains Rd. isnt a bad idea and eventually extending that route to Mt.Vernon would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bx41 Wakefield Posted January 27, 2010 Share #57 Posted January 27, 2010 Actually re-routing the bx34 up White Plains Rd. isnt a bad idea and eventually extending that route to Mt.Vernon would make sense. Then what will happen to the Katonah residents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoodciti Posted January 28, 2010 Share #58 Posted January 28, 2010 The Bx31 still operates down Katonah Ave. and the Bx16 is also near by so its not like Katonah would have no bus service if the 34 is rerouted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bx41 Wakefield Posted January 28, 2010 Share #59 Posted January 28, 2010 Sorry, I meant to add that they would lose their access to Fordham Center. Although they could take transfer to the Bx28 to get to 192 St after taking 2-3 buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share #60 Posted January 28, 2010 Sorry, I meant to add that they would lose their access to Fordham Center. Although they could take transfer to the Bx28 to get to 192 St after taking 2-3 buses. Or extend the BX16 to Fordham Center via Bainbridge as well to replace the BX34 rerouted. And extend the BX31 to Kantonah/McClean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted January 28, 2010 Share #61 Posted January 28, 2010 Sorry, I meant to add that they would lose their access to Fordham Center. Although they could take transfer to the Bx28 to get to 192 St after taking 2-3 buses. It's not the access to Fordham that they're worried about the most, it's the fact that the Bx34 is the direct link from Katonah Avenue to the train and Montefiore Hospital. Plus, the Bx34 transfers to the Bx10 for seniors heading to the senior centers in Riverdale as well as the Bx9 for those heading to VA Hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted January 28, 2010 Share #62 Posted January 28, 2010 Now, my awaited reactions to the Bronx bus cuts; 1. The Bx15/55 restructuring The only pet peeves I would have about the Bx15 receiving artics and the Bx55 not running on weekends are that I am afraid that the Bx15's artics would only mean more delays along 125th Street, meaning longer wait times for its Bronx riders. Speaking of Bronx riders, 149th Street riders coming from the Hub/(2) trains would also be waiting for a bus a little bit longer on the weekends. 2. The Bx41/39 swap on White Plains Road I agree with this because the Bx41 is pretty long and filled with delays. In addition, the Bx39 would make better sense being a WPR thru-route. As mentioned before, the only downside would be the loss of direct service from Fordham to White Plains Rd in the Northeast Bronx. 3. The Bx18's elimination I've been campaigning and proposing for the Bx11 to run to River park Towers for the replacement of the Bx18. Now, this would be the time to implement my proposal for the Bx11. This way, Undercliff-Sedgwick riders would still have access to the at 170th St rather than Burnside Avenue with the Bx40/42. Plus, many of those residents shop at 170th Street. Speaking of 170th Street, I rode the Bx18 once during the AM rush and many students from 170th Street take the Bx18 to the Middle School on 176th Street/Macombs Road. This would affect them as they now would take the to 176th St then to walk uphill. 4. The Bx5/8 restructuring to replace Bx14 I kind of like how they're restructuring the Bx5 and Bx8 to replace the Bx14. However, they're kind of forgetting the apartments in Parkchester, which receive slightly higher ridership than Country Club. I'm not sure if the Bx4 would be better off running along Metro Av to replace the Bx14, but the Bx4 serves the Social Security on Zerega Av and the DMV near Westchester Square. As for the Bx5 on Crosby, I'm afraid the artics would get delayed by the double-parked cars and trucks on that strip. With the Bx8, I think having it through Country Club would speed it up a little bit since it bypasses Crosby Avenue's shopping strip. 5. The Coop City restructuring Splitting the Bx28 into two routes in my mind would only do more harm than good since it would confuse riders along Gun Hill Road. To me, Section 5 has access to the line, so I think the Bx28 should only serve sections 1-2-3 and terminate at Bay Plaza. I agree with the Bx26 and Bx30's restructuring. 6. The Bx33 cut on weekends The Bx33 has pretty low ridership on weekends. However, on Sundays, I see a few more riders thanks to the churches on 138th Street in Mott Haven and on 135th Street in Harlem. Plus, none of the train stations along 138th Street or the 138th-Concourse station are ADA accessible. I've seen plenty of seniors/disabled riders on this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 31, 2010 Share #63 Posted January 31, 2010 Part 1) http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=217253&postcount=25 Part 2) http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=217891&postcount=40 This is part 3.... Bronx Edition, I'll call it. (if you're referring to the PDF, I'm starting from page 31) 14) Restructuring bus service in Co-op City I don't entirely agree w/ Cotb's comments on this.... I'll explain. Lemme get this straight.... They're gonna split the (current) Bx28 to where the (new) 28 avoids the rest of co-op, outside of section 5... and the "bx38" serves co-op, except section 5.... the new 26 would run like the current 25.... and the 30 avoids Asch.... The ONLY thing I agree about this restructuring, is the removing of routes along the part of Co-op city blvd b/w Peartree & Bartow... well except the "bx38", which is basically an express from the Carver loop area straight to Bay Plaza mall.... There are a number of reasons you attempt to split a route... * whether the route is simply "too long" (as the case w/ the Bx41, which I'll get to later)... * the actual runtime of buses - compared to the projected runtime of buses, is significantly greater (which they claim was the case w/ the old B61)... * buses arrive too frequent for it's terminal to "handle"... * ridership reasons; the dividing/division of riders (although they got artics to solve the problem of high ridership numbers per run) For the Bx28, I'm *guessing* it had to do w/ the runtime, looking @ the way they split it... I think placing artics on the Bx28 would've been more beneficial than splitting the route... but of course, this has to do w/ saving money... right.... just like splitting the current bx28 into the "bx28" & "bx38" will save money... aha, right....lmfao... and if you think riders along Gun Hill road won't be affected by this... guess again..... Just because the Bx28 is set to get split, does-and-will-not mean that you get double the service... ^^ The Bx30 routing reduction I'm not as adamant about (assuming buses don't only run on weekdays, as I've heard in the last doomsday plan)... I can see that saving at least 10 minutes to it's runtime - at the expense of section 4 riders, of course.... The Bx26.... sad to say, this route won't be a consideration if you're heading out to co-op (unless you're a resident of section 5)... train riders are pretty much forced to take the train to Gun Hill road as a result.... service along the 26 is already rather sparse - prepare for buses to become even more sparse... and for those that felt as if the bx25 was something special, well guess what... you'll have more riders on your buses now, if or when this comes to fruition.... Make no mistake, this isn't about the bx25 vs the bx26; why? b/c no one wins in this entire "co-op city restructuring plan".... 15) Restructuring of the Bx5, Bx8, & the 14 While I think the 14 should be gone outright, I still don't think country club needs local service.... but if you're gonna give service to that area, that would be the way to do it *shrugs*... The way I see it, there will be no saving of runtime along the Bx8 route whatsoever.... although it's good that the turns over there on Hollywood/Logan will be gone (especially if you were heading towards locust pt).... It'll still be a route that runs through low density areas - just add one more to the list eh? well, why not... lol.... (btw this is not me agreeing... this is me showing sarcasm) The Bx5 reroute.. I just hope they don't take artics off the route as a result of this.... b/c I can definitely see that happening... and it has nothin to do with the turns or anything like that.... the upside though is that, the route would become a little more useful.... As far as Parkchester... Instead of rerouting the Bx4 through that area, now they'll have the 22 serving that whole area (that's almost like one route serving all of co-op city... foolish, right?) ... they're mistaken if they think ppl. are gonna ride BACK to Castle Hill av for the ... The Bxm6 might actually see an increase of riders, if folk are heading to Manhattan... Good job... way to displace riders & snake a few extra bucks out of people.... 16) Truncation of the Bx41 & the extension of the Bx39 Sounds nice on the surface. However, this is an underhanded, incremental way of getting rid of bus service in the future.... With this extension of the Bx39, the MTA can later say, well s**t, guess what... this route parallels ALL the subway service along WPR... It's gonna be a matter of time before there's no local bus service that parallels subway lines... People say that these are "bluffing" tactics the MTA uses to scare riders... Yeah right... I would not be at all surprised if the 39 were to be cut back to Pelham Pkwy during the next string of "doomsday proposals"... Riders along the Bx39 in generally travel no further NORTH than Gun Hill road, along WPR... (transfers by ppl. b/w the 28/30 & the 39 is proof enough of that)... If there's an influx of 39 riders that are taking the train, or xferring to the 41 to get to points north along WPR, please let me know, b/c I'm not seeing that at all... Certainly it could be a recent trend, but I seriously doubt it. The 41 takes you to Fordham (a major xfer point), the 39 does not.... the 41 is well used along that part of WPR, and there's little evidence that ppl coming off 39's are seeking to travel along the same parts that the current 41 does.... one of the main reasons I don't think this is too good an idea... If route duration of the 41 is an issue, create short-turns (if the 55 ends @ fordham plz, and sometimes run up to gun hill rd/WPR, there's not a reason in the world why 41's can't end @ fordham rd, coming from the north, and gun hill rd/WPR from the south).... Instead, they want to kill ALL Bx41 service north of Gun Hill.... The idea that Bx39's will be just as crowded along WPR north of Gun Hill, as Bx41's are, is a fallacy... (they'll come to find out the exact opposite)... Webster av, Fordham rd/Fordham plz is far more dense than WPR south of Pelham Pkwy... meaning, less ppl. will be on 39's north of WPR.... and looking at the proposed headways, there will be less BUSES along WPR up there.... Just you watch. 17) Restructure of Third av service (Bx15/Bx55) (I) saw this coming; figured it would eventually come to this... I also have the same concerns as Mr. Cotb16... On weekends, the 55 stops dead @ Fordham plz... may as well have limited 15 service replace 55's.... Weekday service along the Bx55 is the question... Would 55's continue on Webster on up to Gun Hill, or would the (truncated) 41 be the only option to get up there by bus.... What I'm getting at is, I hope they aren't slowly trying to kill off the Bx55 route also.... 18) Discontinuation of the Bx18 Sad to say, those riders are screwed when this happens... You can read Cotb's post regarding the direct affect of riders... The only thing I'll say that's any different is, I don't think they're gonna come up w/ ways to have (an)other route shoot up that portion... Apparently, topography doesn't mean much anymore to them (see PDF for what they want to do w/ the S60).... 19) Discontinuation of weekend Bx33 service... and discontinuation of the Bx20 on saturday; [well, weekend] & off peak service I lumped these together b/c I can agree to both of these cuts, somewhat.... Personally I think the MTA should rid themselves of the 20 in its entirety.... The Bx33 should run similar as to how Bx20's currently do (no sunday service)... Bx33 at least has a pulse, Bx20 are just blips on the oscilloscope, so to speak.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 31, 2010 Share #64 Posted January 31, 2010 Oringally made by B35 via Church Jan 24, 2010 Replies in red. Await B35, replies.:cool: Sorry I didn't get to this sooner. Instead of quoting the whole post, I'll just comment on your replies to my post there. Agreed. However it's about 1/4 mile walk from East 71/Ave U to East 74th, so it would keep it as a rush hour only extension. I suppose, but Bergen Beach, if you even been there, is car country; worse than that of Mill basin (those riders rely on the B100)... I can probably count on one hand how many ppl are reliant on the B3, south of Av. U.... Also in agreement. If ridership is really that low along Emmons, at least terminate the B4 at the Sheepshead Bay Station for simple transfer to/from B36. Off topic but what about having some B36's terminate at Knapp/Belt pwy)movie place guys. I was thinking about that (not necessarily sending buses to the movie theatre, but the sending of B36's SOUTH of av. Z, instead of it's current routing northward).... it might come to that, if they're talking about (foolishly) cutting the B4 back to CI av..... Only issue is that it's about at least 1/4 mile (4 blocks to/from Wilson and B60)for alternative service. Also most if not all of the stations in that part of Brooklyn are not ADA accessible. Ideally the maybe could have ran the B18 between Mytrle/Wyckoff and Greenpoint area as well.. Fair point. Would not residents at Ebbets Field Buliding be upset at losing this service? Hopefully B49 can handle the ridership increase. Most those riders take the 49.... but I suppose there are a few that use the 48. If it were up to me i would just create a supplemental "B86' running between 95th St and Kingsborough College and keep the B1/B64 but slightly cut service on both lines to have buses for the B86.Still bad move by the and the B64 should still operate to/from Stillwell since the B82 is among worst in Brooklyn with bus bunching. last few times I went to Coney Island (within this month), I haven't been seeing B82's... leads me to believe they're already cutting service to CI (this is around 7pm-9pm on weekdays, I'm referring to).... The B3 gets crowded and i seen enough ridership at least on Saturdays to at least run the B2 with 20-30 minute headways. A compromise could be keep Saturday service running it 7am-10pm and canning Sunday service. B3 is crowded b/c it's infrequent & off-schedule. But if you need the Brighton line coming from Kings plz. on weekends, that's your only direct option.... b/c I can't see people walking to Fillmore for the B100... hell, those shoppers barely want to cross the street (Av. U) to get the dollar vans along the NB side of Flatbush, where they park now.... Or if was smart consider buying 30-foot buses like those used in Westchester County Beeline Bus routes #12 and #18. I don't disagree... but what routes would you run them on, on a daily basis, other than the B23? and how frequent throughout the day.... Only riders that might be hurt are those traveling 1)Greenpoint Ave Industry areas and also a chain of new cheaper hotel/motels poping up in that area. 2)Those riders who work at the UPS facility one of the largest in the country. Probably... but those areas aren't too "live" (as in, alive) on the weekend... not too many businesses (or other everyday people) use saturday delivery for UPS to be too busy to the tune where as many UPS workers @ that facility to be affected by a B24 weekend cut. The B51 riders especially many in the ADA/Elederly communities who use it can still use the nearby and lines since most stations in that area is actually ADA accessible. I would make the B51 a rush hour route, it does get SRO peak hours mainly from riders going to Crown Heights and other areas of Central Brooklyn who dont want to take the subway. B39 actually even with the nearby subway gets more ridership than some of the lower usage lines such as the B71 B75 and other Brooklyn bus lines 7 days a week. Plus the Essex Street station is still not ADA which is a shame since that station was only rebulit less than 10 years ago.:tup::mad: I think the B39 should stay a 7 day week service until Essex is fully ADA accessible but overnight service should be canned. The new hours of B39 should be weekdays 5am-1230am Saturdays 6am-11pm and Sundays 7am-11pm. I took the B51 from Manhattan this past tuesday... was surprised at how many people got on the thing... I say there were about 25 people on the bus as it crossed over into Brooklyn. If I were to keep both routes, I would send the B51 to BMCC (avoiding Canal st)... and the B39 I would keep, as is... no re-routing or no extensions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share #65 Posted February 1, 2010 I'll comment on the Brooklyn proposals one by one, as I'm going through them while reading the PDF... if you're up for a read, well I'll give you one. Shortline replies in red. starting from page 50, if anyone actually read the thing... 1) combining the (new) B61 & the B77 is an idea that has been blurted out by quite a few ppl. I seen across the boards... it only made sense... Since day one since I heard that the (old) B61 was going to be split @ Downtown Brooklyn, and noticing what I did about the (old) B61 ridership b/w Downtown & Red Hook, I thought, the route by itself would've been a shear waste... usage b/w those two points aren't strong @ all... intertwine that w/ the usage of the B77 as we know connects Red Hook riders to the subway (it's always been the purpose of the route), and that alone would make far more sense as a standalone route... That much is said... but later on, I thought... since they seemingly want to get rid of routes that parallel subway lines (which I don't necessarily agree with), I thought about the B77's terminal (5th/10th), and the amts of ppl. I've seen over the years waiting @ that stop @ 5th/9th (on 9th st) waiting for 77's, coming off the B63, B75, and even those that walk from 7th av (B67).... I thought about the B75... That route's ridership has never been too strong... matter fact, it has the 2nd worst headways in the area (to the B69)... and the worst usage b/w the two routes (the stats they have there btw, I agree with)... So yeah, IMO, all in all, good idea here. May as well have one solid route serve the neighboring areas of Windsor Terrace, Park Slope, and Red Hook...9th st is the main x-street in the general area, and I always thought bus service along it, was sub-par... On the B61/B77 proposed merger i agree 100% and provides all of the benefits B35 mentioned plus one not mentioned. Direct 1-fare access for first time between Red Hook including Ikea and SW Brooklyn via B68 transfer to/from Midwood, Brighton Beach and Coney Island. In addition i would also extend the B61/77(i would this mergered line call it the B61)to the B67 terminal at Kensington at Church/McDonald station as well for access to the B35 bus. Regarding the B75 i would have restructure to run it between the Home Depot/Pathmark shopping center on Hamilton Ave and the Brooklyn navy yard via Downtown Brooklyn serving Smith/Court as a neighborhood bus for Carroll Gardens/Downtown Brooklyn to the only Home Depot in that part of Brooklyn. While the B57 would only be extended to the B63 terminal on Columbia/Atlantic Ave mainly to serve LIU College Hosptial. Regarding the B57, this is not a good idea to extend all way down to Smith/9th Sts. 2) Extending the B57 to Smith-9th st & (pretty much) interlining the B67 & B69 (with a re-route of the 69 down 7th av)... The B57 part of the proposal is horrid.... traffic along smith & court sts. along the B75 route can get pretty bad... runtime of the current B57 by itself is ~ 45 mins... with that extension, you add another (unnecessary) 15 minutes... I doubt they'd add anymore runs to the route for this extension to make a real difference anyway... but of course, this would keep those w/ any political clout in the communities of Carroll Gdns & Cobble Hill at bay... The B67/B69 part of the proposal I think, is pretty smart... instead of two separate routes w/ their own schedules, it'd be two routes that run under a combined schedule (something like the Bx1/2)... I believe there was a point & time where the 67 & the 69 had each other's SB terminals... the usage along 8th av & PPW is very low, and in some way, shape, or form, you find ppl. making their way towards 7th av anyway... so to this, I say why not..... reply. Not a horrible idea. Only negative is that some people along 7th Avenue wanting access to either the Atlantic Ave shopping centers or the LIRR will now have to transfer either to the B41 or the trains. 3) Restructuring service in Bay Ridge... + getting rid of the B71... I still say that the MTA should've went ahead w/ extending B71's to South Ferry... although I don't know how much such a service would cost to operate, I think it would've been highly beneficial for not only BoCoCa residents to get to lower manhattan, but for any Brooklyn rider who has to put up w/ the lack of (reliable) subway service to that part of Manhattan... I could see ppl. abandoning the F train (and the "BM" express buses too) for a LOCAL route that takes you from Brooklyn to the South Ferry area.... Reply. If the B71 survies these cuts, and the ecomony improves this route should be extended to South Ferry. In meantime, this line is a perfect choice for a 35-foot size type bus.. Getting rid of the B37... 100% agree... It's a wasteful service b/w Boerum Hill & the area where the Belt & the Gowanus "splits", over there 'round 65th st.... The people that are complaining about the possibility of removing this route, are people that probably don't use the bus anyway.... 3rd av isn't w/e it used to be anymore; the route has lost its importance... it's called modernization... there are far more pros than cons in axing the 37, especially when you look at bus operations as a whole..... Rerouting the B70 down the more commercial part of 3rd av, I dunno... I have thought about this, and then came to the realization that ppl. are still gonna take B16's over it (below 86th st).... also, tanking of the ridership coming from Sunset Park @ the Bay ridge av subway station.... Simply don't think there'll be too many unique riders south of that point.... Despite (what I want to bring up about the difference in) demographics of 3rd av & 8th av, I'm on the fence w/ this idea... I can't definitively say that the pro's outweigh the cons, or vice versa.... Although I must say the efforts of trying to save the B70, heh, I don't think the MTA knows what to do w/ the route... lol.. so it seems.... Next up, yep, the whole 86th st through route proposal again (in a nutshell, is what it is)... classic case of robbing peter to pay paul here.... Ridership on the B64 has increased over the past handful of years, and if this proposal goes through, it'll be all for naught - for the purpose of making an ill-sought after commute along 86th st more feasible.... Bath av riders need the subway... you got the D along 86th st w/ which the B1 serves anyway.... I don't get it... The only subway stations the B64 would ever see, are Stillwell av & Bay ridge av on the R under this proposal... If service clear across 86th was so necessary, why didn't the MTA go through w/ the "B86" when it was proposed?..... I know I had a debate w/ another member on here about this in the past, but still I feel as if I'm missing something w/ this whole 86th st thing... knowing what I notice, I'm not convinced that moving B1's to the 86th/4th would be more beneficial than simply, having the B1 serving the areas it currently does! ....and a LMFAO moment w/ this one - Extending B8's to 95th st, only to later propose to cut it back to the VA Hospital, for the purpose of re-routing B70's to the 95th st station & along 3rd av "at all times except late nights"... [ I think I'll end this particular post on that note... More later... my reply. Reply on shorting the B8. This is being done to increase ridership on the B70. Granted the B8 it's a long route but a bad job by operations planning. There actual a number of riders on B8 from East Flatbush and Central Brooklyn that actually work in the nursing homes near Ft Hamilton/Lower Bay Ridge and also work in SI via S53/79 transfer. Not to mention a growing number who attend CSI as well. Just maintain the schedule of every 2nd-3rd B8 or every 20-30 minutes until about 8pm travel to 95th Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 20, 2010 Share #66 Posted February 20, 2010 Replies in bold Restructure Local Bus Routes to Discontinue Underutilized or Duplicative Segments Restructure the S42 and S52 in New Brighton Agree. Rush hours only keep S42 buses to Clyde Place-Arnold Street to prevent overcrowding on the S52 Discontinue S40/90 Service to Howland Hook Agree Discontinue Service on Low-Performing Local Bus Routes There are two routes proposed for complete discontinuation and two routes proposed for weekend discontinuation. Discontinue weekend S54 service Maybe the S61 could be rerouted down Manor Road and Harold Street to replace the S54, to give residents of the Todt Hill Houses access to the ferry Discontinue all S60 service Reroute one of the Victory Boulevard buses (maybe the S66, since its weekday only, and eliminate weekend service on Howard Avenue) Discontinue all S67 service (operates weekday peak-hours only) I'm not sure how many people use this route. It is clearly redundant along Victory Boulevard, but the S57 only runs every 30 minutes (I think it even does this rush hour). Discontinue weekend S76 service Extend the S57 down Ebbitts Street to Cedar Grove Avenue to give riders access to the S74, S78 and Staten Island Railway to the ferry. As for Queens, one thing that I can say is to extend some Q46 buses from 260th Street-Little Neck Parkway to the Little Neck LIRR station, to allow riders access to routes like the Q12 to Flushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted February 20, 2010 Share #67 Posted February 20, 2010 AT first i thought the Bx4 was really going to be killed, i see its not, thx god! For the Bx18, id have ether the Bx40/42 replace it, instead of having no bus run down there. The M10 would be nice to extend passed 59th and into TSQ, rather then looping Colombus Circle.! M1 to 106th Street... Eh.. i guess.. Of course people can use the M102 or walk to 7th Ave for M2 service so they can avoid to transfer at 106th Street for Downtown Buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 20, 2010 Share #68 Posted February 20, 2010 Replies in bold Brooklyn B75 is canned and replaced by the extended B57 between Downtown Brooklyn and Smith/9th Sts. The 'new' combined B61/77 replaces B75 bus along the 9th St/Prospect Park west section in Park Slope. Agree, because of the overlap in Downtown Brooklyn and it makes sense to run one bus down a crowded street rather than 2. However, this new B57 will be very delay-prone B1 and B64 trade and flip flop their Bay Ridge terminals. The B1 (renamed B86) operates as a new direct '86th Street' route between Bay Ridge and Kingsboro College/Manhattan Beach at all times. B64 operates between Bay Ridge Ave/Shore RD(current B1 terminal) via Bath/Bay Ridge Ave. Like some people have already said, I would run the B86 from Manhattan Beach to Bay Ridge-4th Avenue without affecting the B1 or B64. The MTA's logic is to have the more frequent route operate the shorter route (Like the Bx39/Bx41 switch). The B64 route would make it lose ridership. I'm sure there is demand for Coney Island-Bay Ridge service. Staten Island residents could go to Coney Island without having to take the R to 59th Street for the N. I don't really think any of the Coney Island routes should be cut (except maybe the B68, which parallels the Q for much of its route). (See B64 shortening below) The B64 service along Bath/Harway between Crospey/25th Avenue and Coney Island is gone. "Increased' B82 and nearby service to/from Stillwell replaces the B64 Bensonhurst-Coney Island connection between Bay Parkway and Stillwell. B4 shortned to end at the Coney Island Hopstial area[/B]. Use the B36 for alternative service. I think some B36s could go to Emmons Avenue. B37 is canned. Replaced by the B70 south of Bay Ridge Avenue. suggests using the B103 bus between 9th Street and Fulton Mall/Downtown area. Maybe a B9 extension could replace the B37 south of Bay Ridge Avenue, instead of the B70 reroute. B23 B39 B51 and B71 is gone forever. The B67 is restuctured to operate along parts of the B69 weekdays only. The B71 has seen a 35% increase in ridership in the past 5 years. I don't really agree with replacing bus service with subway service, but the B39 has seen a ridership decrease. Weekend B2 and B24 service disappears. I think the Q104 could be extended to cover part of the B24 route (the southern half) Manhattan-Brooklyn Express Bus X37/38 and X29 is gone. X27/28 makes all stops in Manhattan along its regular off peak routing mainly Broadway and Church/6th Ave and Madison Ave. The X37/X38 should be kept for 1 hour each way. This would make the X27/X28 more delay-prone otherwise. Weekend X27/28 service is also canned. Manhattan M5 and M20 are both extened to South Ferry replacing the M6 which is cut under this plan. Also, its not listed in this link if M5 limited stop service remains or not. Also M1 weekday extenstion to/from South Ferry is also gone. I agree with the M5 extension, but there would be some M5s terminating at Houston Street because the M5 is more frequent than the M6. M10 is saved but the southbound terminal ends at 57th Street/8th Avenue. No thoughts M104 is shortned and ends at all times at the PA Bus Terminal. The states to use M42 24/7 which is saved in this revised plan. This would make the M104 less delay-prone along 42nd Street. M98 is shortned to end its southbound terminal at 68th between Lex and 3rd Avenue(Hunter College). No, because this would defeat the point-to provide direct Midtown access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 20, 2010 Share #69 Posted February 20, 2010 Like some people have already said, I would run the B86 from Manhattan Beach to Bay Ridge-4th Avenue without affecting the B1 or B64. The MTA's logic is to have the more frequent route operate the shorter route (Like the Bx39/Bx41 switch). The B64 route would make it lose ridership. I'm sure there is demand for Coney Island-Bay Ridge service. Staten Island residents could go to Coney Island without having to take the R to 59th Street for the N. I don't really think any of the Coney Island routes should be cut (except maybe the B68, which parallels the Q for much of its route). (See B64 shortening below) mta... logic... pfft... jokes aside, when you say this: The MTA's logic is to have the more frequent route operate the shorter route (Like the Bx39/Bx41 switch). That is not the case w/ this whole B1/B64 thing... I'm guilty of overthinking too, but to me, this one is plain as day... The swapping of terminals (B1/B64) is their way of consolidating service along 86th street. That simple, my friend. and the 68... lemme do it this way... Take a look at the brooklyn bus map for a sec. ...visualize in your mind, there being no vertical line going up/down where coney island av is (ok, well, except for the green x29 line)... what local north/south bus service do you have, west of ocean av? Of all the routes that intersect/or otherwise xfer w/ the 68 (the B3, 36, 9, 11, 16, 35, 8, 82, 6, 23... there's probably more that I missed)... hell, I'll break it down for ya... this is all eastbound travel (since the Q is, east, of CI av) I'm talking about w/ these connecting routes..... - for starters, there's virtually no one that xfers from the 68 to the 36, the 16, or the 23 - the most amt of ppl (IMO anyway) where ppl get off the 68 to catch the , is either the B3, or the B35... - the majority of the ppl. that get off the 68 to catch the 6, 9, & the 11 are heading to Ocean, and other points east of the Q - ppl getting off the 68 are, more often than not WALKING along the commercial stretch of kings highway... whether that is to shop, catch the Q, whatever it may be.... they are definitely not coming off 68's to take the 82 (or the 7) to catch the train... - I'd say there's a moderate amt of ppl. that get off the 68, & catch the 8, to the Q... I might be overexaggerating w/ that though my point? people that use the B68 generally aren't using it to catch the Q.... so to say maybe the 68 can go b/c it parallels the Q, well, that's where I had to try to debunk that as a reason to (maybe) get rid of it..... if you were talking about it's stint in coney island & brighton beach where it parallels the Q... well, where else would you end the 68 where it wouldn't parallel it? Bear in mind, it still has to pick up passengers over there by the apt's along west 5th.... can't terminate buses along that street either b/c you got the B36 that also serves that stretch (w 5th), and we're not talking about the widest of streets as to where a bus can maneuver around a bus parked on layover I think some B36s could go to Emmons Avenue. ...and give the mta reason to cut service on that route, as the # of people are reliant on it, are? noooo thanks... Maybe a B9 extension could replace the B37 south of Bay Ridge Avenue, instead of the B70 reroute. You're not the first person that I've seen made that suggestion about extending the B9 south, into bay ridge... I don't know which is the lesser of two evils... extending B9's down there, or this B70 concoction the MTA thinks would be beneficial to riders.... The B71 has seen a 35% increase in ridership in the past 5 years. I don't really agree with replacing bus service with subway service, but the B39 has seen a ridership decrease. Of course you do. remember the B68 comment you made.... kidding... kidding.... I also notice that about the B39.... as to why, I couldn't tell you... maybe someone else can enlighten us... Weekend B2 and B24 service disappears.I think the Q104 could be extended to cover part of the B24 route (the southern half) People make this suggestion... but never state the routing it's suppose to take.... If you know how the roads are over there around 48th/QB, you'll see that it's not a straight path where the 104 would then continue along the current B24 route.... that's what the brooklyn (or queens) bus map won't show ya..... hint hint ...and I agree w/ what you said about the M98 & the M104. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share #70 Posted February 20, 2010 Shifting gears. So B35 and others feel free to comment on this. (NYCTA) wants to can overnight (except for the M14 23 and M86)and in case of the M8, all of the Manhattan Crosstown routes south of 125th Street. Which of the cuts are 'justifed and which ones should be left alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 21, 2010 Share #71 Posted February 21, 2010 In response to B35 via Church, when I said that the B68 could be cut, I meant out of Coney Island. I used to live in Brighton Beach 5 years ago and when the MTA was rehabilitating the Coney Island terminal, the B68 was extended to Coney Island via the current route, to make up for lack of Q service. Prior to that, the B68 terminated by a park at West 5th Street at Surf Avenue. What I meant to say was that service could resume to the pre-2002 pattern with the B68 going to West 5th Street. Then again, I don't know what kind of ridership the B68 gets on that section, so if it gets decent ridership, then the MTA can justify keeping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jashawn R. Posted February 21, 2010 Share #72 Posted February 21, 2010 16) Truncation of the Bx41 & the extension of the Bx39 Sounds nice on the surface. However, this is an underhanded, incremental way of getting rid of bus service in the future.... With this extension of the Bx39, the MTA can later say, well s**t, guess what... this route parallels ALL the subway service along WPR... It's gonna be a matter of time before there's no local bus service that parallels subway lines... People say that these are "bluffing" tactics the MTA uses to scare riders... Yeah right... I would not be at all surprised if the 39 were to be cut back to Pelham Pkwy during the next string of "doomsday proposals"... Riders along the Bx39 in generally travel no further NORTH than Gun Hill road, along WPR... (transfers by ppl. b/w the 28/30 & the 39 is proof enough of that)... If there's an influx of 39 riders that are taking the train, or xferring to the 41 to get to points north along WPR, please let me know, b/c I'm not seeing that at all... Certainly it could be a recent trend, but I seriously doubt it. The 41 takes you to Fordham (a major xfer point), the 39 does not.... the 41 is well used along that part of WPR, and there's little evidence that ppl coming off 39's are seeking to travel along the same parts that the current 41 does.... one of the main reasons I don't think this is too good an idea... If route duration of the 41 is an issue, create short-turns (if the 55 ends @ fordham plz, and sometimes run up to gun hill rd/WPR, there's not a reason in the world why 41's can't end @ fordham rd, coming from the north, and gun hill rd/WPR from the south).... Instead, they want to kill ALL Bx41 service north of Gun Hill.... The idea that Bx39's will be just as crowded along WPR north of Gun Hill, as Bx41's are, is a fallacy... (they'll come to find out the exact opposite)... Webster av, Fordham rd/Fordham plz is far more dense than WPR south of Pelham Pkwy... meaning, less ppl. will be on 39's north of WPR.... and looking at the proposed headways, there will be less BUSES along WPR up there.... Just you watch. I agree with you 1,000% on this one. The seems to get dumber and dumber each year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 21, 2010 Share #73 Posted February 21, 2010 I agree with you 1,000% on this one. The seems to get dumber and dumber each SECOND... corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted February 21, 2010 Share #74 Posted February 21, 2010 Shifting gears. So B35 and others feel free to comment on this. (NYCTA) wants to can overnight (except for the M14 23 and M86)and in case of the M8, all of the Manhattan Crosstown routes south of 125th Street. Which of the cuts are 'justifed and which ones should be left alone? I'm fine with less crosstown overnight service, however: One crosstown must traverse Central Park at all times, whether it be the M66/72/79/86/96. To be honest, I would keep two routes available 24/7, if I could I'd take the M72 and M86...one to go via the north and one to go via the south... M42 can be discontinued overnight, but the M104 should stay. M14 should stay, M23 could go... I also think 57th Street should have bus service 24/7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 21, 2010 Share #75 Posted February 21, 2010 I'm fine with less crosstown overnight service, however: One crosstown must traverse Central Park at all times, whether it be the M66/72/79/86/96. To be honest, I would keep two routes available 24/7, if I could I'd take the M72 and M86...one to go via the north and one to go via the south... M42 can be discontinued overnight, but the M104 should stay. M14 should stay, M23 could go... I also think 57th Street should have bus service 24/7 I'd make it M66 (Lincoln Center) and M96 (express stop and north). If I could change something, I would make and run a route that follows the M96 on the west and thru the transverse. Then, the route goes down to the Met. After that, it would go up to Lex Av/86 Street station and terminate there, with a provision for an extension to 2 Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.