Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

NYCT/MTA Bus cuts 2010-How are you impacted?


Shortline Bus

Recommended Posts

This is a thread for anyone on these boards here or anyone you know such as family members or friends who ride the NYCT/(MTA)Bus or even Long Island Bus. Feel free to discuss your personal impact or someone you know that is affected by these service changes on any local or express route.

 

 

Are you or someone you know well will be directly impacted by these cuts starting in June 2010 and what are the alternatives you plan? That is scheduled to start this summer barrring a state or more likely a bailout from Washington, DC? Also if you don't live in NYC or Nassau County like myself which cuts is the most unfair? I list my takes on some of the most unfair cuts systemwide later.

 

Thanks in Advance.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I live by Neptune Avenue in Brighton Beach, and two routes the X29 and the B4 won't be stopping near me anymore.

 

The B4 will go via Avenue Z.

The X29 will be removed completely.

 

My alternatives for the X29 can be the (:P(F) and (Q) lines and the BM3.

My alternatives for the B4 will have to be the B68, B1, and B49 routes as well as the B36.

 

Some of my neighbors are unhappy about the X29 cut, however they can rely on other alternatives stated above. As for the B4 riders waiting via Neptune Avenue, they'll have to figure out how to get to/from Sheepshead Bay from that street. Best way would be the B36.

 

That's just my take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live by Neptune Avenue in Brighton Beach, and two routes the X29 and the B4 won't be stopping near me anymore.

 

The B4 will go via Avenue Z.

The X29 will be removed completely.

 

My alternatives for the X29 can be the (:P(F) and (Q) lines and the BM3.

My alternatives for the B4 will have to be the B68, B1, and B49 routes.

 

 

Metatops sorry to hear that. With said, IMO the X29 could have still have some 'limited service' and just run 3-4 trips each rush hour in peak direction ie To Midtown every 20 minutes appx. 6am-730am and from Midtown appx. 4pm-530pm. I find it unfair that the X29 which often gets more ridership than the BM4 is gone while the BM4 is not affected with any service reductions at all.:tdown:

 

While the B4 could still run small amount of service to Knapp Street 7 days a week. IMO i am not upset at the (MTA) sending the B4's down Ave Z but ending it's eastbound service at CI Ave/Ave. Z at all other times non-rush is purely dumb.

Honestly Neptune between Ocean pwy and Sheapshead rd is dead and running the B4 along Ave. Z does save times as the B4 is already a long route.

 

At least run it to the Sheapshead Bay (B)(Q) station. I felt that since the B4 had headways of every 15-20 minutes most of the day until late evenings the (MTA) could still ran every other "B4" to Knapp (every 20-30 minutes) until about 10pm 7 days a week. Those going to the Knapp St Cinemnas without the B44 or a car are now out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the B57 gets extended to Smith/9th St. to partially take the place of the B75. I am concerned about reliability issues due to the longer run caused by heavy traffic on Court and Smith St.'s and I sometimes need the hawk run according to the job I'm working and that is being eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shortline, the X29 bus cut I'm not too sad about, however your suggestion to having it run three-four buses each AM rush and three-four buses per PM rush isn't a bad idea. Every instance I ride that X29, that bus gets half full. It was cited that the express route was losing riders every year since 2005. The X29 used to run every 13-15 minutes and now it does every 20. Next step, out of the map and the (:P(Q)(F) and the BM3 will take the X29 riders instead.

 

As for the B4, I find it more complicated to find alternatives, because no matter what, from Neptune Avenue to Sheepshead bay, riders will be taking two buses, for example the B1 and the B49, or the B38 and the B68. I do agree that they should terminate the B4 at the (B)(Q) Station at Sheepshead Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the B57 gets extended to Smith/9th St. to partially take the place of the B75. I am concerned about reliability issues due to the longer run caused by heavy traffic on Court and Smith St.'s and I sometimes need the hawk run according to the job I'm working and that is being eliminated.

 

Bill, B35 or others the (MTA) could have done something i am sure would have been more benefical. That was to merge the B75 Smith/Court St section and the B51. The B51 could have ran between City Hall/Park Row and Smith/9th at least weekdays. That would have imo made more sense.

Plus an alternative route to lower manhattan from 'brownstone brooklyn' especially during the upcoming shut down of Smith/9th station.

 

This is going to be a major diaster imo for extending the B57 just like the mistake around 1995 when they merged the old B5 and B50 routes to create the current B82. Especially with all of the double parked cars along Court/Smith in the Carroll Gardens area.

 

The B57 should have been imo extended only to the LIU College Hosptial area on Columbia St and Atlantic the B63 terminal that all. In that area of Park Slope/Caroll Gardens/Red Hook the only proposal i agree 100% with the (MTA) on was mergering the B61/B77.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, B35 or others the (MTA) could have done something i am sure would have been more benefical. That was to merge the B75 Smith/Court St section and the B51. The B51 could have ran between City Hall/Park Row and Smith/9th at least weekdays. That would have imo made more sense.

Plus an alternative route to lower manhattan from 'brownstone brooklyn' especially during the upcoming shut down of Smith/9th station.

 

This is going to be a major diaster imo for extending the B57 just like the mistake around 1995 when they merged the old B5 and B50 routes to create the current B82. Especially with all of the double parked cars along Court/Smith in the Carroll Gardens area.

 

The B57 should have been imo extended only to the LIU College Hosptial area on Columbia St and Atlantic the B63 terminal that all. In that area of Park Slope/Caroll Gardens/Red Hook the only proposal i agree 100% with the (MTA) on was mergering the B61/B77.

 

While the B77 and B75 sections of the new B61 get more frequent service, how does this save the MTA money? The B61 runs more frequently than the B77 and B75, so you would be extending a more frequent route to cover a less frequent one, resulting in less of a cost savings, unless some B61s were short turned. (Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that 9th Street finally gets more frequent service and Red Hook riders get access to Prospect Park)

 

The only cuts that would affect me, like I probably mentioned before were the Student MetroCard cuts. If they are cut, I would walk the 2 miles to school and stay home on days with inclement weather. It looks like they probably will be saved, though, as the state is planning to increase the funding by $35 million, bringing the cost that the MTA would have to eat down to $109 million, which is a fair compromise, considering how many people would find ways of avoiding the fare (carpooling, walking, farebeating, etc).

 

In 2009, the cuts only affected late night buses near me, where the MTA planned on eliminating the S46 and S62 late nights. Thankfully, my family doesn't travel late nights and that cut was removed this year, so it is a moot point.

 

Does anybody know if there will be a hearing on the revised cuts or it is a done deal since they voted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the B77 and B75 sections of the new B61 get more frequent service, how does this save the MTA money? The B61 runs more frequently than the B77 and B75, so you would be extending a more frequent route to cover a less frequent one, resulting in less of a cost savings, unless some B61s were short turned. (Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that 9th Street finally gets more frequent service and Red Hook riders get access to Prospect Park)

 

The only cuts that would affect me, like I probably mentioned before were the Student MetroCard cuts. If they are cut, I would walk the 2 miles to school and stay home on days with inclement weather. It looks like they probably will be saved, though, as the state is planning to increase the funding by $35 million, bringing the cost that the MTA would have to eat down to $109 million, which is a fair compromise, considering how many people would find ways of avoiding the fare (carpooling, walking, farebeating, etc).

 

In 2009, the cuts only affected late night buses near me, where the MTA planned on eliminating the S46 and S62 late nights. Thankfully, my family doesn't travel late nights and that cut was removed this year, so it is a moot point.

 

Does anybody know if there will be a hearing on the revised cuts or it is a done deal since they voted?

 

Barring some political chat resulting in some more revisions and most important, a bailout from either Albany(doubt it this time) or from Washington, DC i think this is it:cry:. The cut off date before the doomsday cuts I are offical is around, mid/late April. Maybe someone else can confirm this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another jaw-dropping service cut. The complete removal of the B51 bus that travels between City Hall in Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn in New York. Riders must use the (4)(5) and (R) instead. The B51 uses the Manhattan Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another jaw-dropping service cut. The complete removal of the B51 bus that travels between City Hall in Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn in New York. Riders must use the (4)(5) and (R) instead. The B51 uses the Manhattan Bridge.

 

While i agree it's a bad cut at least B51 riders especially ADA/Seniors Riders can use the City Hall/Brooklyn Bridge (4)(5)(6) or the Borough Hall (4)(5) stations which both have elevators. Though it's does not always work.

 

 

A bigger outrage IMO is the B39 being totally canned. The Essex (J)(M)(F) station unless things changed is still not ADA accessible or have an elevator.

Not to mention the B39 gets SRO during rush hours and even sometime other times 7 days a week. The (MTA) should have kept the B39 especially since the "Willy B' is reguarly closed to (J) service under weekend 'go's.

At worst only late night B39 service should be cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bigger outrage IMO is the B39 being totally canned. The Essex (J)(M)(F) station unless things changed is still not ADA accessible or have an elevator.

Not to mention the B39 gets SRO during rush hours and even sometime other times 7 days a week. The (MTA) should have kept the B39 especially since the "Willy B' is reguarly closed to (J) service under weekend 'go's.

At worst only late night B39 service should be cut.

 

While the B39 bus is basically a Willy B shuttle bus, it usually sees plenty of riders, usually those who want to avoid the (J)(M2)(Z) crowds. I do agree it would be bad, but the B39 does have some issues leaving the bridge due to those traffic lights...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the X29 could have still have some 'limited service' and just run 3-4 trips each rush hour in peak direction ie To Midtown every 20 minutes appx. 6am-730am and from Midtown appx. 4pm-530pm. I find it unfair that the X29 which often gets more ridership than the BM4 is gone while the BM4 is not affected with any service reductions at all.:tdown:

 

While the B4...

 

I've spoken enough about the B4 so I won't say anymore about that. As far as the X29, I think what you propose is what it does now. Is it being eliminated entirely? If so, I didn't realize that. As far as the BM4, MTA Bus didn't make nearly the amount of cuts as NYCT because of the City subsidy. That whole thing is all messed up, and needs to be straightened out. One company needs to operate all the bus routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the B77 and B75 sections of the new B61 get more frequent service, how does this save the MTA money? The B61 runs more frequently than the B77 and B75, so you would be extending a more frequent route to cover a less frequent one, resulting in less of a cost savings, unless some B61s were short turned.

 

How do you know they won't cut the B61 to match the B77?

 

I proposed the 57 combination with the Smith Street part of the 75 and extension of the 77 along 9th Street in 1973. Combining the (Smith) 75 and 51 also would have been a good idea because it would have increased riders on the 51, but it wouldn't have saved any money which was the entire goal of this exercise.

 

Does anybody know if there will be a hearing on the revised cuts or it is a done deal since they voted?

 

No more hearings on the revised cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also i feel the mereging of the M6 and M5 is maybe the worst decision by the MTA among all of the cuts/service changes.

 

I actually think it is not that bad. Although the M5 will be more delay-prone, the southern portion of Broadway gets more frequent service (unless they cut back some M5s to Houston Street, or reduce some M5 service altogether). The M6 more closely parallels the subway, while the M5 offers service from 5th Avenue and also goes up to the Upper West Side.

I always thought that the M6 overlapped the M7 too much to justify them as separate routes. However, it would be a longer (and would save less money) extension of the M7 from 14th Street than the M5 from Houston Street.

At least this corridor keeps its service, unlike some areas, where service is being eliminated.

 

How do you know they won't cut the B61 to match the B77?

 

I proposed the 57 combination with the Smith Street part of the 75 and extension of the 77 along 9th Street in 1973. Combining the (Smith) 75 and 51 also would have been a good idea because it would have increased riders on the 51, but it wouldn't have saved any money which was the entire goal of this exercise.

 

 

 

No more hearings on the revised cuts.

 

I thought that once they split the B61, that the B61 was too short, It was only a little shuttle from Downtown Brooklyn to Red Hook. As for the frequencies, I could picture them reducing the frequency to match the B75/B77, since it is simpler to make all of the buses run the full route though ridership would go up on the route, so the headways probably wouldn't increase drastically.

You are right about the B51/B75 combo. As somebody said, it would be especially good with the Culver Viaduct Rehabilitation coming up, offering direct Manhattan service. It would definitely be more popular and useful than the B57 extension, seeing as the (F) doesn't go into Lower Manhattan, while the B51 goes to City Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think it is not that bad. Although the M5 will be more delay-prone, the southern portion of Broadway gets more frequent service (unless they cut back some M5s to Houston Street, or reduce some M5 service altogether). The M6 more closely parallels the subway, while the M5 offers service from 5th Avenue and also goes up to the Upper West Side.

I always thought that the M6 overlapped the M7 too much to justify them as separate routes. However, it would be a longer (and would save less money) extension of the M7 from 14th Street than the M5 from Houston Street.

At least this corridor keeps its service, unlike some areas, where service is being eliminated.

 

 

 

I thought that once they split the B61, that the B61 was too short, It was only a little shuttle from Downtown Brooklyn to Red Hook. As for the frequencies, I could picture them reducing the frequency to match the B75/B77, since it is simpler to make all of the buses run the full route though ridership would go up on the route, so the headways probably wouldn't increase drastically.

You are right about the B51/B75 combo. As somebody said, it would be especially good with the Culver Viaduct Rehabilitation coming up, offering direct Manhattan service. It would definitely be more popular and useful than the B57 extension, seeing as the (F) doesn't go into Lower Manhattan, while the B51 goes to City Hall.

 

 

Ideally if the M6 was going to be gone IMO it made better sense to extend both the M20 and M1 than extending the M5. I hope the M5 has 7 day a week 'limited stop service' between 14th St. and 72nd and also on Broadway between 135th and 168th.

 

Short trip M5/6 combo should end at Park Place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally if the M6 was going to be gone IMO it made better sense to extend both the M20 and M1 than extending the M5. I hope the M5 has 7 day a week 'limited stop service' between 14th St. and 72nd and also on Broadway between 135th and 168th.

 

Short trip M5/6 combo should end at Park Place.

 

What route would the extended M20 take? I was thinking the same thing about the M1, since it would keep some consistancy with the old pattern, and the new route wouldn't be as long (147th Street-South Ferry instead of 168th Street-South Ferry). Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the MTA would eliminate weekend service south of 106th Street.

I guess instead of ending the M1 at 106th Street, they could end the M3 at 106th Street to still achieve a cost savings.

Part of the reason that the M1 wasn't chosen (in addition to the fact that it is more expensive to extend a route from 8th Street than from Houston Street) is probably because the M5 provides more of a replacement for the M6, since they both go up to the West Side, not the East Side like the M1.

The good thing about turning some buses at Park Place is that they would avoid the delays when there is work of the Fulton Street Transit Center, while still keeping service to major points like City Hall and Chinatown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What route would the extended M20 take? I was thinking the same thing about the M1, since it would keep some consistancy with the old pattern. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the MTA would eliminate weekend service south of 106th Street.

I guess instead of ending the M1 at 106th Street, they could end the M3 to still achieve a cost savings.

Part of the reason that the M1 wasn't chosen (in addition to the fact that it is more expensive to extend a route from 8th Street than from Houston Street) is probably because the M5 provides more of a replacement for the M6, since they both go up to the West Side, not the East Side like the M1.

 

Checkmatechamp kid in addition to M5/M6 merger here my other takes on the Manhattan bus changes.

 

M1-I can understand ending 24/7 along 5th/Madison but still daily service should run to 8th St. appx. 5am-1am weekdays and 7am-Midnight weekends. If anything it's the M3 that should be shortned on weekends. 106th St is 'middle of nowwhere' imo. At least IMO run the shortened M1(Or m3 my choice)to 86th/Lex (4)(5)(6) station so riders can still have access to Mt. Siani Hosptial and parts of Musuem Mile.

 

M10-Oringally was planned to be cut totally. Still I feel that the M10 should run at least to 42nd/Times Sq-PABT area so riders from Upper West Side and harlem in wheelchairs or seniors can have access to Times Sq and PABT Bus Terminal.

 

M8-While i agree with (MTA) to end overnight service, I think there enough ridership on weekends to run it about 7am-11pm Saturdays-Sundays.

 

 

M98-Why is this route southbound terminal ending at 68th? 34th St was fine as a southbound terminal for the M98.

 

 

And check back to the M20 being extended to South Ferry? I could be wrong(it's over 150-plus pages hard to remember every proposal lol)but i think the M20 is being extended to South Ferry as part of replacement of the M6 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The B4 should be rerouted via Avenue Z from Ocean Parkway to East 14 Street at all times. Rush hours, it should run to Knapp Street. All other times, it should terminate at the current eastbound B36 stop near Sheepshead Bay (:P(Q).

B4B36B49intersectionareaimage.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checkmatechamp kid in addition to M5/M6 merger here my other takes on the Manhattan bus changes.

 

M1-I can understand ending 24/7 along 5th/Madison but still daily service should run to 8th St. appx. 5am-1am weekdays and 7am-Midnight weekends. If anything it's the M3 that should be shortned on weekends. 106th St is 'middle of nowwhere' imo. At least IMO run the shortened M1(Or m3 my choice)to 86th/Lex (4)(5)(6) station so riders can still have access to Mt. Siani Hosptial and parts of Musuem Mile.

 

M10-Oringally was planned to be cut totally. Still I feel that the M10 should run at least to 42nd/Times Sq-PABT area so riders from Upper West Side and harlem in wheelchairs or seniors can have access to Times Sq and PABT Bus Terminal.

 

M8-While i agree with (MTA) to end overnight service, I think there enough ridership on weekends to run it about 7am-11pm Saturdays-Sundays.

 

 

M98-Why is this route southbound terminal ending at 68th? 34th St was fine as a southbound terminal for the M98.

 

 

And check back to the M20 being extended to South Ferry? I could be wrong(it's over 150-plus pages hard to remember every proposal lol)but i think the M20 is being extended to South Ferry as part of replacement of the M6 as well.

 

The M20 extension to South Ferry was meant to replace the M9, which currently runs on Water Street, but would go to City Hall instead. On the map, the MTA said that some riders would take the M20 because they both share a section on 7th Avenue, so 7th Avenue riders get access to the ferry.

 

About the M98, I agree because the point was to get riders from Upper Manhattan to Midtown, since there is no subway service from the West Side to the East Side, and I don't think a lot of those riders want to go to the Upper East Side-they want to go to Midtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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