Jump to content

B44 +SelectBusService+


Iamthe1

Recommended Posts

There was a funny NY lottery commercial on TV a few months ago showing two people transporting a christmas tree on the subway. I think they were trying to show how innovative some New Yorkers are. But the point was that it was just ridiculous to try. Most would agree.

 

As Trainmaster 5 stated, mass transit certainly has its place. It certainly needs to be encouraged, but there are cerain situations where it just doesn't make any sense. For many urban trips as well as virtually all rural trips and some suburban trips the car is still the most efficient and best way to travel.

You would be amazed at what you can bring onto a shortline bus in Orange county  :lol: some of their routes stop dead infront of walmart and mall entrances it's very tempting considering they have baggage compartments and are cheap for local travel. Compareable to the city buses. I was tempted to bring a desktop on those. People like BrooklynIRT will LOVE shortline buses in upstate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

People like BrooklynIRT will LOVE shortline buses in upstate.

 

Not necessarily. I would need more information. There are many factors to consider here.

BTW the items were transported by auto in three separate trips with the tree and the snow blower needing two people to lift and carry them.

 

I said in post #1299: "Well, very good to know it was not done in one trip."

 

BTW the items were transported by auto in three separate trips with the tree and the snow blower needing two people to lift and carry them.

 

It is also very good to know that this was not a one-person job even with a private automobile, especially if both people were traveling in the private automobile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrections to post #1299:

 

"Yes, you said "it would not benefit everyone residing along the route" and that it might be detrimental to "many" of the residents and commercial establishments. The point is to benefit most people (residing along the route), or as many people as possible; I know it is probably not possible to benefit everyone by speeding up the B44 SBS. If I drew up proposals, I would probably be able to plausibly explain how most of the residents and commercial establishments would benefit, overall, from the B44 SBS being sped up to the extent I described in post #1106."

 

and

 

"Good question. Have you noticed any disparaging disparagement in this thread?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with you. The only items I would really challenge here are the meaning of "most efficient" and the meaning of "best," as far as urban areas are concerned. (I am not really concerned with rural or suburban areas.)

If density is very sparse and you can only afford to provide minimal service like 30 to 90 minute headways on routes a mile apart, and buses run nearly empty, that is not very efficient. Only those who have no other choice would use a bus. An automobile would make much more sense for all trips under those circumstances. If many long trips are needed and it is a cold or rainy climate, bikes would not work that well either. Therefore automobiles or taxis would be "best" under those circumstances.

 

Maybe what I am describing is more of a suburban area than urban. There are still urban areas where the routes are not set up to make certain types of trips perhaps because the demand for such trips is minimal. In those cases, it wouldn't be the headways that would be the determining factor but the number of transfers involved and the time it would take to make the trip which could be four times what it woud take by car. For those trips also, the automobile would be best and most efficient especially if the cost of a cab were very high and woud be difficult for the average person to afford on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post #1261, B35 via Church said: Exactly.... So what is still making you think you can get said folks to ditch their cars?

 

Now BrooklynIRT says: Assuming it matters whether I can get any amount of said folks to ditch their cars, one thing that makes me think I can get such people to do that is the fact that people's positions are liable to change over time as the consensus evolves.

What do you mean "assuming it matters"? You want cars off the road, don't you......

 

Also, I thought about this recent point you're using as justification to support this transit utopia you're advocating for, regarding about people's positions changing over time.... It's really looking like you want people's financial positions to get WORSE, so (for all intents & purposes) that they have no choice to not drive around in their motor vehicle....

 

Telling you right now dude, have someone's financial position improve, and the likeliness of their usage of mass transit (hell, even living here in NYC anymore) will dwindle.... Hate to put it like this, but in this country, taking mass transit is not a step up in life..... Folks take generally take mass transit because they have to, not b/c they necessarily want to....

 

In order to fully respond to this and explain why, assuming that harping on parked cars vs those that are in motion would significantly increase the possibility of the B44 SBS performing up to the standards I mentioned in post #1106, it is not silly to harp on parked cars vs those that are in motion, I would need to outline a specific proposal with diagrams and other items.

 

 

No, my "optimism for a 'transit utopia'" by itself probably will not trump that feeling of freedom. This is where logical reasoning comes in.

1) Yes, of course.... "Performing up to the standards" meaning what - Having buses go completely unimpeded, you know, since you'd want to oust as many cars off the road as possible.... You don't need any diagrams and/or any great composition to illustrate how parked cars impede buses & how moving vehicles impede buses.....

 

I mean hey, you can evade the point all you want - But the fact of the matter is, the cars (whether in motion or parked) and the buses are all utilizing the same roads out here... It is absolutely silly to want to separate whether a car is in motion or parked (especially when you conceded to having a problem w/ having cars on the road, period - in your ), as if doing so (esp. harping more on the parked vehicles) would be so profound for the folks (in the specific case) that take the B44 SBS..... I say "specific" because really, this can be said for any Select Bus service route..... Because folks aren't complaining about those parked cars like that; hell - isn't the consensus (so far) for the SBS B44 already positive?

 

So cut it already with this defense....

 

 

2) Speaking of that, I find it ironic that you dub yourself "The Logic" on subchat, but aren't using much of it when it comes to this transit utopia you're conveying you want to actually happen in this thread here..... Go figure....

 

No it can't, unless you're gonna resort to retracting & backtracking statements..... You can't raise points about cars generally (or, worse, giving specific examples) making matters worse for the buses, and then sit here & say that getting folks out of their cars is less important to you... That's a MAJOR factor with your whole rhetoric here......

 

First you brought up (not being able to) changing things overnight, as to you not being able to have it both ways with having urbanites in this city ditch their cars & having suburbanites still drive into this city... Then you brought up induced demand & triple convergence (which are theories btw) not agreeing with that paradox (for w/e reason, you refuse to believe is one)... You said it's not so simple (in my reply to it being a simple concept), but you never explained how it's not so simple - You simply hid behind induced demand & triple convergence in a later post, which means nothing....

 

Tell me something.... Does any one car emanating from (someone driving from) the suburbs take up any less traffic on NYC's roads than any one ca from someone driving within NYC?

This is why I'm saying the theories you wanna bring up, didn't address that particular point... So the answer to the question posed in this part of the reply is still... No.

 

I find it funny that you keep quoting my comment about throwing a monkey wrench into your whole rhetoric, as if I didn't already explain how....

 

Anyway, of course I didn't say you said suburban car travel should be reduced.... That is not equivalent to me bringing up your ignoring of suburbanites driving into the city..... What I'm attacking with that whole thing, is the conflictory/paradoxical-ness of the whole thing (motorists w/i urban vs suburban areas, as also referred to in the above part of the post).... Urbanites not driving within the city & feeding into your transit utopia is okay for you to present/try to impose on city residents.... Suburbanites however in the towns they emanate from, haha, not a chance...

 

You know why, and you know I know why ;) 

 

That's fine you want to inject yourself into the mix regarding that...

 

....However, don't make statements like "You mean like me, when I do operate an automobile?" when I say "You're giving everyone else passes (including the MTA) as to why you hold said position, except the motorist - Including the poor soul(s) that are following the rules of the road....."

 

...When, Nowhere in that statement implicates you... And by making that comment (in bold), you're implicating that I implicated you with that "poor souls" comment....

 

Do not take this the wrong way man, but you should really ease up on the posts in this thread of you posting grammatical fixes in prior posts, and work on improving your reading comprehension more....

 

First part - At least you realize that much......

 

The rest of the post, yeah, agreed.... This doesn't mean you should try to get the masses in this city out of their cars & into taking mass transit..... That is pretty much all I've been trying to get through to you for the past couple.... weeks now.....

 

People are, and have long complaining/complained that buses on certain routes are too crowded..... You can want to try/hope for to ridding yourself of all the cars (well, from those driving w/i the city anyway, since that's what you say your focus is) on the road to your hearts content - just bear in mind that the MTA would NEVER come remotely close to supplying the necessary service levels to account for such an influx of people......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post #1306, B35 via Church said: It's really looking like you want people's financial positions to get WORSE, so (for all intents & purposes) that they have no choice to not drive around in their motor vehicle....
 
Now BrooklynIRT says: No. I do not want people's financial positions to get worse. I have other ideas, none of which would compromise democracy.
 
In post #1306, B35 via Church said: Telling you right now dude, have someone's financial position improve, and the likeliness of their usage of mass transit (hell, even living here in NYC anymore) will dwindle.... Hate to put it like this, but in this country, taking mass transit is not a step up in life.....
 
Now BrooklynIRT says: Such a mentality, which many or most people exhibit, contributes a lot to the many [intractable] problems society has.

 

I do not want literally every problem to go away, but some of the problems that people believe should be addressed and are related to this discussion include...

 

-Socioeconomic inequality

 

-Disintegration of urban society, which is often caused and exacerbated by suburban flight

 

-Poor public education

 

-Social problems (like crime)

 

-Economic problems

 

Hate to put it like this, but in this country, taking mass transit is not a step up in life.....

 
Right. Especially when one has so many people fighting him/her tooth-and-nail when s/he wants to remove accommodations for private automobile travel to give [surface] mass transit and/r bicycle travel more of an edge and encourage people to utilize [surface] mass transit and/r bicycles.
 
That statement refers mainly to situations in which people oppose the removal of relatively few parking spaces due to bus stop elongations.
 

I mean hey, you can evade the point all you want - But the fact of the matter is, the cars (whether in motion or parked) and the buses are all utilizing the same roads out here... It is absolutely silly to want to separate whether a car is in motion or parked (especially when you conceded to having a problem w/ having cars on the road, period - in your ), as if doing so (esp. harping more on the parked vehicles) would be so profound for the folks (in the specific case) that take the B44 SBS..... I say "specific" because really, this can be said for any Select Bus service route..... Because folks aren't complaining about those parked cars like that; hell - isn't the consensus (so far) for the SBS B44 already positive?

 
I do not know. I have seen plenty of unfavorable remarks about the B44 SBS and the B44 local from several people. I would want bus routes other than the B44 SBS/LTD, such as the B44 local and B49, to be restructured even if the B44 SBS performed up to the standards from post #1106.
 
If my position had not evolved from what it had been prior to the time I began riding the B44 more often and examining road conditions along its route more closely (late 2012/early 2013), I would have totally agreed with the "positive consensus for the B44 SBS," assuming it presently exists.
 

 
Seemingly.
 

 
Seemingly.
 

 
Seemingly.
 

 
Negative.
 

 
I am sure we do.
 

 
Clarifying statement (not an implication): I do not consider myself a "poor soul who follows the rules of the road." If/when I do operate a motor vehicle, I am a "motorist who follows the rules of the road."
 

 
Not a problem. Agreed.
 

 
Never say never. This reminds me of the long discussion we had in January (in my trolley/tram thread from that month), in which I mentioned a system of checks and balances after you stated that the suits who run the MTA/government would only increase service levels on the MTA services they would use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the mta/government really wanted people to get on buses they should do it by force, instead of this advocating for public transit bs, the government could employ a toll for any car entering a certain borough/area/even street if u will except for those from out of town or those with special permit e g. Taxi/ truck/ wheelchair passenger and then those not rich enough would ditch thie cars and make it easier for the rest of us non car users

None of this entails anything being done by force, though.... What you're more or less suggesting here is congestion pricing....

 

It's reliant under the assumption that folks would ditch driving, due to the notion that tolls would be imposed or whatever....

 

I guess I don't look at buses as local or express I look at them as simply bus routes that make up a transit network.

 

I guess that can fly in places like Westchester or NJ or Philly or systems with zone fares or large coverage areas. But I reevaluated my previous queens and Brooklyn ideas and maybe shuffling DH runs would be a better way or restructuring LIRR city zone fares would speed up commutes better. However some roadways have clearances too low for MCIs therefore only local/Ltd buses can use em.Previously I wasn't really for diverting but extending via rapid segments to connect major transit or transfer hubs that aren't linked directly.

Yeah, you've made posts in the past stating that you don't look at buses as that of being local or express.....

 

It's not all too smart to look at surface transit that way..... I mean, you don't run a transit system in a large city under the very basic theory of, hey, a bus is a bus.... If you just have buses running any ole where, in all the same exact fashion, making no variations in stops made/bypassed, then all you're doing is making surface transit inefficient for those that live further away from some CBD or otherwise heavily sought after/centralized area of some city..... Even your rhetoric of putting buses on highways to speed them up, obliterates this idea of you not looking at buses as being local or express........

 

NJT (bus) would fail miserably if they didn't have 'X' trips or 'T' trips, to the routes that have them.....

It flies in places like Westchester b/c the roads a lot of those routes travel on, aren't heavily clogged (to the point where on-time performance is horrific)... I mean, I don't think I've read one complaint from anyone on these transit forums, complaining of missing trips on a particular BL route, or a route being extremely late... Even during rush hour, BL buses are pretty good w/ being on-time & what not.....

 

Anyway, what exactly do you mean by "shuffling (deadhead) runs" ?

 

You get people to use buses by improving service and or lowering fares. That includes new routes at service levels people would use, not every 30 minutes and revising existing routes that no longer adequately serves riders.

 

You don't force people to use buses or any other type of transit. We still live in a democracy, at least supposedly.

I'll go as far as to say, if you force people to use mass transit, they'll distance themselves from it even more.....

 

I mostly agree with you. The only items I would really challenge here are the meaning of "most efficient" and the meaning of "best," as far as urban areas are concerned. (I am not really concerned with rural or suburban areas.)

I don't know what is making you think people from those suburbs don't drive into the city in noticable enough numbers to not be concerned..... They have to be factored into the mix, regardless of your unconcern....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post #1306, B35 via Church said: It's really looking like you want people's financial positions to get WORSE, so (for all intents & purposes) that they have no choice to not drive around in their motor vehicle....

 

Now BrooklynIRT says: No. I do not want people's financial positions to get worse. I have other ideas, none of which would compromise democracy. 

So how do you think those that are better off financially would all of a sudden become more apt to not driving around in their motor vehicle (or have someone chauffeur them around in one)?

 

You can enlist your ideas if you want, but I don't see how you would change the fabric/link that exists b/w those that earn more & their choice of commuting....

 

In post #1306, B35 via Church said: Telling you right now dude, have someone's financial position improve, and the likeliness of their usage of mass transit (hell, even living here in NYC anymore) will dwindle.... Hate to put it like this, but in this country, taking mass transit is not a step up in life.....

 

Now BrooklynIRT says: Such a mentality, which many or most people exhibit, contributes a lot to the many [intractable] problems society has.

 

I do not want literally every problem to go away, but some of the problems that people believe should be addressed and are related to this discussion include...

 

-Socioeconomic inequality

 

-Disintegration of urban society, which is often caused and exacerbated by suburban flight

 

-Poor public education

 

-Social problems (like crime)

 

-Economic problems

I get what you're saying in regards to the problems that plague society, but for now I'm going to keep this directly w/i the realm of transit...

In doing that, I'll ask the question in the above replied post snippet, differently.....

 

How is it that you're gonna get those that currently view the almighty personal vehicle (Lol) as a step-up in life, as substandard to that of utilizing mass transit? I'm not sure if you realize how big of a shift in a societal focus that is - It's like viewing the guy that bangs that goddamn bucket all day in the west 4th st station, in the same financial stature as that of a Bill Gates or, ___________ (insert some multi billionare here).....

 

 

Right. Especially when one has so many people fighting him/her tooth-and-nail when s/he wants to remove accommodations for private automobile travel to give [surface] mass transit and/r bicycle travel more of an edge and encourage people to utilize [surface] mass transit and/r bicycles.

 

 

That statement refers mainly to situations in which people oppose the removal of relatively few parking spaces due to bus stop elongations.

When "one" (yes, I know you're referring to yourself & the backlash you've gotten in this discussion) refuses to be realistic about getting people into taking (surface) transit, you're not gonna get anyone to view mass transit as being a step up in life.... You're gonna be viewed as some pro-transit kook/foamer/nutjob that wants people to have the same euphoric love for mass transit that you do.....

 

BrooklynBus is spot on, on how you encourage folks to utilizing mass transit... It is not a concept of force (NySubwayBuff) or a concept of robbing peter to pay paul (yes, that's you).... It is a concept of options & choices - No demonizing one method of commuting over the other... Nothing more, nothing less....

 

I do not know. I have seen plenty of unfavorable remarks about the B44 SBS and the B44 local from several people. I would want bus routes other than the B44 SBS/LTD, such as the B44 local and B49, to be restructured even if the B44 SBS performed up to the standards from post #1106.

 

If my position had not evolved from what it had been prior to the time I began riding the B44 more often and examining road conditions along its route more closely (late 2012/early 2013), I would have totally agreed with the "positive consensus for the B44 SBS," assuming it presently exists.

In that part of the post, I was not referring to the impact the SBS B44 had on local B44 service, and whatever unfortunate circumstance might happen with the 49 (which is what you're segueing into), I am simply talking about those that utilize the SBS B44....

 

Seemingly.

 

Seemingly.

 

Seemingly.

Lol @ this...

 

- The first "seemingly" I'll concede to.... Someone else just might view your rhetoric as logical.

 

- The (point your replied to with the) second "seemingly" you're refusing to even try to refute....

I don't think you can, quite honestly.... I'll take this "seemingly" as a concession on your part....

 

- The third "seemingly" doesn't fly here.... You did NOT bring up how not so simple the paradox of [having urbanites ditch their cars & taking mass transit, while leaving suburbanites to continue to drive into the city] is to [your rhetoric of getting folks out of their cars in NYC for mass transit & other modes of travel]..... Bringing up induced demand & triple convergence did not accomplish that task.... Refusing to focus on suburbanites definitely doesn't accomplish that task....

 

So again, how is it not so simple? Don't lazily resort to blurting out what theories don't agree with it...... 

 

 

Clarifying statement (not an implication): I do not consider myself a "poor soul who follows the rules of the road." If/when I do operate a motor vehicle, I am a "motorist who follows the rules of the road."

 

 

Never say never. This reminds me of the long discussion we had in January (in my trolley/tram thread from that month), in which I mentioned a system of checks and balances after you stated that the suits who run the MTA/government would only increase service levels on the MTA services they would use.

1] It is not clarification b/c you're indirectly accusing me of categorizing you as being one of the "poor souls who follows the rules of the road.".... That is what I'm clearing up..... What is it about that you don't get? This is why I say you have a tendency to complicate things.....

 

You can be a "motorist who follows the rules of the road".... That's all well and good.

But in that post in question, I was not referring to YOU

 

2] Never....

 

It's not happening...

 

Have you been paying attention to the MTA's antics, regarding the indirect forcing (direct marring) of surface transit travel, to try to cram even more folks onto rapid transit (which is wrong in it's own right also)? Where in any of that do you remotely see the MTA waking up on the right side the bed, ridding itself of the current hierarchy of modes (yes, I'm referring to BrooklynBus' use of that word) & up and supplying the plethora of buses/service that would have to be provided to account for all the people that would be (in your utopia) displaced from their cars?

 

I'm not even gonna argue where are they gonna get the money for it all (which would be the easy thing to argue).... I'm arguing, this notion of holding onto hope & faith that someday your rhetoric will come to light in this city, where the MTA just starts running buses & hiring drivers & all that good stuff, out of the wild blue yonder :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you think those that are better off financially would all of a sudden become more apt to not driving around in their motor vehicle (or have someone chauffeur them around in one)?

 

To be figured out later, if ever.

 

How is it that you're gonna get those that currently view the almighty personal vehicle (Lol) as a step-up in life, as substandard to that of utilizing mass transit? I'm not sure if you realize how big of a shift in a societal focus that is - It's like viewing the guy that bangs that goddamn bucket all day in the west 4th st station, in the same financial stature as that of a Bill Gates or, ___________ (insert some multi billionare here).....

 

To be figured out later, if ever. Yes, I realize how big of a shift in a societal focus it is.

 

When "one" (yes, I know you're referring to yourself & the backlash you've gotten in this discussion)

 

I am not.

 

refuses to be realistic about getting people into taking (surface) transit, you're not gonna get anyone to view mass transit as being a step up in life.... You're gonna be viewed as some pro-transit kook/foamer/nutjob that wants people to have the same euphoric love for mass transit that you do.....

 

This assumes I even am unrealistic.

 

- The (point your replied to with the) second "seemingly" you're refusing to even try to refute....

I don't think you can, quite honestly.... I'll take this "seemingly" as a concession on your part....

 

If you wish.

 

So again, how is it not so simple? Don't lazily resort to blurting out what theories don't agree with it......

 

To be figured out later, if ever. Requires a long and well thought out explanation.

 

1] It is not clarification b/c you're indirectly accusing me of categorizing you as being one of the "poor souls who follows the rules of the road.".... That is what I'm clearing up..... What is it about that you don't get? This is why I say you have a tendency to complicate things.....

 

You can be a "motorist who follows the rules of the road".... That's all well and good.

But in that post in question, I was not referring to YOU

 

Understood.

 

Have you been paying attention to the MTA's antics, regarding the indirect forcing (direct marring) of surface transit travel, to try to cram even more folks onto rapid transit (which is wrong in it's own right also)?

 

Yes.

 

Where in any of that do you remotely see the MTA waking up on the right side the bed, ridding itself of the current hierarchy of modes (yes, I'm referring to BrooklynBus' use of that word) & up and supplying the plethora of buses/service that would have to be provided to account for all the people that would be (in your utopia) displaced from their cars?

 

And/r trams. (This follows up the bold word, "buses.")

 

Assuming anybody even needs to be displaced from their cars*  in order for my "utopia" becomes a reality, my answer is "to be figured out later, if ever."

 

*We are assuming that each person in this group of people that would be displaced from their cars is driving his/her own car here, right?

 

I'm not even gonna argue where are they gonna get the money for it all (which would be the easy thing to argue).... I'm arguing, this notion of holding onto hope & faith that someday your rhetoric will come to light in this city, where the MTA just starts running buses & hiring drivers & all that good stuff, out of the wild blue yonder :lol:

 

And/r running trams and hiring operators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be figured out later.

 

 

To be figured out later. Yes, I realize how big of a shift in a societal focus it is.

...And you implicate in a later statement that you're not being unrealistic?

If you realize it, then you wouldn't believe it is realistic......

 

I am not.

It must have been one hell of a coincidence then for you to make that point the way you did.....

 

This assumes I even am unrealistic.

Clearly you are, if you believe you can get as many people in this city out of their cars......

 

If you wish.

I do.... Along with the passiveness of this entire recent reply of yours.....

 

To be figured out later, if ever. Requires a long and well thought out explanation.

Lol @"if ever"....

 

Understood.

 

Yes.

 

 

And/r trams. (This follows up the bold word, "buses.")

 

Assuming anybody even needs to be displaced from their cars (we are assuming that each person owns at least one car here, right?) in order for my "utopia" becomes a reality, my answer is "to be figured out later."

- Yeah, and trams.... Whatever other mode you wanna bring up that doesn't equate to someone driving around in a car.....

- Wrong, No one is assuming each person owns at least one car.... Each person doesn't have to own at least one car for me to believe that you're not gonna get as many cars up off the road for your transit utopia to ever come to fruition.....

- For you to now say "assuming" anyone even needs to be displaced from their cars, is you backtracking from your original statements.... Figured it would come to that...

 

And/r running trams and hiring operators.

- Again, Yeah, and trams....

 

reply in red....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you realize it, then you wouldn't believe it is realistic......

 

Seemingly.

 

- Wrong, No one is assuming each person owns at least one car.... Each person doesn't have to own at least one car for me to believe that you're not gonna get as many cars up off the road for your transit utopia to ever come to fruition.....

 

I may have typed the response too quickly and without enough thought. But, "to be figured out later, if ever" still holds.

 

- For you to now say "assuming" anyone even needs to be displaced from their cars, is you backtracking from your original statements....

 

Seemingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those BusTime display boards with the stops-away countdowns and bus maps they're installing for the B44 SBS are pretty damn awesome. Much nicer than the ones in Staten Island. If the funding was there, I'd put those up at every SBS and Limited bus stop (and heavily used stops on locals, too) in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those BusTime display boards with the stops-away countdowns and bus maps they're installing for the B44 SBS are pretty damn awesome. Much nicer than the ones in Staten Island. If the funding was there, I'd put those up at every SBS and Limited bus stop (and heavily used stops on locals, too) in the city.

 

I'm curious. Do you know where to find a picture of one of these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, everything now is seemingly or to be figured out later....

 

That concludes this discussion then.

(Now you can stop eating your popcorn in the background there, QJT :lol: )

Is it finally over?  Thank god. You are right about NJT to an extent. NJT started changing the numbers on many X trips the 409X =417 ect I heard the biggest complaint about SEPTA is a lack of LTD stop service on their heavily used lines like 25,18,26 but I guess I am so used to taking trains for faster trips I unintentionally bypassed SEPTA's slowest lines and didn't realize how slow many lines were. Plus in Philadelphia they don't have an extensive highway network at all which means little opportunity for express service some lines like 150 are too express like and need extra stops but that discussion can be held elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....You are right about NJT to an extent.

 

NJT started changing the numbers on many X trips the 409X =417 ect ......

To an extent? I said nothing wrong there....

 

On top of it, You're making my point....

It doesn't matter if they gave 'x' trips their own route number for some routes, the point is that they exist..... That's all I'm saying.

 

If there were no express, LTD, +SBS+, "Go Bus", or other stop-skipping/non-stop variants to bus routes, People traveling further distances would be less apt to taking buses..... Not that I care much for SBS, but there are plenty folks traveling long enough distances on the Bx12 & the S79 (especially), along with the M15 & the B44.....

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.