Jump to content

BUS - Random Thoughts Thread


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Lex said:

Even so, it's effectively a Brooklyn stop, given how close to the border it is and what's around it.

I find the BxM3 and Route 28 (admittedly on a tangent) more interesting, as the former has most trips run to/from downtown Yonkers while the latter uses an external name that hints at the existence of a BxM4 branch that was canned in 2010 (BxM4A, with the BxM4B dropping its letter suffix) and implies that it has stops in the Bronx (it doesn't).

Right, this was one thing I never understood. It also implies that it is run by (MTA) Bus and makes similar stops as the BxM4B, yet it doesn't make any Bronx stops. YM1 would have been a better designation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 38.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Snorunts said:

Grand Avenue and Fresh Pond are good at the moment. Queens Village is in need of these buses to replace the 07 Hybrids.

Agreed. I get that Queens Village is the depot in need right now.  However, it was just a personal opinion since those 2 started in the Brooklyn Division. Would of been fitting if they ended in Brooklyn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 11:04 PM, Lex said:

Even so, it's effectively a Brooklyn stop, given how close to the border it is and what's around it.

I find the BxM3 and Route 28 (admittedly on a tangent) more interesting, as the former has most trips run to/from downtown Yonkers while the latter uses an external name that hints at the existence of a BxM4 branch that was canned in 2010 (BxM4A, with the BxM4B dropping its letter suffix) and implies that it has stops in the Bronx (it doesn't).

The above mentioned route 28 still is mentioned listed also as BxM4C, has the most misleading name. It starts in White Plains and runs to Manhattan. It stops in Greensburg and Yonkers, but not in the Bronx. BxM4 is still alive and well. I run on it this summer and indeed a few of its stops overlap with those of BxM4C.

But BxM4C enters the I287 and does not at all stop in the Bronx. Perhaps 'Bx' in its name simply indicates a possibility of a sightseeing tour through the Bronx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TomaszSBklyn said:

The above mentioned route 28 still is mentioned listed also as BxM4C, has the most misleading name. It starts in White Plains and runs to Manhattan. It stops in Greensburg and Yonkers, but not in the Bronx. BxM4 is still alive and well. I run on it this summer and indeed a few of its stops overlap with those of BxM4C.

But BxM4C enters the I287 and does not at all stop in the Bronx. Perhaps 'Bx' in its name simply indicates a possibility of a sightseeing tour through the Bronx.

BxM4C is just franchise piggyback of BxM4A and BxM4B. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 1:42 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I would also add more Q19 service which in my opinion is YEARS overdue. It’s absurd that it runs ever 30 minutes during the weekends and service stops at 8:30/9pm. How does the MTA expect this route to grow if they are being so stingy with service. 

The MTA doesn't increase service as a means to grow a route.... Service increases are a reactionary measure to them, not a proactive one.... Never mind that there is Zero consistency when it comes to the following of their own loading guidelines across the board....

Let them tell it, the extensions to both ends of the route was all the "growing" necessary.... Sardonic, but why dole out more when they can get away with less <_<mad.gif

On 9/15/2021 at 7:09 PM, Calvin said:

I wonder what was the BQM1 renamed as the BM5 about. BQM1 is the current BM5 that's between Spring Creek to Midtown except it goes east of Spring Creek following the QM15. Was it to group all the Brooklyn-Manhattan routes as one?

Yeah, uniformity.

The irony is that if they really wanted to (be petty), they could go back to dubbing the BM5 the BQM1 - being that it makes stops (plural) in Queens, instead of the lone (technical) one at Linden/78th st<>79th st...

On 9/16/2021 at 6:48 PM, Snorunts said:

Grand Avenue and Fresh Pond are good at the moment. Queens Village is in need of these buses to replace the 07 Hybrids.

I had to reread this after initially glancing at it... I was about to say "where the hell at" :lol:

It's odd for me to attribute Grand Av (depot) with being good...

On 9/16/2021 at 11:49 PM, TomaszSBklyn said:

The above mentioned route 28 still is mentioned listed also as BxM4C, has the most misleading name. It starts in White Plains and runs to Manhattan. It stops in Greensburg and Yonkers, but not in the Bronx. BxM4 is still alive and well. I run on it this summer and indeed a few of its stops overlap with those of BxM4C.

But BxM4C enters the I287 and does not at all stop in the Bronx. Perhaps 'Bx' in its name simply indicates a possibility of a sightseeing tour through the Bronx.

While I don't disagree, it wouldn't make a difference if they advertised it as BL-28, BxM4c, or JohnJacobJingleheimerSchmidt at this point... Whatever riders that currently take the thing are going to be the riders left utilizing it before it eventually perishes.... No amount of renaming is going to help that route.

On 9/17/2021 at 6:37 AM, Q101viaSteinway said:

BxM4C is just franchise piggyback of BxM4A and BxM4B. 

I'd like to use the word parasitic, as the taking of the route prefix that was attributed to NYC based express buses was pretty blatant.... Had it been left as route #28, NYC patrons would not have given that route a second thought.... At one point, folks used to take it b/w Manhattan & the WP transcenter, before it was cut back to where it ends now (one block short of rt. 119)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

While I don't disagree, it wouldn't make a difference if they advertised it as BL-28, BxM4c, or JohnJacobJingleheimerSchmidt at this point... Whatever riders that currently take the thing are going to be the riders left utilizing it before it eventually perishes.... No amount of renaming is going to help that route.

I totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 9:05 PM, trainfan22 said:

In regards to that moves/transfers thread, its crazy how some fanners notice when random NG hybrids haven't ran for an extended period of time. NG fleet is like what, 800+ buses citywide? How do yall notice random buses being OOS for an extended period of time, especially when they haven't been removed from rosters?

 

 

I really liked the RTS when they was around and even I wouldn't notice if an random unit was out for an extended period, yall Gen Z fanners have a new level of passion.

On 9/7/2021 at 9:08 PM, Snorunts said:

Well said.

On 9/7/2021 at 9:11 PM, Future ENY OP said:

It's so crazy if you ask me. It's a new level of passion for these Gen Z fanners. 

I come from the era when you had to visually see everything. A bus you saw in Manhattan last week ends up in Brooklyn or The Bronx the following week.  That's how weird and interesting the bus swaps were.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 9:16 PM, Kingsbridgeviewer382 said:

I'm guessing some of them rely on checking the bus tracking sites like Transee or just make assumptions based on if they were able to track the unit at all in the time period. This is just an assumption so I could be way off track with this.

 

Some young people have way too much time on their hands, that's what it is.  They won't be thinking about what bus is parked revenue inactive at a given depot when they'll have to worry about a job, expenses, family, and so on.

Either that or they'll grow up to be one of those weird old foamers in their 50s from the museum train rides, one of those dudes who doesn't wash, works part-time as a cashier at Western Beef, and still lives with their parents.

 

 

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

I rode the new Prevost for the first time today on an ECH route, very nice bus. Which stood out to me the most is how good the soundproofing is, you can barely hear the engine in the interior of the bus. Might have been the quietest straight diesel bus I ever been on. 

 

 

Prevosts seem to be relatively quiet, especially if you sit inside in comparison to older MCIs. And unlike these older MCIs Prevosts don't growl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

 

Some young people have way too much time on their hands, that's what it is.  They won't be thinking about what bus is parked revenue inactive at a given depot when they'll have to worry about a job, expenses, family, and so on.

Either that or they'll grow up to be one of those weird old foamers in their 50s from the museum train rides, one of those dudes who doesn't wash, works part-time as a cashier at Western Beef, and still lives with their parents.

 

 

I wonder how much of information about random units results from dedication or too much free time and how much from automation. Having one's computer review information from Transee or something similar for a particular vehicle or set of vehicles and report if certain criteria are met. Retrieving information from Transee seems like a straightforward task and there is no CAPTCHA validation required to verify if a human or a robot is accessing information. So it is totally imaginable that retrieving information is done by a fan's computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 4:46 AM, B35 via Church said:

While I agree that the Q49 deserves overnight service, I'm of the belief that the running of the Q32 overnight keeps the MTA from doing so (even though it only dumps people off no further north than Northern).... I'd personally run the Q49 over the Q33 overnights myself....

 

On 9/14/2021 at 9:03 PM, B35 via Church said:

Hell, I'm of the belief that if the Q33 never ran inside the airport, they would've never had it operating overnights.

Q18 Q23 and Q49 had overnight service until 1990s. Q72 even had overnight service in 1960s. If there was enough non airport ridership, Triboro Coach would run Q33 overnights which MTA would continued doing when they take over. 

On 9/15/2021 at 1:42 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve been a strong advocate for a stronger overnight bus network for a while because some of the existing routes that run overnight simply don’t do enough. Take the Q100 for example, it’s a waste having it run limited overnight when it would be far more useful to have it run local overnight along 21 street. 

But in regards to the conversation about the Q33/Q47 and Q49, I’m also in agreement with ”B35” that as long as the Q33 has overnight service the Q49 probably won’t. And I get it, the Q33 is a more direct route and it’s in between the Q47 and Q49. 

I don’t know how popular this idea would be but I would simply have the Q33 and Q47 stop running at midnight to have a late night route (let’s call it the Q87 to make things simple) cover the entire Q33 route and the Q47 route between Jackson Heights to Middle Village. You kill two birds with one stone and I don’t think there will be much issue with the route besides Roosevelt Ave, but buses can run on 35th Ave between 74/75th street to 82nd & 83rd Streets to avoid Roosevelt Ave traffic. 
 

I also feel to better improve connectivity the Q23 should have overnight service because currently the whole eastern sections of Corona, Rego Park and Forest Hills has no bus service. 
I would also add more Q19 service which in my opinion is YEARS overdue. It’s absurd that it runs ever 30 minutes during the weekends and service stops at 8:30/9pm. How does the MTA expect this route to grow if they are being so stingy with service. 

Q19 used to run to midnight in early 1990s. I think they cut the Q19 evening service in 1995 at the same time MTA did their cuts because at same time DOT asked all private companies to make cuts. Q18 Q23 and Q49 also had overnight buses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Q101viaSteinway said:

If there was enough non airport ridership, Triboro Coach would run Q33 overnights which MTA would continued doing when they take over. 

I'm not questioning what Triboro did; I know the PBL's actually cared about the riding public.... I'm strictly talking about what the MTA would've done in such a scenario.... Yes, the MTA did do a lot of schedule copy & pasting amidst the takeover, but I'm not convinced that they'd have kept Q33's running overnight after the takeover, if overnight airport usage was putrid... Blank check (quote-unquote) or not....

48 minutes ago, Q101viaSteinway said:

Q19 used to run to midnight in early 1990s. I think they cut the Q19 evening service in 1995 at the same time MTA did their cuts because at same time DOT asked all private companies to make cuts. Q18 Q23 and Q49 also had overnight buses. 

That's all well & good for service that existed ~ 30 years ago, but the Q19 at present date has too narrow a service span & quite frankly, I agree with him that there is a need to have it expanded.... The MTA's been treating that route like a bastard stepchild for the longest... The inclination is have everyone that needs service in that general territory after a certain hour is to sardine onto Q66 & hoof it due north (or take some other bus).... They're too stupid to realize potential when it's staring them right in the face.... This kind of shit is what the riding public has to deal with in this city...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

That's all well & good for service that existed ~ 30 years ago, but the Q19 at present date has too narrow a service span & quite frankly, I agree with him that there is a need to have it expanded.... The MTA's been treating that route like a bastard stepchild for the longest... The inclination is have everyone that needs service in that general territory after a certain hour is to sardine onto Q66 & hoof it due north (or take some other bus).... They're too stupid to realize potential when it's staring them right in the face.... This kind of shit is what the riding public has to deal with in this city...

IAWTP. I just wanted to point out that Q19 service that late is nothing new and actually existed before.  As another example in fact MTA didn't reinvent the wheel when they add Q103 weekend service as QSC ran Q103 on Saturdays until 1995. MTA just restore service that existed before.

Edited by Q101viaSteinway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did 5601 come from Gun Hill? I Rode this bus on the M23 and man that bus is dusty. Easily the worst Artic I been on out of Quill since they swapped Novas with CS a few years ago. It had dirty windows like Bronx Nova artics do. Usually Quill buses are very clean, even the M60 assigned units weren't as ragged as 5601 is,  bus also rattled in the engine area while the bus was in motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Did 5601 come from Gun Hill? I Rode this bus on the M23 and man that bus is dusty. Easily the worst Artic I been on out of Quill since they swapped Novas with CS a few years ago. It had dirty windows like Bronx Nova artics do. Usually Quill buses are very clean, even the M60 assigned units weren't as ragged as 5601 is,  bus also rattled in the engine area while the bus was in motion.

Nope, it's been at MJQ since it was delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Did 5601 come from Gun Hill? I Rode this bus on the M23 and man that bus is dusty. Easily the worst Artic I been on out of Quill since they swapped Novas with CS a few years ago. It had dirty windows like Bronx Nova artics do. Usually Quill buses are very clean, even the M60 assigned units weren't as ragged as 5601 is,  bus also rattled in the engine area while the bus was in motion.

It probably has to do with the Artic units being out the entire day, in and out: since most of their routes are 24/7. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 12:37 PM, B35 via Church said:

The MTA doesn't increase service as a means to grow a route.... Service increases are a reactionary measure to them, not a proactive one.... Never mind that there is Zero consistency when it comes to the following of their own loading guidelines across the board....

Very much correct. 

Running times and trips are adjusted based on on-time performance during trips. Too many buses running ahead of schedule means less buses can be put on the line. Too many buses running behind schedule and adjustments will have to be made for the next pick. The union and some bus operators will warn the rest of us that running hot will affect our work because runs do get cut.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoSpectacular said:

Very much correct. 

Running times and trips are adjusted based on on-time performance during trips. Too many buses running ahead of schedule means less buses can be put on the line. Too many buses running behind schedule and adjustments will have to be made for the next pick. The union and some bus operators will warn the rest of us that running hot will affect our work because runs do get cut.

 

examples include the B41's slow, yet rapid decline & the M101/2/3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 9:46 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I would rather have the Q33 and Q49 over Q47 and Q49. The areas along the Q47 are dead, after a certain hour. Most southbound ridership comes from Marine Air Terminal at that time, and northbound ridership can be pretty light. I would keep the Q33 though. 

I propose Q49 and the Q47 as a way to increase service coverage area. The idea is that the Q49 and the (7) provides good coverage for the Q33 service area south of Northern Blvd, and the Q47 will provide more coverage in that general area of Jackson Heights (70 Street-82 Street) as well as some area of the Q33 north of Northern Blvd

On 9/15/2021 at 1:42 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve been a strong advocate for a stronger overnight bus network for a while because some of the existing routes that run overnight simply don’t do enough. Take the Q100 for example, it’s a waste having it run limited overnight when it would be far more useful to have it run local overnight along 21 street. 

No reason for this really. It isn't really a dedicated Rikers Island Bus anymore as well. Plus traffic and stop volume isn't really the worst at night

But in regards to the conversation about the Q33/Q47 and Q49, I’m also in agreement with ”B35” that as long as the Q33 has overnight service the Q49 probably won’t. And I get it, the Q33 is a more direct route and it’s in between the Q47 and Q49. 

That is MTA's thought process, in that people along the Q47 and the Q49 can "walk" to the Q33 (No we will walk from the 7)

I don’t know how popular this idea would be but I would simply have the Q33 and Q47 stop running at midnight to have a late night route (let’s call it the Q87 to make things simple) cover the entire Q33 route and the Q47 route between Jackson Heights to Middle Village. You kill two birds with one stone and I don’t think there will be much issue with the route besides Roosevelt Ave, but buses can run on 35th Ave between 74/75th street to 82nd & 83rd Streets to avoid Roosevelt Ave traffic. 

Not much Roosevelt Ave traffic during those hours (well maybe except Fridays and Saturday). I am definitely open to more late night tailored routes
 

I also feel to better improve connectivity the Q23 should have overnight service because currently the whole eastern sections of Corona, Rego Park and Forest Hills has no bus service. 

That is another one that should have it. All of these routes end at 1AM and begin at 4AM, a couple more trips should fill the gaps


I would also add more Q19 service which in my opinion is YEARS overdue. It’s absurd that it runs ever 30 minutes during the weekends and service stops at 8:30/9pm. How does the MTA expect this route to grow if they are being so stingy with service. 

They actually slightly increased service on this route. There are times the Q19 runs every 20 minutes, and the bus now runs until 9PM vs 8PM a few years back. 

I personally think this route should run every 15 minutes on weekdays and every 20 minutes on weekends 6AM-11PM. There is a market that the MTA is neglecting along that route. 

That being said, the Q49 overserves Astoria Blvd on weekdays. 99% of the passengers are off the bus by the time the bus gets to 94th Street and Astoria. I would have every other rush hour trip end at 89th/92nd and Astoria Blvd

 

17 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not questioning what Triboro did; I know the PBL's actually cared about the riding public.... I'm strictly talking about what the MTA would've done in such a scenario.... Yes, the MTA did do a lot of schedule copy & pasting amidst the takeover, but I'm not convinced that they'd have kept Q33's running overnight after the takeover, if overnight airport usage was putrid... Blank check (quote-unquote) or not....

That's all well & good for service that existed ~ 30 years ago, but the Q19 at present date has too narrow a service span & quite frankly, I agree with him that there is a need to have it expanded.... The MTA's been treating that route like a bastard stepchild for the longest... The inclination is have everyone that needs service in that general territory after a certain hour is to sardine onto Q66 & hoof it due north (or take some other bus).... They're too stupid to realize potential when it's staring them right in the face.... This kind of shit is what the riding public has to deal with in this city...

I'm not sure if the PBL's cared at least towards the end. They may have back in the 90s, but judging by the condition of the buses (Triboro territory, and Green Lines)  and the anemic schedules, not sure if they took any liberties in improving service as well. They had a pretty sweet deal too, Cost of Operation + Guaranteed profit regardless of quality of service

Are they not allowed to, I know the bus situation is totally because the city failed to buy them new buses, but are they allowed to alter the schedule?

17 hours ago, Q101viaSteinway said:

Q18 Q23 and Q49 had overnight service until 1990s. Q72 even had overnight service in 1960s. If there was enough non airport ridership, Triboro Coach would run Q33 overnights which MTA would continued doing when they take over. 

Q19 used to run to midnight in early 1990s. I think they cut the Q19 evening service in 1995 at the same time MTA did their cuts because at same time DOT asked all private companies to make cuts. Q18 Q23 and Q49 also had overnight buses. 

That is really good to know actually, its no wonder they all have similar service spans even today. 

The PBL has some really crappy headways back in their days (some even persist to MTA today, notice how many MTA Bus routes run every 30 minutes after 8PM vs NYCT Bus). I wonder if the schedules were better before the 1995 service cutbacks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 12:37 PM, B35 via Church said:

While I don't disagree, it wouldn't make a difference if they advertised it as BL-28, BxM4c, or JohnJacobJingleheimerSchmidt at this point... Whatever riders that currently take the thing are going to be the riders left utilizing it before it eventually perishes.... No amount of renaming is going to help that route.

A historical footnote: The Northern Westchester express bus got kicked off of 5 Avenue thanks to Metro-North's pressure. That helped kill them despite being an interstate service (I-684 crosses through Connecticut).

Liberty Lines used a city franchise to shield the BxM4C from having the same thing happen to it. The common denominator between the BxM4A/B/C/D was Liberty Lines.
 

20 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Blank check (quote-unquote) or not....

$500M+ subsidy, up from $159M at the time of transfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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