Jump to content

BUS - Random Thoughts Thread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 38.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most people take Subways anyway North and South direction. Instead of being stuck in heavy traffic. They should add more stops since they chopped Southern Portion of M5 route. Plus it was too long.

Adding more stops to a bus that used to make less stops, will have people looking for faster ways to get around... Which (in this case) goes back to people taking subways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic, there shouldn't be any LTD routes, since riders would be closer to bus stops...

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the benefit of localizing buses because the MTA decided to add a bunch of stops on the M5.... That's like someone stealing cash out my wallet & telling me I'm going to eventually spend it anyway, so I should be okay with it... That's how stupid this sounds to me.... I'm seriously trying to understand this benefit (most others I would have written off & ignored at this point), and it's like you're making a case for added ridership or something....

 

Fact of the matter is, those stops should have never been added in the first place; all this is going to result in, is less riders on the M5 & more on the M4 up there... That's just in the northern section of the route..... All in all, you're supporting an increase in just how supplemental the M5 is going to end up being south of 72nd/Broadway & north of 135th...

 

If adding stops is the MTA's way of trying to quell ridership losses on the resultant northern half of the (old) M5 split with this (new) M5, they're going to be in for some awakening, the way I see it.... Or maybe, just maybe they're making buses that much less useful, so folks can sardine onto subway trains....

 

...and then what?

There's a difference between other LTD routes and the M5 LTD that will go in effect on Monday.

 

There weren't any stops added in the Northern section, the M5 LTD always has been stopping at 135 Street, 139/140 Streets, 145 Street, and 152 Street (and then going to 157 Street). It's south of 72 Street where they added a whole bunch of stops to the LTD, to the point where almost every stop is a LTD stop, except for 2 stops. Defeats the whole purpose of the LTD, especially when so many of those added stops are not even that high in ridership, compared to the original LTD stops. If they are gonna run the M5 LIMITED, then eliminate all those Midtown stops that were added, and all the uni-directional stops on two way streets (like 7 Avenue on Central Park South, and 61 Street on Broadway). Otherwise, it isn't much of a Limited-stop service. I don't believe save buses running the M5 LIMITED as it is compared to running the M5 local during the same period.

 

Also, I don't see how it'll make the M5 more supplemental than it is. The M5 outside the daytime is all local, and makes all stops, including those four in Hamilton Heights not served in the daytime, and the Midtown stops. In the northern section, will those 4 stops really make that much of a difference as to what bus riders prefer? The M4 would be local too for the most part, except during the peak direction, and the M5 serves the more commercial part of Washington Heights, which is where many people are going. There is still an advantage even if it was local.

 

Perhaps, there would be a change in peak direction ridership. However, it would not be supplementary because it's not being supplementary to anything, because during the peak hour, all M4's would be LIMITED, and the M5 would be the sole local. You gain some ridership and you lose some ridership. Everyone using the M4 Local would have to use the M5, in addition to the riders not going to & from an M4 LTD stop. Additionally, in the southern section, M5 buses being local also makes up for the loss of M4 local service (otherwise, there would be an excess of Limited-stop service. You don't need the M1 LTD, M2 LTD, M4 LTD & M5 LTD, with only the M1 LTD having a local variant).

 

Adding more stops to a bus that used to make less stops, will have people looking for faster ways to get around... Which (in this case) goes back to people taking subways...

If this is the concern in the northern section of the M5, I don't really think it would have so much of an effect. I mean, a significant amount of people in that area are either elders or with a lot of bags or carrying something else. Also, the (A) deviates from where the M4/M5 run south of 168 Street, so it wouldn't be too useful. That's why I don't believe that there would be such a great shift to the subways. You definitely have able-bodied people too, but then again, they are not going for so many stops on the bus. I feel that one would not save any time taking the subway over the M4/M5 (in this case), especially if they are starting from the GWB. 

 

It might be a different story in the south. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between other LTD routes and the M5 LTD that will go in effect on Monday.

 

There weren't any stops added in the Northern section, the M5 LTD always has been stopping at 135 Street, 139/140 Streets, 145 Street, and 152 Street (and then going to 157 Street). It's south of 72 Street where they added a whole bunch of stops to the LTD, to the point where almost every stop is a LTD stop, except for 2 stops. Defeats the whole purpose of the LTD, especially when so many of those added stops are not even that high in ridership, compared to the original LTD stops. If they are gonna run the M5 LIMITED, then eliminate all those Midtown stops that were added, and all the uni-directional stops on two way streets (like 7 Avenue on Central Park South, and 61 Street on Broadway). Otherwise, it isn't much of a Limited-stop service. I don't believe save buses running the M5 LIMITED as it is compared to running the M5 local during the same period.

 

Also, I don't see how it'll make the M5 more supplemental than it is. The M5 outside the daytime is all local, and makes all stops, including those four in Hamilton Heights not served in the daytime, and the Midtown stops. In the northern section, will those 4 stops really make that much of a difference as to what bus riders prefer? The M4 would be local too for the most part, except during the peak direction, and the M5 serves the more commercial part of Washington Heights, which is where many people are going. There is still an advantage even if it was local.

 

Perhaps, there would be a change in peak direction ridership. However, it would not be supplementary because it's not being supplementary to anything, because during the peak hour, all M4's would be LIMITED, and the M5 would be the sole local. You gain some ridership and you lose some ridership. Everyone using the M4 Local would have to use the M5, in addition to the riders not going to & from an M4 LTD stop. Additionally, in the southern section, M5 buses being local also makes up for the loss of M4 local service (otherwise, there would be an excess of Limited-stop service. You don't need the M1 LTD, M2 LTD, M4 LTD & M5 LTD, with only the M1 LTD having a local variant).

Before I address this, I want to get something clear, because there's clearly some sort of miscommunication here....

 

I'm referring to you wanting to localize the M5 & you're operating from the vantage point of what the M5 is going to do...

 

What exactly do you want M5's to do, outside of what the MTA's going to do to the route come monday?

This is going back to being conflicting again - You're making arguments for localizing the route & making arguments for eliminating those added stops at the same time.... That is confusing.

 

 

If this is the concern in the northern section of the M5, I don't really think it would have so much of an effect. I mean, a significant amount of people in that area are either elders or with a lot of bags or carrying something else. Also, the (A) deviates from where the M4/M5 run south of 168 Street, so it wouldn't be too useful. That's why I don't believe that there would be such a great shift to the subways. You definitely have able-bodied people too, but then again, they are not going for so many stops on the bus. I feel that one would not save any time taking the subway over the M4/M5 (in this case), especially if they are starting from the GWB. 

 

It might be a different story in the south. 

It's a concern of bus service in this city in general....

 

Specific to the northern portion of the M5, of course not.... I've already said in numerous posts (in other discussions outside of this particular one as well) that Washington Hgts. riders on the M5 generally don't ride past 3333 Broadway... So I don't believe there'd be a wave of riders up there taking 1's or A's if more stops were to be added on the M5....

 

Getting around in Manhattan south (the only manhattan that exists, by elitists, is anything below CPS) is far more stressful, so yeah, it's definitely a different story....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I address this, I want to get something clear, because there's clearly some sort of miscommunication here....

 

I'm referring to you wanting to localize the M5 & you're operating from the vantage point of what the M5 is going to do...

 

What exactly do you want M5's to do, outside of what the MTA's going to do to the route come monday?

This is going back to being conflicting again - You're making arguments for localizing the route & making arguments for eliminating those added stops at the same time.... That is confusing.

 

 

It's a concern of bus service in this city in general....

 

Specific to the northern portion of the M5, of course not.... I've already said in numerous posts (in other discussions outside of this particular one as well) that Washington Hgts. riders on the M5 generally don't ride past 3333 Broadway... So I don't believe there'd be a wave of riders up there taking 1's or A's if more stops were to be added on the M5....

 

Getting around in Manhattan south (the only manhattan that exists, by elitists, is anything below CPS) is far more stressful, so yeah, it's definitely a different story....

If it were up to me, all those stops that were recently added to the M5 LIMITED would remain local only (with the exception of 66 Street and 58 Street SB). Additionally, the stops at Central Park South & 7 Avenue and  Broadway & W 61 Street (which are all NB only stops), would become local stops. That's really the only way I would keep the M5 LIMITED as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LGA operation of the Q53 has begun again. The "first" bus just left, 7444. It would be cool to have both CP and LGA units in one shot. CP will no longer operate the Q53 after 1:24 AM, which is when the last Q53 of the day (on the schedule) from Rockaway Park arrives at Woodside. 

 

Just as I say this, bustime goes down lol.

 

EDIT: M5 and M55 changes on bustime. However, unlike the Manhattan bus map, the M55 is light green on bustime. Now, there's an M5 listed for 31 Street (but is actually still going to South Ferry). Would be interesting if the BO switches it to an M55 south of 44 Street. I believe that might happen since then, one wouldn't be able to track the bus.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: M5 and M55 changes on bustime. However, unlike the Manhattan bus map, the M55 is light green on bustime. Now, there's an M5 listed for 31 Street (but is actually still going to South Ferry). Would be interesting if the BO switches it to an M55 south of 44 Street. I believe that might happen since then, one wouldn't be able to track the bus.

 

All the M5s have been listed as going to 31st Street for the past couple of days. They just continued reading "31st Street" even after they passed that point. (There's short-turns all over that do that. For example, S52 short-turns to Jersey & Castleton actually continue down to Beach & Union in Stapleton, so once they turn off Jersey Street, BusTime still shows it reading as Jersey & Castleton, which is what the sign actually says)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between other LTD routes and the M5 LTD that will go in effect on Monday.

 

There weren't any stops added in the Northern section, the M5 LTD always has been stopping at 135 Street, 139/140 Streets, 145 Street, and 152 Street (and then going to 157 Street). It's south of 72 Street where they added a whole bunch of stops to the LTD, to the point where almost every stop is a LTD stop, except for 2 stops. Defeats the whole purpose of the LTD, especially when so many of those added stops are not even that high in ridership, compared to the original LTD stops. If they are gonna run the M5 LIMITED, then eliminate all those Midtown stops that were added, and all the uni-directional stops on two way streets (like 7 Avenue on Central Park South, and 61 Street on Broadway). Otherwise, it isn't much of a Limited-stop service. I don't believe save buses running the M5 LIMITED as it is compared to running the M5 local during the same period.

 

Also, I don't see how it'll make the M5 more supplemental than it is. The M5 outside the daytime is all local, and makes all stops, including those four in Hamilton Heights not served in the daytime, and the Midtown stops. In the northern section, will those 4 stops really make that much of a difference as to what bus riders prefer? The M4 would be local too for the most part, except during the peak direction, and the M5 serves the more commercial part of Washington Heights, which is where many people are going. There is still an advantage even if it was local.

 

Perhaps, there would be a change in peak direction ridership. However, it would not be supplementary because it's not being supplementary to anything, because during the peak hour, all M4's would be LIMITED, and the M5 would be the sole local. You gain some ridership and you lose some ridership. Everyone using the M4 Local would have to use the M5, in addition to the riders not going to & from an M4 LTD stop. Additionally, in the southern section, M5 buses being local also makes up for the loss of M4 local service (otherwise, there would be an excess of Limited-stop service. You don't need the M1 LTD, M2 LTD, M4 LTD & M5 LTD, with only the M1 LTD having a local variant).

If it were up to me, all those stops that were recently added to the M5 LIMITED would remain local only (with the exception of 66 Street and 58 Street SB). Additionally, the stops at Central Park South & 7 Avenue and  Broadway & W 61 Street (which are all NB only stops), would become local stops. That's really the only way I would keep the M5 LIMITED as well. 

The crux of the issue I had with that whole assertion you made earlier of it being better (at this point) to make the M5 an all local route at all times (instead of what's going to happen w/ the route come tomorrow), was the fact that it would make it supplemental to other local routes it parallels..... LTD routes don't supplement locals, they complement them (which is what made the M5 attractive up in Washington Hgts. & in Midtown [over the M7]).... The fact you started talking about walking to stops & what not, to justify making the M5 all local (all times), really took the cake - and after reading your latest reply here, I think even you have to realize that....

 

You have routes in the system where it's debatable as to why LTD service was placed on them (Q36, B38 are the usual suspects), but I can't fathom anyone seriously believing that the M5 (even with the cutback to 31st) being a route still not deserving of LTD service.....

 

So this idea of eradicating the M5 LTD to make the route all local being better (regardless of how bad the MTA bastardized the soon-to-be LTD) held no water AFAIC.... Another layer of local service being created north & south of the Riverside Dr. segment.... Sure, S. Ferry to GWB is quite the distance, but Midtown to GWB for an all local route is no walk in the park (not claiming you're saying it is, but I'm still making the point)..... And sure, the M5 isn't a 24/7 LTD, but did the MTA really decide to split the M5 because it was too long of a local route during the times it ran all local? If that were the case, we wouldn't have the M3 as it still is today...

 

Splitting these long north-south routes by itself isn't the problem; the consensus by us (at least) on here was that the (then) extended M5 to S. Ferry was simply too long for its own good.... However, bastardizing the resultant splits by adding stops to LTD routes (M5) & supplying them with inadequate service & unsustainable runtimes throughout the day (M55) is, and will be a problem.... The way I took that assertion of yours, is you showing support to how the MTA handled this mess....

 

So now that I see that you infact still believe the M5 LTD should be kept (instead of your original assertion), I'll let up......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the M5s have been listed as going to 31st Street for the past couple of days. They just continued reading "31st Street" even after they passed that point. (There's short-turns all over that do that. For example, S52 short-turns to Jersey & Castleton actually continue down to Beach & Union in Stapleton, so once they turn off Jersey Street, BusTime still shows it reading as Jersey & Castleton, which is what the sign actually says)

Makes sense, since when I took the M5 on New Year's Eve, I really thought the bus was short-turning (so I asked the BO). 

 

The crux of the issue I had with that whole assertion you made earlier of it being better (at this point) to make the M5 an all local route at all times (instead of what's going to happen w/ the route come tomorrow), was the fact that it would make it supplemental to other local routes it parallels..... LTD routes don't supplement locals, they complement them (which is what made the M5 attractive up in Washington Hgts. & in Midtown [over the M7]).... The fact you started talking about walking to stops & what not, to justify making the M5 all local (all times), really took the cake - and after reading your latest reply here, I think even you have to realize that....

 

You have routes in the system where it's debatable as to why LTD service was placed on them (Q36, B38 are the usual suspects), but I can't fathom anyone seriously believing that the M5 (even with the cutback to 31st) being a route still not deserving of LTD service.....

 

So this idea of eradicating the M5 LTD to make the route all local being better (regardless of how bad the MTA bastardized the soon-to-be LTD) held no water AFAIC.... Another layer of local service being created north & south of the Riverside Dr. segment.... Sure, S. Ferry to GWB is quite the distance, but Midtown to GWB for an all local route is no walk in the park (not claiming you're saying it is, but I'm still making the point)..... And sure, the M5 isn't a 24/7 LTD, but did the MTA really decide to split the M5 because it was too long of a local route during the times it ran all local? If that were the case, we wouldn't have the M3 as it still is today...

 

Splitting these long north-south routes by itself isn't the problem; the consensus by us (at least) on here was that the (then) extended M5 to S. Ferry was simply too long for its own good.... However, bastardizing the resultant splits by adding stops to LTD routes (M5) & supplying them with inadequate service & unsustainable runtimes throughout the day (M55) is, and will be a problem.... The way I took that assertion of yours, is you showing support to how the MTA handled this mess....

 

So now that I see that you infact still believe the M5 LTD should be kept (instead of your original assertion), I'll let up......

Perhaps it was a misjudgement to believe that people currently may be waiting at those local stops in large amounts for M5 service, but the point I was trying to make was that the M5 LTD now resembles more of a local, and it provides almost no difference in service compared to the M5 Local (therefore, not even being much of a benefit, at least in Midtown). I would like to see the M5 LTD resemble more of a LTD, but considering this is the MTA, who knows if they'll do that.

 

As for the M55, it has been pretty reliable, and I had to do a double-take, because I didn't believe it. However, when I looked at the weekend schedule, I understood why. The M55 on the weekends get 40-45 minutes during the day, and around 30 in the evening and night, when traffic is lighter. So the route will be reliable during the weekend, but unreliable tomorrow. Tomorrow really is the real test as to see how bad the route will do trying to get to each end in 32 minutes.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1209 AND 1215 on the Bx9?!? Is this a swap or two loaners??

It's a swap. KB has 1200-1216 except for 1203 (at TUS) and 1205 (retired)

 

5770-5783, 5785: Bx41/GH exchanged for 1200-1202, 1204, 1206-1216: Bx39/KB

Edited by CH3348
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if 5439 goes into service anytime soon... Kingsbridge has operated LFSAs and the newer LFS' before. Plus, when the 2015 LFS' first arrived to Kingsbridge, it only took 2 days for them to put it into service.

 

Unless, of course, they're waiting for the new paint scheme before they put it into service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LGA operation of the Q53 has begun again. The "first" bus just left, 7444. It would be cool to have both CP and LGA units in one shot. CP will no longer operate the Q53 after 1:24 AM, which is when the last Q53 of the day (on the schedule) from Rockaway Park arrives at Woodside.

 

 

Noob question: Does LGA have hybrids and C40s? I saw a hybrid right in front of a C40 both on the Q53 about a half hour ago on Broadway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Jamaica had already tested the 2015 LFS', that could've played into it being put into service so early. This is the first 2017 LFSA we're talking about.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

Yes, but Kingsbridge didn't have the LFS' before at any point. And it's already at the depot, so it's likely that it'll do the in-service testing at some point soon.

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.