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.
Sign in to follow this  
Acela Express

What happened to the Artics in the other 3 boroughs?

Recommended Posts

As the subject says. I've never been clear on the reason why Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island never were slated for any Artics. To my understanding, none of the borough-specific depots have the hardware to support the Artics. But, however, I was also under the impression that Flatbush was having the 'lifts' installed a few years ago? What happened? Also, a while back there was a few of them operating at MTA Bus in Queens (not sure which depot though) ...

 

I also 'heard' it has something to do with the contract between OA and TA? But can't see how that's possible when 126th St. is the only Manhattan depot under TA with Artics.

 

Thanks for any sensible explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the subject says. I've never been clear on the reason why Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island never were slated for any Artics. To my understanding, none of the borough-specific depots have the hardware to support the Artics. But, however, I was also under the impression that Flatbush was having the 'lifts' installed a few years ago? What happened? Also, a while back there was a few of them operating at MTA Bus in Queens (not sure which depot though) ...

 

I also 'heard' it has something to do with the contract between OA and TA? But can't see how that's possible when 126th St. is the only Manhattan depot under TA with Artics.

 

Thanks for any sensible explanations.

 

Queens and Brooklyn are getting Artics in the near future... Staten Island doesn't really need them in my opinion. Brooklyn had a test artic at flatbush some years back and it ran in service there are photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing happened... Lets go over the history and then I can give you the future!

 

 

Staten Island and Manhattan were major test beds back in the 80s testing M*A*N, Volvo and Neoplan Artics but nothing ever materialized until 1996 with the first D60HF articulated. However, we were not originally supposed to have New Flyers. American Ikarus was the low bidder on our Artic contract but ended up going through a management change over to NABI and declined the contract. New Flyer was the next low bidder.

 

The Articulated plan originally called for Artics to be deployed over the 5 boroughs. However, there was great opposition from drivers in Brooklyn and SI. The MTA even ran 5508 out of Flatbush, however that bus barely saw any movement because operators refused to operate the bus (I have a photo of this buses chilling out on Flatbush Ave). As for Queens, the original garage planned was Stengel for the Q44, but that never materialized. So as you can see the entire artic fleet ended up in the Bronx and Manhattan.

 

HOWEVER, with the creation of SBS, through the acquisition of the privates, this changes the entire scene. With the acquisition of 418 new artics (328 LFS Artics and 90 XD60 Xcelsior Artics), we will finally see artic buses being deployed in Queens as well as Brooklyn.

 

 

For Queens the original planned garages are:

Stengel (Q44 Service)

JFK (Q6 and Q10 Service)

Baisley Park (Q111/113 Service)

 

For Brooklyn the original planned garage is:

Grand Avenue (B44 SBS)

 

 

This is all subject to change, we all know the MTA changes its mind like we change our underwear, Daily! It is not known at this particular moment if those 4 garages will see New Buses or hand me down D60HFs. Grand Avenue will probably see new buses because of the LFSA being the SBS bus of choice in this city. Baisley Park test and successfully ran D60HFs, but the LFSA is a longer bus, so I have a feeling that at least Baisley may see hand me downs and not new units.

 

Hope this gives you a little insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall seeing artics on the Q113 for a brief period a few years ago. Artics would be ideal for the rush hour Q44. I would not put artics on the B46 due to crime and fare beating. Staten Island does not need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not put artics on the B46 due to crime and fare beating.

This occurs on your everyday bus anyway, so Artics would not make a difference. However, on the ridership's end, yes the B46 needs Artics as well.

 

Consider Flatbush's heaviest lines - B41, B44, and B46; possibly the B49 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall seeing artics on the Q113 for a brief period a few years ago. Artics would be ideal for the rush hour Q44. I would not put artics on the B46 due to crime and fare beating. Staten Island does not need them.

 

Explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall seeing artics on the Q113 for a brief period a few years ago. Artics would be ideal for the rush hour Q44. I would not put artics on the B46 due to crime and fare beating. Staten Island does not need them.

 

Artics would be ideal on the Q44 at all times, unless you're living under a rock, the Q44 is crush loads all day. And who said anything about the B46 line? The Brooklyn Artic line is going to be the Nostrand Avenue SBS (B44).

 

Also, Hylan Boulevard, could stand to have Articulated buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This occurs on your everyday bus anyway, so Artics would not make a difference. However, on the ridership's end, yes the B46 needs Artics as well.

 

Consider Flatbush's heaviest lines - B41, B44, and B46; possibly the B49 too.

 

I disagree, unless they put 3-door artics, 2 door artics would be a nightmare in terms of loading and unloading. You have people that seems to avoid the back door and choosing to exit at the front holding up the bus for riders waiting to board - in that time you might have ppl taking advanatage of the opened back door to enter and skip on the fare.

 

I also fear the MTA would use artics as an excuse to further cut back on service. The only way the artics would work is if 1 artic = 1 RTS [rush hours, 1.5 normally].

 

So I would NOT be in favor of Artics at Flatbush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the MTA can easily justify artics - just merge a few runs together [longer gaps in service] and then those buses will fill up. That said, I think the initial idea of keeping the artics to just Manhattan and the Bronx for cost reasons made more sense. Sort of similar to why so few CNG facilities. 40 diesel buses are easier to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MTA even ran 5508 out of Flatbush, however that bus barely saw any movement because operators refused to operate the bus....

 

The rumor I heard was that the drivers wanted a higher premium rate to drive the articulated bus.

 

 

 

With the acquisition of 418 new artics...

 

How many of those are meant to replace existing end-of-life artics, and how many are for new conversions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall seeing artics on the Q113 for a brief period a few years ago. Artics would be ideal for the rush hour Q44. I would not put artics on the B46 due to crime and fare beating. Staten Island does not need them.

 

Step foot on the Bx12/Bx2/Bx42/B41/Bx15/Bx19/Bx5 and then come back about why the B46 cant get artics.

 

How many of those are meant to replace existing end-of-life artics, and how many are for new conversions?

 

Count the amount of 1000s still in service and subtract that from the amount of LFSAs were getting. Thats the total, give or take ~50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rumor I heard was that the drivers wanted a higher premium rate to drive the articulated bus.

 

How many of those are meant to replace existing end-of-life artics, and how many are for new conversions?

 

 

Yes, it was a bit of that as well. The rate to drive an artic at the time was like an addition 25 cents per hour. Which is truly bullcrap, thinking about it, I don't know of any other city that even has it where you are paid higher for driving an artic.

 

These are suppose to replace the remaining 1000-Series and take out the 5250-5509 batch of buses. Of course you know they won't get rid of all the 5250 batch of buses. Remember, the 90 LFS Artics were suppose to take out the 1000s, that didn't happen.

 

Between the 1000s and the 5250 batch of D60HFs, there is 305 units (46 1000s and 259 5250s). Like I said, I don't see all of the 5250 batch going bye bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SI route with the highest ridership is the S79 and it doesn't come close to the ridership that would justify artics.

 

Actually the highest is the S53 with the S79 coming in second place. I would say only a few runs would justify giving the route Artics, but not all runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the number is 280 artics for replacement. I do not have the link/document that I saw from mta.info that discusses some details of the 328 lfsa deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How right you are, Grand Concourse, but, again, as I've said, this can happen on your average 40 ft. bus fleet too. It's probably happening this very minute, too.

 

Now, aside from that statement - what doesn't justify operation of Artics at Flatbush Depot? They have 6 routes currently, with 4 of them as 'heavy' lines. Isn't the purpose to increase capacity on a single vehicle, as they've already established in Manhattan and the Bronx?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B49 is a heavy line? Outside of rush hour? I know the route gets hammered with Kingsborough students during rush hour but whenever I rode it off peak the headways are kinda long and the buses aren't exactly stuffed. Sometimes I'd take the 4th Ave subway to the B35 to the B49 home, I can't even you tell how many 35s go by before one 49 comes. And the don't even be crowded, just about everyone has a seat. That route runs like clockwork in the AM rush though, well EB at least.

 

Its a pity JG can't hold Artics though, they would work wonders on the B35 and the B68. B8 seems to have the same issue as the B49, rush hours Artics could be justified on the 8, but off peak and weekends? Not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How right you are, Grand Concourse, but, again, as I've said, this can happen on your average 40 ft. bus fleet too. It's probably happening this very minute, too.

 

Now, aside from that statement - what doesn't justify operation of Artics at Flatbush Depot? They have 6 routes currently, with 4 of them as 'heavy' lines. Isn't the purpose to increase capacity on a single vehicle, as they've already established in Manhattan and the Bronx?

 

Like I said, I don't want artics to eventually give the MTA an excuse to eventually cut back on service. Middays a typical bus can take forever to show up, this would be made worse when it becomes waiting for an artic, especially if I just miss the artic at a bus stop. [ex: 30 min turns to 45min].

 

The artics that goes to FB [that are not for the B44 SBS] have to be the 3-door types. As I said already, you have people that blocks the entrance, by exiting there than going to the back, causing delays and potential farebeating. So the 2-door ones are not an option.

 

As a busy depot, you need buses capable of running on any line and flexibility is essential. So it's not like, "oh let's put an artic at this depot because it has a few busy routes".

 

I can't speak about how it works out in the Bronx since I don't ride there, but I feel that things are just fine as is with the RTS and NGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, I don't want artics to eventually give the MTA an excuse to eventually cut back on service. Middays a typical bus can take forever to show up, this would be made worse when it becomes waiting for an artic, especially if I just miss the artic at a bus stop. [ex: 30 min turns to 45min].

 

The artics that goes to FB [that are not for the B44 SBS] have to be the 3-door types. As I said already, you have people that blocks the entrance, by exiting there than going to the back, causing delays and potential farebeating. So the 2-door ones are not an option.

 

As a busy depot, you need buses capable of running on any line and flexibility is essential. So it's not like, "oh let's put an artic at this depot because it has a few busy routes".

 

I can't speak about how it works out in the Bronx since I don't ride there, but I feel that things are just fine as is with the RTS and NGs.

 

 

So you'd rather ride like a sardine can because you're afraid that the (MTA) would cut service? I personally support artics coming to the outer boroughs where possible, BUT with adjustments made such as signal priority and variations of SBS service where possible to speed up boarding and such. A line like the B44 will not suffer because of artics. The M42 would be a great line to have them on too because quite frankly in the morning those buses are just crush loaded and they have them one right after another, which is insane. I personally don't think the (MTA) is that stingy. They'd already save by not having to run as many buses but I don't think the frequencies would suffer that badly. A few minutes at the most. Besides artics are really on used on very heavy lines. I think service on the M14 is great and that line uses artics. I only have to wait a few minutes usually and there are one to three M14s arriving, so I disagree with your thinking.

 

The nice thing is that they aren't packed like crazy either. They need to do something with the M23 though that line suffers from overcrowding IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you'd rather ride like a sardine can because you're afraid that the (MTA) would cut service? I personally support artics coming to the outer boroughs where possible, BUT with adjustments made such as signal priority and variations of SBS service where possible to speed up boarding and such. A line like the B44 will not suffer because of artics. The M42 would be a great line to have them on too because quite frankly in the morning those buses are just crush loaded and they have them one right after another, which is insane. I personally don't think the (MTA) is that stingy. They'd already save by not having to run as many buses but I don't think the frequencies would suffer that badly. A few minutes at the most. Besides artics are really on used on very heavy lines. I think service on the M14 is great and that line uses artics. I only have to wait a few minutes usually and there are one to three M14s arriving, so I disagree with your thinking.

 

The nice thing is that they aren't packed like crazy either. They need to do something with the M23 though that line suffers from overcrowding IMO.

 

He does make a semi-valid point. When the artics first came there was controversy about how the (MTA) cut service on select routes; one of them ironically being the M23. Having said that, the (MTA) today is different than it was in 1996, so more likely than not (and by that I mean hopefully) we wont see the kinds of shenanigans that we did nearly 15 years ago. Either way, some routes need artics real bad.

 

Part of the reason the (M23) is so bad is because of the crappy schedule; every 7-10 minutes during rush hour is horrible IMO for a crosstown route. A bus lane would also help move buses more smoothly across and decrease a lot of the delays that afflict the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you'd rather ride like a sardine can because you're afraid that the (MTA) would cut service? I personally support artics coming to the outer boroughs where possible, BUT with adjustments made such as signal priority and variations of SBS service where possible to speed up boarding and such. A line like the B44 will not suffer because of artics. The M42 would be a great line to have them on too because quite frankly in the morning those buses are just crush loaded and they have them one right after another, which is insane. I personally don't think the (MTA) is that stingy. They'd already save by not having to run as many buses but I don't think the frequencies would suffer that badly. A few minutes at the most. Besides artics are really on used on very heavy lines. I think service on the M14 is great and that line uses artics. I only have to wait a few minutes usually and there are one to three M14s arriving, so I disagree with your thinking.

 

The nice thing is that they aren't packed like crazy either. They need to do something with the M23 though that line suffers from overcrowding IMO.

 

A 2-door artic is just as bad, if not worse than the 40' 'sardine' cans [try getting out when you are in the very middle of the bus and have to fight other people to get to one end of the bus]. Before I moved to Brooklyn, the M86 was the bus line i used the most and b/w Lexington and CPW, that bus can get packed. It was no plesant ride.] Like I said, the MTA is not going to do an artic for RTS/NG swap. It'll be more 2 artics vs 3 RTS/NGs. So rush hours, may not be affected as much. However, since i sometimes go out after the am rush is over, I am waiting a while before my bus shows up. At times waits can be as long as 30min b/w buses. An artic would turn that wait into 45min. That's why I'm NOT in favor of artics.

 

The M14 example is apples to oranges. 1-It's Manhattan and generally service is much better there than in the outer boroughs, 2-it's a short crosstown route [think of it like the 42nd St S compared to the B41 as the 6 line] - major difference of length.

 

So no, I totally do not agree with you on artics being the answer. I am not in favor of a longer bus and longer headways compared to shorter buses and shorter headways.

 

The best way to solve bus delays is to have dedicated lanes for buses. That way you have a clear lane for buses to be kept as close together as possible at even distances than to have them all bunched up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grand Concourse, I see your point; however, I still find a bit of wiggle room for artics to arrive into Flatbush regardless.

 

You're basing the objection of artics in the outer-boros because you're afraid of service cuts.. which is understandable at the least. But, do you really think that'd happen with the B41, 44 & 46 lines. I don't think so. Those lines will always have ridership nevertheless. And let's no forget the ads these days to have NYers use mass transit opposed to driving their car. Ridership is bound to increase, and the artics is a major answer, as long as service is not slashed.

 

I don't remember the M15 having service slashed since artics arrived; then the B46 is the second busiest route in the city. So you mean to tell me there's no room to add artics for capacity purposes opposed to your service cuts theory? I doubt that would happen. But I'm not a spokesman for MTA.

As I said already, you have people that blocks the entrance, by exiting there than going to the back, causing delays and potential farebeating. So the 2-door ones are not an option.

That argument doesn't fly too well.

It can happen on any bus in the fleet, as mentioned in my other posts within the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you add on to how farebeating plagued the b41 and b46 are, a 2-door artic would be like heaven to those scum [as in why would anyone want to wait till 'everyone' exits from the front of the bus, when getting in from the back would be quicker]. Unless it was a 3-door bus where people can exit from the middle, you have to 'fight' harder to get through the packed masses to get to each end of the bus. On a NG or RTS, the distance b/w one or the other is not quite as big. So I stand by what I said.

 

I don't much trust any anyone/thing, so call me a skeptic if I were to believe the MTA would actually keep service levels as is when the artics arrive.

 

To put it in terms of the subway: Would you rather have a shorter train at shorter headways or a longer train at longer headways? And this being the midday non rush hour period.

Edited by Grand Concourse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you add on to how farebeating plagued the b41 and b46 are, a 2-door artic would be like heaven to those scum [as in why would anyone want to wait till 'everyone' exits from the front of the bus, when getting in from the back would be quicker]. Unless it was a 3-door bus where people can exit from the middle, you have to 'fight' harder to get through the packed masses to get to each end of the bus. On a NG or RTS, the distance b/w one or the other is not quite as big. So I stand by what I said.

 

I don't trust many folks, so call me a skeptic if I were to believe the MTA would actually keep service levels as is when the artics arrive.

 

To put it in terms of the subway: Would you rather have a shorter train at shorter headways or a longer train at longer headways? And this being the midday non rush hour period.

 

And you're talking about me comparing apples to oranges. Like Acela said, I have not seen any decrease in service on lines with artics and the lines in question have such high ridership that there wouldn't be much to cut anyway. I mentioned the M14 because it has artics and has very good service, so I don't see the problem with them, so long as service isn't slashed terribly AND improvements are made to get buses moving quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want and what's sensible by MTA "standards" are two different things. I actually vote to keep longer trains and shorter headways, as most routes have conducted. Take the A for example - headways are not a pain, for the most part.

 

In their eyes, you're carrying the same amount of people with increased capacity; however, as a rider, you'd need to know exactly what service changes are implemented, meaning - will you need to step out the house a bit earlier to catch that bus? It doesn't hurt leaving a tad bit early.

 

But, that's speaking in their terms. And I think that would fly on a route such as the B82, maybe.. but not the routes specified at Flatbush. Service will always remain, IMO.

 

Like Acela said, I have not seen any decrease in service on lines with artics and the lines in question have such high ridership that there wouldn't be much to cut anyway.

I've only clarified that as an example because of the ridership stats - M15 holds number one route in the city and the U.S.; and the B46 holds the rank at number 2, but in the city alone.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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