Jump to content

Bee Line Service Changes (Fall 2011)


GreatOne2k

Recommended Posts

:cool:

 

mind you the 10 was very helpful in getting me from yorktown to cortlandt town center when 15 stopped running. I will give you a taste of what westchester needs in a few. Or I would keep to myself and let you guess.

 

What I would have done was finish off the 12 then let airlink replace the old mt kisco part of 12. This would have shaved 30+mins off the trip

 

Except that nothing would serve that business park in Armonk or the Reckson Executive Park (OK, I doubt many people use the bus to reach it, but still) and nothing would serve SUNY Purchase or Manhattanville College. Not to mention that people in Armonk might not use a local bus, but people in Mount Kisco might be using it to get to work (to do "day labor" as JQP would say, though without the same connection with illegal immigration)

 

And looking at the density of the areas, I think a #19 extension from Katonah would be better than a #12 extension from Mount Kisco. The #19 would serve people in Katonah and Bedford Hills in addition to those in Mount Kisco, and it could still serve Yorktown Heights. It could take Rt. 35 to Pines Bridge Road, then take Moseman Avenue to get to the "heart" of Yorktown Heights, and then take the route B35 described to reach the JVM (or the Broad Street route, whatever the people in the area want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Except that nothing would serve that business park in Armonk or the Reckson Executive Park (OK, I doubt many people use the bus to reach it, but still) and nothing would serve SUNY Purchase or Manhattanville College. Not to mention that people in Armonk might not use a local bus, but people in Mount Kisco might be using it to get to work (to do "day labor" as JQP would say, though without the same connection with illegal immigration)

 

And looking at the density of the areas, I think a #19 extension from Katonah would be better than a #12 extension from Mount Kisco. The #19 would serve people in Katonah and Bedford Hills in addition to those in Mount Kisco, and it could still serve Yorktown Heights. It could take Rt. 35 to Pines Bridge Road, then take Moseman Avenue to get to the "heart" of Yorktown Heights, and then take the route B35 described to reach the JVM (or the Broad Street route, whatever the people in the area want)

As for the purchase college to airport and reckon the BL76 will extend for this reason and replace that part of 12. But WP to SUNY is shot and eliminated due to ZERO demand. Thank SUNY for killing that ridership base. You wouldn't understand if I keep mentioning piece by piece. You need to see my whole westchester/putnam plan to understand it fully. Cause every action taken is connected to another.

 

exactly there is no need for the 12 due to the charter bus so airlink is better suited for mt kisco service replacement and yes it will serve armonk reread my post before you reply it would save you alot of trouble. Nah no need 19 to there via extension is a good idea if broken off from ossining and transfered to 1X sort of.

 

BL76 extension absorbs 12 between armonk and SUNY then express via 684 except rush hr when H runs. The line uses 684 to Katonah then uses rte 35 thru the heart of yorktown heights en rte to peekskill via crompond road. Transfer at yorktown for another route to JVmall. I don't want to discuss much more PM me and I will let you know what I am really upto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the purchase college to airport and reckon the BL76 will extend for this reason and replace that part of 12. But WP to SUNY is shot and eliminated due to ZERO demand. Thank SUNY for killing that ridership base. You wouldn't understand if I keep mentioning piece by piece. You need to see my whole westchester/putnam plan to understand it fully. Cause every action taken is connected to another.

 

exactly there is no need for the 12 due to the charter bus so airlink is better suited for mt kisco service replacement and yes it will serve armonk reread my post before you reply it would save you alot of trouble. Nah no need 19 to there via extension is a good idea if broken off from ossining and transfered to 1X sort of.

 

BL76 extension absorbs 12 between armonk and SUNY then express via 684 except rush hr when H runs. The line uses 684 to Katonah then uses rte 35 thru the heart of yorktown heights en rte to peekskill via crompond road. Transfer at yorktown for another route to JVmall. I don't want to discuss much more PM me and I will let you know what I am really upto.

 

 

How many passengers do you anticipate serving on 684 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. QJT.....

 

After all this time, I just realized something wit'cha.... You have a problem with being accepting of anyone's ideas.... There is this need to try to one up someone by blurting out anything ; literally anything he can think of - which is usually some'n totally off the wall & ill-thought out... which most spur-of-the-moment ideas are :)

 

Oh, there are no pre-planned plans of his either - this is why he's always so secretive.... all it is, is one huge stall tactic....

 

We are talking about sending 12's to Mt. Kisco here, and this guy is talkin about 1] bringing airlink back & 2] extending that to mt. kisco...

 

Your whole history here, I can't count on one HALF of my hand as to how many people's ideas on this forum you've ever agreed with.... Not that you have to, but everyone on here can't have such bad ideas that aren't even worth being considered to being agreeable material.....

 

Ego problem much?

Would it kill you to say you agree with someone....

 

So, I really don't have to guess what you think westchester needs.... and I'm calling your bluff when I say this too - You don't know yourself.... Matter fact, I'm seriously starting to doubt you've taken the myriad of routes you say you have.... I don't recall you EVER giving specific examples as to what happened on any particular trip/commute you've been on.... and don't give me the *I don't have time* excuse either, because you make long posts also from time to time....

 

The vast majority of your posts on here is you posting your ideas & defending yourself from the retorts ppl. have of your ideas.....

 

Prove me wrong on all counts, and I'll stand down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that nothing would serve that business park in Armonk or the Reckson Executive Park (OK, I doubt many people use the bus to reach it, but still) and nothing would serve SUNY Purchase or Manhattanville College. Not to mention that people in Armonk might not use a local bus, but people in Mount Kisco might be using it to get to work (to do "day labor" as JQP would say, though without the same connection with illegal immigration)

 

And looking at the density of the areas, I think a #19 extension from Katonah would be better than a #12 extension from Mount Kisco. The #19 would serve people in Katonah and Bedford Hills in addition to those in Mount Kisco, and it could still serve Yorktown Heights. It could take Rt. 35 to Pines Bridge Road, then take Moseman Avenue to get to the "heart" of Yorktown Heights, and then take the route B35 described to reach the JVM (or the Broad Street route, whatever the people in the area want)

 

Don't you mean, we should extend airlink to JVM !

 

In all seriousness, I guess it really would come down to what would better suit the most amt. of riders... whether it'd be a BL-12 extension from mt kisco via yorktown heights & 132, or a BL-19 extension from katonah (which already serves mt. kisco) via 35, en route to yorktown hgts & 132.... It's somethin to think about, on both fronts....

(I'll admit.... although I heard of it, I don't know squat about Amawalk or the ppl. that reside there)

 

 

How many passengers do you anticipate serving on 684 ?

 

Don't try to make sense of it.... It's nothin more than him wanting to be different than the rest of us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. QJT.....

 

After all this time, I just realized something wit'cha.... You have a problem with being accepting of anyone's ideas.... There is this need to try to one up someone by blurting out anything ; literally anything he can think of - which is usually some'n totally off the wall & ill-thought out... which most spur-of-the-moment ideas are ;)

 

Oh, there are no pre-planned plans of his either - this is why he's always so secretive.... all it is, is one huge stall tactic....

 

We are talking about sending 12's to Mt. Kisco here, and this guy is talkin about 1] bringing airlink back & 2] extending that to mt. kisco...

 

Your whole history here, I can't count on one HALF of my hand as to how many people's ideas on this forum you've ever agreed with.... Not that you have to, but everyone on here can't have such bad ideas that aren't even worth being considered to being agreeable material.....

 

Ego problem much?

Would it kill you to say you agree with someone....

 

So, I really don't have to guess what you think westchester needs.... and I'm calling your bluff when I say this too - You don't know yourself.... Matter fact, I'm seriously starting to doubt you've taken the myriad of routes you say you have.... I don't recall you EVER giving specific examples as to what happened on any particular trip/commute you've been on.... and don't give me the *I don't have time* excuse either, because you make long posts also from time to time....

 

The vast majority of your posts on here is you posting your ideas & defending yourself from the retorts ppl. have of your ideas.....

 

Prove me wrong on all counts, and I'll stand down.

Read some of my CT and NJ posts several times you see me agreeing with 553 bridgeton and BZguy on regional issues. Also You sometimes see me agreeing with Gorgor lilbluefoxie inspired some of my intercity replacement ideas for rural interconnectivity. The rural one however I should type it up with trip generators and marketing elements added.

 

Don't you mean, we should extend airlink to JVM !

 

In all seriousness, I guess it really would come down to what would better suit the most amt. of riders... whether it'd be a BL-12 extension from mt kisco via yorktown heights & 132, or a BL-19 extension from katonah (which already serves mt. kisco) via 35, en route to yorktown hgts & 132.... It's somethin to think about, on both fronts....

(I'll admit.... although I heard of it, I don't know squat about Amawalk or the ppl. that reside there)

 

 

 

 

Don't try to make sense of it.... It's nothin more than him wanting to be different than the rest of us...

airlink to JVM ok that is overkill that is not my idea. Actually that idea is a bit incomplete that airlink restoration is actually related to merging it with another line while rerouting another that I will discuss later. I can shed light on amawalk better the rte 35 corridor is buttraped with traffic!!!!!!! especially at rush hour. Which is why I came up with the 684 idea only to get the line there quick enough to katonah so it can become a crosstown line. I'd prefer taking over the ridgefield shuttle and merging offpeak service with BL19 via rte 35. timed with my 76 idea. Take a look at downtown rye and amawalk yorktown heights areas they have similar characteristics. And are connected by I-684 and have a well used airport next to the highway.

 

I respect gramps more cause at least he tries to understand what I am suggesting That comment in red was quite insulting I was different from you ppl from the start. Plus it is type ignorant and closed-minded to not even try to figure out what you can't make sense out of.

 

 

As for gramps look at westchester county airport then look at metro-north then look at rye and where you can go. Then think about this how would you use it? Pretend you live there and don't feel like driving what are your options now with this bus in place. Also take into account timed transfers with MNRR harlem and NEW haven then 76 what are all the things this line can do on each of it's segments or the route itself after extension vis partial BL12 routing and 684? Then link that to BL19 streamlining and extension. Link it to BL15 getting replaced with a highway based line that eats it's segment from briarcliff manor to yorktown then second effect via BL12's former line to JVM with 684 line going to peekskill via rte 35. Then what can you do if you choose to go to putnam? My idea is never about 1 line is has a wide area effect that involves a series of lines syncing with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

airlink to JVM ok that is overkill that is not my idea. Actually that idea is a bit incomplete that airlink restoration is actually related to merging it with another line while rerouting another that I will discuss later. I can shed light on amawalk better the rte 35 corridor is buttraped with traffic!!!!!!! especially at rush hour. Which is why I came up with the 684 idea only to get the line there quick enough to katonah so it can become a crosstown line. I'd prefer taking over the ridgefield shuttle and merging offpeak service with BL19 via rte 35. timed with my 76 idea. Take a look at downtown rye and amawalk yorktown heights areas they have similar characteristics. And are connected by I-684 and have a well used airport next to the highway.

 

 

I respect gramps more cause at least he tries to understand what I am suggesting That comment in red was quite insulting I was different from you ppl from the start. Plus it is type ignorant and closed-minded to not even try to figure out what you can't make sense out of.

 

It's quite ignorant to refer to us as "you ppl" because we are nothin like you...

Which I aint losin sleep over, because that's a positive on all our parts, by the way....

 

 

Anyway, He (Gramps) tries to understand? lol.... Did you comprehend his question (which you never answered by the way).... It was a direct shot at your idea...

 

"How many passengers do you anticipate serving on 684 ?"

 

the keyword is passengers..... and quite frankly, I agree with what he's gettin at....

You are talking about running local buses on a highway between Armonk & Katonah; a 10 mile stretch of road..... and for what....

 

 

Furthermore, you keep reinforcing my claims, man.... I brought up having the 12 being restored on up to JVM, checkmate has his idea with the 19 (I may not agree with extending the 19, but at least Katonah is close enough to JVM; it has some plausibility to it).... and here you come talkin about moving the 76 Rye-Port chester loop to SUNY (purchase)... to armonk... to katonah, towards JVM (the last part, which is what checkmate suggested, except you're having 76's do it)...

 

^^ That is (yet again) you goin out of your way to being differentiable, tryna show up somebody.... You can continue lying to yourself if you want, but you are not fooling me.....

 

And that bit about not trying to figure out what I can't make sense out of... lol... why would I waste time tryna figure out idiocy? There's a difference between being different & sensible, and being different & illogical.....

 

I'll say it again... so many people can't be wrong.....

It can't be all of us, more than it is.... You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite ignorant to refer to us as "you ppl" because we are nothin like you...

Which I aint losin sleep over, because that's a positive on all our parts, by the way....

 

 

Anyway, He (Gramps) tries to understand? lol.... Did you comprehend his question (which you never answered by the way).... It was a direct shot at your idea...

 

"How many passengers do you anticipate serving on 684 ?"

 

the keyword is passengers..... and quite frankly, I agree with what he's gettin at....

You are talking about running local buses on a highway between Armonk & Katonah; a 10 mile stretch of road..... and for what....

 

 

Furthermore, you keep reinforcing my claims, man.... I brought up having the 12 being restored on up to JVM, checkmate has his idea with the 19 (I may not agree with extending the 19, but at least Katonah is close enough to JVM; it has some plausibility to it).... and here you come talkin about moving the 76 Rye-Port chester loop to SUNY (purchase)... to armonk... to katonah, towards JVM (the last part, which is what checkmate suggested, except you're having 76's do it)...

 

^^ That is (yet again) you goin out of your way to being differentiable, tryna show up somebody.... You can continue lying to yourself if you want, but you are not fooling me.....

 

And that bit about not trying to figure out what I can't make sense out of... lol... why would I waste time tryna figure out idiocy? There's a difference between being different & sensible, and being different & illogical.....

 

I'll say it again... so many people can't be wrong.....

It can't be all of us, more than it is.... You.

 

NOT exactly. I was never trying to say anyone was wrong. Plus no one took a shot directly at my idea nor did I say it was like that. The 76 idea was to kill several birds with one stone creating a new travel market after 684 while improving service to MNRR at rye and also helping service in northern westchester with a crompond crosstown line and serving business parks along the way. It's routing is different at rush hour though. The line will take on several forms in a sense that is what 60 does but in a diffrent way. What I said is similar to what checkmate said but except has 76s doing it is just me creating a multi purpose line. Therefore what I said is NOT idiocy in anyway. There is nothing wrong with using the highway to save time. Plus the 684 part was to add more ppl to MNRR north of katonah. Having timed transfers between the modes will maximize ridership potential. The thing is since it's something new I don't know how many ppl will use or benefit from that part though you will have to drive 684 to find out.

 

Ohh I am NOT tring to shoot down any of your claims at all I am simply being different but similar to what you suggested.

 

Looks like you get it. But I never said anyone was wrong now did I. All I did was state my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT exactly. I was never trying to say anyone was wrong. Plus no one took a shot directly at my idea nor did I say it was like that. The 76 idea was to kill several birds with one stone creating a new travel market after 684 while improving service to MNRR at rye and also helping service in northern westchester with a crompond crosstown line and serving business parks along the way. It's routing is different at rush hour though. The line will take on several forms in a sense that is what 60 does but in a diffrent way. What I said is similar to what checkmate said but except has 76s doing it is just me creating a multi purpose line. Therefore what I said is NOT idiocy in anyway. There is nothing wrong with using the highway to save time. Plus the 684 part was to add more ppl to MNRR north of katonah. Having timed transfers between the modes will maximize ridership potential. The thing is since it's something new I don't know how many ppl will use or benefit from that part though you will have to drive 684 to find out.

 

Ohh I am NOT tring to shoot down any of your claims at all I am simply being different but similar to what you suggested.

 

Looks like you get it. But I never said anyone was wrong now did I. All I did was state my opinion.

 

I know for a fact that was a shot at your idea..... All the poster of that comment has to do is publicly confirm it - If he so chooses B)

 

Yeah, there's nothin wrong w/ the concept of simply using the highway... Your little idea though, uses the highway to get to Rye, Purchase, and Armonk on one end.... and Katonah, Yorktown Heights, and Jefferson Valley on the other end.... Not exactly high density areas or common enough commutes to justify having such a service you're goin off about.... You are gonna need a heavy influx of riders for that idea to work out.... It's like pulling feces out of your behind & expecting 100% solid gold to form from it....

 

By the gentleman asking what passengers you'll serve on 684 (which you didn't answer because you know the answer is NONE !), essentially what's being alluded to there is - that 10 miles spent on the highway, could be better used to serving other areas (locally) out there.... since service is so sparse in those parts..... since service was taken away from folks in those parts....

 

Large stints on highways on local routes should only be used where there is a stable & a high enough riderbase to support it... Why do you think the 1x, 3, and the 43 on the south end of westchester (along the sprain brook), and the 14 & the 15 b/w WP & upper westchester (along 9a) works?

 

....and you consider yourself so all knowing when it comes to suburban route planning....

See where all that hot air gets you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that was a shot at your idea..... All the poster of that comment has to do is publicly confirm it - If he so chooses B)

 

Yeah, there's nothin wrong w/ the concept of simply using the highway... Your little idea though, uses the highway to get to Rye, Purchase, and Armonk on one end.... and Katonah, Yorktown Heights, and Jefferson Valley on the other end.... Not exactly high density areas or common enough commutes to justify having such a service you're goin off about.... You are gonna need a heavy influx of riders for that idea to work out.... It's like pulling feces out of your behind & expecting 100% solid gold to form from it....

 

By the gentleman asking what passengers you'll serve on 684 (which you didn't answer because you know the answer is NONE !), essentially what's being alluded to there is - that 10 miles spent on the highway, could be better used to serving other areas (locally) out there.... since service is so sparse in those parts..... since service was taken away from folks in those parts....

 

Large stints on highways on local routes should only be used where there is a stable & a high enough riderbase to support it... Why do you think the 1x, 3, and the 43 on the south end of westchester (along the sprain brook), and the 14 & the 15 b/w WP & upper westchester (along 9a) works?

 

....and you consider yourself so all knowing when it comes to suburban route planning....

See where all that hot air gets you....

I have no hot air don't waste your time with insults keep it clean.

 

the 14 works I know that BUT you forget that my 76 idea replaces a portion of the BL12!!!! between armonk and the airport AND SUNY PURCHASE then towards port chester directly off peak times. At rush a faster routing to the airport and business parks along king street. northbound and southbound differ at rush hour I won't detail it now. Plus the reason for my 76 idea to use 684 is cause another route will do other things so 76 won't have to!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no hot air don't waste your time with insults keep it clean.

 

the 14 works I know that BUT you forget that my 76 idea replaces a portion of the BL12!!!! between armonk and the airport AND SUNY PURCHASE then towards port chester directly off peak times. At rush a faster routing to the airport and business parks along king street. northbound and southbound differ at rush hour I won't detail it now. Plus the reason for my 76 idea to use 684 is cause another route will do other things so 76 won't have to!!!

 

Get back to me when your idea replaces a portion of the BL-12 between White Plains & Mt. Kisco.... Oh, and no buses on 684 either....

 

Otherwise, I'm not addressing this idea of yours anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get back to me when your idea replaces a portion of the BL-12 between White Plains & Mt. Kisco.... Oh, and no buses on 684 either....

 

Otherwise, I'm not addressing this idea of yours anymore.

Ohh do you even know where ppl on 684 are heading to? If so tell me.

FYI ppl going between mt kisco and white plains WILL NOT USE a bus to do it. It's too long. I used it before it was cut.

NO need for a bus from white plains to mt kisco unless it is express to the airport which actually is the 2nd part of the idea either rerouted 5 or off peak 3's OR restored airlink replace BL12 between westchester county airport to mt kisco via armonk. This part I didn't mention is related to the 76 idea.

 

BL76 modification was part of this the BL12 part between suny and the airport goes to the 76 the reasoning for 684 was to attract ppl from northern westchester bound for the airport and rye and even CT(via MNRR transfer) The linking with katonah is connected to MNRR harlem line and indirectly CT danbury itself. Part of this is linked to the rte 35 corridor as well. Much of the 35 corridor traffic comes from 684 itself much of it from either CT or southeastern points in westchester.

 

Also why BL84 failed was duplication of MNRR even though 684 had many ppl using the highway.

But the 84 line failed to figure out where ppl were going. Hint: look at downtown rye and CT for clues to where ppl are heading on 684.

 

The 76's advantage is MNRR new haven connections if it can be scheduled to make many connections and even indirect ones while serving a major corridor traffic may be reduced in that area. And a transit commute that was impractical becomes practical.

Also the segment getting replaced has business parks so serving those via 684 from rte 35 may actually work.

 

Hence if successful more ppl will use MNRR to this line and ppl going to westchester airport won't need to drive as much.

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.