Tappan Zee Bus Service

[QueensCzar248]

Currently, the State noted that the new bridge will not have any form of transit, but will have "provisions to do so in the future." I believe a dedicated bus lane on the bridge, and across the 287 corridor will ease traffic throughout the northern suburbs, considering the amount of commuters from Rockland to Westchester & the city daily. Your thoughts? Should they have a dedicated bus-only lane on 287?

 

Should they (hopefully) have bus service across the bridge, who will operate it? MTA, TOR, Bee Line, Rockland Coaches, or each agency individually (like NJ Transit private lines into the city)?

[B35 via Church]

wait a second.... so when they build this new bridge, the TzX is gone???

 

I don't know about a bus lane, but there is most certainly a definite need for bus service b/w Rockland & Westchester.... I always felt that there should be one BeeLine route (whether it's an extension of a current one, or a whole new route) on top of the TzX that already exists, that would aid in transporting commuters b/w the 2 counties.....

[QueensCzar248]

The TZx will still exist, but the buses will continue to be stuck in regular commuter traffic every day. What local politicians are demanding is a "bus-only HOV" lane from Suffern to White Plains so more people will use transit and speed up the commute.

 

Yeah, I think Westchester should have a bus line as well, becuase the TZx has poor service off peak in my opinion.

[Shortline Bus]

wait a second.... so when they build this new bridge, the TzX is gone???

 

I don't know about a bus lane, but there is most certainly a definite need for bus service b/w Rockland & Westchester.... I always felt that there should be one BeeLine route (whether it's an extension of a current one, or a whole new route) on top of the TzX that already exists, that would aid in transporting commuters b/w the 2 counties.....

 

Honestly the Tappan Zee express had sunday service and also more frequent headways i.e 30-minutes midday weekdays between 10am-3pm and most of the day Sundays, there is no need to extend or create a new Beeline Rockland-Westchester route. IMO it's a joke there not at least Some Sunday service running every hour say between 9am-6pm.

 

And (B35) if you had the power to extend or create a new Westchester Bee Line route would it be? Logically long term, I would create a 'limited' 7-day a week between palasides center and White Plains via Route 119(Tarrytown Road)stopping through Nyack, Tarrytown, Elmsford and White Plains.

 

While the Tappan Zee Express would operate 'express' Weekdays between Suffern and White Plains stopping only at Spring Valley, Palasides Mall and White Plains via I-287 and skipping Tarrytown.

 

reactions?

[Tokkemon]

I'm still waitin' for that east-west extension of the Hudson line across the river.

[B35 via Church]

Honestly the Tappan Zee express had sunday service and also more frequent headways i.e 30-minutes midday weekdays between 10am-3pm and most of the day Sundays, there is no need to extend or create a new Beeline Rockland-Westchester route. IMO it's a joke there not at least Some Sunday service running every hour say between 9am-6pm.

 

And (B35) if you had the power to extend or create a new Westchester Bee Line route would it be? Logically long term, I would create a 'limited' 7-day a week between palasides center and White Plains via Route 119(Tarrytown Road)stopping through Nyack, Tarrytown, Elmsford and White Plains.

 

While the Tappan Zee Express would operate 'express' Weekdays between Suffern and White Plains stopping only at Spring Valley, Palasides Mall and White Plains via I-287 and skipping Tarrytown.

 

reactions?

 

I would also have a LTD 7-day/week route; except it would pan from MNRR Mt. Vernon to Palisades (via yonkers), (no tarrytown)....

 

- It'd make LTD stops b/w MNRR Mt. Vernon & nepperhan/executive drive...

(via the BL-7 route to getty square, then via the BL-6 route on up to executive dr.... then across executive dr on down to the saw mill)

- Run nonstop on the saw mill & onto the thruway (I-87), etc. til b'way in rockland county....

- Then make LTD stops w/i rockland, runnin up b'way & across rt. 59 in Nyack until you get to palisades....

 

 

* This may eliminate a good chunk of people that are currently enduring rides on BL5's, 6's, 40's, 20's, etc. to white plains, or 1t's (or MNRR hudson line) to Tarrytown so they can xfer to the TzX.... For those that are coming from areas north of white plains, the TzX would still be available for them.....

[Shortline Bus]

I would also have a LTD 7-day/week route; except it would pan from MNRR Mt. Vernon to Palisades (via yonkers), (no tarrytown)....

 

- It'd make LTD stops b/w MNRR Mt. Vernon & nepperhan/executive drive...

(via the BL-7 route to getty square, then via the BL-6 route on up to executive dr.... then across executive dr on down to the saw mill)

- Run nonstop on the saw mill & onto the thruway (I-87), etc. til b'way in rockland county....

- Then make LTD stops w/i rockland, runnin up b'way & across rt. 59 in Nyack until you get to palisades....

 

 

* This may eliminate a good chunk of people that are currently enduring rides on BL5's, 6's, 40's, 20's, etc. to white plains, or 1t's (or MNRR hudson line) to Tarrytown so they can xfer to the TzX.... For those that are coming from areas north of white plains, the TzX would still be available for them.....

 

 

So Bro does this line become a 2nd line to the TZX and a new one? Just want to clairfy. Personally I think your proposed route should end at Yonkers. Not sure of the exact ridership patterns and data but from years railfanning, but I say this. A lot of people transfer between MNRR at Tarrytown going between the Yonkers area and Palasides Mall. Not sure if alot are going to Mt. Vernon and Rockland/Palasides. So in nutshell (B35)your proposed route should only run between Getty Sq.-Yonkers and Palasides.

 

Not to mention alot of people especially teens work at the Palasides and live in the Tarrytown area. Also riders from Upper Hudson line stations i.e Peekskill even as far up as Beacon transfer to the TZX at Tarrytown for the mall. So the TZX needs to stop there most trips for those purposes.

 

If they are going to the Mt. Vernon area those riders can transfer to the Harlem Line Local or BL-40/41at White Plains to get to Mt. Vernon.

Also before Palasides opened the #59 ran between Suffern and White Plains weekdays only. They should restore and extend the TZX past Palaisides to have more runs to/from Suffern weekdays. Right now it's only a couple of trips a day.

 

Just my takes.

[B35 via Church]

So Bro does this line become a 2nd line to the TZX and a new one? Just want to clairfy.

 

Personally I think your proposed route should end at Yonkers. Not sure of the exact ridership patterns and data but from years railfanning, but I say this. A lot of people transfer between MNRR at Tarrytown going between the Yonkers area and Palasides Mall. Not sure if alot are going to Mt. Vernon and Rockland/Palasides. So in nutshell (B35)your proposed route should only run between Getty Sq.-Yonkers and Palasides.

 

Not to mention alot of people especially teens work at the Palasides and live in the Tarrytown area. Also riders from Upper Hudson line stations i.e Peekskill even as far up as Beacon transfer to the TZX at Tarrytown for the mall. So the TZX needs to stop there most trips for those purposes.

 

If they are going to the Mt. Vernon area those riders can transfer to the Harlem Line Local or BL-40/41at White Plains to get to Mt. Vernon.

Also before Palasides opened the #59 ran between Suffern and White Plains weekdays only. They should restore and extend the TZX past Palaisides to have more runs to/from Suffern weekdays. Right now it's only a couple of trips a day.

 

Just my takes.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll say this bro....

 

It's true that there are a lot of people that xfer to the TzX @ MNRR Tarrytown.... but it's also true that there are (I'd say just about an equal) amt. of people that are xferring off other routes @ the transcenter (white plains) to the TzX....

 

The route I just thought up, I think, would end up:

 

a) saving riders money (the beeline fare to get to WP + the TzX from WP to Palisades), and...

saving riders time (from having to trek from the yonkers/mt. vernon general areas on up to WP by way of one of the north/south routes that are makin local stops en route to WP.... to then have to wait for a TzX out to Rockland county)...

 

The way I'm lookin at it, it would take riders off the TzX (how many, or what %-tage, I'm not sure).... but the intent isn't really to rival it, or to somehow supplement it.....

 

Regarding what I said in my last post about w/e riders xferring off routes that are comin from areas north, or east of WP.... and like you've stated, regarding folks xferring to the TzX @ Tarrytown, is exactly why I'd leave the TzX intact....

 

As far as ending it at yonkers, I suppose that would be an option....

Although my intention w/ this idea is to eliminate xfer scenario's for ppl. comin from the more southern part of Westchester, that are seeking service to Rockland County..... Guess it could even help out folks emanating from NYC as well (unless you wanna sit through takin the full rockland coaches route# 20 @ PABT, which is about 2 hrs to Palisades)....

 

Hope that answers your question.

[qjtransitmaster]

Let me help here cause err now you are getting nutty here. The TZX just needs less stops like cutting out nyack and tarrytown with first stop after whiteplains being palisades then let 59 or 92 extend to tarrytown replacing the local service of tzx.

[B35 via Church]

Let me help here cause err now you are getting nutty here. The TZX just needs less stops like cutting out nyack and tarrytown with first stop after whiteplains being palisades then let 59 or 92 extend to tarrytown replacing the local service of tzx.

 

Who the f*** are you talking to?

 

Because if you're directing that BS to me, I aint said a gotdamn thing about changing the TzX.

[qjtransitmaster]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll say this bro....

 

It's true that there are a lot of people that xfer to the TzX @ MNRR Tarrytown.... but it's also true that there are (I'd say just about an equal) amt. of people that are xferring off other routes @ the transcenter (white plains) to the TzX....

 

The route I just thought up, I think, would end up:

 

a) saving riders money (the beeline fare to get to WP + the TzX from WP to Palisades), and...

saving riders time (from having to trek from the yonkers/mt. vernon general areas on up to WP by way of one of the north/south routes that are makin local stops en route to WP.... to then have to wait for a TzX out to Rockland county)...

 

The way I'm lookin at it, it would take riders off the TzX (how many, or what %-tage, I'm not sure).... but the intent isn't really to rival it, or to somehow supplement it.....

 

Regarding what I said in my last post about w/e riders xferring off routes that are comin from areas north, or east of WP.... and like you've stated, regarding folks xferring to the TzX @ Tarrytown, is exactly why I'd leave the TzX intact....

 

As far as ending it at yonkers, I suppose that would be an option....

Although my intention w/ this idea is to eliminate xfer scenario's for ppl. comin from the more southern part of Westchester, that are seeking service to Rockland County..... Guess it could even help out folks emanating from NYC as well (unless you wanna sit through takin the full rockland coaches route# 20 @ PABT, which is about 2 hrs to Palisades)....

 

Hope that answers your question.

 

lol at #20 but for NYC ppl all they need is 49,45 and 47 going fulltime. Plus 9 is faster too. For southern westchester there is metro-north. TZX gets god knows how many ppl from so many different routes in WP it would make your head spin. PPL even transfer from I-bus.

 

 

Now for southern westchester to rockland here is a better idea the line originates from yonkers raceway mt vernon ppl can use BL55 to transfer. The line stops at stew leonards linking to BL78 those from yonkers will use bl78 to reach it. Those from Mt vernon gain express service to yonkers the line then goes from tarrytown to palisades directly use TOR 59/92 for local service via extension. The line will be a CRX going to spring valley via rte 59 then express to suffern via 287 or rte 59 then continues to middletown via warwick(select trips only) The regular TZX times with this new CRX/yonkers line so ppl can switch at palisadesor exit 14 park&ride for suffern. TZX can then be manipulated later for NJ service via 287 that is later and discussed at another time.

 

TOR95 should be extended to pompton lakes via ramapo college corridor 202. TOR91 loses spring valley service but 45 and 9 replace those segments and gain full service.

[qjtransitmaster]

Who the f*** are you talking to?

 

woah sorry about that didn't mean it like that. The idea is something to be explored but your forgetting that yonkers has metro-north to reach tarrytown. Wasn't referring to you directly. Rockland is related to westchester in a sense.

 

 

If I were to go into detail the proposal I have for rockland is connected to westchester. New lines need to be thought of how they relate to several other lines in the area and therefore can't duplicate even trains.

 

Some BL changes need to be made to warm up the areas for rockland changes. Like BL4 can get extended to dobbs ferry replacing BL1 local service north of yonkers allowing 1x and 3 to become fulltime. Let 66 extend to tarrytown replacing 1t. 1C replaced by 55 via I87 to ardsley then 1c. WP bound express service gets better making TZX easier to get to. Now the new line can link with TOR at tarrytown for local service then palisades for other lines. rockland expresses to NYC need fulltime. Monsey offers direct to brooklyn service fulltime

[B35 via Church]

woah sorry about that didn't mean it like that.

 

The idea is something to be explored but your forgetting that yonkers has metro-north to reach tarrytown. Wasn't referring to you directly. Rockland is related to westchester in a sense.

 

 

If I were to go into detail the proposal I have for rockland is connected to westchester.

yeah aight dude......

 

Anyway, I know there's a MNRR station @ yonkers.... the point is, the same people that are more likely to take a bus, are not the same people that would be willing to take the RR to the TzX.....

 

I'll get to your other post sometime later.....

[qjtransitmaster]

So Bro does this line become a 2nd line to the TZX and a new one? Just want to clairfy. Personally I think your proposed route should end at Yonkers. Not sure of the exact ridership patterns and data but from years railfanning, but I say this. A lot of people transfer between MNRR at Tarrytown going between the Yonkers area and Palasides Mall. Not sure if alot are going to Mt. Vernon and Rockland/Palasides. So in nutshell (B35)your proposed route should only run between Getty Sq.-Yonkers and Palasides.

 

Not to mention alot of people especially teens work at the Palasides and live in the Tarrytown area. Also riders from Upper Hudson line stations i.e Peekskill even as far up as Beacon transfer to the TZX at Tarrytown for the mall. So the TZX needs to stop there most trips for those purposes.

 

If they are going to the Mt. Vernon area those riders can transfer to the Harlem Line Local or BL-40/41at White Plains to get to Mt. Vernon.

Also before Palasides opened the #59 ran between Suffern and White Plains weekdays only. They should restore and extend the TZX past Palaisides to have more runs to/from Suffern weekdays. Right now it's only a couple of trips a day.

 

Just my takes.

 

I wouldn't underestimate demand cause if the line goes to yonkers then ppl will simply get off at tarrytown for yonkers so that won't work. But going to central park ave corridor would make sense as it would create connections to more lines and the 55 for mt vernon via cross county. Tarrytown adds too much time so that part should be given to another route. Most tarrytown trips go local via nyack so extending 92 or 59 would allow TXZ to bypass tarrytown. 59 or 92 however would accomidate the former tarrytown ppl. The new line should give tarrytown express to palisades mall while 59/92's extension gives local service. Let all TZX trips bypass tarrytown except rush hr ones originating there. Let 91 or some 59 go express to white plains from nyack allowing tzx to rid itself of those extra stops letting other lines takeover. Taking 1 hour just to reach palisades from WP is just embarrasing.:cool:

[qjtransitmaster]

yeah aight dude......

 

Anyway, I know there's a MNRR station @ yonkers.... the point is, the same people that are more likely to take a bus, are not the same people that would be willing to take the RR to the TzX.....

 

I'll get to your other post sometime later.....

 

If they are serious about speed they will use the train. There is no fast way to tarrytown from yonkers other than metro-north. Regional buses should never duplicate the train reguardless of ppl's tendancies. The bus would duplicate frequent train service if it went to getty sq and tarrytown. You know I am very anti-duplicate. Those ppl willing to take a bus that is slow duplicating the train are few and far between. The line will be most effective going to central park ave corridor as it would remove a ton of car traffic in the process. Attracting more new riders(choice riders). Going to an area reachable by another mode is duplicative and a waste of bus and isn't effective.

[Shortline Bus]

I wouldn't underestimate demand cause if the line goes to yonkers then ppl will simply get off at tarrytown for yonkers so that won't work. But going to central park ave corridor would make sense as it would create connections to more lines and the 55 for mt vernon via cross county. Tarrytown adds too much time so that part should be given to another route. Most tarrytown trips go local via nyack so extending 92 or 59 would allow TXZ to bypass tarrytown. 59 or 92 however would accomidate the former tarrytown ppl. The new line should give tarrytown express to palisades mall while 59/92's extension gives local service. Let all TZX trips bypass tarrytown except rush hr ones originating there. Let 91 or some 59 go express to white plains from nyack allowing tzx to rid itself of those extra stops letting other lines takeover. Taking 1 hour just to reach palisades from WP is just embarrasing.:cool:

 

By the way before the Palasides opened in the late 1990's the #59 used to run between Sufferen and White Plains. It was caught in traffic i.e Tappan Zee, I287 so that why it was caught back. Yes I been on the TZX.

 

QJ no one is using a 'local bus' between Warwick/Middletown and Rockland/Westchester. Let a private carrier and not TOR or Bee Line if demand is there run it. And thanks alot again for going off topic on your 'regional buses' agenda that have nothing to do with this topic.

[Eric B]

If they're building a new bridge, then I wonder whether adding rail service (This was looked at, I believe) be? Like how about bringing the Port Jervis branch across and into Penn or Grand Central? There's apparently a freight or inactive branch off of it at Suffern that goes straight across to Spring Valley (crossing the terminal of the other branch around the station, it seems). From there, run it along the 287, the new bridge and connect to the Hudson branch.

[qjtransitmaster]

By the way before the Palasides opened in the late 1990's the #59 used to run between Sufferen and White Plains. It was caught in traffic i.e Tappan Zee, I287 so that why it was caught back. Yes I been on the TZX.

 

QJ no one is using a 'local bus' between Warwick/Middletown and Rockland/Westchester. Let a private carrier and not TOR or Bee Line if demand is there run it. And thanks alot again for going off topic on your 'regional buses' agenda that have nothing to do with this topic.

 

I think you have it all wrong I never said local bus TOR extend to warwick I said CRX express via 287 from central park ave then stew leonards then tarrytown then palisades then express via exit 14 P&R to suffern then warwick and middletown. I agree 59 should stay put don't misread what I said please.

 

You didn't read my post carefully. I said a new line for that run by shortline partially like another TZX type route. While the TZX loses stops in the process. Let 92/91 or 59 do tarrytown at off-peak hours only while TZX rush service remains.

 

This new express route I would either have it do local between tarrytown and palisades then express to suffern while all TZX become express to palisades since tarrytown express runs don't save much time anyway.

 

I never suggested a local bus to middletown that is dumb I am not dumb

[qjtransitmaster]

If they're building a new bridge, then I wonder whether adding rail service (This was looked at, I believe) be? Like how about bringing the Port Jervis branch across and into Penn or Grand Central? There's apparently a freight or inactive branch off of it at Suffern that goes straight across to Spring Valley (crossing the terminal of the other branch around the station, it seems). From there, run it along the 287, the new bridge and connect to the Hudson branch.

 

true it should become a crosstown line with timed transfers to grand central bound trains. Rather than just be another train to NYC a crosstown line would be a great help.

[B35 via Church]

If they are serious about speed they will use the train. There is no fast way to tarrytown from yonkers other than metro-north. Regional buses should never duplicate the train reguardless of ppl's tendancies. The bus would duplicate frequent train service if it went to getty sq and tarrytown. You know I am very anti-duplicate. Those ppl willing to take a bus that is slow duplicating the train are few and far between. The line will be most effective going to central park ave corridor as it would remove a ton of car traffic in the process. Attracting more new riders(choice riders). Going to an area reachable by another mode is duplicative and a waste of bus and isn't effective.

duplicative? reachable by another mode of transportation?

In regards to my idea/suggestion, what other solitary mode of transportation gets you to rockland county from southern westchester....... The RR from Yonkers only takes you to Tarrytown; another mode (i.e., the bus) is required to continue the trip out to rockland.....

 

Now if the MNRR hudson line served rockland county, then my idea would be duplicative......

 

I am not sure why you are mentioning central park av.....

Sounds like you're pushing another agenda, which has nothin to do w/ service out to Rockland county.....

 

and that part of your post in bold..... few & far between, now that is just not true...

Have you taken the 60 & the 61? Have you seen how packed those buses get? By your logic, those buses should be empty, since all a rider has to do is take the RR ...... Instead, those routes run artics on em (esp. the 60).... Yes, speed is a factor true enough, but speed comes at a price.... People are willing to sacrifice speed for (cheaper) costs/fares - which comes by the way of a local bus....

 

By your logic, the 1T shouldn't exist....

 

 

TOR95 should be extended to pompton lakes via ramapo college corridor 202. TOR91 loses spring valley service but 45 and 9 replace those segments and gain full service.

 

the 95 is the only TOR route I've never taken....

yeah, the 91 is pain-stakingly slow as it is.... still though, all current connections @ Spring Valley should be retained....

[qjtransitmaster]

duplicative? reachable by another mode of transportation?

In regards to my idea/suggestion, what other solitary mode of transportation gets you to rockland county from southern westchester....... The RR from Yonkers only takes you to Tarrytown; another mode (i.e., the bus) is required to continue the trip out to rockland.....

 

Now if the MNRR hudson line served rockland county, then my idea would be duplicative......I am not sure why you are mentioning central park av.....

Sounds like you're pushing another agenda, which has nothin to do w/ service out to Rockland county.....

 

and that part of your post in bold..... few & far between, now that is just not true...

Have you taken the 60 & the 61? Have you seen how packed those buses get? By your logic, those buses should be empty, since all a rider has to do is take the RR ...... Instead, those routes run artics on em (esp. the 60).... Yes, speed is a factor true enough, but speed comes at a price.... People are willing to sacrifice speed for (cheaper) costs/fares - which comes by the way of a local bus....

 

By your logic, the 1T shouldn't exist....

 

 

 

 

the 95 is the only TOR route I've never taken....

yeah, the 91 is pain-stakingly slow as it is.... still though, all current connections @ Spring Valley should be retained....

Do not underestimate connectivity and how well the RR times with TZX. If the bus from tarrytown times well with the bus then switching modes will not be a problem. Your idea undermines the importance of intermodal connectivity. If the RR times with bus well and is faster than the bus from one part to another then a regional bus connecting to RR once from rockland should not meet or go where that same RR line heads to at all again otherwise it would undermine intermodal connections and only create more local buses that are NOT attractive to the majority of choice riders. to attract choice riders then speed is the most important aspect and must not be ignored for ppl too lazy to transfer.

 

Not exactly the TOR 91 spring valley portion duplicates the rockland coaches 45 line upto mt ivy so if 45 gained fulltime service then extended to stony point or even better west point. Then the 91 will no longer need to loop back to spring valley. The 91 I bet no one uses it from palisades to spring valley. They use it to harvestraw or new city then another set of riders get on for spring valley.

 

Also shortline said 1T shouldn't exist outside rush but my beeline proposal will not eliminate those lines but transfer parts of certain lines to others. Like 1's local portion beyond yonkers going to the 4 changes the purpose and kills duplication without killing service.

 

I know the 60/61 DO NOT completely duplicate as 61 has a segment that is not reachable by train and 60 also times with the train at some stations I know I used the local train from CT to get 60 at mamoroneck to get somewhere. The 60 goes to white plains. Therefore it's a multipurpose line.

 

Plus the bus at tarrytown is timed with trains therefore your idea for direct to getty sq now falls apart completely as how is that bus supposed to reach tarrytown before the train? If it can't then it's pointless let serious travellers use RR to make their connection for rockland therefore the RR has secondary abilities in an interconnected network that you and I are unaware of. Central park ave would be more effective as it mimicks current travel patterns thus can attract choice riders and new ones alike who depend on it. Thus more connections become available. To more places. I will not go into detail how all of it works cause I will be here all night.

[checkmatechamp13]

Also shortline said 1T shouldn't exist outside rush but my beeline proposal will not eliminate those lines but transfer parts of certain lines to others. Like 1's local portion beyond yonkers going to the 4 changes the purpose and kills duplication without killing service.

 

I know the 60/61 DO NOT completely duplicate as 61 has a segment that is not reachable by train and 60 also times with the train at some stations I know I used the local train from CT to get 60 at mamoroneck to get somewhere. The 60 goes to white plains. Therefore it's a multipurpose line.

 

Plus the bus at tarrytown is timed with trains therefore your idea for direct to getty sq now falls apart completely as how is that bus supposed to reach tarrytown before the train? If it can't then it's pointless let serious travellers use RR to make their connection for rockland therefore the RR has secondary abilities in an interconnected network that you and I are unaware of. Central park ave would be more effective as it mimicks current travel patterns thus can attract choice riders and new ones alike who depend on it. Thus more connections become available. To more places. I will not go into detail how all of it works cause I will be here all night.

 

While I disagree with the idea that a bus should be created to save passengers money (I mean, you can do the same thing by making transfers free and/or cheap), I don't think an idea should be shot down just for being duplicative, because a bus can't fully duplicate a train. Yeah, if you live near a train station, the train is faster, but there are plenty of areas where the train station is nowhere in the area (even though the tracks are).

 

I mean, by your logic, the #20/21 (which go along Central Park Avenue, which you're trying to route this new bus down, so it would be just as duplicative) and #40/41 are duplicative of the Harlem Line when in reality a lot of the areas the bus serves aren't near the train stations.

 

I mean, you could argue that the #40/41 go and serve Valhalla after duplicating the MNRR, but then you could argue that B35's route would go and serve Rockland after "parallelling" the MNRR. Besides, if you live in say, Irvington or Dobbs Ferry, it's a PITA to wait for a local train, take it for one stop, and then take the TZX from there.

[qjtransitmaster]

While I disagree with the idea that a bus should be created to save passengers money (I mean, you can do the same thing by making transfers free and/or cheap), I don't think his idea would be duplicative.

 

exactly making transfers free or cheap would be cheaper to implement cause it saves the bus from unnessesary milage. I hate duplicate routes. All my ideas are anti-duplicate. They force complete duplicates to either reroute or die off via merger of unique segment to another line in the network.

 

However duplicate en rte doesn't apply if it's a short stint. I mean lines that do nothing but duplicate deserve a quick demise.

 

Many lines that appear to duplicate actually do not do so the 60 doesn't completely duplicate a RR line for it's entire route. Several lines look like duplicates on paper but have huge segments that do NOT duplicate. If you want to know how effective lines are when they completely duplicate look at morris county,NJ then you will know how it dooms lines to imminent failure.

[qjtransitmaster]

While I disagree with the idea that a bus should be created to save passengers money (I mean, you can do the same thing by making transfers free and/or cheap), I don't think an idea should be shot down just for being duplicative, because a bus can't fully duplicate a train. Yeah, if you live near a train station, the train is faster, but there are plenty of areas where the train station is nowhere in the area (even though the tracks are).

 

I mean, by your logic, the #20/21 (which go along Central Park Avenue, which you're trying to route this new bus down, so it would be just as duplicative) and #40/41 are duplicative of the Harlem Line when in reality a lot of the areas the bus serves aren't near the train stations.

 

I mean, you could argue that the #40/41 go and serve Valhalla after duplicating the MNRR, but then you could argue that B35's route would go and serve Rockland after "parallelling" the MNRR. Besides, if you live in say, Irvington or Dobbs Ferry, it's a PITA to wait for a local train, take it for one stop, and then take the TZX from there.

I know how it is a PITA to wait for local train so let BL66 extend to tarrytown from ardsley area so those ppl have a direct bus to a transfer point for the rockland bus. Then for lower parts there is no excuse parts south of dobbs ferry have no excuse use RR. Northern parts use BL66's extension killing off 1T and 1W in the process. Allowing BL3 to become fulltime. But that is for another discussion. Plus the positioning of the MNRR stations and the BL40/41 make it so the 40/41 aren't really duplicative at all as the train is too far from the corridor 40/41 serves plus 40/41 isn't exactly slow.

 

Man you are way off B35's idea duplicates BL buses as well as RR so again it falls apart badly. And routing this new bus down central park ave will not be duplicative cause it only goes down the southern portion. Basically it's express via I-87 non stop between tarrytown and central park ave the line then gets major trip generators at cross county and empire casino and transfers to other lines plus it will gather new rockland to empire ridership group or make cross county easier to reach from tarrytown and other parts of westchester and rockland itself. Access to central park ave corridor from other regions the 20/21 can't reach gets easier via transit. From so many parts too many to list here. Where do you think the extra cars come from.

[B35 via Church]

Do not underestimate connectivity and how well the RR times with TZX. If the bus from tarrytown times well with the bus then switching modes will not be a problem. Your idea undermines the importance of intermodal connectivity. If the RR times with bus well and is faster than the bus from one part to another then a regional bus connecting to RR once from rockland should not meet or go where that same RR line heads to at all again otherwise it would undermine intermodal connections and only create more local buses that are NOT attractive to the majority of choice riders. to attract choice riders then speed is the most important aspect and must not be ignored for ppl too lazy to transfer.

 

Connectivity wouldn't have to be considered if one mode of transportation to get from point A to point B is present.... Shuts down that point right there.

 

 

Not exactly the TOR 91 spring valley portion duplicates the rockland coaches 45 line upto mt ivy so if 45 gained fulltime service then extended to stony point or even better west point. Then the 91 will no longer need to loop back to spring valley. The 91 I bet no one uses it from palisades to spring valley. They use it to harvestraw or new city then another set of riders get on for spring valley.

Last time I checked, rc #45 goes to NYC... TOR 91 obviously does not....

Making that a talking point for removing 91's from spring valley is totally unreasonable.....

 

That's just as irrational as terminating Bx9's at 242nd st because the BL1c/t/w, 2, 3 runs up broadway, north of the subway..... You can be anti duplication all you want, but you will never eradicate all duplication....

 

Where's your connectivity argument now?

 

 

Also shortline said 1T shouldn't exist outside rush but my beeline proposal will not eliminate those lines but transfer parts of certain lines to others. Like 1's local portion beyond yonkers going to the 4 changes the purpose and kills duplication without killing service.

No one is talking about any proposal of yours, and stop hiding behind Shortline.... You implicitly said, ppl. willing to take a slow bus duplicating a train are few & far between....

 

You then harp on about my idea being so duplicative to the RR, but the 1T does it completely from Yonkers to Tarrytown.... don't talk to me about it changes the purpose just b/c the 1's local portion pans beyond yonkers (down into the bronx).... Especially when you (still) got the 1c & 1w up there along warburton, etc....

 

 

I know the 60/61 DO NOT completely duplicate as 61 has a segment that is not reachable by train and 60 also times with the train at some stations I know I used the local train from CT to get 60 at mamoroneck to get somewhere. The 60 goes to white plains. Therefore it's a multipurpose line.

LMAO... that's my point !

 

Again, with your original logic, I ask.... why have folks taking 60's to White Plains when MNRR Fordham is across the street, Mr. anti-duplication?..... Like I said, folks will abandon speed to save a couple bucks a month.....

 

 

 

Plus the bus at tarrytown is timed with trains therefore your idea for direct to getty sq now falls apart completely as how is that bus supposed to reach tarrytown before the train? If it can't then it's pointless let serious travellers use RR to make their connection for rockland therefore the RR has secondary abilities in an interconnected network that you and I are unaware of. Central park ave would be more effective as it mimicks current travel patterns thus can attract choice riders and new ones alike who depend on it. Thus more connections become available. To more places. I will not go into detail how all of it works cause I will be here all night.

 

What on god's good green earth are you talkin about with this.... My idea doesn't have buses going to tarrytown from rockland.... That's what the TzX is for, which again, I never suggested changing..... Nor is my idea some attempt to compete with Metro-North (which you keep bringing up)..... I already told Shortline that my idea is no attempt to rival the TzX either.....

 

.....and two more things:

 

1) stop with the FBI secret agent covert master plan nonsense... because you have no pre-planned plans !

2) stop meshing whatever gripes you have with central park av in this discussion....