What do people think of articulated buses on certain express routes.

[checkmatechamp13]

Even with suburban seating and luggage racks the artics would still have two doors and fairly passable aisles, making it possible for people to exit in a reasonable amount of time; on the MCIs if someone near the back wants to get off near the first stop then pretty much everyone in the aisle has to get off the bus to let people out and then reboard afterward.

 

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

 

1) These are supposed to be for commuter routes and thus commuters should expect more comfort as we are paying damn there triple what the average ride would cost, hence the use of MCIs.

 

2) My commute on the express bus to Staten Island is usually anywhere from 1 to almost 2 hours and I think it's ridiculous to suggest articulated buses with those hard seats.

 

3) I never hear this ridiculous discussion about commuter trains vs subways. Folks understand that for what commuters pay to ride MetroNorth and the LIRR that they should have a more comfortable ride, so why shouldn't commuters on express buses? I'd like to add that commuter trains aren't exactly cheap either so please stop harping on the costs. The sad part is that for what MetroNorth & LIRR riders pay the comfort level is pathetic. Those chairs are God awful, especially on the LIRR.

 

1) Yeah, and the cost for the MTA to run that service is "almost 3 times as much". Not to mention that for a lot of people, it's barely over twice as much to ride the express bus. A year's worth of express bus passes is $2,600, whereas a year's worth of subway passes is $1,248.

 

2) What the hell are you talking about with "hard seats"? He mentioned specifically that they would have suburban seating.

 

3) Alright then, let's find a way to reduce costs on those as well. I'm all ears. You mentioned that you were on a train where there was only 1 passenger? Well let's bustitute that train then.

 

1) Most of the neighborhoods that have express bus service don't need subways and even if subways were built there folks would complain that the cost is too high, so what in the hell do they want?? People who live in suburban areas or areas with lack of subways pay taxes just like the rest of the folks and I get sick of the complaining about express buses.

 

2) If it's not the express bus then it's folks complaining about providing services for the disabled people. :tdown: The general message is the only people that should be served is folks that use the subway (not disabled people (of course they shouldn't be served either)) or the local bus and everybody else should screw off and we can take their taxes and not give them any service. I don't know what the feeling is about the LIRR or MetroNorth, but even though those services are expensive I guess they're okay.

 

1) What the hell are you talking about "They would complain that the cost is too high"? How do you know what we're thinking?

 

2) Like I said, if there are ways to reduce costs on the LIRR and MNRR, then let's go for it.

 

We haven't hit anything. They're overcrowded because the slashed service significantly on the X1 as a way of saving money and tried to push folks to its other variants which are supposed to be cheaper. Of course they didn't add enough capacity to the variants of the X1, so the end result is overcrowding. The has admitted that Staten Island needs more service but claims that they don't have the money for it, so the end result is SRO express buses and SRO local buses bypassing folks with the next local buses coming some 20 minutes later in some cases. Someone should explain to me how you have all of these SRO express buses yet the costs are so high... Sounds like to me the (MTA)'s cost figures are a bit inflated.

 

First of all, there have been SRO express buses even before June 2010. You even mentioned it in the post below.

 

Second of all, you haven't been paying attention to a single word I've said have you? Express buses deadhead more than local buses, and there are a bunch of split shifts which drive up costs. Not to mention that these routes travel long disyances with no turnover.

 

And also, the buses that are SRO generally aren't the ones that are expensive to operate.

 

It was an issue even before the recession hit with folks being on SRO X1s and such. I think it's pathetic that folks have to stand on express buses when they have commutes of up to 2 hours or more in some cases, but that's how it is on some lines.

 

I doubt somebody is going to be standing for the full 2 hours.

 

Why don't we explore using subway style cars for MetroNorth and the LIRR since everybody is so concerned with cutting costs?? Or better yet we could build light rails, but folks would b*tch about the cost for that too.

 

How would using subway-style cars on the MNRR and LIRR save money?

 

And apparently everything I say goes right over your head, doesn't it? There are very few instances where light rail works in NYC, and yet you keep on mentioning it just because it's a buzzword that politicians like to throw around. Yes, I would complain if light rail were built because if there isn't demand for an express bus, what the hell makes you think there would be demand for a light rail line with higher operating costs and high capital costs (especially if you run trains directly into Manhattan)?

 

1) Uh yeah well some folks would use them for local bus service too...

 

2) As for light rail it's simple... #1 some folks don't want to pay for it & #2 in some places it is not needed, so express bus service works better, but yet folks still complain about the cost. Can't win either way. What they want is no service period.

 

1) He was just throwing it out there that it could be used to reduce costs even further.

 

2) In any express bus cut ever proposed on this forum, has there ever been an instance where the neighborhoods would be left with no service at all? Living in NYC doesn't mean you have a God-given right to a one-seat ride to Manhattan.

 

Simple... They don't think those areas warrant service, period, so they'll go on and on about how expensive express bus service is. In fact these express bus threads was exactly why I joined the forum. I read a thread a while back talking about which routes should be cut. I have yet to see any sort of thread talking about reducing train service, but all I see is threads about which express bus or which local bus should be reduced or cut or merged. You would think that all commuter rail trains and subways are running at full capacity, every single one of them, but of course that is not the case.

 

I have certainly been on empty LIRR trains and you don't see me advocating for axing LIRR service or using smaller cars because it would be ridiculous to do so. The folks that need the service would be sh*t out of luck.

 

What are you talking about? There have been threads talking about bustituting overnight service, and talking about reducing costs by combining the (Mx) and (which eventually happened in real life), and talking about eliminating the and even before the MTA proposed it.

 

And yeah, if there are empty LIRR trains, let's find a way to reduce costs on those too. Like I said, maybe you could bustitute it.

[Threxx]

alright, wait a minute here....

 

 

A solution to what, is the question....

 

Service hasn't dwindled on expresses because they're short on MCI's..... I hope that's not what you're alluding to.....

 

 

Then you'll really have people complaining on two fronts...

 

One, due to the simple fact that their express route would have artics on 'em... and two, the decrease in service that would come with it.... MTA's formula, the higher the capacity, the less the service; remember, cost neutrality.... lol....

 

Surely you don't think they'll run artics on the exp. routes engineerboy brought up, while keeping service the same (which is as subpar as it is already)... I mean to believe that, is nothin more than wishful thinking.....

 

 

As far as those RTS' that had the plush seating... How well did that go again ?!?!

 

 

 

Our landscape/roads don't allow for it... to hell w/ that 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' ideology.... The supporters ALWAYS bring up how well LRT works in other cities, but fail to realize the downsides (and less effectiveness) of having one built & running in our city.......

 

Hell, there are far too many pedestrians, far too many motorists, far too many intersections in NYC..... and don't bring up erecting elevated LRT's either - we have that along the van wyck b/w LIRR Jamaica & JFK; that is for airport service.... Much different than having LRT's connecting different neighborhoods to CBD's & what not.... it's overkill & not necessary....

 

Let's not wash our hands w/ our buses & subways with bringing up LRT's as a possible solution to getting patrons from point A to B here..... That's doing nothin more than ignoring the problems with our surface & rapid transit system....

 

 

1. If the MTA uses a brain for once, the introduction of artics combined with the cuts will bring cost neutrality!

2. The RTS's ONLY failed because they were moved to local service. THESE artics will be used for EXP service only.

3. I only asked about LRT because VG8 brought it up. Not my idea.

 

[Threxx]

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

 

 

 

1) Yeah, and the cost for the MTA to run that service is "almost 3 times as much". Not to mention that for a lot of people, it's barely over twice as much to ride the express bus. A year's worth of express bus passes is $2,600, whereas a year's worth of subway passes is $1,248.

 

2) What the hell are you talking about with "hard seats"? He mentioned specifically that they would have suburban seating.

 

3) Alright then, let's find a way to reduce costs on those as well. I'm all ears. You mentioned that you were on a train where there was only 1 passenger? Well let's bustitute that train then.

 

 

 

1) What the hell are you talking about "They would complain that the cost is too high"? How do you know what we're thinking?

 

2) Like I said, if there are ways to reduce costs on the LIRR and MNRR, then let's go for it.

 

 

 

First of all, there have been SRO express buses even before June 2010. You even mentioned it in the post below.

 

Second of all, you haven't been paying attention to a single word I've said have you? Express buses deadhead more than local buses, and there are a bunch of split shifts which drive up costs. Not to mention that these routes travel long disyances with no turnover.

 

And also, the buses that are SRO generally aren't the ones that are expensive to operate.

 

 

 

I doubt somebody is going to be standing for the full 2 hours.

 

 

 

How would using subway-style cars on the MNRR and LIRR save money?

 

And apparently everything I say goes right over your head, doesn't it? There are very few instances where light rail works in NYC, and yet you keep on mentioning it just because it's a buzzword that politicians like to throw around. Yes, I would complain if light rail were built because if there isn't demand for an express bus, what the hell makes you think there would be demand for a light rail line with higher operating costs and high capital costs (especially if you run trains directly into Manhattan)?

 

 

 

1) He was just throwing it out there that it could be used to reduce costs even further.

 

2) In any express bus cut ever proposed on this forum, has there ever been an instance where the neighborhoods would be left with no service at all? Living in NYC doesn't mean you have a God-given right to a one-seat ride to Manhattan.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? There have been threads talking about bustituting overnight service, and talking about reducing costs by combining the (Mx) and (which eventually happened in real life), and talking about eliminating the and even before the MTA proposed it.

 

And yeah, if there are empty LIRR trains, let's find a way to reduce costs on those too. Like I said, maybe you could bustitute it.

 

Uh oh, here comes another private debate with checkmate & VG8. :tdown:

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Yeah, and the cost for the MTA to run that service is "almost 3 times as much". Not to mention that for a lot of people, it's barely over twice as much to ride the express bus. A year's worth of express bus passes is $2,600, whereas a year's worth of subway passes is $1,248.

 

Well then why don't we stick it to the express bus riders then? That's the message that's been played over and over again. You think local buses don't have to deadhead and drivers don't have layover time?? Get real. Let's talk about how expensive the LIRR and MetroNorth is to run.

 

2) What the hell are you talking about with "hard seats"? He mentioned specifically that they would have suburban seating.

 

I know what he mentioned. This topic has been discussed a gazillon times and previously others have argued that seats could be used that would allow the buses to be used for express and local buses so you can settle down already.

 

3) Alright then, let's find a way to reduce costs on those as well. I'm all ears. You mentioned that you were on a train where there was only 1 passenger? Well let's bustitute that train then.

 

No let's not because I'm not the one calling for reduced costs. The only people calling for reduced costs are folks like you and it's always the express bus. I never hear ANYONE b*tching about the LIRR or MetroNorth until I bring it up.

 

 

1) What the hell are you talking about "They would complain that the cost is too high"? How do you know what we're thinking?

 

This is not the first time this nonsense has been brought so don't play dumb now. There have been several threads about express buses being too costly and also about subways and light rails being too expensive too, so please.

 

First of all, there have been SRO express buses even before June 2010. You even mentioned it in the post below.

 

Yeah and??

 

Second of all, you haven't been paying attention to a single word I've said have you? Express buses deadhead more than local buses, and there are a bunch of split shifts which drive up costs. Not to mention that these routes travel long disyances with no turnover.

 

And so? You want every single express bus to be used in every way possible because they have to deadhead? Talk about ridiculous.

 

And also, the buses that are SRO generally aren't the ones that are expensive to operate.

 

Well that's nice because they sure as hell aren't providing any more service on them despite them being cheaper to operate.

 

I doubt somebody is going to be standing for the full 2 hours.

 

Really? As if you know how long folks can be on an express bus with certainty...

 

 

How would using subway-style cars on the MNRR and LIRR save money?

 

Don't ask me. It's the same analogy being use for express bus service.

 

And apparently everything I say goes right over your head, doesn't it? There are very few instances where light rail works in NYC, and yet you keep on mentioning it just because it's a buzzword that politicians like to throw around. Yes, I would complain if light rail were built because if there isn't demand for an express bus, what the hell makes you think there would be demand for a light rail line with higher operating costs and high capital costs (especially if you run trains directly into Manhattan)?

 

It doesn't go anywhere because that just proves my point. If you know light rail wouldn't be needed then why in the hell would you constantly complain and complain and complain and complain about the measley express bus service that most areas get?

 

 

2) In any express bus cut ever proposed on this forum, has there ever been an instance where the neighborhoods would be left with no service at all? Living in NYC doesn't mean you have a God-given right to a one-seat ride to Manhattan.

 

And it also doesn't mean that you don't have a right to rapid service either.

 

 

What are you talking about? There have been threads talking about bustituting overnight service, and talking about reducing costs by combining the (Mx) and (which eventually happened in real life), and talking about eliminating the and even before the MTA proposed it.

 

And yeah, if there are empty LIRR trains, let's find a way to reduce costs on those too. Like I said, maybe you could bustitute it.

 

Few are far in between compared to the number of express bus routes.

[checkmatechamp13]

If the MTA uses a brain for once, the introduction of artics combined with the cuts will bring cost neutrality!

 

 

It would already save them money.

 

Uh oh, here comes another private debate with checkmate & VG8. :tdown:

 

What do you expect? I missed the first page of the thread? We know it's going to happen sooner or later.

 

1) Well then why don't we stick it to the express bus riders then? That's the message that's been played over and over again. You think local buses don't have to deadhead and drivers don't have layover time?? Get real. Let's talk about how expensive the LIRR and MetroNorth is to run.

 

2) I know what he mentioned. This topic has been discussed a gazillon times and previously others have argued that seats could be used that would allow the buses to be used for express and local buses so you can settle down already.

 

3) No let's not because I'm not the one calling for reduced costs. The only people calling for reduced costs are folks like you and it's always the express bus. I never hear ANYONE b*tching about the LIRR or MetroNorth until I bring it up.

 

4) This is not the first time this nonsense has been brought so don't play dumb now. There have been several threads about express buses being too costly and also about subways and light rails being too expensive too, so please.

 

5) And so? You want every single express bus to be used in every way possible because they have to deadhead? Talk about ridiculous.

 

6) Well that's nice because they sure as hell aren't providing any more service on them despite them being cheaper to operate.

 

7) Really? As if you know how long folks can be on an express bus with certainty...

 

8) Don't ask me. It's the same analogy being use for express bus service.

 

9) It doesn't go anywhere because that just proves my point. If you know light rail wouldn't be needed then why in the hell would you constantly complain and complain and complain and complain about the measley express bus service that most areas get?

 

10) And it also doesn't mean that you don't have a right to rapid service either.

 

11) Few are far in between compared to the number of express bus routes.

 

1) Yeah, but the deadhead distance is not as long and the ridership patterns are less peaky. And I never said anything about layover time.

 

And you act like all express service falls into the exact same category of having high costs.

 

2) Yeah, well you're taking the idea thrown out by him and saying that everybody either accepts it exactly as is or they oppose it. They can't say "I support it except for this one small detail".

 

3) I don't know about you, but I don't want higher fares just so that one passenger gets to sit on a train instead of a bus.

 

4) So where are the threads about subways and light rails being too expensive?

 

5) What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about squeezing every last ounce of productivity out of the buses. But it would be nice if we could get more productivity out of them.

 

6) Compare the frequencies of the X1 on weekends to the BM4. I rest my case.

 

7) I said I doubt it. Yes, in the history of the MTA there have been people standing on a bus for 2 hours, but it is far from normal.

 

8) No because you can prove that using articulated buses (with suburban seating) saves money because you spend less on labor costs. Show me how that applies to using subway cars on the LIRR/MNRR.

 

9) Because it's expensive to operate. Light rail would just be more expensive for those areas.

 

10) Why not? If there's no demand, why should rapid service be run?

 

11) And there's the answer to your question.

[Threxx]

Jesus Christ, when will these two find an end to their "discussions"?

[NX Express]

Jesus Christ, when will these two find an end to their "discussions"?

 

When one of them places the other on the ignore list. It's a useful tool.:tup:

 

As for the OP, IMO if any new buses are ordered, they need a wider aisle and more capacity. The current local bus fleet (with suburban seating, exp-only) would work quite well.

[Grand Concourse]

3rd on the endless back and forth b/w them.

 

Those seats on the CNG O5s are too small compared to the standard suburban seats. There's no way to make buses wider unless you were to eliminate an entire column of seats. Bad as it is with the narrow aisle, I think it's 'good enough'.

=

FTR, I am not going to advocate using buses for both locals and express service, different crowds, so fair enough. However, rather than run empty to their point of origin, express buses should be allowed to pick up riders heading in the opposite direction during the rush hours. Even 1 person is better than driving an empty bus back, imo.

[B35 via Church]

1. If the MTA uses a brain for once, the introduction of artics combined with the cuts will bring cost neutrality!
   
2. The RTS's ONLY failed because they were moved to local service. THESE artics will be used for EXP service only.
   
3. I only asked about LRT because VG8 brought it up. Not my idea.
   

 

1: ...and less service.

 

2: Still not explaining what makes you think they'd use RTS' solely for express service... I mean, you see these swaps goin on all over the place....

 

3: Cool... however, I still wanted to give an answer to that question you asked about the opposition to LRT.....

 

 

Jesus Christ, when will these two find an end to their "discussions"?

lol... it's not as annoying to me, as more as it is entertaining.... so for all I care, they can have at it....

long as the majority of their musings don't consist of cursing or slinging petty insults @ each other or w/e......

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And you act like all express service falls into the exact same category of having high costs.

 

No you're the one constantly complaining about costs and if all express service doesn't fall into the same category then there is no need to bring up artics.

 

2) Yeah, well you're taking the idea thrown out by him and saying that everybody either accepts it exactly as is or they oppose it. They can't say "I support it except for this one small detail".

 

Uhhh.... NO...

 

3) I don't know about you, but I don't want higher fares just so that one passenger gets to sit on a train instead of a bus.

 

The is going to raise the fares regardless, so all of these ridiculous ideas are just that... Ridiculous and pointless. :tdown:

 

4) So where are the threads about subways and light rails being too expensive?

 

Are you kidding me? Did you forget the endless posts with Roadcruiser and his insane subways all over Staten Island through golf courses and God knows what else and the endless chatter about the running from Lower Manhattan direct to Staten Island?

 

5) What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about squeezing every last ounce of productivity out of the buses. But it would be nice if we could get more productivity out of them.

 

Same thing basically.

 

6) Compare the frequencies of the X1 on weekends to the BM4. I rest my case.

 

Yeah and? The BM4 runs per hour on Saturdays like many other express buses.

 

7) I said I doubt it. Yes, in the history of the MTA there have been people standing on a bus for 2 hours, but it is far from normal.

 

Uh it's not that unnormal. Just ask the X5 riders in the mornings.

 

8) No because you can prove that using articulated buses (with suburban seating) saves money because you spend less on labor costs. Show me how that applies to using subway cars on the LIRR/MNRR.

 

Show me how it doesn't apply to using subway cars on the LIRR/MNRR.

 

9) Because it's expensive to operate. Light rail would just be more expensive for those areas.

 

As if nothing else is expensive to operate...

 

10) Why not? If there's no demand, why should rapid service be run?

 

There's demand... Just not to your standards.

 

11) And there's the answer to your question.

 

It sure is... Just proves my point. I love how I keep hearing well we can't afford to ride them, so in turn because they're too expensive for some to ride they're going to go on about how expensive they are and how they should be cut. Meanwhile the LIRR and MNRR are far more expensive. Makes no sense to me.

[FamousNYLover]

Speaking of Artic, I think I agree it should not be on express bus.

 

I learned that some West Farms Driver who drives artic on Bx19 doesn't like it.

It must be very tough driving through park and making U-turn at NY Botanical Garden.

 

Bee-Line #40 and #41 bus always seem to hit sidewalk of Main Entrance stop of Westchester Medical Center to/from Woodrow Rd because streets are narrowed.

 

If there was artic on express bus, it could get in way of busy trafficked NJ Turnpike, Goethals/Verrazaro Narrows Bridge, Lincoln Tunnel, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel or Gowanus/Staten Island Expressway,

[B35 via Church]

Are you kidding me? Did you forget the endless posts with Roadcruiser and his insane subways all over Staten Island through golf courses and God knows what else and the endless chatter about the running from Lower Manhattan direct to Staten Island?

 

Lmfao !

 

So it's not just me who's irked by that...... if it aint subways, it's the dam mentions of LRT's all over the place on SI with him...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Lmfao !

 

So it's not just me who's irked by that...... if it aint subways, it's the dam mentions of LRT's all over the place on SI with him...

 

lol... I thought it was hilarious especially because he was just creating random lines all over the island without a clue as to where they really went. You would think he would take a ride out there at least once before putting up that map of his but of course not because he's convinced that rail lines is what Staten Island needs. I'd like to see his rail proposals for other parts of the city that don't have rail access.

[Cait Sith]

As far as those RTS' that had the plush seating... How well did that go again ?!?!

 

It wasn't all that bad until a decision was made to send those buses out onto the local routes because at one point, Ulmer Park was short on local buses. When they showed up on the B6, it was a wrap....I forgot the other depots that had Suburban Nova RTSs on the express prior to sending them off to the local routes. I believe it was QV and Yukon.

 

The MTA demo'd several different coach buses in the 70s up to the 90s, the DL3 (MCI 102-DLW3SS) being one of them, the MCI MC-9J seen here, the MCI 102-B3 seen here, and with our very first MCI order seen here

 

For all your MCI goodness and whatnot, check out the link blow

 

http://www.ttmg.org/pages/mci/nymta-mci.html

 

3rd on the endless back and forth b/w them.

 

Those seats on the CNG O5s are too small compared to the standard suburban seats. There's no way to make buses wider unless you were to eliminate an entire column of seats. Bad as it is with the narrow aisle, I think it's 'good enough'.

 

That was one of the major complaints spewing out of the CP & SC Express riders. They were rather uncomfortable and they would get hot when the engine is running hard.

 

Me being an avid express bus rider to an extent on the QMs and Staten Island x routes, there really isnt a need for articulated buses. What needs to be fixed with the Express routes is the frequencies because there are some that come too often and others that come late as all hell. There needs to be some sort of balance one way or another.

 

If you compare our ridership with say....New Jersey Transit, its a whole 'nother level of demand, ridership & capacity. Now granted, New Jersey Transit has articulated buses on their express routes but thats a whole different story and a whole different level of ridership. If you think our routes are bad when it comes to crowding and shit, take a ride on a D4500 on NJT's 111 to Jersey Gardens.....you ain't seen nothin' yet!!

 

As for the person that was talking about RTSs on the express routes. While that was uniformed and all, those buses with them seats also went on the local routes....those 9300s on the B6 would get slaughtered and then they'd send those same buses out on the x27/28/29...them exp bus folk were heated to all levels! Thats when Ulmer Park got their batch + the 4300s from Queens Village, the demand for MCIs were high and them folks were tight, they wanted better buses!

[East New York]

I sat out of this one for a while so I could see what everyone else had to say first. I would have to say, that in my honest opinion articulated buses could work on the X1 and X10. Suburban seating would do the trick while boosting capacity on the buses by at least 10 seats or so. All the routes don't need OTR coaches either. That's why the MTA is currently in talks with MTS for new gen RTS express buses. They hold 8 passengers less than the OTR fleet, and will provide the same seating and comfort.

 

However, to keep things in line with costs, it doesn't really benefit the TA to add artics. Especially at a time when they are set to introduce 42.5 foot RTS buses, and artics are needed elsewhere. But the answer to "can it work" is a definite yes. ItKs even been explored in talks within the TA.

 

I was actually thinking that the MTA should purchase Suburban Orion VII 3Gs for the staten island express routes because if they're going to continue to allow standees on the MCIs & prevosts then you might as well have the aisle space that the 3Gs would provide. It would also be cheaper for the MTA to run frequent service with suburban 3Gs over motor coaches.

 

That would never happen, nor would it ever work. It would also cost more to run NG's as you would need 2 buses to get closer to the capacity of an MCI. Not only that but MTA does not want to ordser buses that have less than 57 seats for express routes. The only reason the new RTS is set to be used for express routes is because it is longer, and will have a greater capacity than the older buses. At 49 seats, these buses would be used on routes that don't fill up MCI's. Seating on a MTA spec suburban low floor would be somewhere around 38-40 seats, which would not be cost effective at all.

 

Articulated buses should not be allow on express bus. A friend of mine who had a lot of experiences with all kind of buses. He said articulated bus are for slower speed. If the speed get to high as 50 mph, the bus part in the back will tend to sway a lot and cause accident. Even tho, you are concern with numerous riders at one time load, it better to do what Mega Bus double decker. But since they did the double decker back then and it failed in some ways. The reason was because of the tree near the street are either blocking it or scratching it. So you are stuck with coach style buses because it stronger and reliable. The only way to get more crowd to Manhattan is get those tunnel built somehow.

 

I would have to disagree with this. Back in the day this arguement might work, but this day in age, the artic buses are built stronger, and can be used in commuter service. Double-Deckers will not work in the city because most all the depots cannot house them.

 

The answer is NOT artics. This discussion has been had over and over and over again. The problem is not the MCIs. The problem is proper spacing of the buses AND lack of service and it's been this way for years on Staten Island. The is aware of the problem but they refuse to add the service that we need on our express buses. Meanwhile we have people constantly b*tching and moaning about how expensive express bus service is to run and yada yada. These are supposed to be for commuter routes and thus commuters should expect more comfort as we are paying damn there triple what the average ride would cost, hence the use of MCIs. My commute on the express bus to Staten Island is usually anywhere from 1 to almost 2 hours and I think it's ridiculous to suggest articulated buses with those hard seats.

 

I also disagree with using buses between local and express. The seats get torn apart and the buses are just a mess. The way things are now works best and if they just added more buses where needed the problem would be solved.

 

I never hear this ridiculous discussion about commuter trains vs subways. Folks understand that for what commuters pay to ride MetroNorth and the LIRR that they should have a more comfortable ride, so why shouldn't commuters on express buses? I'd like to add that commuter trains aren't exactly cheap either so please stop harping on the costs. The sad part is that for what MetroNorth & LIRR riders pay the comfort level is pathetic. Those chairs are God awful, especially on the LIRR.

 

Express buses should only be used on local lines in cases of emergency. Artics would work if the operation is properly put together. Only a few would be needed during peak times though.

 

^^ beat me by a minute... had I saw your post, you would have saved me a post....

 

((edit))

----------

 

 

 

Engineerboy, the concern with express buses isn't capacity, it's with (amount of) service...

 

Artics are ideally/generally placed on local routes w/ high(er) amt's of ridership....

They address capacity issues, not service issues....

 

Nothin much would be solved by throwing artics on express routes.....

 

I have to disagree. If you add artics to select runs on routes like the x1 and x10, then the capacity issues are solved.

 

What annoys me the most is these folks going on and on about express buses being so costly and they don't have a clue as to what the has been doing service wise with express buses. They think the is running hoards of empty buses and that we have it oh so good. The fact is they've been reducing service on many lines like crazy and not providing enough service on other lines and then you have people wondering why buses are SRO. My thing is if you're going to complain about a service at least know what is going on so that you can defend your arguments. What's worse is the ones that come back with a sh*t load of stats provided by no other than the who loves providing stats to suit their own agenda, and they fully believe in them too.

 

You would think that the has no clue about what is going on with express bus service. The fact is (which I've stated a million times now) that the reviews ridership on express bus lines every 3 months. Service is monitored far more closely than on local buses simply because they want to ensure that buses aren't being wasted, which I have no problem with, but at the same time, you can't go saying, oh service is low here, so let's cut this this and this because that service isn't likely to be re-instated when there's a boom in ridership as we've seen for years now on several express bus routes. Despite what everyone may think here the is much quicker to cut service on express bus lines than to add it.

 

Many express runs are empty, and do not need 57 seaters. Hence the pending order for RTS Express buses.

 

When one of them places the other on the ignore list. It's a useful tool.:tup:

 

As for the OP, IMO if any new buses are ordered, they need a wider aisle and more capacity. The current local bus fleet (with suburban seating, exp-only) would work quite well.

 

The current local fleet with suburban seeting will not work at all. They don't hold as many passengers as the commuter coaches. Especially the low floor buses.

 

1: ...and less service.

 

2: Still not explaining what makes you think they'd use RTS' solely for express service... I mean, you see these swaps goin on all over the place....

 

3: Cool... however, I still wanted to give an answer to that question you asked about the opposition to LRT.....

 

 

 

lol... it's not as annoying to me, as more as it is entertaining.... so for all I care, they can have at it....

long as the majority of their musings don't consist of cursing or slinging petty insults @ each other or w/e......

 

The new RTS buses will be used soley for express service, and will never see service on the local runs. Old RTS buses? Not at all. Those babies will never see the express lines again.

[B35 via Church]

I have to disagree. If you add artics to select runs on routes like the x1 and x10, then the capacity issues are solved.

We'll just have to disagree w/ this one then.....

 

My problem is, what caused those capacity issues...... Not finna give credit to an entity for solving a problem they created themselves.... Now if there was a sudden significant boost in ridership on those lines, in conjunction w/ the prior service those routes had, then I can side w/ the point on throwing artics on those lines (as a solution) more.....

 

 

The new RTS buses will be used soley for express service, and will never see service on the local runs. Old RTS buses? Not at all. Those babies will never see the express lines again.

Those old RTS' w/ the (ripped) plush seats I don't even see in service anymore... To that, AFAIC, Good.

 

As far as these RTS' express buses.... I don't know what depot(s) they're gonna be dispersed to, but regardless.... My question becomes, what happens to the MCI's when these RTS' expresses start service; are they just goin have them (some of the MCI's) just sittin in the depot?

[Cait Sith]

Those old RTS' w/ the (ripped) plush seats I don't even see in service anymore... To that, AFAIC, Good.

 

Technically those are at LGA but with the hard seats.

[trainfan22]

 

As far as these RTS' express buses.... I don't know what depot(s) they're gonna be dispersed to, but regardless.... My question becomes, what happens to the MCI's when these RTS' expresses start service; are they just goin have them (some of the MCI's) just sittin in the depot?

 

The new RTS express buses will probably replace the old MCIs like the Prevosts did. The remaining MCIs in the 1860 - 2039 batch was retired by the Prevosts.

[Grand Concourse]

I remembered the 9300s on the UP routes. They were "unique". That said I understand why those kind of buses should not be on the locals: aisle too narrow, seats ripped and broken, etc. Had those 9300s had been sent to MTA bus for express service (likely only), those seats needed to be replaced entirely. But of course what's done is done.

As for new RTSs for express service, that's new. I figured the wave was going to be just 45' (prevost/MCI) buses only.

[East New York]

We'll just have to disagree w/ this one then.....

 

My problem is, what caused those capacity issues...... Not finna give credit to an entity for solving a problem they created themselves.... Now if there was a sudden significant boost in ridership on those lines, in conjunction w/ the prior service those routes had, then I can side w/ the point on throwing artics on those lines (as a solution) more.....

 

 

 

Those old RTS' w/ the (ripped) plush seats I don't even see in service anymore... To that, AFAIC, Good.

 

As far as these RTS' express buses.... I don't know what depot(s) they're gonna be dispersed to, but regardless.... My question becomes, what happens to the MCI's when these RTS' expresses start service; are they just goin have them (some of the MCI's) just sittin in the depot?

 

9 times out of 10 the RTS' will go to Ulmer Park, Queensvillage (definitely), and Yukon. The oldest MCI's will be retired as the new RTS and MCI buses come in. The MCI's will be replaced, so nothing will be sitting around.

 

The new RTS express buses will probably replace the old MCIs like the Prevosts did. The remaining MCIs in the 1860 - 2039 batch was retired by the Prevosts.

 

Correct, they will be replacing 90 of the older buses.

 

I remembered the 9300s on the UP routes. They were "unique". That said I understand why those kind of buses should not be on the locals: aisle too narrow, seats ripped and broken, etc. Had those 9300s had been sent to MTA bus for express service (likely only), those seats needed to be replaced entirely. But of course what's done is done.

As for new RTSs for express service, that's new. I figured the wave was going to be just 45' (prevost/MCI) buses only.

 

Those 9200, and 9300 buses were not unique at all. They were just suburban RTS Express buses. The isle is the same width as the MCI's too as both buses are 102 inches wide.

 

Most everyone figured the future held only for the MCI and Prevost, but this was prior to MTS launching the stretched 1 door version of the new RTS, and aggressively courting the MTA.

[B35 via Church]

9 times out of 10 the RTS' will go to Ulmer Park, Queensvillage (definitely), and Yukon.

 

The oldest MCI's will be retired as the new RTS and MCI buses come in.

 

The MCI's will be replaced, so nothing will be sitting around.

answers my concerns.... thanks...

 

so there is an order for more MCI's, on top of these aforementioned RTS'.... now it makes sense....

[checkmatechamp13]

 

 

1) Uhhh.... NO...

 

2) The is going to raise the fares regardless, so all of these ridiculous ideas are just that... Ridiculous and pointless. :tdown:

 

3) Are you kidding me? Did you forget the endless posts with Roadcruiser and his insane subways all over Staten Island through golf courses and God knows what else and the endless chatter about the running from Lower Manhattan direct to Staten Island?

 

4) Same thing basically.

 

5) Yeah and? The BM4 runs per hour on Saturdays like many other express buses.

 

6) Uh it's not that unnormal. Just ask the X5 riders in the mornings.

 

7) Show me how it doesn't apply to using subway cars on the LIRR/MNRR.

 

8) As if nothing else is expensive to operate...

 

9) There's demand... Just not to your standards.

 

10) It sure is... Just proves my point. I love how I keep hearing well we can't afford to ride them, so in turn because they're too expensive for some to ride they're going to go on about how expensive they are and how they should be cut. Meanwhile the LIRR and MNRR are far more expensive. Makes no sense to me.

 

 

2) Uhhh... YES ...

 

Tell me what you mean then.

 

3) How do you know that it won't mean the difference between a larger fare hike and a smaller one?

 

4) Well yeah, of course a subway line's going to be expensive if you run it through a golf course.

 

5) Think of it this way. If you're a parent and your child is getting a 65 in his classes, which is barely passable. You would prefer that he get 100 in all of his classes, but if he brought his average up to an 80, you'd be content.

 

It's the same thing: I would prefer that the buses be as efficient as possible, but I'd be content if they brought their efficiency up to a certain level. EVerything above that is just an added bonus.

 

6) You're missing my point. Which gets more ridership? The X1 or BM4? Now which one gets more frequent service? I rest my case.

 

7) So riders are standing all the way from Eltingville to Midtown? I doubt that.

 

And in either case, artics would mean that it happens less often because there are more seats available.

 

8) I've explained it before. Using articulated buses allows you to have the same capacity with fewer drivers. For the LIRR cars (assuming you're still going to keep the same seating), the capacity you get is the same.

 

Now if they could find a way to put fare gates at the stations instead of having a bunch of conductors, that would definitely save money, but with all of the grade crossings and the fact that Penn Station is a very busy station (so you'd have conflicts between riders entering an exiting the station), that isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

9) Yeah, because light rail costs more to operate than a bus, but if you can get higher ridership, the cost per passenger goes down. If ridership is still very low, the cost per passenger goes up even higher.

 

Now, if there's demand for it, then sure.

 

10) Yeah, because 69 riders per Saturday is really high demand.

 

11) What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with people being able to afford to ride them.

 

The new RTS express buses will probably replace the old MCIs like the Prevosts did. The remaining MCIs in the 1860 - 2039 batch was retired by the Prevosts.

 

Beat me to it.

 

9 times out of 10 the RTS' will go to Ulmer Park, Queensvillage (definitely), and Yukon. The oldest MCI's will be retired as the new RTS and MCI buses come in. The MCI's will be replaced, so nothing will be sitting around.

 

 

Why Yukon? I can't really think of any low-ridership routes out of there, other than maybe the X31 and possibly the X3/X4 (they don't run too frequently, so I assume ridership isn't too high on those routes because everybody's taking the X1, X7, and X9)

 

So how much would the MTA be saving by having RTSs rather than MCIs and Prevosts (by the way, do the Prevosts seat 57 passengers?). The acquisition costs are probably lower, but how much cheaper are they to operate on a day-to-day basis?

[East New York]

answers my concerns.... thanks...

 

so there is an order for more MCI's, on top of these aforementioned RTS'.... now it makes sense....

 

Yeah, the TA will order aprox. 290 new express buses. 200 will likely go to MCI, and the rest to MTS.

[checkmatechamp13]

For my previous post, the responses don't quite line up. Response #2 lines up with Quote #1, Response #3 lines up with Quote #2, and so forth.

 

Anyway...

 

No you're the one constantly complaining about costs and if all express service doesn't fall into the same category then there is no need to bring up artics.

 

 

You love twisting up the issues, don't you?

 

With express service, there are the routes that have very high ridership, and those that have very low ridership (and there are the ones in the middle, which you can't do too much about).

 

* The problem with the low ridership routes (or should I say, the routes that have periods with low ridership, because pretty much every express route remaining gets decent ridership during rush hours) is obvious: The buses aren't being filled and so the cost per passenger is very high.

 

* The problem with the high ridership routes is that ridership can be very peaky. Look at the headways on the X17 during rush hour vs. off-peak. There's a lot of money being wasted with that huge peak:base ratio because it requires a lot more deadheading. (And don't tell me that it applies to local buses as well because the ratio isn't as high. The peak:base ratio on the S46/96 is about 8:5, whereas on the X17, it's 6:1)

 

The peak:base ratio (in case I haven't already explained it a million times) is the amount of buses required during peak hours vs. off-peak. So the S46/96 run 8 buses per hour during rush hour, vs. 5 BPH off-peak. Obviously there's differences in running time, but the impact isn't too great)

 

A high peak:base ratio means that you waste more time deadheading, and also that you spend more on paying drivers for split shifts. Adding artics reduces the peak:base ratio and therefore costs.

 

The service levels would still be frequent during rush hour, and they would have the same soft seats. (And just to be clear, this would only apply during rush hour. So you might see 5 minute headways become 6 minute headways, but you're no going to see 30 minute headways become 40 minute headways or anything like that)

 

And this doesn't just apply to the express buses: If there is a local route that falls into the same category where it's frequent and is still crowded, it should probably have artics as well.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For my previous post, the responses don't quite line up. Response #2 lines up with Quote #1, Response #3 lines up with Quote #2, and so forth.

 

Anyway...

 

 

 

You love twisting up the issues, don't you?

 

With express service, there are the routes that have very high ridership, and those that have very low ridership (and there are the ones in the middle, which you can't do too much about).

 

* The problem with the low ridership routes (or should I say, the routes that have periods with low ridership, because pretty much every express route remaining gets decent ridership during rush hours) is obvious: The buses aren't being filled and so the cost per passenger is very high.

 

* The problem with the high ridership routes is that ridership can be very peaky. Look at the headways on the X17 during rush hour vs. off-peak. There's a lot of money being wasted with that huge peak:base ratio because it requires a lot more deadheading. (And don't tell me that it applies to local buses as well because the ratio isn't as high. The peak:base ratio on the S46/96 is about 8:5, whereas on the X17, it's 6:1)

 

The peak:base ratio (in case I haven't already explained it a million times) is the amount of buses required during peak hours vs. off-peak. So the S46/96 run 8 buses per hour during rush hour, vs. 5 BPH off-peak. Obviously there's differences in running time, but the impact isn't too great)

 

A high peak:base ratio means that you waste more time deadheading, and also that you spend more on paying drivers for split shifts. Adding artics reduces the peak:base ratio and therefore costs.

 

The service levels would still be frequent during rush hour, and they would have the same soft seats. (And just to be clear, this would only apply during rush hour. So you might see 5 minute headways become 6 minute headways, but you're no going to see 30 minute headways become 40 minute headways or anything like that)

 

And this doesn't just apply to the express buses: If there is a local route that falls into the same category where it's frequent and is still crowded, it should probably have artics as well.

 

 

Fine then, but the artics SHOULD NOT be used for anything else but express bus service and should offer the same amenities that an MCI would. I'm still waiting for those LIRR and MNRR costs. You constantly love to bring up the extremely high costs of express bus service and quickly show costs for that but never for the LIRR or MNRR, so let's see them. B) No excuses either... Let's see the stats...