Q101viaSteinway Posted June 29, 2012 Share #251 Posted June 29, 2012 ...and the discussion was involving a replacement for the B39. You are the one that's off topic here dude.... ...and the discussion was involving a replacement for the B39. You are the one that's off topic here dude.... my bad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted June 29, 2012 Share #252 Posted June 29, 2012 According to PIX11 the other day, it was reported that although a fare hike is coming, some cuts will be restored....including the B39. And that bus route was originally created as a feeder route between LES and the WillyB bus lanes to replace the old streetcar lines that served the old Essex trolley terminal. M15's into Brooklyn? Hitting that chronic a little hard are we? Lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 29, 2012 Share #253 Posted June 29, 2012 I have a proposal: M1: Fully local route Reason The rush hour M1 buses dont get full a lot. The only section where it gets actual ridership is between 34-72 streets, and after that it's pretty low ridership those M1 limited runs, so why not change the pattern and make the M1 limited trips the M2 Limited trips. Also the M1 Limited trips are corridinate to pass right behind an M2, so why not making those runs part of the M2 M2: Will be a limited bus rush hours only like the current M1 pattern, except only certain trips. Reason: Some people will scream at me and say why the hell would I truncate the M2 as a rush hour only limited. The M2 does do well on limited stop service, but to see the reason why, Look below M3: Will be the new 5th Avenue limited stop bus during the week Reason: The M3 is the longest after the M5 of all the 5th Avenue routes. However, the M2 has limited stop service meanwhile its shorter than the M3. Most people taking the M2 limited really get on from the limited stops, not from the ACPJB portion. So this will at least speed up the bus service in a way M4: Make it a fully limited stop weekday bus pattern from 157 street and down Reason: The 5th Avenue routes get packed all lot on weekdays, and because it will help out my proposd M3, the M4 will be a limited stop all day weekdays from Penn Station to 157 street Broadway. Every other M4 bus would be limited middays M5: Discontinue Midday and add Weekend Limited Stop Service The M5 midday limited stop service would be used for the M4 limited stop service. Weekend Serice would be added from the money saved from the M20 elimination. Every other weekend bus would be a limited stop bus. M7: Extention of the M7 to South Ferry The M7 would use the M20 route south of 14 street northbound on 8th Avenue, and would replace the entire M20 route southbound. M8: Add weekend service ADD 30 minute weekend service so people actually have a crosstown route available on 8th Street in that area M9: Retain Reason: Because I said so. M10: Extention The M10 would be extended to Abingdon Square via 9TH Avenue instead of 7th Avenue south of 57th Street so it can help out the M11 a bit with it;s inconsistentcy southbound only. M10 buses would use 8th Avenue north of 14 M20 Discontiunation It has the M10 and M7 as alternatives. The M7 would continue to have the 1 sest ride from Columbus Circle to SF. Northbound you would have tom transfer to the M10. You dont like the number 7 or 10 as a bus number, then take the train. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted June 29, 2012 Share #254 Posted June 29, 2012 Here's one: something has got to be done about the western terminal route of the M21. 1) its not really used. 2) it delays runs due to Holland Tunnel traffic. I would propose it terminate at 6th and houston. It pretty much empties out at macdougal still. From there it can start west on houston for a left on varick st using the thru lanes avoiding most of the tunnels traffic, left on spring then regular route. It will impact the lest amout of regular riders and increase the on time reliability for west bound riders who usually don't start boarding till spring and 6th. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 30, 2012 Share #255 Posted June 30, 2012 Here's one: something has got to be done about the western terminal route of the M21. 1) its not really used. 2) it delays runs due to Holland Tunnel traffic. I would propose it terminate at 6th and houston. It pretty much empties out at macdougal still. From there it can start west on houston for a left on varick st using the thru lanes avoiding most of the tunnels traffic, left on spring then regular route. It will impact the lest amout of regular riders and increase the on time reliability for west bound riders who usually don't start boarding till spring and 6th. In the mornings, WB buses empty out at varick... during the afternoon & evening hrs, it empties out at macdougal.... during the AM rush & in the early afternoon hours (around lunch time), M21's pull out w/ about 5 ppl. or so on it at the 1st pickup stop..... Surprises me too.... during the PM hrs though, yeah forget it, no one's taking buses from there.... Yes, EB usage does noticably pick up after it makes the turn off spring onto 6th..... I wouldn't say the M21 is delayed by holland tunnel traffic; that's those M20's that get stuck on 7th/varick..... only traffic the 21 gets bogged by at times, is the traffic turning off on west st @ spring, and houston st traffic itself..... the whole 21 route is a slow crawl b/c of it..... Thing is, the last dropoff stop on the M21 is after it turns on washington @ houston..... the first pickup stop is over on spring/greenwich..... I'll agree with you that virtually no one disembarks WB buses @ washington, but the route does garner EB riders over on spring/greenwich..... So I would leave its terminal where it is.... To be honest, I wouldn't want anymore buses using varick than they have to....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted June 30, 2012 Share #256 Posted June 30, 2012 I have a proposal: M1: Fully local route Reason The rush hour M1 buses dont get full a lot. The only section where it gets actual ridership is between 34-72 streets, and after that it's pretty low ridership those M1 limited runs, so why not change the pattern and make the M1 limited trips the M2 Limited trips. Also the M1 Limited trips are corridinate to pass right behind an M2, so why not making those runs part of the M2 M2: Will be a limited bus rush hours only like the current M1 pattern, except only certain trips. Reason: Some people will scream at me and say why the hell would I truncate the M2 as a rush hour only limited. The M2 does do well on limited stop service, but to see the reason why, Look below M3: Will be the new 5th Avenue limited stop bus during the week Reason: The M3 is the longest after the M5 of all the 5th Avenue routes. However, the M2 has limited stop service meanwhile its shorter than the M3. Most people taking the M2 limited really get on from the limited stops, not from the ACPJB portion. So this will at least speed up the bus service in a way M4: Make it a fully limited stop weekday bus pattern from 157 street and down Reason: The 5th Avenue routes get packed all lot on weekdays, and because it will help out my proposd M3, the M4 will be a limited stop all day weekdays from Penn Station to 157 street Broadway. Every other M4 bus would be limited middays M5: Discontinue Midday and add Weekend Limited Stop Service The M5 midday limited stop service would be used for the M4 limited stop service. Weekend Serice would be added from the money saved from the M20 elimination. Every other weekend bus would be a limited stop bus. M7: Extention of the M7 to South Ferry The M7 would use the M20 route south of 14 street northbound on 8th Avenue, and would replace the entire M20 route southbound. M8: Add weekend service ADD 30 minute weekend service so people actually have a crosstown route available on 8th Street in that area M9: Retain Reason: Because I said so. M10: Extention The M10 would be extended to Abingdon Square via 9TH Avenue instead of 7th Avenue south of 57th Street so it can help out the M11 a bit with it;s inconsistentcy southbound only. M10 buses would use 8th Avenue north of 14 M20 Discontiunation It has the M10 and M7 as alternatives. The M7 would continue to have the 1 sest ride from Columbus Circle to SF. Northbound you would have tom transfer to the M10. You dont like the number 7 or 10 as a bus number, then take the train. M1 - I don't see harm in that, especially if you were to add LTD service on the M3 as there would be at least one 5th Ave route that is fully local.. M2- Idk how M2 LTDs are, so I can't comment on that, but considering that it is only LTD between 14th and 110th, it shouldn't be too bad but see my part about the M3 M3- If you are going to make the M2 LTD rush hours only.. Give M3 LTD service 7 days a week (as the M2 has now) just to supplement weekend LTD service along 5th/Madison... M5 - leave it how it is, LTD service ends at 8th St and the M4 can't supplement lost M5 LTD service as it ends at 34th St M7 - That would make the M7 fairly long wouldn't it? (not as long as the M5, but pretty long) and considering that the M7 doesn't have LTD service (at least the M5 does) that would make it a long trek for the B/Os on that route... Also may I mention, the M20 gets caught up in Holland Tunnel traffic sometimes, so that may cause delays, so I don't think that the extension would work, but I see what you are trying to do... M10 - Having the M10 service 9th Ave isn't such a good idea, its like the same thing as the M7 idea... The M11 now gets caught in Lincoln Tunnel traffic between 34th and 42nd, so that may make your M10 a delayed route.. Discontinuing the M20 is going to cause riders in Battery Park City to lose their one seat ride to Chelsea, areas like that on the Upper West Side, and I don't think that is such a good idea... But on the bright side, they would have buses that are more frequent then they are now. The M7s headways are 7-12 minutes during daytime hours (including weekends) and the M20's are 15-20 minutes..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 30, 2012 Share #257 Posted June 30, 2012 Yeah, but the M7 bunches like crazy though.... and w/ SB M7's then having to deal with holland tunnel traffic, that is going to get ugly.... the M20 goes as far north as lincoln ctr.... the M7 still has to go on to serve the UWS & Harlem..... I don't like either of the two ideas (M7/M10) really, but I would side w/ the M10 one more than the M7 one.... just on the simple notion that you can still extend the M10 to try to help out the 11 w/o discontinuing the 20..... extending the M7 to south ferry justifies getting rid of the 20..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkerX Posted July 1, 2012 Share #258 Posted July 1, 2012 Yeah, but the M7 bunches like crazy though.... and w/ SB M7's then having to deal with holland tunnel traffic, that is going to get ugly.... the M20 goes as far north as lincoln ctr.... the M7 still has to go on to serve the UWS & Harlem..... And making the M7 that long would degrade UWS and Lenox riders who suffer from other routes who bunch (M11 / M102) M2: Will be a limited bus rush hours only like the current M1 pattern, except only certain trips. Reason: Some people will scream at me and say why the hell would I truncate the M2 as a rush hour only limited. The M2 does do well on limited stop service, but to see the reason why, Look below M3: Will be the new 5th Avenue limited stop bus during the week Reason: The M3 is the longest after the M5 of all the 5th Avenue routes. However, the M2 has limited stop service meanwhile its shorter than the M3. Most people taking the M2 limited really get on from the limited stops, not from the ACPJB portion. So this will at least speed up the bus service in a way No reason to make the M2 suffer for the M3. Between 34th and approx 86th, M1-M4 riders are interchangeable, North of 86th, each route has it's defined riders. By switching M2 and M3, the M3 would have surplus buses running lighter as LTD and the M2 would have packed buses if headways remained the same. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it and the majority of 5th/Madison Ave corridor routes work fine as it is (excluding either the M1 or M2 [more preferably for me M2] going to S. Ferry) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 8, 2012 Share #259 Posted July 8, 2012 The route here was created by RTS CNG Command, and mapped by Gorgor, but I shall present it as a proposal. M49/M50 loops. The M49 uses 49th Street and 42 Street going east, and the M50 uses 50th Street & 42nd Street going west. http://scaped.net/m/RTS_CNG_Command/m49 The M42 & M50 frequencies would be split half and half between the two routes, as they are replacements for those two routes. Any comments? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 8, 2012 Share #260 Posted July 8, 2012 The route here was created by RTS CNG Command, and mapped by Gorgor, but I shall present it as a proposal. M49/M50 loops. The M49 uses 49th Street and 42 Street going east, and the M50 uses 50th Street & 42nd Street going west. http://scaped.net/m/...CNG_Command/m49 The M42 & M50 frequencies would be split half and half between the two routes, as they are replacements for those two routes. Any comments? My comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I mean, nobody wants to get between 42nd Street and 49th Street through that long way. They'll just take a north-south bus and then transfer if necessary. You'll just make the routes more unreliable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 8, 2012 Share #261 Posted July 8, 2012 My comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I mean, nobody wants to get between 42nd Street and 49th Street through that long way. They'll just take a north-south bus and then transfer if necessary. You'll just make the routes more unreliable. It'll save money though, as we can cut some buses and still maintain good service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 8, 2012 Share #262 Posted July 8, 2012 It'll save money though, as we can cut some buses and still maintain good service. But the M42 alone takes 35 minutes with no delays to one side, and the M50 is about 30 minutes, sure you might cut some buses and all but still, it would take about at least more than 30 minutes to get you where you're going in that sense, or more. Someone can take an up-down bus to the desired street and transfer, which would be less than 30 minutes in most cases. And if it gets delayed on one side, the Schedule wont be good at all.42 street deals with traffic 49 STREET/50 street deals with double parking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 8, 2012 Share #263 Posted July 8, 2012 It'll save money though, as we can cut some buses and still maintain good service. How does it save money? You still need to maintain the same frequencies along both streets, and there's no overlapping section (not that it would make much of a difference because they still shouldn't be combined). Wasn't that in the "Create your own route" thread or something? In that case, those proposals weren't serious.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 8, 2012 Share #264 Posted July 8, 2012 I can see that type of a route being plausible for those double-decker tourist buses.... but for actual city public bus transportation service, No....... Wasn't that in the "Create your own route" thread or something? In that case, those proposals weren't serious.... I should hope not...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted July 8, 2012 Share #265 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) A lil off topic but does anyone have a 1997 or anything Pre-9/11 Manhattan Bus Map? Or is there some site where I can view it? I gotta check out some thing and I can't find mine, ugh. Edited July 8, 2012 by Cait Sith 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted July 8, 2012 Share #266 Posted July 8, 2012 http://web.archive.org/web/20000823062221/http://www.lirr.org/nyct/maps/busman.pdf August 2000 Manhattan Bus Map 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 8, 2012 Share #267 Posted July 8, 2012 in PDF form, the oldest I got is january 2000...... http://ge.tt/1MZwLCK/v/0 (this link is gonna die in like 2 weeks) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted July 8, 2012 Share #268 Posted July 8, 2012 http://web.archive.o...maps/busman.pdf August 2000 Manhattan Bus Map in PDF form, the oldest I got is january 2000...... http://ge.tt/1MZwLCK/v/0 (this link is gonna die in like 2 weeks) Thanks fellas! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limitednyc Posted July 12, 2012 Share #269 Posted July 12, 2012 i think its time create a ams ave route for s of 125 to ft geogre w193 st by rerouting the m11 , mabe the 101 should go to 125st pair. You have the M100 to serve the corridor from ams ave to the east side, to replace the m11 service to river bank state park with a extension of the m104. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 13, 2012 Share #270 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) M7: Reroute buses on 5th Avenue instead of 7th Avenue. Headways would be added by 3 minutes ( buses would come less frequent) M20: Headways would be reduced by 3 minutes ( buses would come more frequent) This plan was made because the M20 is damned and needs Ridership, while the M7 gets a lot of ridership. Most people get on at 59 and vice versa , while the 20 could use the ridership M104: Buses would be rerouted from 8 Avenue to 6 Avenue uptown. That way, the M20 would gain those extra riders The only periods that would remain the same on the M7 is the AM Peak Periods on weekends Edited July 13, 2012 by Q23 Central Term 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JubaionBx12+SBS Posted July 13, 2012 Share #271 Posted July 13, 2012 M7: Reroute buses on 5th Avenue instead of 7th Avenue. Headways would be added by 3 minutes ( buses would come less frequent) M20: Headways would be reduced by 3 minutes ( buses would come more frequent) This plan was made because the M20 is damned and needs Ridership, while the M7 gets a lot of ridership. Most people get on at 59 and vice versa , while the 20 could use the ridership M104: Buses would be rerouted from 8 Avenue to 6 Avenue uptown. That way, the M20 would gain those extra riders The only periods that would remain the same on the M7 is the AM Peak Periods on weekends 5th Av doesn't need any more buses. With all the local routes and expresses there it seems like every bus in the world runs on 5th Av right now. M7 doesn't need to become any less reliable than it already is. I also don't agree with re-routing the M104 for the sake of the M20. Yes, the M20 is damned but that's not an M7 or M104 problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheTransitMan Posted July 13, 2012 Share #272 Posted July 13, 2012 M7: Reroute buses on 5th Avenue instead of 7th Avenue. Headways would be added by 3 minutes ( buses would come less frequent) You just want to kill the M7 off don't you? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 13, 2012 Share #273 Posted July 13, 2012 You just want to kill the M7 off don't you? He really wants to kill off the 20...... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted July 14, 2012 Share #274 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Moving the 7 to 5th Aveune, would do two things: A) give 5th Aveune too much service, like do you see how many buses go down there at a point, there are like 6 different routes on that one avenue (M1,M2,M3,M4,M5,Q32).. I think that the 7 would get less ridership too.. B ) give 7th avenue not enough service... For those who get off on/or before 14th St SB, the 7 is used as a more frequent supplement to the 20, why take that away from those riders? Edited July 14, 2012 by MTAFanBoy512 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #275 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) If anything I would add more service to the M2, M5 and M7. All three buses run like GARBAGE. M2s and M5s always come in packs of 2 and the M7 as well. Oh I would also find a way to re-route the M7 back to Union Square where it belongs. Edited July 14, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.