Threxx Posted December 7, 2012 Share #401 Posted December 7, 2012 I think I get what that poster is saying, but I don't necessarily agree with it as 181 Street and the Washington Bridge are their own can of worms in terms of traffic. There's nothing to get. He constantly exaggerates and lies to get his "points" across... for example, the Bx35 shouldn't have even entered the conversation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 7, 2012 Share #402 Posted December 7, 2012 Nobody already in manhattan in their right mind is gonna take a train to the bronx to ride back into manhattan as part of a daily commute..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 7, 2012 Share #403 Posted December 7, 2012 Why are we trying to get rid of the M98? If anything, it needs to go back to 34 St 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 7, 2012 Share #404 Posted December 7, 2012 Why are we trying to get rid of the M98? If anything, it needs to go back to 34 St I was just about to say that... Why does it end at 65th street for?? Such a weird place to end a line on Lex. Furthermore I see that it takes the Harlem River Drive??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 7, 2012 Share #405 Posted December 7, 2012 I was just about to say that... Why does it end at 65th street for?? Such a weird place to end a line on Lex. Furthermore I see that it takes the Harlem River Drive??? According the , it "duplicates" the M101. It uses Harlem River Drive to give Ft Washington residents quicker access to/from Midtown 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 7, 2012 Share #406 Posted December 7, 2012 According the , it "duplicates" the M101. It uses Harlem River Drive to give Ft Washington residents quicker access to/from Midtown I don't think it's quicker if they have to get off and transfer to the M101 to get further Downtown... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 7, 2012 Share #407 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Why are we trying to get rid of the M98? If anything, it needs to go back to 34 St I have mixed feelings about the M98.... Ideally I'd like it to go back to 34th too; there was a point & time it offered more of an advantage over riding the 101 up towards wash. hgts.... However, traffic along the HRD done got so bad now, that advantage has been whittled down.... I mean you still have folks that take it b/w washington hgts & 125th/east harlem, but for w/e the reason(s), you don't see near as many people on individual buses as you used to...... .....But I think the damage has been done (so to speak) w/ the route to the point where people have already considered w/e other commuting habits they current partake in, over riding a reverted M98... Although I agree w/ AEMoreira in that the route served too small a market to begin with, Who knows how many folks from up there (wash. hgts) are taking 's to 's back towards the east side now (which is a backtrack btw), or having to take M101's to Harlem & points south themselves.... I was just about to say that... Why does it end at 65th street for?? Such a weird place to end a line on Lex. Furthermore I see that it takes the Harlem River Drive??? The 98 always took the Harlem river drive... the difference is that random terminal down there by hunter college.... Along 3rd/lex, it did take riders off 101LTD on up from 34th to 125th... Now that the 98 ends down there by the 60's, the east midtown (I guess that area is more murray hill) riders from what I notice tend to take w/e comes first (which is usually a 101 since it's as frequent as it is)..... I don't think it's quicker if they have to get off and transfer to the M101 to get further Downtown... It isn't.... Which is why I think some of those people have resorted to taking 101's to 125th for 's/(5)'s (...to 's if their destination is closer to one of the Lex local stops)... Edited December 7, 2012 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 7, 2012 Share #408 Posted December 7, 2012 Ok. I'm lost here The goal is to reach GWB fast but due to traffic its slower so other forms are used. #sigh: Please...... forgive me, What does this even mean? It is more frequent and faster. I think I get what that poster is saying, but I don't necessarily agree with it as 181 Street and the Washington Bridge are their own can of worms in terms of traffic. You seem to be the only one who understands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 7, 2012 Share #409 Posted December 7, 2012 There's nothing to get. He constantly exaggerates and lies to get his "points" across... for example, the Bx35 shouldn't have even entered the conversation. You are truly clueless I get laughs from your ignorance. I am not exaggerating here you are just lost admit it. It takes a quick route to GWB and skips the traffic. This is a sad attempt to insult me nice try kid. Look carefully but I don't think you can due to your emotions toward me let go of the hate and think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 7, 2012 Share #410 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I have mixed feelings about the M98.... Ideally I'd like it to go back to 34th too; there was a point & time it offered more of an advantage over riding the 101 up towards wash. hgts.... However, traffic along the HRD done got so bad now, that advantage has been whittled down.... I mean you still have folks that take it b/w washington hgts & 125th/east harlem, but for w/e the reason(s), you don't see near as many people on individual buses as you used to...... .....But I think the damage has been done (so to speak) w/ the route to the point where people have already considered w/e other commuting habits they current partake in, over riding a reverted M98... Although I agree w/ AEMoreira in that the route served too small a market to begin with, Who knows how many folks from up there (wash. hgts) are taking 's to 's back towards the east side now (which is a backtrack btw), or having to take M101's to Harlem & points south themselves.... The 98 always took the Harlem river drive... the difference is that random terminal down there by hunter college.... Along 3rd/lex, it did take riders off 101LTD on up from 34th to 125th... Now that the 98 ends down there by the 60's, the east midtown (I guess that area is more murray hill) riders from what I notice tend to take w/e comes first (which is usually a 101 since it's as frequent as it is)..... It isn't.... Which is why I think some of those people have resorted to taking 101's to 125th for 's/(5)'s (...to 's if their destination is closer to one of the Lex local stops)... From what I've seen the M98 is an afterthought, but it still gets good usage... I call it an afterthought because the frequencies suck compared to the M101. And taking the Harlem River Drive for a quick commute... LOL I'm sure the B/Os aren't allowed to get off of it any old point either... My question is there seems to be a clear void of inexpensive East Side access for folks in Inwood and Washington Heights which is quite odd... You would think they could build some sort of subway shuttle in between major points like 125th street similar to what we have at Grand Central... I wonder if that has even been considered because when you think about it the population is going to continue to grow in those areas and bus service will only get worse unless something is done to allow buses to move quicker. I've been thinking why there isn't a bus lane or an HOV lane anywhere on either the Major Deegan or the Harlem River Drive... Sounds absurd but I think something should be there and since there aren't tons of buses you could have vehicles with 3 or more people share that lane during rush hours or whatever. Edited December 7, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 7, 2012 Share #411 Posted December 7, 2012 From what I've seen the M98 is an afterthought, but it still gets good usage... I call it an afterthought because the frequencies suck compared to the M101. And taking the Harlem River Drive for a quick commute... LOL I'm sure the B/Os aren't allowed to get off of it any old point either... My question is there seems to be a clear void of inexpensive East Side access for folks in Inwood and Washington Heights which is quite odd... You would think they could build some sort of shuttle in between major points like 125th street similar to what we have at Grand Central... I wonder if that has even been considered because when you think about it the population is going to continue to grow here and bus service will only get worse unless something is done to allow them to move quicker. I've been thinking why there isn't a bus lane anywhere on either the Major Deegan or the Harlem River Drive... Sounds absurd but I think something should be there and since there aren't tons of buses you could have vehicles with 3 or more people share that lane during rush hours or whatever. THANK YOU SOMBODY GETS IT!!! QJT SALUTES YOU. You said it perfectly this is why M98 fails. Glad somebody understands I've been saying a subway shuttle is NEEDED between those points thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 8, 2012 Share #412 Posted December 8, 2012 THANK YOU SOMBODY GETS IT!!! QJT SALUTES YOU. You said it perfectly this is why M98 fails. Glad somebody understands I've been saying a subway shuttle is NEEDED between those points thank you. Well I would also keep the M98 but give it a dedicated bus lane as I said before. You would also need to work on Lexington too which is another monster in and of itself... Actually 3rd Avenue isn't bad at all compared to Lex but Lex is narrow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 8, 2012 Share #413 Posted December 8, 2012 Well I would also keep the M98 but give it a dedicated bus lane as I said before. You would also need to work on Lexington too which is another monster in and of itself... Actually 3rd Avenue isn't bad at all compared to Lex but Lex is narrow. this will increase ridership enough to add service to the line which in turn makes connections to GWB NJT/CUSA practical thus increasing those lines' ridership taking cars off the road due to new practical transit options. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 8, 2012 Share #414 Posted December 8, 2012 From what I've seen the M98 is an afterthought, but it still gets good usage... I call it an afterthought because the frequencies suck compared to the M101. And taking the Harlem River Drive for a quick commute... LOL I'm sure the B/Os aren't allowed to get off of it any old point either... My question is there seems to be a clear void of inexpensive East Side access for folks in Inwood and Washington Heights which is quite odd... You would think they could build some sort of subway shuttle in between major points like 125th street similar to what we have at Grand Central... I wonder if that has even been considered because when you think about it the population is going to continue to grow in those areas and bus service will only get worse unless something is done to allow buses to move quicker...... Yeah, it's an afterthought because of where it ends now (well that, and the 101/2/3 arriving before it)..... And like I said, harlem river drive used to have much less traffic than what it does now..... You take the BxM1, you see how traffic is now..... As far as a shuttle or w/e, I agree that a 125th st shuttle should've been built.... You wouldn't need all those buses along 125th. For starters, you wouldn't need the M100..... The goal is to reach GWB fast but due to traffic its slower so other forms are used. But it's not realistic..... THANK YOU SOMBODY GETS IT!!! QJT SALUTES YOU. You said it perfectly this is why M98 fails. Glad somebody understands I've been saying a subway shuttle is NEEDED between those points thank you. You weren't tryin to say that at all..... You just sat up there & said the goal is to reach the GWB faster.... To get from jerome av back to wash. hgts on the bx35 isn't exactly a hop, skip, and a jump away...... I don't agree w/ extending the 102 & making it a LTD either, but at least that doesn't involve a backtrack..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 8, 2012 Share #415 Posted December 8, 2012 based on older posts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted December 8, 2012 Share #416 Posted December 8, 2012 Nobody touch my M98. They've already cut it back enough! With the exception of the traffic going up on the Harlem, that route is fantastic. Only wish Quill would run a few more RTSes instead of NGs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted December 8, 2012 Share #417 Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) To avoid overserving Fort Washington Avenue, M4 service on its northern segment would have alternating trips terminating at 138 Street (near the Manhattanville Depot). To compensate for the loss of M4 service along Broadway and in Washington Heights, the M5 would run local along Broadway in upper Manhattan. Because the M5's running time would increase as a result to close to 2 hours, it would be truncated back to Houston Street and the M7 would instead be the route to South Ferry, turning off 7 Avenue at Greenwich Avenue and running along Greenwich Avenue and 8 Street to Broadway. I never did comment on the other portion of AEMoreira's plan, and I pretty much ignored it (up until this point) for this reason.... Granted, The aim is to come up w/ a sort of compromise of a discontinued M98.... Within it though, it involves an extension of the M102, an extension of the M7, having every other NB M4 run past 3333 broadway (135th/broadway), and truncating the M5 due to localizing the route north of 135th/broadway.... Four routes - Too much of a domino effect for a route that serves too narrow a market...... Bus service along Broadway in that area is a totally separate issue, and does not warrant an extension of the M7 southward to remedy it (that route has its own problems w/ notorious bunching.... funny, b/c so does the 102! - poor lenox av riders huh).... While I do know there's complaints regarding wash. hgts. riders wanting M5's to make M4 stops along broadway (in other words, M5's running locally b/w 135th & GWB), you don't have to cut any M4 service or prolong M7's...... All you have to do is have short turned M5's run b/w [72nd st subway or 57th/5th] & GWB..... Simple. I mean, everything mentioned in that plan is done as to not have M4's & extended M102's running along ft. washington av.... Which is why you don't need 102's running in that area in the first place (regardless if that's an area the 98 serves)..... Which is why I said earlier that all that is needed up there is the M4.... (the following run on sentence is done on purpose to prove a point) Extending M7's to S. Ferry in the place of truncated M5's on one end that would locally serve an area on the opposite end due to a decrease of M4's to ft washington/cloisters due to (not) overserving ft washington/cloisters with an extended M102 that attempts to serve the same/similar niche of riders the M98 does....... But I digress. Edited December 8, 2012 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted December 8, 2012 Share #418 Posted December 8, 2012 #sigh: Please...... forgive me, What does this even mean? He's saying that the fact that it was a rush hour-only route that was delay-prone caused people to take alternative routes, and discouraged them from taking the M98. In any case, that would probably be one more reason why the MTA would eventually want some sort of M101 +SBS+ further down the line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 8, 2012 Share #419 Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) He's saying that the fact that it was a rush hour-only route that was delay-prone caused people to take alternative routes, and discouraged them from taking the M98. In any case, that would probably be one more reason why the MTA would eventually want some sort of M101 +SBS+ further down the line. Interesting you, VG8 and AEMoreira seem to be the only ones not completely stumped kudos to you 3 for actually taking the time to listen. :lol:Me thinks you should be my interpreter Edited December 8, 2012 by qjtransitmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 8, 2012 Share #420 Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) First off I would not lengthen the M5 any longer. The idea is just insane. Buses on that line are already unreliable as it is. If anything I'd cut it back to its old terminal, bring back the M6 perhaps with some sort of tweak in the way it runs Southbound (I'll get back to that in a moment) and I'd put the M98 back to 34th street. Even with the ***** headways I think it's a route that is needed, albeit during rush hour. Even if a shuttle was built along 125th street, I would still compliment it with adequate bus service, so I would keep the M98. The M6 I think should be restored as I've said numerous times, but perhaps it needs to be sped up. With all of the damn pedestrian walks, I think that killed marketability on the line Southbound. My plan is to wait for the restorations coming in January, give the some time to try to recover financially and reapproach some more restorations and the two big ones would be the M104 back to the UN and the M6 fully restored. Edited December 8, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 8, 2012 Share #421 Posted December 8, 2012 Me thinks you should be my interpreter Why don't you just type like a normal poster.... and you won't need a freaking interpreter... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted December 8, 2012 Share #422 Posted December 8, 2012 First off I would not lengthen the M5 any longer. The idea is just insane. Buses on that line are already unreliable as it is. If anything I'd cut it back to its old terminal, bring back the M6 perhaps with some sort of tweak in the way it runs Southbound (I'll get back to that in a moment) and I'd put the M98 back to 34th street. Even with the ***** headways I think it's a route that is needed, albeit during rush hour. Even if a shuttle was built along 125th street, I would still compliment it with adequate bus service, so I would keep the M98. The M6 I think should be restored as I've said numerous times, but perhaps it needs to be sped up. With all of the damn pedestrian walks, I think that killed marketability on the line Southbound. My plan is to wait for the restorations coming in January, give the some time to try to recover financially and reapproach some more restorations and the two big ones would be the M104 back to the UN and the M6 fully restored. VG8 i dont disagree and agree that the M6 should come back. However like the B5/B50 merger in Brooklyn about 15-plus years ago, the M6 IMO is not coming back. The M104 has a much better chance of returning it's full old route i.e To/from the UN then a full M6 return. Not to mention Broadway is now vechile-free permanetly between Times Sq area and Union Sq. So the M6 Downtown bound would had to use either 7th Avenue, 23rd Street and Park Ave South/Broadway or 5th Avenue/Park Ave South and Broadway. In 2010 IMO, I would done a M5/M6 'marriage" w/ say the M6 could been extended to say 72nd/Broadway. While would have become a M5 the 2nd 6th Avenue route between 72nd and Downtown. Thus the M5 could have run 'limited' at all times between 72nd and say City Hall/Park Row. I would have ran the "M5" to City Hall/Park Row (with most buses weekdays ending at Houston). That would made more sense than scrapping the M6 totally. Just IMO dont have to agree guys but it would prevented the huge delays/bus bunching the "M5" now has 7 days a week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 8, 2012 Share #423 Posted December 8, 2012 First off I would not lengthen the M5 any longer. The idea is just insane. Buses on that line are already unreliable as it is. If anything I'd cut it back to its old terminal, bring back the M6 perhaps with some sort of tweak in the way it runs Southbound (I'll get back to that in a moment) and I'd put the M98 back to 34th street. Even with the ***** headways I think it's a route that is needed, albeit during rush hour. Even if a shuttle was built along 125th street, I would still compliment it with adequate bus service, so I would keep the M98. The M6 I think should be restored as I've said numerous times, but perhaps it needs to be sped up. With all of the damn pedestrian walks, I think that killed marketability on the line Southbound. My plan is to wait for the restorations coming in January, give the some time to try to recover financially and reapproach some more restorations and the two big ones would be the M104 back to the UN and the M6 fully restored. really if reliability was an issue you wold want to KEEP M104 as is. M6 not realistic in its form north of houston I would change it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 8, 2012 Share #424 Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) VG8 i dont disagree and agree that the M6 should come back. However like the B5/B50 merger in Brooklyn about 15-plus years ago, the M6 IMO is not coming back. The M104 has a much better chance of returning it's full old route i.e To/from the UN then a full M6 return. Not to mention Broadway is now vechile-free permanetly between Times Sq area and Union Sq. So the M6 Downtown bound would had to use either 7th Avenue, 23rd Street and Park Ave South/Broadway or 5th Avenue/Park Ave South and Broadway. In 2010 IMO, I would done a M5/M6 'marriage" w/ say the M6 could been extended to say 72nd/Broadway. While would have become a M5 the 2nd 6th Avenue route between 72nd and Downtown. Thus the M5 could have run 'limited' at all times between 72nd and say City Hall/Park Row. I would have ran the "M5" to City Hall/Park Row (with most buses weekdays ending at Houston). That would made more sense than scrapping the M6 totally. Just IMO dont have to agree guys but it would prevented the huge delays/bus bunching the "M5" now has 7 days a week. Well certainly if it came back it would have to be reworked. I would also be interested in seeing how ridership is on the M5 down to South Ferry from Greenwich Village, but I think there is ridership esp. with the tourists down there. Edited December 8, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennyj17 Posted December 8, 2012 Share #425 Posted December 8, 2012 They need to bring the M10 back downtown to Penn Station...the M20 cannot handle it alone and it's headways are to far apart. The M7's seem to bunch insanely (M7 covers way too much ground uptown IMO need needs to be straighten and streamlined).... It's funny because you will wait 20 mins along 7 AV, then a crushloaded M20 will come followed by half-dozen empty M7s (the Gang of M7s seems to always come behind the overcrowded M20). If not the M10 return, then send the M104's to Penn....The M20 only need the extra help down to Penn beyond there the M20 and the unreliable M7 pretty much gets the job done. 0 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.