Via Garibaldi 8 Posted September 4, 2014 Share #851 Posted September 4, 2014 How can you not see what good that quote-unquote quick fix would do, when you just said in the short term you agree with what I said.... Anyway, the M11 in its entirety won't suffer from whatever riders would end up shifting over to M12's (which is what you're implicating by saying "when the route in question is not exactly booming in ridership to begin with"), since the M11 covers far more territory than the M12.... And what residential buildings you're talking about over there around 12th av, for the MTA to be patient & let the route grow on its own with? Fact of the matter is, the riders are not gonna come from along 12th av..... They're gonna come from West Village, Chelsea, and b/w [11th/57th] & [the Columbus Circle area]..... There isn't a single thing wrong with trying to get more Chelsea riders to take this new route.... If you're going to argue that stealing riders from the M11 won't be that big of a deal, then that indicates to me that it won't make a huge difference in terms of the M12's ridership growing. I'm saying that in the short term that area won't be booming, but the reason the M12 was created along with the train extension was for NEW growth. The idea is that with the transportation in place, the residential area could be established over there, and you can't sit here and tell me that with the way gentrification is growing that those areas won't become residential down the road? When that will happen I don't know, but with Manhattan gentrifying so quickly, it's only a matter of time before that area becomes converted. Hell's Kitchen is a perfect example... I personally don't think they'll have to wait too long for ridership to grow on that route. People will figure it out in due time. My real concern is the 30 minute headways... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted September 4, 2014 Share #852 Posted September 4, 2014 If you're going to argue that stealing riders from the M11 won't be that big of a deal, then that indicates to me that it won't make a huge difference in terms of the M12's ridership growing. I'm saying that in the short term that area won't be booming, but the reason the M12 was created along with the train extension was for NEW growth. The idea is that with the transportation in place, the residential area could be established over there, and you can't sit here and tell me that with the way gentrification is growing that those areas won't become residential down the road? When that will happen I don't know, but with Manhattan gentrifying so quickly, it's only a matter of time before that area becomes converted. Hell's Kitchen is a perfect example... I personally don't think they'll have to wait too long for ridership to grow on that route. People will figure it out in due time. My real concern is the 30 minute headways... I see you don't like to deal with specifics.... I'm specifically talking about the northbound M12.... I'm not trying to take a heap of riders from off the NB M11, so your point about a "huge difference" is moot.... If you (or the MTA) think those current (or future) residents of that area will make their way to, and wait along 12th av for a bus, an awakening will be in store.... You don't have to agree, but it'll be a matter of time for the outcries to come pouring in from folks over there, as to how useless the bus towards Columbus Circle is for them.... That is, if they truly give a shit about the new service - and it'll totally be justified too.... Otherwise, folks will continue taking the NB M11 to some crosstown route, or if all else fails, the almighty taxicab..... Basically what I'm saying is, the M12 ridership patterns are going to be unbalanced - where you'd have a significant amt. of the route's riders taking the bus along 11th (meaning, southbound), compared to travel on the same route in the opposite direction (short of 57th, since the route runs bidirectionally on it)..... Of those that'll end up taking the buses, Residents of Hell's Kitchen/Clinton/Midtown west will utilize the northbound M11 & the southbound M12.... As the northbound M12 ends up getting shunned.... That's just how I see it.... That's how isolated 12th av is from everything (I still don't know what residences you think will be propped up along 12th av itself, but whatever)..... Since the NB buses would end up getting shunned by Hell's Kitchen/Clinton/Midtown west patrons, this only leaves the West Village & Chelsea folks benefiting from buses almost running nonstop along 12th, to get to W 57th & points east..... As far as 30 min. headways on this & these other newer routes, yeah, that's a concern to be had, but it's the same deal.... Lack of ridership will yield no decrease in headways..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted September 4, 2014 Share #853 Posted September 4, 2014 I see you don't like to deal with specifics.... I'm specifically talking about the northbound M12.... I'm not trying to take a heap of riders from off the NB M11, so your point about a "huge difference" is moot.... If you (or the MTA) think those current (or future) residents of that area will make their way to, and wait along 12th av for a bus, an awakening will be in store.... You don't have to agree, but it'll be a matter of time for the outcries to come pouring in from folks over there, as to how useless the bus towards Columbus Circle is for them.... That is, if they truly give a shit about the new service - and it'll totally be justified too.... Otherwise, folks will continue taking the NB M11 to some crosstown route, or if all else fails, the almighty taxicab..... Basically what I'm saying is, the M12 ridership patterns are going to be unbalanced - where you'd have a significant amt. of the route's riders taking the bus along 11th (meaning, southbound), compared to travel on the same route in the opposite direction (short of 57th, since the route runs bidirectionally on it)..... Of those that'll end up taking the buses, Residents of Hell's Kitchen/Clinton/Midtown west will utilize the northbound M11 & the southbound M12.... As the northbound M12 ends up getting shunned.... That's just how I see it.... That's how isolated 12th av is from everything (I still don't know what residences you think will be propped up along 12th av itself, but whatever)..... Since the NB buses would end up getting shunned by Hell's Kitchen/Clinton/Midtown west patrons, this only leaves the West Village & Chelsea folks benefiting from buses almost running nonstop along 12th, to get to W 57th & points east..... As far as 30 min. headways on this & these other newer routes, yeah, that's a concern to be had, but it's the same deal.... Lack of ridership will yield no decrease in headways..... My argument to your response would be that the community usually has some input into these new routes to best meet the community's needs, so I would hope that would be the case here... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted September 10, 2014 Share #854 Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) It sounds like a SAS along 125th St won't come to fruition some time...so why not have a bus that would run along the M15 corridor from Pike St to Manhattanville instead? Here's my proposal: M17: Local service between 12 Av/125 St in Manhattanville and Pike/Cherry Sts in East Village via 125th St, 1 Av (northbound), 2 Av, (southbound), and Allen St. All M15 local buses that short turn at Pike/Cherry Sts will become M17 buses. Weekdays: Toward Pike St - 5:20AM to 7:26PM Toward 12 Av - 6:27AM to 9:22PM Saturdays: Toward Pike St - 6:26AM to 7:34PM Toward 12 Av - 7:37AM to 9:01PM Sundays: Toward Pike St - 7:02AM to 7:23PM Toward 12 Av - 8:06AM to 8:50PM (Note: I used the M15 local bus timetable from August 31, 2014 to come up with the times) Edited September 10, 2014 by lara8710 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted September 10, 2014 Share #855 Posted September 10, 2014 It sounds like a SAS along 125th St won't come to fruition some time...so why not have a bus that would run along the M15 corridor from Pike St to Manhattanville instead? Here's my proposal: M17: Local service between 12 Av/125 St in Manhattanville and Pike/Cherry Sts in East Village via 125th St, 1 Av (northbound), 2 Av, (southbound), and Allen St. All M15 local buses that short turn at Pike/Cherry Sts will become M17 buses. Weekdays: Toward Pike St - 5:20AM to 7:26PM Toward 12 Av - 6:27AM to 9:22PM Saturdays: Toward Pike St - 6:26AM to 7:34PM Toward 12 Av - 7:37AM to 9:01PM Sundays: Toward Pike St - 7:02AM to 7:23PM Toward 12 Av - 8:06AM to 8:50PM (Note: I used the M15 local bus timetable from August 31, 2014 to come up with the times) Okay, but what does SAS have to do with this proposal. This would just mean significant cutbacks to the Bx15. Also, it's not like everyone rides it out te whole (proposed route), as most just take it as it's the only mode on either section, or to get to the nearest subway stop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 10, 2014 Share #856 Posted September 10, 2014 Why would you want to expose Second Avenue buses to delays on the 125th corridor, which isn't even served by current SAS plans? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted September 11, 2014 Share #857 Posted September 11, 2014 I see you don't like to deal with specifics.... I'm specifically talking about the northbound M12.... I'm not trying to take a heap of riders from off the NB M11, so your point about a "huge difference" is moot.... If you (or the MTA) think those current (or future) residents of that area will make their way to, and wait along 12th av for a bus, an awakening will be in store.... You don't have to agree, but it'll be a matter of time for the outcries to come pouring in from folks over there, as to how useless the bus towards Columbus Circle is for them.... That is, if they truly give a shit about the new service - and it'll totally be justified too.... Otherwise, folks will continue taking the NB M11 to some crosstown route, or if all else fails, the almighty taxicab..... Basically what I'm saying is, the M12 ridership patterns are going to be unbalanced - where you'd have a significant amt. of the route's riders taking the bus along 11th (meaning, southbound), compared to travel on the same route in the opposite direction (short of 57th, since the route runs bidirectionally on it)..... Of those that'll end up taking the buses, Residents of Hell's Kitchen/Clinton/Midtown west will utilize the northbound M11 & the southbound M12.... As the northbound M12 ends up getting shunned.... That's just how I see it.... That's how isolated 12th av is from everything (I still don't know what residences you think will be propped up along 12th av itself, but whatever)..... Since the NB buses would end up getting shunned by Hell's Kitchen/Clinton/Midtown west patrons, this only leaves the West Village & Chelsea folks benefiting from buses almost running nonstop along 12th, to get to W 57th & points east..... As far as 30 min. headways on this & these other newer routes, yeah, that's a concern to be had, but it's the same deal.... Lack of ridership will yield no decrease in headways..... True but the 12th ave part can be used as a quick way to get to the subway from west village&Chelsea western part that is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanInfinity Posted October 12, 2014 Share #858 Posted October 12, 2014 Hey just some random idea but why not merge the M10 and M12? They both end at Columbus Circle, and maybe it could encourage some uptown riders? It might make it somewhat inefficient because of the 12th Avenue traffic, but I think it could work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted October 12, 2014 Share #859 Posted October 12, 2014 Hey just some random idea but why not merge the M10 and M12? They both end at Columbus Circle, and maybe it could encourage some uptown riders? It might make it somewhat inefficient because of the 12th Avenue traffic, but I think it could work. At best, the M10 should have been reverted; didn't need the M10 going south of MSG then & you don't right now.... Too bad current circumstances (31st st side of MSG) prevent that from happening... Besides, combining those two routes would make the resultant route too indirect..... But hell, with the way M10's crawl along Central Park West these days, I wouldn't even bother sending it any further south than 57th..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted October 12, 2014 Share #860 Posted October 12, 2014 The 10 sounds like one of those routes that was too long for its own good, which is why they split it (and the M20 was born) and cut the line. And with the 12 dealing with the nightmare of traffic known as 14 St-9 Av, its just gonna make the line unreliable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted October 12, 2014 Share #861 Posted October 12, 2014 Maybe they could have made the Abingdon Square short turn the full time terminal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted October 12, 2014 Share #862 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) The 10 sounds like one of those routes that was too long for its own good, which is why they split it (and the M20 was born) and cut the line. And with the 12 dealing with the nightmare of traffic known as 14 St-9 Av, its just gonna make the line unreliable. Yeah, the M10 that went down to Battery Park City IMO was worse than the current M5.....The M20 inherited a large portion of the problems that rendition of the M10 (BPC - Harlem) had.... The M10 that ended alongside MSG still had to deal with the traffic along 7th/8th av - just not nearly as much of it.... That rendition of the M10 I find, was utilized more than the M20, simply due to just how much traffic woes plagues that route (the M20).... Your chances of catching an M10 vs an M20 at 34th were better. But w/ the ATM, um, MTA, today's rendition of the M10 had zero to do with any reliability issues & what not... it was nothing more than a cost cutting measure. Maybe they could have made the Abingdon Square short turn the full time terminal. Nah, I wouldn't have had the M10 run past MSG - That I did agree with the MTA on. But since we're talking about west side service.... I may as well bring this up.... When I used to work over in the village, I would experience every friday like clockwork, just how gridlocked the South Ferry bound M20 would get b/w Christopher & Canal (caused by Holland Tunnel traffic).... It happened during the other days of the weekday too, but fridays were the worst..... And I would think to myself, they should look into splitting the M20 like they did the (BPC-Harlem) M10.... I thought about this well before any talks of an M12 arising.... Before anything else, I'm gonna say at minimum, it's time to truncate the M20 back to BPC... Way I see it, the extension to S. Ferry isn't cutting it..... The M9 to the subway seems to do more for BPC folks than the M20 to S. Ferry for the subway for those same folks.... Virtually no one xfers from off the M20 to the M15, to boot..... However, instead of ending over there by 1 pl. like it used to, terminate it w/ the current M9..... The rest of it about splitting the M20, at the time, I was thinking the route could be split to run b/w BPC & Chelsea piers on one front, and b/w Abingdon sq. & Lincoln Center on the other..... >> map of what I'm saying with all this << From Abingdon Square, the northern M20 split would go on to serve 7th/8th av's like the current M20 does, and the M12 would serve the west side folks..... I tried drawing the current M12 into the map, but it made the map look a mess..... Edited October 12, 2014 by B35 via Church 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaTransitMan4608 Posted December 15, 2014 Share #863 Posted December 15, 2014 Sorry for the bump. I was in Manhattan on Friday and while I was walking up 8th avenue I thought about something... Would making the M20 an SBS line be a good idea? I mean it uses 8th Avenue for a good portion of its route so I guess that would be a good location for a bus lane. Only problem is the southbound buses that have to go through Times Square. That would defeat the whole purpose of it. I'm just looking for some feedback.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 15, 2014 Share #864 Posted December 15, 2014 Sorry for the bump. I was in Manhattan on Friday and while I was walking up 8th avenue I thought about something... Would making the M20 an SBS line be a good idea? I mean it uses 8th Avenue for a good portion of its route so I guess that would be a good location for a bus lane. Only problem is the southbound buses that have to go through Times Square. That would defeat the whole purpose of it. I'm just looking for some feedback.... I would say no due to the folks that need and use it. It's mainly older folks who may be disabled so they would scream about that. The M15SBS has received a lot of complaints due to stops being eliminated for that very reason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 15, 2014 Share #865 Posted December 15, 2014 Sorry for the bump. I was in Manhattan on Friday and while I was walking up 8th avenue I thought about something... Would making the M20 an SBS line be a good idea? I mean it uses 8th Avenue for a good portion of its route so I guess that would be a good location for a bus lane. Only problem is the southbound buses that have to go through Times Square. That would defeat the whole purpose of it. I'm just looking for some feedback.... vg8 explained it best plus it would be detrimental to bus ridership as those from closely spaced stops would be inconvenienced and those truly looking for faster service would continue to use the subway like they currently do basically the 8th ave line & SBS would be ineffective on 8th ave just look at how poorly the M5 does on 6th speed wise. SBS on corridors with subway service the whole way especially with local & express on said corridor will fail miserably. Nostrand don't count. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 10, 2015 Share #866 Posted January 10, 2015 Sorry for the bump. I was in Manhattan on Friday and while I was walking up 8th avenue I thought about something... Would making the M20 an SBS line be a good idea? I mean it uses 8th Avenue for a good portion of its route so I guess that would be a good location for a bus lane. Only problem is the southbound buses that have to go through Times Square. That would defeat the whole purpose of it. I'm just looking for some feedback.... Didn't originally see this.... I would say no, due to the fact that the usage south of around 14th is sorely lacking.... In other words, it wouldn't be worth it to paint bus lanes, install the fare payment machines & what not, only so that some fraction of only 3000-4000 riders/weekday could benefit from it..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousNYLover Posted January 11, 2015 Share #867 Posted January 11, 2015 Sorry for the bump. I was in Manhattan on Friday and while I was walking up 8th avenue I thought about something... Would making the M20 an SBS line be a good idea? I mean it uses 8th Avenue for a good portion of its route so I guess that would be a good location for a bus lane. Only problem is the southbound buses that have to go through Times Square. That would defeat the whole purpose of it. I'm just looking for some feedback.... No, M20 is used mostly like disable, seniors and tourists, but there should be improve bus and Holland tunnel study. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 11, 2015 Share #868 Posted January 11, 2015 No, M20 is used mostly like disable, seniors and tourists, but there should be improve bus and Holland tunnel study. used really I am sorry I guess the M20 I was on was so empty I couldn't see any riders other than me with a microscope. M20's ridership is so bad it makes N50&36 look like it is used. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 11, 2015 Share #869 Posted January 11, 2015 used really I am sorry I guess the M20 I was on was so empty I couldn't see any riders other than me with a microscope. M20's ridership is so bad it makes N50&36 look like it is used. The portion south of 14th st anyway..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 12, 2015 Share #870 Posted January 12, 2015 The portion south of 14th st anyway.....yes that portion is exactly what I am talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 12, 2015 Share #871 Posted January 12, 2015 MTA can try to make shorter more reliable routes though. : M102/103 can be adjusted to run more frequently with a truncation at 59th so neither is too long. M106 can be merged into M7 boosted M102&116 picking up the slack. M22 is practically duplicating the M9 I would have M22 replace M5 between chambers & east 8th. M5 is useless south of midtown 50th street. M4 is useless in upper Manhattan. It should go no further than Columbia university. LTD stop bus service on Broadway is an exercise in futility. Let bx11&35 take over fort Washington ave. With bx35 to cloister's museum & bx11 sharing a terminal with bx6. Distance riders on Broadway use block by block m5 as a local ending at 168th. As for m50 &12 not sure how 12 is doing reliability wise just wait and see. M50 hmm what parts are the most reliable? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted January 12, 2015 Share #872 Posted January 12, 2015 MTA can try to make shorter more reliable routes though. : M102/103 can be adjusted to run more frequently with a truncation at 59th so neither is too long. M106 can be merged into M7 boosted M102&116 picking up the slack. M22 is practically duplicating the M9 I would have M22 replace M5 between chambers & east 8th. M5 is useless south of midtown 50th street. M4 is useless in upper Manhattan. It should go no further than Columbia university. LTD stop bus service on Broadway is an exercise in futility. Let bx11&35 take over fort Washington ave. With bx35 to cloister's museum & bx11 sharing a terminal with bx6. Distance riders on Broadway use block by block m5 as a local ending at 168th. As for m50 &12 not sure how 12 is doing reliability wise just wait and see. M50 hmm what parts are the most reliable? So basically, you are discontinuing service where one route goes while another route that barely serves it replaces it? This would not work out IMO.Also, Manhattan buses do more work than you think. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 12, 2015 Share #873 Posted January 12, 2015 So basically, you are discontinuing service where one route goes while another route that barely serves it replaces it? This would not work out IMO. Also, Manhattan buses do more work than you think. better reliability for m4&5 & no corridor loses service completely. M102/103&106 riders would gain more service indirectly. The Madison/5th ave corridor will see wait times reduced due to improved m4 reliability due to it's streamlined form. M5 will gain more consistent service on Broadway in upper Manhattan and Riverside Dr. Buses won't waste time on futile segments that hurt the rest of the line. And people won't fool themselves into thinking they are going somewhere when they know full well how long and unrealistic said route is. The problem is Manhattan bus routes try to do too much resulting in horrible quality service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted January 12, 2015 Share #874 Posted January 12, 2015 Once again, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul... You making the M7/106/whatevertheshitnumberyougiveit longer and more unreliable than what it is. The M106 is fine as it is. You say to reroute the M22 to go via the M5, now what about the east end of the M22? Stop with the super routes already 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted January 12, 2015 Share #875 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Once again, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul... You making the M7/106/whatevertheshitnumberyougiveit longer and more unreliable than what it is. The M106 is fine as it is. You say to reroute the M22 to go via the M5, now what about the east end of the M22? Stop with the super routes already you mean west end of m22. Plus that area has the M9. As for M106 you kind of have a point. The basis for that was to increase service hours on 106th street while making the M7 more manageable than it's current form plus compared to the current M5 it is not even close but I see your point the midtown segment of M7 might hurt this merged route. Ohh well. As for east end of M22 no change and it will go no further than 8th street heading north. Edited January 12, 2015 by qjtransitmaster 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.