Jump to content

Manhattan Division Bus Proposals/Ideas


CDTA

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What the idea entails around Peter Cooper, is the shifting of the Bellevue bound M9 along 14th instead of having it run on 20th.... Barely anyone uses the thing on 20th (folks are gunning for the M23 instead), and ever since the M9 got altered to where it no longer serves Union Sq, it lost the connection to the (L).... I'd restore a connection to the (L) back, by way of having it serve 1st av. subway..... Everything else is what the current M9 does up there....

I have no problem explaining myself, but I still don't get what your particular issue is regarding three avenue blocks....

Well, if I'm heading to a destination on one side of that three-block circle, I now have to walk three avenue blocks to catch the bus in the opposite direction, adding at least ten minutes to my trip. At that point I'd just not use the bus, and I consider myself a healthy young adult. An old grandma visiting Beth Israel isn't going to take the bus because that walk's too far.

I'd be fine with both directions on 1st/2nd and 14th, or both directions using 23rd, but not creating that whole 9x3 block one way pair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Well, if I'm heading to a destination on one side of that three-block circle, I now have to walk three avenue blocks to catch the bus in the opposite direction, adding at least ten minutes to my trip. At that point I'd just not use the bus, and I consider myself a healthy young adult. An old grandma visiting Beth Israel isn't going to take the bus because that walk's too far.

I'd be fine with both directions on 1st/2nd and 14th, or both directions using 23rd, but not creating that whole 9x3 block one way pair.

You'd be fine with the latter, but former residents still didn't bother with that old service pattern on the M21 (both directions on 23rd) & I don't believe things would be any different w/ the utilization of the M9 it were to do that..... Having buses going 14th via 1st/2nd completely avoids the Av. C side of Peter Cooper & most of that side of Stuy. Town (which a different argument could then be made).....

It sounds like your real problem has less to do with any 9x3 one way pair & more to do with the fact that Peter Cooper & Stuy. Town are a] situated adjacent each other & b] 3 avenue blocks wide.... I can't help that.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You'd be fine with the latter, but former residents still didn't bother with that old service pattern on the M21 (both directions on 23rd) & I don't believe things would be any different w/ the utilization of the M9 it were to do that..... Having buses going 14th via 1st/2nd completely avoids the Av. C side of Peter Cooper & most of that side of Stuy. Town (which a different argument could then be made).....

It sounds like your real problem has less to do with any 9x3 one way pair & more to do with the fact that Peter Cooper & Stuy. Town are a] situated adjacent each other & b] 3 avenue blocks wide.... I can't help that.

The one-way pair is unnecessary. Both Avenue C and East 20th (between C and First) are two-way, so there is no reason to not use both streets in both directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

The one-way pair is unnecessary. Both Avenue C and East 20th (between C and First) are two-way, so there is no reason to not use both streets in both directions.

The fact that both of those aforementioned streets are two way means nothing... By that logic, nothing should ever run down uni-directional streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2017 at 12:52 PM, B35 via Church said:

The fact that both of those aforementioned streets are two way means nothing... By that logic, nothing should ever run down uni-directional streets.

Your route doesn't need a one-way loop because it can get to where it needs to go without one. It makes no sense to remove a northbound bus from Avenue C for the sole purpose of placing it on First Avenue (which already has plenty of service).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Your route doesn't need a one-way loop because it can get to where it needs to go without one. It makes no sense to remove a northbound bus from Avenue C for the sole purpose of placing it on First Avenue (which already has plenty of service).

...and it makes no sense to keep buses along E. 20th if much of nobody is using them.... That line of thinking goes both ways.

Too much emphasis is being placed on this 1-way "loop" bit, when the emphasis should be on making buses more useful.... Furthermore, 1st av having plenty of service is a non-issue (the M9 already uses 1st av. to get to Bellevue) & the idea is not for the "sole purpose of placing it on First Avenue" (which is a false premise).....

I don't know what you think the M9 does, but it already runs on a 1-way "loop" in that general area to get to/from Bellevue.... I'm not creating a 1-way "loop" where one doesn't already exist (which is the vibe I'm getting from your replies), I'm making that "loop" wider... Keeping NB buses on 20th serves more of Peter Cooper, that aren't taking the things.... I have no doubt that putting NB buses on 14th would garner more usage out of Stuy. Town folks, over more folks from Peter Cooper (i.e, the current NB routing) that shuns the thing..... The M23 is ripe for their taking (utilizing) & I have no problem with that at all.... They've apparently made up their mind w/ the M9 & well... So I have I.

If one were to follow the theory that you're conveying (in post #1032), that would very likely resort to making the M9 less useful than what it is now.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A general aside, not a specific proposal: 

I wonder if more people would opt to use the Manhattan buses if it was made more clearer where each route went...

Take this diagram of routes in central London for example:key-bus-routes-in-central-london.pdf

Routes and places of interest are clearly marked as are bus-train connections and stops...

Obviously the extremely low speed of buses is a problem but I also wonder if there's an information barrier to more people using buses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

How about a new LTD route along Lex/3rd Avs, the M99, between E Midtown and E Harlem, then up the HRD to Inwood, serving Dyckman St and Broadway terminating at Bway/220th St. This would eliminate the Inwood service on the BxM1 and make that a quicker route, as well as giving Inwood residents an express route to Midtown for $2.75

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

How about a new LTD route along Lex/3rd Avs, the M99, between E Midtown and E Harlem, then up the HRD to Inwood, serving Dyckman St and Broadway terminating at Bway/220th St. This would eliminate the Inwood service on the BxM1 and make that a quicker route, as well as giving Inwood residents an express route to Midtown for $2.75

The problem is Inwood doesn't get enough ridership as it is to warrant its own route. I would be all for removing BxM1 service via Inwood, as that service is really for Riverdale, but Inwood b*tched and moaned that they didn't have East Side access and so the (MTA) obliged and agreed to run some BxM1 service through there.  There are also some residents in Inwood who live there precisely because of the express bus (particularly those west of Broadway, as Inwood west of Broadway is the richer side of Inwood if you will - not upper middle class, but there are definitely more people moving in with more money that afford the high rents as opposed to east of Broadway) who don't want to take the subway.  They already were pissed when the (MTA) cut BxM1 service via Inwood years ago. They'd really be pissed now.  I've been calling for less service Inwood because it slows down service considerably for those of us coming from Riverdale. Every time I get a BxM1 bus via Inwood, it takes FOREVER, and then I have to transfer to the (4)(5)(6) to continue with my commute.  It's really annoying considering how much time I give myself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The problem is Inwood doesn't get enough ridership as it is to warrant its own route. I would be all for removing BxM1 service via Inwood, as that service is really for Riverdale, but Inwood b*tched and moaned that they didn't have East Side access and so the (MTA) obliged and agreed to run some BxM1 service through there.  There are also some residents in Inwood who live there precisely because of the express bus (particularly those west of Broadway, as Inwood west of Broadway is the richer side of Inwood if you will - not upper middle class, but there are definitely more people moving in with more money that afford the high rents as opposed to east of Broadway) who don't want to take the subway.  They already were pissed when the (MTA) cut BxM1 service via Inwood years ago. They'd really be pissed now.  I've been calling for less service Inwood because it slows down service considerably for those of us coming from Riverdale. Every time I get a BxM1 bus via Inwood, it takes FOREVER, and then I have to transfer to the (4)(5)(6) to continue with my commute.  It's really annoying considering how much time I give myself.  

The thing is it's different from the BxM1 because once it gets off the HRD, it would actually continue picking up passengers headed towards Midtown, as opposed to the BxM1 which is drop-off only. So there's more turnover (especially since a local bus would be more likely to see ridership between East Harlem & Inwood since those riders especially are likely to be price-sensitive. Well that, and the fact that the BxM1 only stops at the border of the UES/East Harlem, whereas a local/limited bus would make stops as far as 125th).

With the discussion we had earlier in this thread about splitting the M101 and having the M98 be the main 3rd/Lex limited, it might make sense to run some service to Inwood instead of everything to Washington Heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The thing is it's different from the BxM1 because once it gets off the HRD, it would actually continue picking up passengers headed towards Midtown, as opposed to the BxM1 which is drop-off only. So there's more turnover (especially since a local bus would be more likely to see ridership between East Harlem & Inwood since those riders especially are likely to be price-sensitive. Well that, and the fact that the BxM1 only stops at the border of the UES/East Harlem, whereas a local/limited bus would make stops as far as 125th).

With the discussion we had earlier in this thread about splitting the M101 and having the M98 be the main 3rd/Lex limited, it might make sense to run some service to Inwood instead of everything to Washington Heights.

Yeah but all you're doing is stealing riders from the M101 at best, and clogging up Lex even more than what it is.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah but all you're doing is stealing riders from the M101 at best, and clogging up Lex even more than what it is.

It can't steal riders from a route that doesn't exist anymore. ;) 

The idea was to split the M101. The northern half would run similar to the M100 (East Harlem to Washington Heights via 125th & Amsterdam) and the southern half would be covered by the M98.

To me, having the northern half run East Harlem to Washington Heights is a no-brainer. I see a ton of turnover at 125th & Lexington. The question is what to do with the southern half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

It can't steal riders from a route that doesn't exist anymore. ;) 

The idea was to split the M101. The northern half would run similar to the M100 (East Harlem to Washington Heights via 125th & Amsterdam) and the southern half would be covered by the M98.

To me, having the northern half run East Harlem to Washington Heights is a no-brainer. I see a ton of turnover at 125th & Lexington. The question is what to do with the southern half.

I don't care for splitting up the M101. Believe it or not a lot of people use it over the subway for long distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't care for splitting up the M101. Believe it or not a lot of people use it over the subway for long distances.

....who would not be affected by the split....

Riders traveling from 8th Street to 125th Street via 3rd/Lexington would still be able to take the bus if they want to (B35's proposal has it only running to 23rd Street, but in any case, riders south of 23rd Street still have the M102/103). Those are the only riders using it as an alternative to the subway. The riders using it to travel between the Amsterdam/125th corridor and the 3rd/Lex corridor are using it as a substitute of the subway, not as an alternative.

Some of those riders can take the M102, which does serve Central Harlem. Some can also make their way to/from the M3/4, which serve West Harlem & Washington Heights (though we've also had discussions on how to split those up, though to me turnover isn't as apparent and the need isn't as strong as it is on the M101). Between those alternatives, and the fact that the M98 would still serve Washington Heights, a split at 125th & Lexington would be the most efficient way to break it up.

And I say this as someone who uses the northern portion of the route frequently. The M100 is much more reliable than the M101 (and as I pointed out in the Route Profiles thread, the M100 actually carries more riders per trip than the M101, even though it is less than 2/3rds the length), and it's one of the few routes in Manhattan that's gaining ridership). I'd like to see the same happen on the M101.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

How about a new LTD route along Lex/3rd Avs, the M99, between E Midtown and E Harlem, then up the HRD to Inwood, serving Dyckman St and Broadway terminating at Bway/220th St. This would eliminate the Inwood service on the BxM1 and make that a quicker route, as well as giving Inwood residents an express route to Midtown for $2.75

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

....With the discussion we had earlier in this thread about splitting the M101 and having the M98 be the main 3rd/Lex limited, it might make sense to run some service to Inwood instead of everything to Washington Heights.

I wouldn't run the things to Inwood at all; those folks in-particular generally don't take the M100 or the Bx7 past 168th..... I also have no interest in running M98's there to have anything done to the BxM1..... Having BxM1's skip Inwood is an entirely separate issue.

If too many BPH to 168th would become a problem, then I would much rather cut some trips short at 125th (w/ the M103) than to have trips either [panning south towards 168th] or [panning north towards 220th, or any part of Inwood in general] after coming off HRD.... I don't want to create a Q52/Q53 situation w/ this M98 where it doesn't justifiably present itself.....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I wouldn't run the things to Inwood at all; those folks in-particular generally don't take the M100 or the Bx7 past 168th..... I also have no interest in running M98's there to have anything done to the BxM1..... Having BxM1's skip Inwood is an entirely separate issue.

I would much rather cut some trips short at 125th (w/ the M103) than to have trips either [panning south towards 168th] or [panning north towards 220th, or any part of Inwood in general].... I don't want to create a Q52/Q53 situation w/ this M98 where the situation doesn't present itself.....

the new route to Inwood would be the M99, different from the M98 north of 125th, as it would take the HRD all the way up to Dyckman. Then It would serve Inwood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

the new route to Inwood would be the M99, different from the M98 north of 125th, as it would take the HRD all the way up to Dyckman. Then It would serve Inwood.

Yes, I noticed you dubbed your idea the M99..... I quoted your post b/c Checkmate used your proposal to make a point regarding my proposal (which I left numbered as the M98).....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

....who would not be affected by the split....

Riders traveling from 8th Street to 125th Street via 3rd/Lexington would still be able to take the bus if they want to (B35's proposal has it only running to 23rd Street, but in any case, riders south of 23rd Street still have the M102/103). Those are the only riders using it as an alternative to the subway. The riders using it to travel between the Amsterdam/125th corridor and the 3rd/Lex corridor are using it as a substitute of the subway, not as an alternative.

Some of those riders can take the M102, which does serve Central Harlem. Some can also make their way to/from the M3/4, which serve West Harlem & Washington Heights (though we've also had discussions on how to split those up, though to me turnover isn't as apparent and the need isn't as strong as it is on the M101). Between those alternatives, and the fact that the M98 would still serve Washington Heights, a split at 125th & Lexington would be the most efficient way to break it up.

And I say this as someone who uses the northern portion of the route frequently. The M100 is much more reliable than the M101 (and as I pointed out in the Route Profiles thread, the M100 actually carries more riders per trip than the M101, even though it is less than 2/3rds the length), and it's one of the few routes in Manhattan that's gaining ridership). I'd like to see the same happen on the M101.

The M102 is NOT limited and neither is the M3 or the M4.  The M101 is unreliable because Tuskegee is a HORRIBLE depot with drivers that play games.  Congestion is a problem, but the reliability of the M101 is exacerbated by their games.  Additionally, having to wait at 99th street for driver switches that can often times take 10 - 15 minutes doesn't help.  

If drivers are incompetent or don't give a damn about being on time, all of the splitting up in the world won't make a difference.  The M5 was split and quite frankly it isn't much better because drivers now don't want to pick up passengers past a certain point in Midtown, so if you're proposing this with the passenger in mind, think again.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The M102 is NOT limited and neither is the M3 or the M4.  The M101 is unreliable because Tuskegee is a HORRIBLE depot with drivers that play games.  Congestion is a problem, but the reliability of the M101 is exacerbated by their games.  Additionally, having to wait at 99th street for driver switches that can often times take 10 - 15 minutes doesn't help.  

If drivers are incompetent or don't give a damn about being on time, all of the splitting up in the world won't make a difference.  The M5 was split and quite frankly it isn't much better because drivers now don't want to pick up passengers past a certain point in Midtown, so if you're proposing this with the passenger in mind, think again.

The M3/4 may be local, but from experience they're much faster than the M101 (which BTW only runs limited south of 125th) in Upper Manhattan. There's been plentry of times I needed to go to East Harlem from CCNY and walked extra to reach the M3/4 (and then walked east towards Lexington in East Harlem) and still saved 10-15 minutes compared to the M101.

The M102 isn't limited but the M98 is, so that would be the limited-stop alternative for those in the 3rd/Lex corridor using it as an alternative to the subway.

For those heading from East Harlem and points south to Central Harlem and points north (who cannot use the subway since there's no crosstown subway to use) if they don't want to take the M102 with its local stops they can take the M98 to 125th and catch any westbound bus (including the M101). Buses on 125th Street "run like water" as you like to say.

And since Tuskegee is so horrible, the northern split wouldn't be passing by it so those riders wouldn't have to deal with that nonsense (at least as far as mid-route driver changes) The M98 is based out of Manhattanville so if Tuskegee is that much of an issue and Manhattanville has extra space, you can just have all the extra M98s run out of there too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

One of the issues that has annoyed me with the M34/34A +SBS+ is that on the branches, service is infrequent. The MTA already rerouted some M34 buses (from 12th Avenue) to run to/from Waterside Plaza (including the last few buses of the night), showing you that they consider that branch an afterthought.

I think they should combine both branches into one route that travels from 34th & 12th to Waterside Plaza. Eastbound/southbound buses would run down the FDR Drive between 34th Street & 23rd Street (so that a connection to the northbound M15 and NYU Medical Center at 34th & 1st is maintained). Peter Cooper Village is still served by the M23 for crosstown service.

For the PABT, the southern entrance at 40th Street is 6 blocks from 34th Street, and for those that don't want to walk it (or can't walk it), there's the subway and the M11/M20 available (depending on the direction). By comparison, there's no alternative to the western portion of the M34, so those riders are stuck waiting for a 12th Avenue-bound bus in particular.

At the very least, I would get rid of the eastern branch (which it looks like the MTA is already leaning towards, since they rerouted those trips to Waterside). There's a bus that circulates around East Midtown that is designed for ferry riders anyway.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

One of the issues that has annoyed me with the M34/34A +SBS+ is that on the branches, service is infrequent. The MTA already rerouted some M34 buses (from 12th Avenue) to run to/from Waterside Plaza (including the last few buses of the night), showing you that they consider that branch an afterthought.

I think they should combine both branches into one route that travels from 34th & 12th to Waterside Plaza. Eastbound/southbound buses would run down the FDR Drive between 34th Street & 23rd Street (so that a connection to the northbound M15 and NYU Medical Center at 34th & 1st is maintained). Peter Cooper Village is still served by the M23 for crosstown service.

For the PABT, the southern entrance at 40th Street is 6 blocks from 34th Street, and for those that don't want to walk it (or can't walk it), there's the subway and the M11/M20 available (depending on the direction). By comparison, there's no alternative to the western portion of the M34, so those riders are stuck waiting for a 12th Avenue-bound bus in particular.

At the very least, I would get rid of the eastern branch (which it looks like the MTA is already leaning towards, since they rerouted those trips to Waterside). There's a bus that circulates around East Midtown that is designed for ferry riders anyway.

No mention of something that would make more sense... Increasing service... Let's screw over other passengers... Selfish as usual... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Right but maybe, just maybe other people do.  There is a world that exists outside of yours. <_<

Good, then those people (in addition to the majority of M34/34A riders) will have better service, because that's exactly what I'm proposing: More service to both of those destinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.