Via Garibaldi 8 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1276 Posted March 1, 2020 16 hours ago, B35 via Church said: This is not an excuse (and maybe even amounts to a chicken & egg scenario), but too many people are content with walking along 34th street (compared to 14th st) during the day in general.... That, and the M14's (A&D) have a stronger ridership generator than the M34/a does with LES..... Regarding Hudson Yards in particular, to be quite honest, I envision it as being somewhat akin to BPC when it comes to public buses - some of them maybe/will take it if the bus is right then & there, but otherwise, they're going to be quick to hop in someone's cab.... This is one of the main reasons why I wouldn't really go too crazy increasing bus service to/from there, including extending/rerouting current services there..... 34th st service though, man, I just can't.... I'm one of those people that don't even consider the M34/a, partly because of exactly what you've just pointed out.... It's like buses disappear out of thin air or something.... I'm not even trying to be funny, I don't remember the last time I've SEEN an M34/a in service the last couple times I was around Herald Sq. this calendar year alone..... I know someone personally that's always got something to say about the M23 & I always tell her, just be glad you don't have to put up with the M34.... She says she always catches a cab whenever she heads "uptown" - Yeah, point proven (she lives in Peter Cooper btw).... I could never live in Manhattan.... IDK what the solution is myself, but service along 34th st has been the pits for literally decades.... I literally just had breakfast over by Hudson Yards this morning. I stopped by La Colombe on 11th and 27th earlier this morning, but I do so walking from 34th Street. I hopped on the M11 along 9th Av only because it was coming, otherwise I would've taken an Uber. Coming back though, I got an Uber from 11th and 26th over to 26th and Madison. Much quicker than any bus ride. There is no way I was walking to the M23 or the M34 and then waiting. Not happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1277 Posted March 1, 2020 17 hours ago, Jova42R said: M176: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fgs_17EYrOGgIL6Nh17goQCsqpQJa9iM&usp=sharing @B35 via Church @BM5 via Woodhaven @Via Garibaldi 8 Thoughts? What in the heck is the M176? A local bus? I think it has been said before, but bus routes should be created by looking at the demographics at hand. I don't know why anyone would run a bus of any kind along Sutton Place. That is an area where people have $$$ generally speaking, and they are not looking for bus service like that. They would either drive or take a cab before considering a bus. Sutton Place is a bit more out of the way, and the residents living there like it that way. Also too much meandering. That trip would take forever. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1278 Posted March 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: What in the heck is the M176? A local bus? I think it has been said before, but bus routes should be created by looking at the demographics at hand. I don't know why anyone would run a bus of any kind along Sutton Place. That is an area where people have $$$ generally speaking, and they are not looking for bus service like that. They would either drive or take a cab before considering a bus. Sutton Place is a bit more out of the way, and the residents living there like it that way. Also too much meandering. That trip would take forever. It could run express for part of its route (maybe via the FDR Drive along the East Side?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1279 Posted March 1, 2020 Just now, Jova42R said: It could run express for part of its route (maybe via the FDR Drive along the East Side?) I don't know what the purpose of the route is for quite frankly. Who is supposed to be using it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1280 Posted March 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: I don't know what the purpose of the route is for quite frankly. Who is supposed to be using it? It's supposed to be an easier way to get to east Midtown from the UWS, but it could be truncated to 96th or 106th. If that happened, could it be feasible? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1281 Posted March 1, 2020 18 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said: M9/M22: I did not know what to do with the M22 but truncate it to City Hall because I didn't feel any other option was really feasible. A merger with the M21 (one route from Soho to City Hall via LES) wouldn't really be beneficial for any of the ridership bases, since most other routes go North-South in faster time. The only group which may see *some* benefit is people by the Vladeck Houses going to places around Houston Street. However, the traffic on Houston Street would also reduce reliability more on both routes (but esepcially the current M22 leg). I don't see too many people from BPC going to areas along the M22 in particular, so that's why I truncated the M22 out of BPC. As far as the M9 goes, yeah it's kinda windy in the area past City Hall, but I was considering truncating it to City Hall. I was also considering sending the M15 local to serve both sections of BPC and basically being the only bus in that area, but I felt that it would be way too much for the M15 local to handle, which is why the M9 was extended there. People in BPC typically don't bother riding the M9 or the M22 past the City Hall area really... Attaching the lower portion of the M20 to the M22 would make for a more viable route, than having the M9 spaghetti-ing its way (that much more) from end to end.... Speaking of which, just realized you would have M9's running up to Tisch... It beats buses currently turning off at 29th, but at the same time, it still amounts to dogpiling onto the M9 (as I believe it would catch on).... If the M9 were to run up to (basically) 34th st, the thing should definitely end at City Hall on the other end of the route.... What I'm getting at is, I would still try to make the M22 more useful.... Regarding the M21, the MTA (for once) did the right thing by taking it off Av. C & having M9's utilize it instead on up to Bellevue instead... As a result, that attracted (more of) the Chinese folks traveling b/w LES & Chinatown.... It isn't too much more you can do with the M21 to make it more useful on either end (which is why I said what I said the other day, regarding your M21 to Abingdon).... Back when I was on RD, I had an idea that involved stopping it dead at West 4th subway sta., but couldn't conjure up a feasible turnaround, so I scrapped it.... Quote M14A/M14D: I chose the M14A over the M14D to Hudson Yards (which at first, was the bus that would have gone to Hudson Yards), because it hits more areas in Lower Manhattan where people would travel to/from Hudson Yards. I don't see people along Avenue D heading to Hudson Yards more than I see people along Avenue A heading there. By itself its a pretty long route for a crosstown, but the 14th Street Busway does help move buses quicker (which is something 34th Street doesn't have), and run times still need to be adjusted for that IIRC. Avenue A would still be the only section where the buses move slow. As for runtime, using the existing (unadjusted) schedule, the runtime would be about 52-53 minutes at the slowest part of the day. The implementation of the busway definitely helps.... Still though, I don't see too much of anyone riding b/w Union Sq. (let alone LES) & Hudson Yards.... You'll probably attract (more) Chelsea patrons though.... While IDRC for Abingdon or over there by the InterActive bldg (W. 18th) as terminals, obviously buses have to terminate somewhere.... I used to believe running the M14 to Chelsea Piers was a good idea, but Chelsea Piers isn't the same attraction as it once was back in the 90's & the early part of the 2000's.... I mean, yeah they got the quote-unquote riff raff out, but it's strangely/oddly kinda uppity now AFAIC.... Anyway, what I'm basically getting at is, routing-wise, I'd leave the M14 alone..... Quote M15 local: One of the problems with the M9 is its frequency, and that its service span is not wide enough (IMO, 10 PM is kinda early). I would have had the an east side route deal with BPC on its own (w/o the M9 and M22). I say an east side route that because before the M15 local, I also considered the M103, but even with a slightly shorter route, a lot of its route can be a crawl, and I wasn't going to tank reliability even further on that route. Even then having the M15 serve both portions of BPC would be too much, and would require short-turns on the northern section (which would be a disservice to East Harlem residents). Also, the M15 serves busier portions of the East Side than the M9 does (and its relatively difficult to travel between those sections on the subway). The intention was to cater towards people who may be headed to LES, East Village, and for those who may work at the Hospitals along that stretch (moreso between 23rd and 34th than the Yorkville Hospitals). Either way, I would be able to see that iteration of the M15 receive more patronage than the existing M15 local along Water Street. Most people are using the M15 SBS, and that part of the east side doesn't have a route into the heart of Downtown Manhattan, so I think that having the M15 local do that would be a relatively cost-neutral way to expand service coverage. Well, if you're really dead set on diverting the M15 local elsewhere, you could just have the M15 operate as an SBS only route b/w S. Ferry & Harlem (current routing)... Which of course would would yield giving the 1st/2nd av. local a new number (let's use "M17" for discussion purposes)..... With that said, I would either reconfigure bus service somehow in LES to have an "M17" of sorts directly serve it (because there is a demand for direct M15 service over there), or stop said "M17" dead at 2nd av (at Houston/1st av) - before running such a service (from Harlem) to BPC.... Regardless of anything stated in the above paragraph, I would not use the M15 as a band aid solution for addressing span deficiencies with the M9.... Quote M21: The extension to 9th Ave/14th Street isn't really to replace the M20 in that area, but to provide access to that from sections of the East Village, LES. I would have rerouted the M21 up to 6th Avenue instead of 14th, but did not do so to preserve the connection at Varick Street (which is where most people are headed to if they're still on at 6th Avenue). If that wasn't the intent, then running M21's up there makes even less sense.... Virtually nobody in the East Village is thinking about the West Village (and vice versa); very diametrically opposed areas of the borough.... Think about it, the M8 just doesn't under-perform because it runs like shit.... Lol. Quote M34: The route description is fixed now. There will be buses terminating at the Ferry terminal and at Waterside, just not alternating buses like it's currently down. The M34 to Waterside would essentially operate during early evening, overnight, and weekend AM hours, when M34A service is not as frequent (or non-existent). So it would be from about 9:30 PM (Sunday) to 6 AM (Monday), from 12 AM to 6 AM Tuesdays through Friday. Saturday and Sunday mornings, it would be from 12 AM to 9 AM. Because the M34 and M34A would receive a considerable boost, the M34 to Waterside Plaza would not be necessary during the day. The M34A currently operates approximately every 17 minutes during the afternoon hours, while the new schedule would make it every 12 minutes. M34/M34A service combined (6 minute headways) would be excessive for 34th Street service. As far as fixing whatever you had to fix, cool..... Any other sentiments I have regarding the M34/a were expressed in a couple posts to ATH & VG8 yesterday.... Well on second thought (not that this has anything to do with your proposal), contrapositively speaking of getting rid of those M34's to Waterside, I do wonder how M34A's to the Javits Center would perform (which is basically what ATH inquired about) if it existed though.... Quote M49/M50: Looking at the frequencies, they might be way too much at times, but I still don't think the current routing or the frequencies are suitable. There should definitely be a headway boost on the route, especially on weekends. There aren't too many riding the M50 past 9th Avenue, so I feel like it sending north towards Columbus Circle and Lincoln Center would be beneficial to people who live on the east side of Manhattan, and for tourists AND workers who decide to take the bus between Midtown and the UWS. It's a partial replacement to the M104, but it's also a somewhat difficult trip to make, even on weekends. The and have long headways (the is unreliable) , and for then to transfer again to the , it makes no sense. As for what would serve sections west of 9th Avenue, I'm not entirely sure. Dog-legging the M50 via 10th/11th ↔ West End av on up to 72nd could loom as a viable option as well, if you want to take the M50 away from Pier 83.... It would also justify the headway boost.... Quote M72: I weighted out the possibility of running the M10 down 10th/11th first to Hudson Yards and Chelsea Piers (which would cover most of the M12 route), but I felt that most people would end up going for the subway to the . I guess it would be better to have that section (Chelsea Piers to 72nd Street) should become its own route. I wouldn't want to provide M12 frequencies though. Funny you say that, because that's exactly what I said to myself whilst analyzing your routes 1 by 1 (when I got up to your M72)..... The western portion of this thing could be a viable route by itself..... There's nothing saying you have to give it coverage frequencies either. Quote M98: Where south would you send it? I had 42nd Street in mind because it covers a decent portion of Midtown where people from East Harlem and UES may be heading, covers most areas where people from Washington Heights are heading to, and covers the areas on the UES and Midtown where people would consider taking the M98 (over the M4) towards Fort Tryon Park and the Cloisters. Short answer: The furthest south I'd have a revamped M98 run to, is 23rd (and there's a reason I say it like that, which I'll explain)..... Long answer: See, I would do away with the M101 (to have the M100 branched between running to Ft. George av or Inwood-220th... equipped with a commensurate service increase of course).... In turn, I would have the M98 take over operations as "the" 3rd/Lex LTD & it would be complex to pull off.... It would operate similar to some NJT routes in that, "not all trips serve all destinations" (or however they word it)..... Best/simplest way I can explain it is that: NB buses only run from either 23rd or 125th... SB buses either run from [Dyckman/Broadway], [168th st/Broadway], [Hudson Hgts. - Cabrini blvd], or [125th/Lex]... notes: * Only O/D combinations that wouldn't take place, is [125th -125th; did I really have to say that ], [125th - 168th] & [125th - Hudson Hgts.] (and vice versa for both)... * Hudson Heights trips would only operate to/from 23rd st & only during rush hours.... There would only be a select few trips. * The trips to/from Dyckman would operate LTD along Broadway.... The trips to/from 168th would operate local along Broadway... * SB trips from Dyckman, Hudson Hgts.,or 168th/Broadway would dive off the HRD & turn off Park at 130th (instead of at 120th)... The destination signage of anything running north of 125th st, would do something similar to what they got the Q3 doing, where it shows 179th st subway & 165th st terminal.... i.e. M98 Harlem - 125th st, next frame says M98 Inwood - Dyckman st, etc.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1282 Posted March 1, 2020 21 hours ago, Jova42R said: M176: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fgs_17EYrOGgIL6Nh17goQCsqpQJa9iM&usp=sharing @B35 via Church @BM5 via Woodhaven @Via Garibaldi 8 Thoughts? 3 hours ago, Jova42R said: It could run express for part of its route (maybe via the FDR Drive along the East Side?) 3 hours ago, Jova42R said: It's supposed to be an easier way to get to east Midtown from the UWS, but it could be truncated to 96th or 106th. If that happened, could it be feasible? Never mind the lack of demand to actually have a route like this come to fruition, Manhattan traffic isn't conducive for a route like this to work.... Your proposals tend have a central theme to them, and that is the fact that they don't cohesively gel in with the rest of the network.... 3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: I literally just had breakfast over by Hudson Yards this morning. I stopped by La Colombe on 11th and 27th earlier this morning, but I do so walking from 34th Street. I hopped on the M11 along 9th Av only because it was coming, otherwise I would've taken an Uber. Coming back though, I got an Uber from 11th and 26th over to 26th and Madison. Much quicker than any bus ride. There is no way I was walking to the M23 or the M34 and then waiting. Not happening. Speaking of the M11, what are they supposed to be fixing up over there around 9th av/30th st? It's to the point where you got those a**hole bicyclists walking their bikes on the sidewalk.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1283 Posted March 1, 2020 1 hour ago, B35 via Church said: Never mind the lack of demand to actually have a route like this come to fruition, Manhattan traffic isn't conducive for a route like this to work.... Your proposals tend have a central theme to them, and that is the fact that they don't cohesively gel in with the rest of the network.... Speaking of the M11, what are they supposed to be fixing up over there around 9th av/30th st? It's to the point where you got those a**hole bicyclists walking their bikes on the sidewalk.... I have no idea. The only reason I took it along 9th Avenue was because I saw one coming, otherwise, I would've been in an Uber, which is usually what I do over there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #1284 Posted March 1, 2020 5 hours ago, Jova42R said: It's supposed to be an easier way to get to east Midtown from the UWS, but it could be truncated to 96th or 106th. If that happened, could it be feasible? That's what the crosstown routes are for. I'm on the Upper West Side a lot. When I need to get to the Upper East Side, I just grab an Uber or take a crosstown bus if it is coming. Going North-South, most people will just use the subway unless a bus is coming or they can't take the subway or don't want to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrionVIIonM79 Posted April 11, 2020 Share #1285 Posted April 11, 2020 How would doing M72 via 79 st transverse do, @Jova42R suggested this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted April 12, 2020 Share #1286 Posted April 12, 2020 On 4/11/2020 at 9:02 AM, OrionVIIonM79 said: How would doing M72 via 79 st transverse do, @Jova42R suggested this What problem would this solve? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jova42R Posted April 12, 2020 Share #1287 Posted April 12, 2020 19 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said: What problem would this solve? On 4/11/2020 at 9:02 AM, OrionVIIonM79 said: How would doing M72 via 79 st transverse do, @Jova42R suggested this I suggested an extended M72 from 55 St/11 Av, via Riverside Blvd, then crosstown via 72-CPW-79-5/Madison-72 It's just usually faster than 66th, that was the rationale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted April 13, 2020 Share #1288 Posted April 13, 2020 On 2/27/2020 at 10:24 PM, Jova42R said: Proposal for Central Park service: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QYBRpZGFnKxDaT7PLt4XkvmCqXQ3li4p&usp=sharing Thoughts? M110, M96, M86 - MHV (MJQ transfers some LFSAs and XD60s to MHV for service on the M86 and M60) all others - MJQ M66: The NIMBYs on 70th between 1st and York won't want buses. Either stay on 68th or use 72nd. M72... I like using Riverside Blvd between 72nd and 61st. Maybe return via 12th Av into RSB once that it's fully built. On the East Side, buses can't use 73rd-FDR-71st. That block of 73rd is off-limits to anything longer than 33 feet because of the right turn into the FDR service road. M79... You'll get lots of community opposition to using East End and 83rd. M86... MV can't fit 60-foot buses. (If it could, then M60SBS would be assigned there.) You'll get lots of community opposition to using East End and 89th. M96... I like the idea of extending to York/91st. Drivers can use the swing room on 92nd. M110... I would keep the M106 number (because most of the route is on 106th), but otherwise interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 27, 2020 Share #1289 Posted July 27, 2020 (edited) So I've made several revisions to what I originally proposed in the previous page. Below is a revised daytime map and set of route descriptions. The overnight bus map is structured the same, route-wise, but there is a numbering/nomeclature change (I'll still link it). Daytime Bus Map [Version 2] Overnight Bus Map [Version 2] Route Descriptions and Service Levels Here are the major changes from the previous network: M9: The route has been shortened to operate between between City Hall and East Midtown. As a result, the service span from City Hall to NYU Medical Center was extended by 30 minutes more at night daily, so that the last bus of the night operating to City Hall would go back into passenger service, and not DH. The entire portion between City Hall and South Ferry will be replaced the M22 (and the M15 local would still serve BPC as well). M12/M72: The M72 bus route which showed up on the original bus map link has been split. So the service patterns are basically as follows: M12: Chelsea Piers to 72nd Street & Broadway (via 10th/11th Avenues) M72: West 66th Street & Freedom Place to East 72nd Street & York Avenue (via 72nd Street & 79th Street) The headways on the M12 portion of the route were slightly reduced, because it is expected that not too many people who would be attracted to use the route on the west side portion of the M72 would make a transfer to the M12 at 72nd Street, plus much of the route going northbound is more or less and M11 supplement. With that being said, I'm still undecided on changing the NB route path from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue between 24th Street and 34th Street, as well as from 11th/West End Avenues to 10th/Amsterdam Aves between 57th Street and 66th Street. I might consider the latter because there will already be a bi-directional bus on West End Avenue (see M50), and it'll directly serve Mount Sinai Hospital. I also considered running the original route during overnight hours, so now that it's split into two routes, there will be a bit of an operational change. This route will operate in a similar to the overnight Bx41 runs which interline with the Bx39 at night, only a little different. NB Buses will be signed as an M12 between Chelsea Piers and Freedom Place, then will be signed up as an M72 bus from Freedom Place and points north and/or east. SB buses will be signed as an M72 between York Avenue and Broadway, then as an M12 at points south and/or west. M22: So after some thought about this route, I decided to ultimate try to tap into new or potentially new ridership bases, as well as serving other potential riders which may benefit from a quicker link to/from certain locations. One of the main differences from the old route is that the M22 will now operate via BPC to South Ferry instead of the M9. The service is less frequent than the M9, but the only period I increased service was for the PM rush, where the frequency went from every 15 minutes to every 12 minutes, which should suffice for BPC. I also extended the M22 further north from the existing terminal on Grand Street, to Avenue D & E 10th Street, via Avenue D. I hope that this still provide access to most of the same general areas that riders on the M9 between BPC and City Hall are using. The M22 would also connect to a lot more of Downtown Manhattan compared to the M9, and Baruch Houses would have a more direct ride to/from Downtown Manhattan. There's also improved hospital access, as riders along by the Ward and Baruch Houses would have access to NY Presbyterian Hospital near City Hall. Another thing I looked into when revamping the M22 was BMCC. Now, I expect more people going to BMCC to arrive by subway, but if bus service was provided, which bus route would garner the most ridership. I don't see much of anyone using the M20 to get to/from BMCC, and the areas the M22 serves (and would serve) has more of the demographic group which would consider applying/attending BMCC, especially if there was a more direct connection. That's another reason why I considered sending the M22 north to 10th Street, so that it covers most of that area well. On weekdays, from 12 PM to 9 PM, M22 buses would head up West Street, turn on Harrison, and then turn on Hudson Street to Chambers Street, in order to serve BMCC directly when most people would be departing the college. This would essentially be an experimental ridership base which can grow over time. I also considered extending weekday M9 service instead, but felt that it would have been redundant. Additionally, the extended M22 into East Village would provide better connections for people headed to Brooklyn. Compared to the truncated M9, the M22 would hit more subway lines, so those who are headed to Brooklyn may not need to take the M14 (A or D) up to 14th Street, when they can take the M22 to Downtown and make connections in a similar amount of time (and even faster in several cases). During the summer season, an M22 ride to East Broadway or Church Street for the may be a more convenient option to go to the beaches. With the M14A/M14D, you need to backtrack, and the M21 (if it's not running late) runs crappy. Because of the operating hour structure on weekdays, the last M22 buses of the day once arriving South Ferry and the first buses originating from South Ferry would either have DH'd or will DH to Quill Depot. Instead, of doing that, I decided tho run them in service as M6 buses, so the first M6 bus to South Ferry begins 20 minutes earlier, and the last M6 to Central Park South departs approximately 30 minutes later. On weekends, I extended the span in the NB direction, so that BPC retains most bus service hours. M42: With my M50 proposal, there wouldn't be a bus on the portion of 12th Avenue between 43rd Street and 50th Street, and there are people who do get on the M50 in that area to transfer to the subway. I'm still a little unsure on this plan by itself, but I would have select M42 buses serve that portion of 12th Avenue, daily. In most cases, it's every other bus (except for the AM rush, where it's every 3rd bus) that would serve that section of 12th Avenue. Buses would terminate at 11th Avenue and W 49th Street. M49/M50: I basically got rid of the M50 I had, and the M49 I had was modified to become the new version of my proposed M50 route. I originally wanted to have buses run via 8th Avenue, 57th Street, and West End Avenue (SB buses would operate via 9th Avenue), but that leaves quite a bit of an area without crosstown access, and the SB routing does not serve Columbus Circle subway station. While I would get M57 riders using the bus exclusively east of 8th Avenue, I wouldn't want to do that at the expense of eliminate service to 49/50th Street for quite a big portion of West Midtown. The frequencies have changed, and overall is much lower along the 49/50th Street than it previously was with the two routes. However, it operates no less than every 15 minutes during most daytime hours (the exceptions are AM hours on weekends). Edited July 27, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 28, 2020 Share #1290 Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) re: Manhattan proposal v.2 M12/72: Well this is a hell of a lot better than your original M72 proposal (which had it doing the most... lol).... I'm still not too wild about having the M72 using the 79th transverse road, over the 65th transverse road though (refresh my memory... what was your reason for doing that again??).... In terms of runtime, you're better off having buses running up CPW to 72nd from 66th, than you are having buses running down CPW from the Planetarium down to 72nd (I personally don't care for that immediate area [Planetarium], from a traffic standpoint).... Unless there's some demand in particular from the east side there that I'm simply unaware of? As for the M12 part of the proposal, I don't have too strong an opinion either way about it.... I will say that it's a better "far west side" route than the current M12 is.... I wouldn't bother w/ Chelsea Piers though for this; nothing but a sea of artics w/ the M23 ending over there in that confined space & all (which is another reason I wouldn't have had M14's ending there)... I'd simply continue the thing down 11th av to 23rd, to eventually have it end at the current M11 stop at 10th & 23rd.... Another way of looking at this is, I would have the M12 basically be a form of an M11 short turn.... I get that you'd phase out the M57, but I would keep it intact, because I do get the sense that 57th st. is a sort of "downtown" for the folks that live around the Lincoln Square area.... M22: What you're proposing for this route is basically what I've been suggesting for the thing, with the exception of three things: BMCC loop.... While it's true that virtually nobody takes the M20 to the college, very few people take the M22 there also & having it loop around the campus would simply be a waste of time.... The culture (or whatever you wanna call it) is to hoof it to/from Chambers & I don't see that changing... The bus in general is an afterthought now, hate to say... The campus itself isn't that large to where a loop of sorts would make a significant difference.... I get that every little bit helps, but the current stop along Chambers suffices... Service past the southern section of BPC to S. Ferry... Not sure if I mentioned this before in v.1 of your proposal, but for as much as the lot of us were clamoring for extending the M20 to S. Ferry way back when on these parts, the more I'm now realizing it wasn't all that worth it after all.... Also, anyone living in Chinatown & points north/east that work around FiDi wouldn't be prone to taking a bus through BPC to get to S. Ferry (they'd be more prone to getting off around Park Row & commence walking along B'way)... Extension to the Riis Houses..... I've thought about running the M22 up there also, but the thing about this is, would those folks want to go on a grand tour of the LES to get to Park Row & that general part of lower Manhattan? I'm not too sure those people are even thinking about getting to Brooklyn like that, TBH.... All in all, while I would (also) extend the M22 past the Vladeck houses, I have it ending at the Baruch houses (Houston/Columbia).... People in the East Village would be more prone to taking M14's or your (extended) M8 to get around... M42/50: IDC much for having the pier as a full time terminal for these routes either, but at the same time, I can't agree with running M42's to 11th/50th because you're running M50's up to W. 72nd ... The potential/target riderbase you're trying to attract on to M50's with that extension, I'm not so sure even want service along 49th/50th specifically.... Sometimes you have to let coverage routes (the routings, I mean) be, and the M50 IMO is one of those cases..... ------------------------------------- I don't think I commented on the interborough suggestions in v.1, so real quick: B39: I think any B39 extension deeper into Manhattan is suicide.... But if I absolutely had to extend the thing, there's no way I'd have it swing up/over to anywhere on the west side... In Williamsburg, the is king as you know.... Instead, I would either try to have it either [supplement the M9 b/w Park Row & Delancey/Essex subway] or [run it up to Astor Pl]..... As a Brooklynite, I can tell you that an M1/2/3/101/102/103 connection would be gold..... Bx6: Interesting idea to run the SBS' over to WPR/Lafayette, but I don't really agree with having the locals & the SBS' having separate terminals on both ends of the route like that.... At that point, they're two completely separate routes that happen to share the same "core" segment of the route..... Anyway, I would have both services (SBS' & the locals) running to 168th, while maintaining your Bronx setup.... Keeping the SBS' ending at Riverside Dr & having the locals run to 168th seems like some sort of attempt at crowd control/balance.... If it's about runtime (with the SBS'), there's nothing saying you have to run them along Broadway.... Bx15: Whether it's the MTA's plan to cut it back to the Hub, or your proposal to run it to at least 125th/Lex, I'm opposed to cutting this back from running along 125th.... I would keep the M60, M100, and the Bx15 running along 125th, with the (real) M101 phased out instead.... Bx49: I would have something like this be a variant of the Bx19 (to Riverbank).... Rather pointless to have it divert down to 135th when, 1] 135th is a local station & 2] you still have 135th covered w/ your M104 extension (which serves 125th )... In other words, there's no real need to have this run to 135th subway because your M104 doesn't (directly) serve 135th subway..... Edited July 28, 2020 by B35 via Church 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 29, 2020 Share #1291 Posted July 29, 2020 21 hours ago, B35 via Church said: M12/72: Well this is a hell of a lot better than your original M72 proposal (which had it doing the most... lol).... I'm still not too wild about having the M72 using the 79th transverse road, over the 65th transverse road though (refresh my memory... what was your reason for doing that again??).... In terms of runtime, you're better off having buses running up CPW to 72nd from 66th, than you are having buses running down CPW from the Planetarium down to 72nd (I personally don't care for that immediate area [Planetarium], from a traffic standpoint).... Unless there's some demand in particular from the east side there that I'm simply unaware of? As for the M12 part of the proposal, I don't have too strong an opinion either way about it.... I will say that it's a better "far west side" route than the current M12 is.... I wouldn't bother w/ Chelsea Piers though for this; nothing but a sea of artics w/ the M23 ending over there in that confined space & all (which is another reason I wouldn't have had M14's ending there)... I'd simply continue the thing down 11th av to 23rd, to eventually have it end at the current M11 stop at 10th & 23rd.... Another way of looking at this is, I would have the M12 basically be a form of an M11 short turn.... I get that you'd phase out the M57, but I would keep it intact, because I do get the sense that 57th st. is a sort of "downtown" for the folks that live around the Lincoln Square area.... The reason was more along the lines that running the M72 via the 79th Street Transverse was that it would provide better access to destinations where people are more likely to go, in an effort to increase ridership. The M72 would now serve the Museum of Natural History, and would make a stop within Central Park. It would also come close to serving the Met, and but the stop would be three blocks to the entrance on 82nd Street. Now, while I think you might see some minor increase with weekday ridership (except during the summer), I feel that there could be a notable increase in weekend ridership, compared to the existing M72 via 66th Street. With respect to 57th Street, I looked for ways to try to preserve service at least til 8th Avenue in both directions: The M50 reroute that I explained earlier (via 7/8th Aves, 57th Street, and West End Ave) would have left a good chunk of 49/50th Streets without bus service, meaning that I would have to had operated a second route along 49th Street to maintain coverage. While this setup wouldn't be too much of an issue with rush hour service, during off peak hours, either the trunk would be over served, or the branches (more the West End Avenue branch) would end up getting under served. The M104 I thought about, but since it would be extended on its north end, and with how many congested areas it hits, I decided against it. Additionally, the M104 is a lot more frequent than the existing M57, and access to Lincoln Center and Broadway south of 72nd Street would be lost. I also gave consideration of implementing an M30 of sorts, with a similar resemblance to the former M30. Basically, operating via 72nd Street, 3rd/Lexington Avenues, 57th Street, and West End Avenue to 72nd Street & Broadway. Under this proposal, the M31 headways would have been reduced, and the M30 would match M31 headways for most of the day. 23 hours ago, B35 via Church said: M22: What you're proposing for this route is basically what I've been suggesting for the thing, with the exception of three things: BMCC loop.... While it's true that virtually nobody takes the M20 to the college, very few people take the M22 there also & having it loop around the campus would simply be a waste of time.... The culture (or whatever you wanna call it) is to hoof it to/from Chambers & I don't see that changing... The bus in general is an afterthought now, hate to say... The campus itself isn't that large to where a loop of sorts would make a significant difference.... I get that every little bit helps, but the current stop along Chambers suffices... Service past the southern section of BPC to S. Ferry... Not sure if I mentioned this before in v.1 of your proposal, but for as much as the lot of us were clamoring for extending the M20 to S. Ferry way back when on these parts, the more I'm now realizing it wasn't all that worth it after all.... Also, anyone living in Chinatown & points north/east that work around FiDi wouldn't be prone to taking a bus through BPC to get to S. Ferry (they'd be more prone to getting off around Park Row & commence walking along B'way)... Extension to the Riis Houses..... I've thought about running the M22 up there also, but the thing about this is, would those folks want to go on a grand tour of the LES to get to Park Row & that general part of lower Manhattan? I'm not too sure those people are even thinking about getting to Brooklyn like that, TBH.... All in all, while I would (also) extend the M22 past the Vladeck houses, I have it ending at the Baruch houses (Houston/Columbia).... People in the East Village would be more prone to taking M14's or your (extended) M8 to get around... To comment on point 2, if the street grid was more cohesive in that area, I would have given the thought of routing buses to take Broadway/Church Street, then take a cross street to get to the south end of BPC, then serve the south end of BPC. As far as for service to South Ferry, given the routing, I estimated about one hour between times when the B/O departs East Village towards South Ferry, and then from South Ferry towards East Village. I estimated that the route would not be reduced substantially if I terminated it at 1st Place instead, so I decided to serve South Ferry. With my proposed M22, I estimated about 15-20 minutes between South Ferry and City Hall, and the runtime between City Hall and the LES ranges from 10-16 minutes, and with the extension, it would be about another 10-12 minutes or so (maybe less during evening hours). On 7/28/2020 at 3:08 AM, B35 via Church said: M42/50: IDC much for having the pier as a full time terminal for these routes either, but at the same time, I can't agree with running M42's to 11th/50th because you're running M50's up to W. 72nd ... The potential/target riderbase you're trying to attract on to M50's with that extension, I'm not so sure even want service along 49th/50th specifically.... Sometimes you have to let coverage routes (the routings, I mean) be, and the M50 IMO is one of those cases..... I feel like the M50 has been essentially converted into a coverage route (and not necessarily has been one from the start) with the way they decimated service levels (even post 2010). I would at the very least look into providing better service on weekends then, because 30 minute headways won't attract much of anyone, and I don't believe that people just wouldn't take the route if it operating more frequently. On 7/28/2020 at 3:08 AM, B35 via Church said: I don't think I commented on the interborough suggestions in v.1, so real quick: B39: I think any B39 extension deeper into Manhattan is suicide.... But if I absolutely had to extend the thing, there's no way I'd have it swing up/over to anywhere on the west side... In Williamsburg, the is king as you know.... Instead, I would either try to have it either [supplement the M9 b/w Park Row & Delancey/Essex subway] or [run it up to Astor Pl]..... As a Brooklynite, I can tell you that an M1/2/3/101/102/103 connection would be gold..... Bx6: Interesting idea to run the SBS' over to WPR/Lafayette, but I don't really agree with having the locals & the SBS' having separate terminals on both ends of the route like that.... At that point, they're two completely separate routes that happen to share the same "core" segment of the route..... Anyway, I would have both services (SBS' & the locals) running to 168th, while maintaining your Bronx setup.... Keeping the SBS' ending at Riverside Dr & having the locals run to 168th seems like some sort of attempt at crowd control/balance.... If it's about runtime (with the SBS'), there's nothing saying you have to run them along Broadway.... Bx15: Whether it's the MTA's plan to cut it back to the Hub, or your proposal to run it to at least 125th/Lex, I'm opposed to cutting this back from running along 125th.... I would keep the M60, M100, and the Bx15 running along 125th, with the (real) M101 phased out instead.... Bx49: I would have something like this be a variant of the Bx19 (to Riverbank).... Rather pointless to have it divert down to 135th when, 1] 135th is a local station & 2] you still have 135th covered w/ your M104 extension (which serves 125th )... In other words, there's no real need to have this run to 135th subway because your M104 doesn't (directly) serve 135th subway..... B39: The B39 was essentially repurposed in order to provide additional service to the M21, as well as provide a serve similar route to the which would cover portions the doesn't serve directly or easily, on top when it doesn't run. On the Brooklyn end, I was also thinking about extending the B39 SB via Broadway and Union/Marcy Avenues (SB buses take Tompkins Ave south of Flushing Ave) to terminate at Myrtle Avenue (the street grids makes terminating at Flushing Ave a bit difficult with the awkward turns). Bx15: Ideally, I would have the route run to Amsterdam (instead of the Bx15/M125 split that will occur), and basically use the current M104 turnaround. The M100 and M101 would be changed under my proposal to have similar headways (meaning a boost on the M100, but a decrease on the M101). The lone portion of the M101 north of 163rd Street doesn't warrant the existing service levels. Now, one could make the argument that bus service is pretty unreliable because of its long route, but I don't really see it improving much even if it were to become more unreliable. Many buses north of 161st (if they don't short-turn them there) carry relatively few people for the service level and capacity it can hold. Bx49: Noted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted August 3, 2020 Share #1292 Posted August 3, 2020 (edited) On 7/29/2020 at 4:10 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: With respect to 57th Street, I looked for ways to try to preserve service (to) at least til 8th Avenue in both directions: The M50 reroute that I explained earlier (via 7/8th Aves, 57th Street, and West End Ave) would have left a good chunk of 49/50th Streets without bus service, meaning that I would have to had operated a second route along 49th Street to maintain coverage. While this setup wouldn't be too much of an issue with rush hour service, during off peak hours, either the trunk would be over served, or the branches (more the West End Avenue branch) would end up getting under served. The M104 I thought about, but since it would be extended on its north end, and with how many congested areas it hits, I decided against it. Additionally, the M104 is a lot more frequent than the existing M57, and access to Lincoln Center and Broadway south of 72nd Street would be lost. I also gave consideration of implementing an M30 of sorts, with a similar resemblance to the former M30. Basically, operating via 72nd Street, 3rd/Lexington Avenues, 57th Street, and West End Avenue to 72nd Street & Broadway. Under this proposal, the M31 headways would have been reduced, and the M30 would match M31 headways for most of the day. As far as serving 57th st, you have the right idea as far as using 8th av. as a point of reference... I'd try my hand at reverting the M58 routing for the M31 & extending the EB M57 to serve Clinton Towers... The M31 serves way more of York than the M57 does West End av. & on top of that, West End moves far better traffic-wise..... On 7/29/2020 at 4:10 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: On 7/28/2020 at 3:08 AM, B35 via Church said: M22: ... Service past the southern section of BPC to S. Ferry... Not sure if I mentioned this before in v.1 of your proposal, but for as much as the lot of us were clamoring for extending the M20 to S. Ferry way back when on these parts, the more I'm now realizing it wasn't all that worth it after all.... Also, anyone living in Chinatown & points north/east that work around FiDi wouldn't be prone to taking a bus through BPC to get to S. Ferry (they'd be more prone to getting off around Park Row & commence walking along B'way)... ... To comment on point 2, if the street grid was more cohesive in that area, I would have given the thought of routing buses to take Broadway/Church Street, then take a cross street to get to the south end of BPC, then serve the south end of BPC. As far as for service to South Ferry, given the routing, I estimated about one hour between times when the B/O departs East Village towards South Ferry, and then from South Ferry towards East Village. I estimated that the route would not be reduced substantially if I terminated it at 1st Place instead, so I decided to serve South Ferry. With my proposed M22, I estimated about 15-20 minutes between South Ferry and City Hall, and the runtime between City Hall and the LES ranges from 10-16 minutes, and with the extension, it would be about another 10-12 minutes or so (maybe less during evening hours). The runtime I wouldn't worry about with an extended M22... I have it running b/w Liberty/S. End (current M9 terminal) & Baruch houses (Columbia/Houston) at about a 45 min. clip.... Something else I didn't mention was the taking buses off Worth st... I find that people that live over there in Chatham Towers tend to either walk along Worth to (wherever it is they're going), or take the SB M9/M103 to Park Row; I'm not really seeing that 1] patronization & 2] reliance on the M22... The current M22's taking of Worth to Lafayette, just so that the thing can serve all of Chambers st. is not "worth" it IMO.... This is exactly why I have BPC bound M22's taking Park Row... I pondered doing away with the current EB M22 routing b/w Pace U. & Pike/Madison (to have M22's use Park Row in both directions), but leaving that area east of Pace U. with just the M15 doesn't sit well with me.... I mentioned this a while back, but I'd ideally have M22's (both directions) paralleling the M15 b/w Pike & Fulton, then accessing the general area around City Hall from Fulton.... But of course, Fulton street's way too damn narrow & on top of that, the street grid isn't conducive to feasibly implicating such a thing.... One question I have for you though.... How do you have buses (M22's) getting to South Ferry from Park Row? I have it going Barclay > Church > Chambers on my map.... As you know, Broadway isn't bi-directional down there..... On 7/29/2020 at 4:10 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: I feel like the M50 has been essentially converted into a coverage route (and not necessarily has been one from the start) with the way they decimated service levels (even post 2010). I would at the very least look into providing better service on weekends then, because 30 minute headways won't attract much of anyone, and I don't believe that people just wouldn't take the route if it operating more frequently. Routing-wise, it was always a coverage route.... Service-wise, I agree with you. On 7/29/2020 at 4:10 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: B39: The B39 was essentially repurposed in order to provide additional service to the M21, as well as provide a serve similar route to the which would cover portions the doesn't serve directly or easily, on top when it doesn't run. On the Brooklyn end, I was also thinking about extending the B39 SB via Broadway and Union/Marcy Avenues (SB buses take Tompkins Ave south of Flushing Ave) to terminate at Myrtle Avenue (the street grids makes terminating at Flushing Ave a bit difficult with the awkward turns). As far as the Manhattan routing, that much I got.... While I'm not up to that part of the map yet, one thing I can tell you is that (and it's something I've said for quite a while on these parts) I would dead the M20 at 14th (from the north).... I have four ideas I have jotted down of what could/should be done with a 7th/8th av service, other than ending where (and the way) the M20 does on the northern end of the thing..... As for the southern portion, tbh, I'm not so sure if a Hudson/Washington coverage route is even worth it, and/or having anything utilizing Hudson (South of Abingdon Sq.).... One thing's for sure is that I wouldn't run B39's &/or M21's up in that area of the borough.... Including that with having M5's take on the (current/real) M8 west of Greenwich av & SB M6's running via 7th, I think you're overserving the West Village in general... Extending the B39 on the Brooklyn end OTOH makes more sense to me... It's far too reliant on xfers off other routes, instead of serving anyone in Brooklyn directly.... The question is & has always been, where in Brooklyn should it go... I haven't given that part of it too much thought, large in part, because the MTA decided to keep the B39 over the B51 (instead of either keeping both or doing away with both of 'em).... Once the B51 got eliminated, the continued existence of the B39 has been *whatever* to me..... On 7/29/2020 at 4:10 AM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: Bx15: Ideally, I would have the route run to Amsterdam (instead of the Bx15/M125 split that will occur), and basically use the current M104 turnaround. The M100 and M101 would be changed under my proposal to have similar headways (meaning a boost on the M100, but a decrease on the M101). The lone portion of the M101 north of 163rd Street doesn't warrant the existing service levels. Now, one could make the argument that bus service is pretty unreliable because of its long route, but I don't really see it improving much even if it were to become more unreliable. Many buses north of 161st (if they don't short-turn them there) carry relatively few people for the service level and capacity it can hold. The Washington Heights portion of the M101 not warranting existing service levels is one reason why I would do away with the M101 & branch the M100 over that part of the M101 route in question.... As such, there wouldn't be much of a need for any (scheduled) short turning at 161st.... When they came out with an M101 LTD, the M101 instantly/drastically became more attractive than the M100.... Over time though, the overwhelming popularity of the M101 along Amsterdam steadily waned, as too many buses would get caught up further down the line, negatively affecting service.... I'd say few people gave a shit that (some) trips were short turned at 96th to try to quell overall unreliability.... This was when you started seeing people gravitate towards M100's more/again, like before the M101 became a LTD..... There's no real need to have an Amsterdam route running past 116th (106th, being generous)..... For the sake of being petty, I would rebrand said part of the M101 as the M100a, instead of keeping the M101 nomenclature.... This is how much I think the M101 should be done away with. Edited August 3, 2020 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted August 7, 2020 Share #1293 Posted August 7, 2020 On 8/2/2020 at 10:16 PM, B35 via Church said: As far as serving 57th st, you have the right idea as far as using 8th av. as a point of reference... I'd try my hand at reverting the M58 routing for the M31 & extending the EB M57 to serve Clinton Towers... The M31 serves way more of York than the M57 does West End av. & on top of that, West End moves far better traffic-wise..... The runtime I wouldn't worry about with an extended M22... I have it running b/w Liberty/S. End (current M9 terminal) & Baruch houses (Columbia/Houston) at about a 45 min. clip.... Something else I didn't mention was the taking buses off Worth st... I find that people that live over there in Chatham Towers tend to either walk along Worth to (wherever it is they're going), or take the SB M9/M103 to Park Row; I'm not really seeing that 1] patronization & 2] reliance on the M22... The current M22's taking of Worth to Lafayette, just so that the thing can serve all of Chambers st. is not "worth" it IMO.... This is exactly why I have BPC bound M22's taking Park Row... I pondered doing away with the current EB M22 routing b/w Pace U. & Pike/Madison (to have M22's use Park Row in both directions), but leaving that area east of Pace U. with just the M15 doesn't sit well with me.... I mentioned this a while back, but I'd ideally have M22's (both directions) paralleling the M15 b/w Pike & Fulton, then accessing the general area around City Hall from Fulton.... But of course, Fulton street's way too damn narrow & on top of that, the street grid isn't conducive to feasibly implicating such a thing.... One question I have for you though.... How do you have buses (M22's) getting to South Ferry from Park Row? I have it going Barclay > Church > Chambers on my map.... As you know, Broadway isn't bi-directional down there..... I didn't ponder too much with the EB M22 routing, as I just kept it because it directly serves the projects compared to the WB routing. I was thinking about how to use Pearl Street & Madison Street more, but the streets there just don't allow for it. Operating via Frankfort, Gold and Beekman Streets is not an option because Beekman is narrow, and the turn from Gold Street to Beekman is pretty risky for a bus. I also gave some thought about keeping buses on Madison Street, and then using Olver Street to get to Park Row, but turn from Madison to Oliver is also problematic. The WB M22 route in the City Hall area was an accidental omission. Basically, buses would get to BPC and South Ferry using the routing you listed. On 8/2/2020 at 10:16 PM, B35 via Church said: As far as the Manhattan routing, that much I got.... While I'm not up to that part of the map yet, one thing I can tell you is that (and it's something I've said for quite a while on these parts) I would dead the M20 at 14th (from the north).... I have four ideas I have jotted down of what could/should be done with a 7th/8th av service, other than ending where (and the way) the M20 does on the northern end of the thing..... As for the southern portion, tbh, I'm not so sure if a Hudson/Washington coverage route is even worth it, and/or having anything utilizing Hudson (South of Abingdon Sq.).... One thing's for sure is that I wouldn't run B39's &/or M21's up in that area of the borough.... Including that with having M5's take on the (current/real) M8 west of Greenwich av & SB M6's running via 7th, I think you're overserving the West Village in general... The reason buses were routed up Hudson was to preserve the train connection at Houston Street, because otherwise, I would have just sent it up 6th Avenue. As for an extension to 14th Street, it wouldn't really cost too much to implement based on the structure. Many AM rush buses come from Quill anyway (and go back to Quill in the PM). Midday buses have a 14 minute layover on the LES, and a 26 minute layover on the opposite end, while evening buses have a 26-27 minute layover on both ends. There would be enough time to send buses up to 14th Street without having to add additional buses. Although there wouldn't be as much layover time as right now, buses could get 12 minutes on each end at the very least. Additionally, you might be able to get more people from Greenwich Village, LES and East Village near the route towards the restaurants and bars in on the farther West Side, as well as for those heading towards the High Line. Of course, the extension wouldn't be attractive if the M21 was running with its 30 minute headways, which is where the B39 came to play. I didn't want to over serve the eastern portion of the M21 (where the bus is basically an afterthought). The only time period besides the rush hour where there would be an additional bus needed on the M21 is during weekends, since buses are scheduled for 22-23 minutes from end to end throughout most of the day, `which is tight considering Houston Street can crawl even on weekends. On 8/2/2020 at 10:16 PM, B35 via Church said: The Washington Heights portion of the M101 not warranting existing service levels is one reason why I would do away with the M101 & branch the M100 over that part of the M101 route in question.... As such, there wouldn't be much of a need for any (scheduled) short turning at 161st.... When they came out with an M101 LTD, the M101 instantly/drastically became more attractive than the M100.... Over time though, the overwhelming popularity of the M101 along Amsterdam steadily waned, as too many buses would get caught up further down the line, negatively affecting service.... I'd say few people gave a shit that (some) trips were short turned at 96th to try to quell overall unreliability.... This was when you started seeing people gravitate towards M100's more/again, like before the M101 became a LTD..... There's no real need to have an Amsterdam route running past 116th (106th, being generous)..... For the sake of being petty, I would rebrand said part of the M101 as the M100a, instead of keeping the M101 nomenclature.... This is how much I think the M101 should be done away with. By branching, do you mean like an "exterior" branch, where the M100/M100A (going by your labeling) essentially branch off to separate terminals past 163rd Street NB, or a mid route branching of the sort where both buses go to Inwood? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted August 9, 2020 Share #1294 Posted August 9, 2020 (edited) On 8/6/2020 at 10:54 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: I didn't ponder too much with the EB M22 routing, as I just kept it because it directly serves the projects compared to the WB routing. I was thinking about how to use Pearl Street & Madison Street more, but the streets there just don't allow for it. Operating via Frankfort, Gold and Beekman Streets is not an option because Beekman is narrow, and the turn from Gold Street to Beekman is pretty risky for a bus. I also gave some thought about keeping buses on Madison Street, and then using Olver Street to get to Park Row, but turn from Madison to Oliver is also problematic. The WB M22 route in the City Hall area was an accidental omission. Basically, buses would get to BPC and South Ferry using the routing you listed. While not exactly, we're ideally trying to accomplish the same thing with the M22 in that immediate area - but the street grid exacerbates matters.... But yeah, over there on the southern end of Chatham sq., that intersection (Oliver/St. James) is nasty; so much so that they regularly need a traffic cop to regulate traffic jams/tie-ups over there.... Quite honestly, even if that intersection was feasible to utilize, I think it'd be a waste of time to have buses shooting across Madison to the end, just to double back to Chatham Sq., to cut through the (secured/barricaded) stint of Park Row.... The Chatham Towers folks would still have the M9 & the M103. On 8/6/2020 at 10:54 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: The reason buses were routed up Hudson was to preserve the train connection at Houston Street, because otherwise, I would have just sent it up 6th Avenue. As for an extension to 14th Street, it wouldn't really cost too much to implement based on the structure. Many AM rush buses come from Quill anyway (and go back to Quill in the PM). Midday buses have a 14 minute layover on the LES, and a 26 minute layover on the opposite end, while evening buses have a 26-27 minute layover on both ends. There would be enough time to send buses up to 14th Street without having to add additional buses. Although there wouldn't be as much layover time as right now, buses could get 12 minutes on each end at the very least. Additionally, you might be able to get more people from Greenwich Village, LES and East Village near the route towards the restaurants and bars in on the farther West Side, as well as for those heading towards the High Line. Of course, the extension wouldn't be attractive if the M21 was running with its 30 minute headways, which is where the B39 came to play. I didn't want to over serve the eastern portion of the M21 (where the bus is basically an afterthought). The only time period besides the rush hour where there would be an additional bus needed on the M21 is during weekends, since buses are scheduled for 22-23 minutes from end to end throughout most of the day, which is tight considering Houston Street can crawl even on weekends. You said earlier that the M21 extension northwards wasn't really to replace the M20 in the area... I get using the B39 to supplement the M21, due to subpar service levels along Houston or whatever... I even get phasing out the M20.... What I don't get, if not for (partially) replacing the M20 in the area, is justifying running M21's up to 14th st otherwise..... I can't buy that premise of preservation for a connection to the , as the M21 already connects to the . You may not want to say it outright, but I'll go on ahead with it - M20 patronage is feeble in the 'Village & AFAIC, it's not that preposterous to revoke service along Hudson st..... Putting that another way, I'm not too worried about offering compromises - the M20 is more or less an afterthought & I don't blame them (residents of the area) for not really using it either.... Almost nobody (from other areas) uses it to get to work either; if it aint from anyone walking from 6th (i.e., West 4th subway), it's of the masses all coming off the at either Houston or Christopher.... My overall sentiment is, running M21's north of Houston is a waste of time & I would not use the B39 as a means of bolstering the inadequate service levels currently supplied to the M21..... Way I see it, it's futile to bank on [Brooklynites] and/or [LES/SoHo/NoHo] patrons taking buses to/from the West Village - especially of folks patronizing/supporting local restaurateurs & bar owners... I'm telling you (and I'm chuckling a little as I'm typing this), those are not the people taking M20's in the area & I don't see things changing if a 1-seat ride were to be provided along Houston, going via 7th/Hudson.... Anyone still on M21's (or B39's) north of 7th/Houston, would amount to straggler level patronage at best... IDK man, I just don't think that extension is worth it. On 8/6/2020 at 10:54 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said: By branching, do you mean like an "exterior" branch, where the M100/M100A (going by your labeling) essentially branch off to separate terminals past 163rd Street NB, or a mid route branching of the sort where both buses go to Inwood? Ouch, god no to the latter, Lol.... I mean the former (although I've been rethinking some things). I may as well convey the thought, as IDK when I'm going to finish this .png → .pdf map (and on top of it, I still can't find a decent font)..... The notion is to only have M100's run along Amsterdam b/w 125th & St. Nich' (instead of an M100/"M100a").... Being that 40'-ers run on the M100, artics run on the M101, and the M101 north of 163rd doesn't warrant current M101 service levels, I'd have the M100 be the artic route instead... This would pretty much mean shifting the M100 to Tuskegee (or splitting it b/w KB & Tuskegee)... As for Amsterdam north of 163rd, I'm pondering reverting an "M18" (which would be a branch of my proposed M3... and just in case you might wonder, no it wouldn't use Convent... lol).... Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm going to map this out... Musing in this fashion really helped solidify my decision. Edited August 9, 2020 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted August 16, 2020 Share #1295 Posted August 16, 2020 The issue I see the most with the discontinuation of the M101 north of 125th St is that M100 passengers will lose service east of Amsterdam Av, creating a new need for two transfers now. To better explain my previous post, I chose the M100 to replace the southern portion of the Bx15 instead for efficiency and to reduce overall clutter on 125th St. However, another idea came to me where instead of doing that, the M100 can remain as it is between North Manhattan & Amsterdam Av, while the north portion of the M101 becomes the new M125 and runs between Ft. George and 149th St, combining both corridors, with additional short turns at 125th St/Lex (similar to how the M14 short turns at Union Sq) during rush hours. This should reduce delays on the entire line. With the new M101, it can run as a LTD at all times except overnight where local service can be provided by the M102/M103. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted August 16, 2020 Share #1296 Posted August 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: The issue I see the most with the discontinuation of the M101 north of 125th St is that M100 passengers will lose service east of Amsterdam Av, creating a new need for two transfers now. To better explain my previous post, I chose the M100 to replace the southern portion of the Bx15 instead for efficiency and to reduce overall clutter on 125th St. However, another idea came to me where instead of doing that, the M100 can remain as it is between North Manhattan & Amsterdam Av, while the north portion of the M101 becomes the new M125 and runs between Ft. George and 149th St, combining both corridors, with additional short turns at 125th St/Lex (similar to how the M14 short turns at Union Sq) during rush hours. This should reduce delays on the entire line. With the new M101, it can run as a LTD at all times except overnight where local service can be provided by the M102/M103. It doesn't really matter which bus you consider operating to 149th Street, the issue isn't so much about the length of either Amsterdam Ave route. It's more about 149th Street not being a suitable cutoff for Bronx riders. By splitting the Bx15 like that, what's essentially being claimed is that the majority of Bx15 riders going into Manhattan are getting on buses in Mott Haven, and that's not the case. The Bx15 should remain running into Harlem, and along 125th Street, as there are many people who use the bus from areas north of 149th Street into Harlem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted August 16, 2020 Share #1297 Posted August 16, 2020 Just now, BM5 via Woodhaven said: It doesn't really matter which bus you consider operating to 149th Street, the issue isn't so much about the length of either Amsterdam Ave route. It's more about 149th Street not being a suitable cutoff for Bronx riders. By splitting the Bx15 like that, what's essentially being claimed is that the majority of Bx15 riders going into Manhattan are getting on buses in Mott Haven, and that's not the case. The Bx15 should remain running into Harlem, and along 125th Street, as there are many people who use the bus from areas north of 149th Street into Harlem. Ah now I understand you. So how about bringing back the Bx55 LTD to run into Manhattan while leaving the Bx15 ending at 149th St? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted August 16, 2020 Share #1298 Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: The issue I see the most with the discontinuation of the M101 north of 125th St is that M100 passengers will lose service east of Amsterdam Av, creating a new need for two transfers now. To better explain my previous post, I chose the M100 to replace the southern portion of the Bx15 instead for efficiency and to reduce overall clutter on 125th St. However, another idea came to me where instead of doing that, the M100 can remain as it is between North Manhattan & Amsterdam Av, while the north portion of the M101 becomes the new M125 and runs between Ft. George and 149th St, combining both corridors, with additional short turns at 125th St/Lex (similar to how the M14 short turns at Union Sq) during rush hours. This should reduce delays on the entire line. With the new M101, it can run as a LTD at all times except overnight where local service can be provided by the M102/M103. The M101 has more service than the M100, not to mention that the M100 north of 125th carries more than the M101... It wouldn't be about being efficient at that point; it's basically splitting hairs.... Extending M100's or M101's to The Hub would still have Bx15 riders coming from points north of The Hub xferring to either the M100 or the M101 for 125th st. access.... The issue is having more Bronx riders directly accessing 125th (The Hub, compared to Fordham Plz.)... The Bx15 is that important to the network & should be left running along 125th.... The M125 will not solve what the MTA might think it will..... 34 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said: By splitting the Bx15 like that, what's essentially being claimed is that the majority of Bx15 riders going into Manhattan are getting on buses in Mott Haven, and that's not the case..... That, and that there's too many buses along 125th st in general - in conjunction with the notion that most Bx15 riders (from along 3rd av) upon reaching The Hub are taking the into Manhattan (not necessarily for 125th, but inclusive).... This M125 bit isn't about adequately serving Bronx riders, it's about relegating service to 125th to nothing more than a mere shuttle.... 29 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: So how about bringing back the Bx55 LTD to run into Manhattan while leaving the Bx15 ending at 149th St? From Gun Hill road or Fordham Plaza? If it's the latter, then you're making it about nothing more than nomenclature... If it's the former, that extra mileage isn't all that necessary. Edited August 16, 2020 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted August 16, 2020 Share #1299 Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, B35 via Church said: That, and that there's too many buses along 125th st in general - in conjunction with the notion that most Bx15 riders (from along 3rd av) upon reaching The Hub are taking the into Manhattan (not necessarily for 125th, but inclusive).... ...should read the into Manhattan, from The Hub. I had 125th on my mind when I was making that point... lol... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted September 23, 2021 Share #1300 Posted September 23, 2021 Gonna bump this bc I was playing around with Bus redesigns and I thought of a redesign scenario that could be possible. This is not at all intended to be serious and more like toying with ideas. Proposal: revamp the system to allow lower number routes to represent North-South routes with higher number routes representing crosstown routes. For example, M1-19 represent North-South routes serving areas north of Midtown, M20-29 represent routes serving areas south of and including midtown, M30-39 represent misc. crosstown routes. Any other (crosstown) routes reserve their names for the street they operate on (M14/23 remain unchanged and grouped in this category due to being high corridor crosstown routes) Changes and new routes include: M1: no service south of 8 St, service between 8 St and Grand St replaced by M25. M2: unchanged M3: cut south of 96 St, allows riders north of 96 St to retain access to Mt. Sinai Hospital. M4: cut south of 106 St. After 106 St, route operates along the M106 to East Harlem, sharing the terminal with the M106. M5: cut south of 57 St. After 59 St, route operates eastward along the M57 to the terminus at 1 Av-57 St. M7: Majority of route unchanged; rerouted between 116 St and 106 St to provide coverage along Lenox Ave and Cathedral Pkwy. Cut south of 32 St. M8: original route renamed, new M8 replaces the M102 and retains the same identical route. M9: original route renamed, new M9 is a new route replacing the M101 and M98. Operates on the M101 from 34 St to 116 St, then operates along the M98 from 116 St to GWB M10: unchanged M11: unchanged M12: original route renamed, see M22 M13: rename of the M103, retains the same route M14: unchanged due to being a major crosstown corridor M15: unchanged M16: rename of the M104, retains the same route M18: rename of the M100, reflected to show route after the Bronx redesign M19: rename of the M101, retains the original M101 route north of 96 St. M20: Majority of route unchanged, but southbound service operates on 9 Av from 66 St to 14 St, with southbound service on 7 Av replaced by M27. M21: renamed M32, see below M22: original route revamped, new M22 is the M12 with an identical routing M23: unchanged due to being a major crosstown corridor M25: new route replacing the M55 and portion of M1 south of 8 St. Original M55 south of 8 St replaced by M25 downtown and M27 uptown. Operates between Columbus Circle and South Ferry. M27: new route operating between Central Park South and Park Row at City Hall via 6/7 Av. Replaces portions of the M7, M20 and M55. M29: new route replacing the M9. Majority of M9 route is retained with service between Battery Pk and Chatham Sq replicating the M22, operating on Chambers St and Worth St. Retains M9 Battery Pk terminal. M30: Lower East Side circular replacing the M22. From Park Row at City Hall, service heads east via the M22 route to Grand St, then turns left and continues to Pitt St, where it will make another left on Pitt St and turns right on East Broadway. After east Broadway, route continues to Chatham Sq before running on the original M9 back to the terminal at City Hall. M31: Route retained but with an extension to 2 Av-96 St. In order to provide convenient and reliable service on 57 St, the M57 would merge with the M31 and short turn trips would operates between 10 Av and 1 Av. M32: Renamed M21. Retains identical route M33: renaming of the M8. This is due to the fact that M1-19 are used for North-South routes north of Midtown and the M8 not really identifying with 8 St as the street name only "exists" on the eastbound route for about 4-5 blocks (6 Av-Lafayette St) route unchanged M34/34A: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M35: unchanged M36: this new route is a combination of the M66 and western portion of the M57. The M36 would begin service at Columbus Circle, then operate westward along the M57 route to 72 St. After 72 St, the M36 would take the M72 route from Broadway to 5 Av. After 5 Av, the M36 takes the M66 route to York Av. M42: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M50: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M60: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M66: merged with new M36 and rerouted M72 M72: Largely unchanged, except it operates on 65/66 St from Central Park West to West End Av, where it continues to it's terminal at Freedom Pl M79: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M86: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M96: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M98: merged into new M9 M100: merged into new M18 M101: merged into new M19 as well as new M8/13 M102: renumbered to M8 M103: renumbered to M13 M104: renumbered to M16 M106: originally I was gonna opt to merge this route into the M96 and rerouted M4 but I decided to keep it around for East Side riders to have direct access to Mt. Sinai. Due to duplication of other routes, the route would operate with 20-30 min headways compared to 15-30 min. M116: unchanged, high corridor crosstown route M125: unchanged from proposal under the Bronx redesign. Map link: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/embed?mid=1-jdX8uqXppWiyZZt238SlaYhcYu8WwfS 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.