Bounad Hanhic Posted June 1, 2013 Share #1 Posted June 1, 2013 According to the agenda the B32, B67 extension, and the Q70 have all been approved. There are also schedule adjustments in NYCT and in MTA Bus that will occur for the fall 2012. The most interesting of them is that the Q103 will now run from 5:40 AM-7:30 PM and the Q53 and Q64 will now run 24 hours a day. But I really like how they are planning to screw the Q100 with the adjustments so that service goes from a 12 to a 15 minute headway during the weekdays and how it goes from a 15 to a 20 minute headway during the weekday evenings. They should revert to the old QSC style schedule where service was not divided with Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service days like other bus routes but had its own Rikers Island visiting hours specific schedule where there was a Monday and Tuesday schedule a Wednesday and Thursday schedule a Friday schedule a Saturday schedule and a Sunday schedule which would be more efficient than what the MTA does currently because with the way that the MTA evaluates service the loads are unbalanced during the weekday because of the visiting schedule on Rikers Island where there are no visits allowed on Mondays and Tuesdays afternoon visits on Wednesdays and Thursdays and morning visits on Fridays Saturdays and Sundays http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/130603_1030_Transit.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 1, 2013 Share #2 Posted June 1, 2013 Good news. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #3 Posted June 1, 2013 Service Changes run from pages 174-211. SMH at their justification for the B67 extension. * They ignore the option of sending the B57 through the Navy Yard (and yet they talk about sending the B62 through there?!) * They ignore the option of splitting the B57 and sending the southern portion through the Navy Yard. * Last I checked, the B57 still serves Flushing Avenue, so they're not removing all service from Flushing Avenue. The fact that it doesn't connect with Downtown Brooklyn I can sort of accept, though. * They ignore the option of combining it with their proposed B32. * SMH at "Limited funding was available for this route" as a reason for not going the extra few blocks to WBP. If they sent the B69 through there, they would've saved enough money to send it to WBP, and if they sent the B57 through there, they would've given Navy Yard riders more connections at a lower cost. * SMH at them talking about how a B57 reroute would inconvenience B57 riders, but nothing is mentioned about how the B67 extension would make service more unreliable for B67 riders. * SMH at them talking about the primary purpose of the B32 being to serve Williamsburg/Greenpoint, as if routes can't have more than one primary purpose. * X17J midday service (probably just that small span outside of rush hour) will be improved, and X22 service in the evening will be improved, which is good. (In both cases, headways go down from 30 minutes to 20). X22A service also improves a little in the AM rush. * The Q70 breaks the "rule" of running every 30 minutes all day (headways are going to be every 12 minutes for most of the day, and 30 minutes overnight). The only thing is that I hope the Q33 gets to keep its 30 minute overnight headways. * There will be a double transfer with the Q29-Q33-M60/Q72. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted June 1, 2013 Share #4 Posted June 1, 2013 I agree that the Rikers Island schedule should be adjusted to reflect visiting hours. When the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility had visiting hours on the weekend, there was an additional bus at 7:01 AM leaving St. George to Tottenville and 3:53 PM bus from the Correctional Facility to St. George. Someone in the top management at Rikers should write a letter to the MTA boss and the schedule change could be made in time for the September 2013 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemoreira81 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #5 Posted June 1, 2013 I get why the B32 isn't extended to Downtown Brooklyn. However, there service through Vinegar Hill up to the Navy Yard gate should be during the times that the rest of the B67 runs and not just weekdays only (Hudson Avenue and Water Street would be the full-time northern terminus). As for the B69, I would seriously consider eliminating Sunday, but not Saturday, service on the line, and reduce Saturday service to 8 AM to 8 PM. Taking into account Bounad Hahnic's OP on the Q100: to me, this is how I would arrange the schedule: Daily: To Rikers Island: Trips leaving Queens Plaza between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM, and 10:30 PM and 11:30 PM (no service from Rikers during this time) To Queens Plaza: Trips leaving Rikers Island between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM, and 12:00 AM and 1:00 AM (no service to Rikers during this time) Wednesdays and Thurssdays: in addition to the daily trips, all trips leaving 12:30 PM and 7:15 PM from Queens Plaza, and all outbound trips leaving Rikers between 1:45 PM and 9:30 PM would service Rikers. (Not all trips would serve Rikers in both directions.) Fridays through Sundays: in addition to the daily trip, all trips between 6:30 AM and 1:15 PM from Queens Plaza, and between 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM on weekends. All other trips would end at the Q101 terminus in Steinway. In addition, for improved service to Steinway and Astoria, stops on the Q100 would be added on 20 Avenue at Crescent Street, Steinway Street and 49 Street, and on 21 Street by 23 Avenue, allowing for better connections with other routes or filling in service gaps. The reduction of service to Rikers would be to improve recovery time and to provide service to the island only when absolutely necessary - for shift changes and inmate visiting hours. I have another Q100/1 proposal that I'll post in route adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 2, 2013 Share #6 Posted June 2, 2013 I had a classic response to this pile of garbage, but of course firefox locked up on me (had other tabs open) & my commentary was erased in the quick reply section, so I'm not typing all of what I said over again..... I'll just summarize it by saying that I found their responses to very valid concerns involving the B67 & Q33 in-particular to be absolutely disgusting.... As well as their justification for the implementation of the B67 extension & B32 creation.... One was just a flat out lie: No it wouldn't serve a different customer base/riderbase.... If that were the case, you wouldn't have people from the waterfront community (Brooklyn side) walking or biking it out to the B62... You wouldn't have as many people saying that the route duplicates/mirrors/parallels the B62... and the part that's absolute gold - you wouldn't CONCUR that the 32 parallels the 62 !! The biggest backlash to the B32 is that it does parallel the B62 & they have no answer for that.... They're not just feeding you bullshit to hype up this new route, they're going the next step & lying about it.... That says a lot..... And also, there was a comment stating that the 32 should perhaps be extended to northern Greenpoint (*shrugs*), QBP, LIC waterfront area, and/or Manhattan..... The response was, oh, "the funding available for this route limits the distance".... In other words, we don't wanna pony up for any changes that, we know, will better benefit the riders.... I don't wanna hear about any lack of funding when your usage of current funding is questionable... Swallow that. But wouldn't ya know it, that wasn't the worst response to any of the comments.... The one that I found most disgusting was the first half of the response to the first comment under the Q33/Q70 plan... Matter fact, lemme do a screenshot of this crap.... The comment as you can see, is basically contesting the truncating of the Q33..... Peep the response The second half of the comment (not shown) basically states that riders coming off the Q33 would have to take it to the new terminal, and then xfer to the M60 or Q72 for service inside the airport..... What I have a problem with regarding what you see in front of you, is the response that shuts down & eliminates their own stupidity (aka refuting a strawman argument).... What idiot would clamor for the Q33 making that one stop alongside that parking lot inside the airport, then u-turning to get out of LGA? Granted, people do get off at that stop in question & walk to the central terminal... but it's no where near the delta terminal (which the Q33 also serves)..... I can bet that this person contesting this plan wants the Q33 to continue along it's current course inside the airport, not just that first stop once inside LGA at the damn parking lot..... Unbelievable. --------------------------- On a more positive note though, I have to say that I agree with the M100 change... The current layover & 1st stop of the route I never understood anyway... The layover is alongside that gas station over on 125th/2nd (2nd av side) & the 1st stop is a few feet past the gas station on the 125th st side..... Now, M100's would continue on 125th to 1st, then make a left turn to parallel the M15 north of that intersection - with the exception that the M15 will make a quick right onto 126th after the loop is made, and the M100 would continue back south towards 125th... Makes things easier (and quite honestly & more importantly, safer) for anyone wanting areas along 125th after having came off the NB M15 (either at 125th/1st, or the last stop on 126th/2nd).... I can also see an increase in usage of the M100 by folks residing in the wagner houses, for areas along 125th... Currently, there's nothing that runs westward along 125th b/w 1st & 2nd - There's only Bx15 service coming from the west that stops at 125th/1st.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 2, 2013 Share #7 Posted June 2, 2013 What I wanna know is how will the new M100 route cost more than the current one, if it seems easier to manuver (Ill using the complementary MTA Term) than the current one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemoreira81 Posted June 2, 2013 Share #8 Posted June 2, 2013 On extending the B32 further into Greenpoint---the problem becomes one of the street network. You either have to do a loop around to Cray Street, Paidge Avenue, and Provost Street or terminate the route in Greenpoint and not cross over into Long Island City...southbound, the sme loop-around would have to be done via Provost, Paidge, and Ash Streets (keep in mind that between Manhattan Avenue and McGuinness Boulevard, Cray and Box Streets run the same way)...easily adding about 6-7 minutes to the line. On the LIC end, however, it is much more possible to serve that area via 50 Avenue and Vernon Boulevard, if the MTA had the desire to do so, via an immediate loop-around coming off the Queens side of the Pulaski bridge. As for the B62, through Northside, an option could be to use Borinquen Place and Union Avenue (along with North 14 Street), but then that route comes too close to Lorimer Street down which the B48 runs. I wonder if the better solution here may be to flip the B62 and B48 northern termini, which would force the B32 to have to be terminated at Queens Plaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TML Posted June 2, 2013 Share #9 Posted June 2, 2013 Now that the Q33 will officially be kicked out of LGA Airport proper, I guess this further strengthens the prospect of the Q23 not entering LGA proper in the foreseeable future, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 2, 2013 Share #10 Posted June 2, 2013 What I wanna know is how will the new M100 route cost more than the current one, if it seems easier to manuver (Ill using the complementary MTA Term) than the current one. Easier maneuverability has nothing to do with the cost..... It's the traveling of a longer distance (no matter how slight it is) that results in increased costs (in this case, the new compared to the current M100)..... More mileage, more money. Now that the Q33 will officially be kicked out of LGA Airport proper, I guess this further strengthens the prospect of the Q23 not entering LGA proper in the foreseeable future, right? yup.... Anyone hoping for that to happen can kiss their dreams goodnight..... On extending the B32 further into Greenpoint---the problem becomes one of the street network. You either have to do a loop around to Cray Street, Paidge Avenue, and Provost Street or terminate the route in Greenpoint and not cross over into Long Island City...southbound, the sme loop-around would have to be done via Provost, Paidge, and Ash Streets (keep in mind that between Manhattan Avenue and McGuinness Boulevard, Cray and Box Streets run the same way)...easily adding about 6-7 minutes to the line. On the LIC end, however, it is much more possible to serve that area via 50 Avenue and Vernon Boulevard, if the MTA had the desire to do so, via an immediate loop-around coming off the Queens side of the Pulaski bridge. As for the B62, through Northside, an option could be to use Borinquen Place and Union Avenue (along with North 14 Street), but then that route comes too close to Lorimer Street down which the B48 runs. I wonder if the better solution here may be to flip the B62 and B48 northern termini, which would force the B32 to have to be terminated at Queens Plaza. - Yeah, there's no point to running a route in that part of Greenpoint.... For Queens bound buses to loop around the bridge to go back over the bridge into queens, or otherwise any running of these buses in greenpoint north of freeman st to get to queens is nothing short of stupid IMO..... - The LIC waterfront end, the B32 really does nothing for those patrons... Their main gripe is wanting bus service to Manhattan (one of which I can understand their gripe being, even though they have the )... This B32 is all about serving the waterfront community on the brooklyn end (in Williamsburg, to be specific) - That is where I agree with Queens CB 2, and I'm a Brooklynite saying this..... - As for what you wonder the better solution being for the B32.... Huh? Explain to me what does the B48 has to do with anything here.... Lol, I'd venture to say that's a poor solution to justify the creation & the running of this B32 - Swap the northern terminals of the B48 & B62 so that the B32 can be extended to QBP & wouldn't end up serving the same riderbase as the B62 after all.... You don't f*** up people's commutes to that tune, for the sake of creating a new route... That's counter-productivity at its finest.... The fact of the matter is, they have no business even creating this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T J Trainman Posted June 2, 2013 Share #11 Posted June 2, 2013 Enough of this B-32 nonsense!!! Extend the Q-103 to where the B-32 will go and call it a day.....smh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 2, 2013 Share #12 Posted June 2, 2013 Enough of this B-32 nonsense!!! Extend the Q-103 to where the B-32 will go and call it a day.....smh. Or extend B32 to cover the Q103's route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 2, 2013 Share #13 Posted June 2, 2013 I thought Mr Irick said that having a limited budget will not be an excuse as to why bus service can't be improved. Anyway, the Q53 running overnight would please one former transit forum member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted June 3, 2013 Share #14 Posted June 3, 2013 Or extend B32 to cover the Q103's route. That's literally what he said, you just changed the number... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 3, 2013 Share #15 Posted June 3, 2013 That's literally what he said, you just changed the number... pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 3, 2013 Share #16 Posted June 3, 2013 pretty much No, not pretty much. That's the same exact routing with a different number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted June 3, 2013 Share #17 Posted June 3, 2013 The B32 is either going to fail or have the low end of ridership. I wonder how that Bx46 is doing. I still can't get over that Q33/Q70 thing. I find it pretty dumb that the LTD will serve two stops and that's it until it gets inside of the airport. And that thing with transferring to a M60 or Q72 why should someone do that. Either way it still adds more time to the commute. If you had a seat on the Q33 you may not have one on the M60 and if the M60 or Q72 is backed up it will cause problems as well along with bad weather. I think the needs to slow down with all these new routes. The Q53LTD all night is not bad as there is currently no bus service to and from the Rockways after 11:00PM unless you go to Jamaica and take the Q113 and the the . This one I think doesn't need to happen late night service on the Q64. To me it doesn't have the ridership do that. One thing is for sure there is barely anyone going to 71st- Forest Hills after 6:00-6:30 so I can't see hardly anyone riding it between 2-4:00 AM. The main ridership it gets later on in the afternoon is to 164st and transferring to the Q20,Q25,Q34,Q44 and Q65. I can see the times changing from 15-20 minutes up until 2:00AM to 20 minutes until 12:20AM and then 60 minutes until 4:20AM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted June 3, 2013 Share #18 Posted June 3, 2013 pretty much So what was the point of saying it then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 3, 2013 Share #19 Posted June 3, 2013 The B32 is either going to fail or have the low end of ridership. I wonder how that Bx46 is doing. I still can't get over that Q33/Q70 thing. I find it pretty dumb that the LTD will serve two stops and that's it until it gets inside of the airport. And that thing with transferring to a M60 or Q72 why should someone do that. Either way it still adds more time to the commute. If you had a seat on the Q33 you may not have one on the M60 and if the M60 or Q72 is backed up it will cause problems as well along with bad weather. I think the needs to slow down with all these new routes. The Q53LTD all night is not bad as there is currently no bus service to and from the Rockways after 11:00PM unless you go to Jamaica and take the Q113 and the the . This one I think doesn't need to happen late night service on the Q64. To me it doesn't have the ridership do that. One thing is for sure there is barely anyone going to 71st- Forest Hills after 6:00-6:30 so I can't see hardly anyone riding it between 2-4:00 AM. The main ridership it gets later on in the afternoon is to 164st and transferring to the Q20,Q25,Q34,Q44 and Q65. I can see the times changing from 15-20 minutes up until 2:00AM to 20 minutes until 12:20AM and then 60 minutes until 4:20AM. get over it Q70 is boss and will only get better stop already. So what was the point of saying it then.... dude who cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted June 4, 2013 Share #20 Posted June 4, 2013 dude who cares I do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted June 4, 2013 Share #21 Posted June 4, 2013 This one I think doesn't need to happen late night service on the Q64. To me it doesn't have the ridership do that. One thing is for sure there is barely anyone going to 71st- Forest Hills after 6:00-6:30 so I can't see hardly anyone riding it between 2-4:00 AM. The main ridership it gets later on in the afternoon is to 164st and transferring to the Q20,Q25,Q34,Q44 and Q65. I can see the times changing from 15-20 minutes up until 2:00AM to 20 minutes until 12:20AM and then 60 minutes until 4:20AM. I wouldn't say barely anyone on buses to 71 Av after the evening rush... and who knows? Maybe there's those people who need to get up real early for work. Having the 64 as an option is much better than walking to either Main St, Kissena Blvd, or 164 St, especially because the blocks along Jewel are pretty long and it's a short, direct route to a subway station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted June 4, 2013 Share #22 Posted June 4, 2013 dude who cares Have you ever notice that when you bring shit up, YOU WILL NOT LIVE IT DOWN!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted June 5, 2013 Share #23 Posted June 5, 2013 I wouldn't say barely anyone on buses to 71 Av after the evening rush... and who knows? Maybe there's those people who need to get up real early for work. Having the 64 as an option is much better than walking to either Main St, Kissena Blvd, or 164 St, especially because the blocks along Jewel are pretty long and it's a short, direct route to a subway station. I guess so but I can see the change the service after 12:00 on that line so that it can have the appropriate headways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTS CNG Command Posted June 5, 2013 Share #24 Posted June 5, 2013 One part of the report for the B67 extension really got my goat: Comment: The B67 extension is too long. Response: The B67 extension is 2.0 miles. The response is a really stupid strawman! Firstly, the B67 extension has way too many turns into a neighborhood with some very narrow streets. The more turns equals eating up more time for the bus to operate the route. Secondly, the MTA really screwed up service on the B67 (and B69) with the service cuts in June 2010. The B67, especially, has very hideous unreliability issues, and it'll only get worse with this extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 5, 2013 Share #25 Posted June 5, 2013 Does anyone have the pdf for the B84 approval? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.