Bronx Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Fat chance.... The two groups that would fight tooth and nail to keep the BxM4 are those in Woodlawn, and the co-ops and elderly along the Concourse. The Concourse, esp. the first and last stop gets good use. I've been using the BxM4 now enough to see who does what. It gets enough use not to cut it. You have the courthouses and Yankees Stadium there and up and coming areas along the Concourse that may help the BxM4 grow down the line.

 

The other thing is there is usually always people riding with the hourly service. Not a lot, but still enough to keep it.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[qjtransitmaster]

Well, this is probably gonna being up a dead horse argument...

 

IMO, the BxM4 has excess service, especially on Weekdays, and the BxM4 to Yonkers Raceway has a fat chance of happening.

 

 

The last BxM4 to Manhattan on Weekdays would be leave Katonah Ave/242 st at 6:50 PM.

 

The first BxM4 to Woodlawn on Weekdays would leave 29 street/5 Ave at 8:25 AM

 

Saturdays:

 

The last BxM4 to Manhattan would leave Katonah Avenue/242 street at 8:00 PM

 

The First BxM4 to Woodlawn would leave 29 street/5 Avenue at 9:45 AM.

 

The last BxM4 to Woodlawn would leave 29 street/5 Avenue at 9:45 PM.

 

Sundays:

 

The last BxM4 to Manhattan would leave Katonah Avenue/242 st at 6:00 PM

 

The last BxM4 to Woodlawn would leave 29 street/5 Ave at 7:30 PM

Makes sense but knowing VG8's lack of objective in express buses you would have been wise to keep your mouth shut on that matter. Next lets change the subject now. And discuss local buses.

Fat chance.... The two groups that would fight tooth and nail to keep the BxM4 are those in Woodlawn, and the co-ops and elderly along the Concourse. The Concourse, esp. the first and last stop gets good use. I've been using the BxM4 now enough to see who does what. It gets enough use not to cut it. You have the courthouses and Yankees Stadium there and up and coming areas along the Concourse that may help the BxM4 grow down the line.

 

The other thing is there is usually always people riding with the hourly service. Not a lot, but still enough to keep it.

Sure they will the ghosts of holloween will fight to keep their bus     

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Hey, I'm just stating my personal observations as to why more hasn't been cut. The ridership on the line is spread out.

[B35 via Church]

Hey, I'm just stating my personal observations as to why more hasn't been cut. The ridership on the line is spread out.

(I) Tried telling QJT this for how long now..... Back when he was on that axe the BxM4 kick....

 

Now you see firsthand what I was talking about some months ago as far as BxM4 usage... The posts are on here in black & white.... I don't pull stuff out of my ass; don't need to (BTW, shoutout to the kid that's no longer on here that claimed I didn't know what I'm talkin about when it comes to buses )....

 

Makes sense but knowing VG8's lack of objective in express buses you would have been wise to keep your mouth shut on that matter.

I had to laugh at this.....

 

.....However, he's not wrong when it comes to the BxM4 - Which I will NOT be discussing much further in this go round.... You've single-handedly exhausted me/made disinteresting from talking about that route anymore w/ your rhetoric.....

 

Sure they will the ghosts of holloween will fight to keep their bus     

Hated Ghostbusters; the movie & the cartoon... Both sucked....

 

What's this about exaggerating the amt. of people that don't take the BxM4 now

Edited November 3, 2013 by B35 via Church

[dkupf]

The most important thing to do first is to close service gaps, not add layers of service, which would be a waste of our tax dollars.

 

For example, there is no route that traverses 233 St, nor links Co-Op City and Wakefield.  And, for the long term, to end the border discrimination between the Bronx and Westchester County.

 

Let's kill Operations Planning's notion that noone tells them how to plan.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The most important thing to do first is to close service gaps, not add layers of service, which would be a waste of our tax dollars.

 

For example, there is no route that traverses 233 St, nor links Co-Op City and Wakefield.  And, for the long term, to end the border discrimination between the Bronx and Westchester County.

 

Let's kill Operations Planning's notion that noone tells them how to plan.

Is repeating the first and last statements in each proposal thread really necesary?

 

You don't need any route going to Woodlawn to Co-Op City, it's a waste of money. 

 

Lol at the Border Discrimination Comment...

 

You do realize that Westchester has it's own routes that come into the Bronx as well (some of them open door even). The current border set-up is as best as it's gonna get.

[dkupf]

A route between Woodlawn and Co-Op City would be possible if service is restructured to have one route traverse 233 Street, as that another route would have to cover the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the Bx16.  I prefer the Bx29.  It would serve the Baychester Ave station, which never had a bus connection.  It would also provide a transfer to the Bx31.  These changes would close service gaps without the unnecessary duplication of other bus routes.

 

In the early 1990's NYCT proposed to extend the Bx34 in order to give a one-bus ride between Woodlawn and Mount Vernon.  Based on ridership projections at the time, the extension would have payed for itself.  At the public hearings, there was widespread support.  But Westchester County DOT balked, as that they didn't want NYCT to operate local bus service within their borders.

[bobtehpanda]

A route between Woodlawn and Co-Op City would be possible if service is restructured to have one route traverse 233 Street, as that another route would have to cover the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the Bx16.  I prefer the Bx29.  It would serve the Baychester Ave station, which never had a bus connection.  It would also provide a transfer to the Bx31.  These changes would close service gaps without the unnecessary duplication of other bus routes.

 

In the early 1990's NYCT proposed to extend the Bx34 in order to give a one-bus ride between Woodlawn and Mount Vernon.  Based on ridership projections at the time, the extension would have payed for itself.  At the public hearings, there was widespread support.  But Westchester County DOT balked, as that they didn't want NYCT to operate local bus service within their borders.

 

So what exactly do you want the MTA to do about it? Do you want them to storm Westchester DOT's offices and take over the place?

 

Change can only be done from within at DOTs. The first step is realizing that not everything is under MTA control, let alone Operations Planning.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

A route between Woodlawn and Co-Op City would be possible if service is restructured to have one route traverse 233 Street, as that another route would have to cover the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the Bx16. I prefer the Bx29. It would serve the Baychester Ave station, which never had a bus connection. It would also provide a transfer to the Bx31. These changes would close service gaps without the unnecessary duplication of other bus routes.

 

In the early 1990's NYCT proposed to extend the Bx34 in order to give a one-bus ride between Woodlawn and Mount Vernon. Based on ridership projections at the time, the extension would have payed for itself. At the public hearings, there was widespread support. But Westchester County DOT balked, as that they didn't want NYCT to operate local bus service within their borders.

However, who would ride from Woodlawn to Co-Op City. Everyone takes the bus within Co-Op City only, or South. If one wants Woodlawn (which is literally no one) , the Bx30/28/38 to the Bx31 would suffice. Baychester Avenue doesn't need any more service.

 

There's a reason why WCDOT doesn't want buses in Westchester.

 

 

One, MTA will not improve service over city lines.

 

Two: All those routes into the Bronx are lines with high ridership, and if they didn't go to that area, wouldn't have any ridership or would not exist. Some of tem close gaps, and therefore, it maintains service there. There's no need for City buses going to Westchester to the north, with the exception of the BxM3. You have the corresponding buses available for that.

[qjtransitmaster]

A route between Woodlawn and Co-Op City would be possible if service is restructured to have one route traverse 233 Street, as that another route would have to cover the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the Bx16.  I prefer the Bx29.  It would serve the Baychester Ave station, which never had a bus connection.  It would also provide a transfer to the Bx31.  These changes would close service gaps without the unnecessary duplication of other bus routes.

 

In the early 1990's NYCT proposed to extend the Bx34 in order to give a one-bus ride between Woodlawn and Mount Vernon.  Based on ridership projections at the time, the extension would have payed for itself.  At the public hearings, there was widespread support.  But Westchester County DOT balked, as that they didn't want NYCT to operate local bus service within their borders.

ok so Wakefield link via bx29 reshaping.

[dkupf]

The path in which a Bx29 extension should take is somewhat complicated.  The extension should encourage ridership, maintain the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the current Bx16, serve the 2/5 trains well, develop a turnaround at White Plains Rd, create a transfer point with the Bx31, serve the Baychester Ave station, and go around the Gun Hill Depot.

 

Using Edson Ave is out, as that it's a one-way street, southbound.

 

The path that I would have the Bx29 use, from the Bay Plaza Shopping Center, is Bartow Ave, Ely Ave, Givan Ave, Baychester Ave, Boston Rd, Grace Ave, E 229 St, Schieffelin Ave, Baychester Ave, Pitman Ave, Mundy Lane, Nereid Ave, Baychester Ave, and E 241 St to White Plains Rd.  It would return via White Plains Rd, and Nereid Ave.

 

This loop would give Wakefield riders during the weekday AM rush a greater chance at a seat on the train, encouraging ridership, plus meet all of the other requirements.

 

If any of you have a better idea, and meet all of the requirements, I would like to know.

[qjtransitmaster]

The path in which a Bx29 extension should take is somewhat complicated.  The extension should encourage ridership, maintain the Baychester Ave/Nereid Ave portion of the current Bx16, serve the 2/5 trains well, develop a turnaround at White Plains Rd, create a transfer point with the Bx31, serve the Baychester Ave station, and go around the Gun Hill Depot.

 

Using Edson Ave is out, as that it's a one-way street, southbound.

 

The path that I would have the Bx29 use, from the Bay Plaza Shopping Center, is Bartow Ave, Ely Ave, Givan Ave, Baychester Ave, Boston Rd, Grace Ave, E 229 St, Schieffelin Ave, Baychester Ave, Pitman Ave, Mundy Lane, Nereid Ave, Baychester Ave, and E 241 St to White Plains Rd.  It would return via White Plains Rd, and Nereid Ave.

 

This loop would give Wakefield riders during the weekday AM rush a greater chance at a seat on the train, encouraging ridership, plus meet all of the other requirements.

 

If any of you have a better idea, and meet all of the requirements, I would like to know.

Bx29 via I-95 about 2 minutes exiting at the baychester ave exit for more direct service. Bx5 extension replacement of current bx29 segment. Schedule adjustments to perfect transfers between Q50 and bx12&29 ect if not optimal waiting is an issue. This allows a direct path to Wakefield and and easier more direct links minus putting up with the bx16. If you want Wakefield then bx16 rerouted via co-op city Blvd and Conner to bay plaza just to terminate at a more patroned area.

Edited November 27, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[dkupf]

In my proposal, the Bx16 would simply operate via E 233 St between Webster and Baychester Avenues.

 

Unfortunately, Bx29 buses traveling northbound would enter I-95 on the right side, but the Baychester Ave exit is in the same exact location on the left side. It is impossible for any vehicle to traverse, unless you wish to cause an accident.

 

The Bx29 goes to the Bay Plaza Shopping Center, because it is an essential destination for City Island and Co-Op City Section 5 riders.  Sorry, but the Bx29 routing between of Bay Plaza and City Island, as well as the Bx5 routing, must remain as is.

Edited November 28, 2013 by dkupf

[qjtransitmaster]

In my proposal, the Bx16 would simply operate via E 233 St between Webster and Baychester Avenues.

 

Unfortunately, Bx29 buses traveling northbound would enter I-95 on the right side, but the Baychester Ave exit is in the same exact location on the left side. It is impossible for any vehicle to traverse, unless you wish to cause an accident.

 

The Bx29 goes to the Bay Plaza Shopping Center, because it is an essential destination for City Island and Co-Op City Section 5 riders.  Sorry, but the Bx29 routing between of Bay Plaza and City Island, as well as the Bx5 routing, must remain as is.

If bx5 takes that segment away from bx29 it won't affect bx29 much it will just shift em to bx12-SBS & bx5 trips. But you raise an interesting point. Now I remember my earlier SI loop idea it may be applicable to bronx-queens sort of.

Edited November 29, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[B35 via Church]

I concur w/ Q23 with this point - Why is linking Woodlawn to co-op even necessary.... 

 

As far as that Bx34 extension to Mt. Vernon Dkupf brings up, that was proposed to connect those westchester patrons to the , and not much more than that.... Also, this whole bit about sending Bx29's northward to close service gaps, I'd say is unwarranted.... 

[dkupf]

If the Bx16 is sent via E 233 St between Webster and Baychester Avenues, another route MUST cover the Baychester Avenue/Nereid Avenue portion of the current Bx16.

 

I chose the Bx29 over the Bx5, because I am concerned that it would make the Bx5 too long and unmanageable.  Plus, it would be confusing for summer weekend riders, as that it would have double destinations.  (This is the reason why the Bx12 SBS doesn't go to Orchard Beach.)

[dkupf]

Now I know what some of you are thinking: if the Bx5 goes to Wakefield, then Bx5 summer weekend Orchard Beach service would have to be discontinued.  But try telling that to the people of southern Bronx.  I wouldn't.

 

Which is why the Bx29 extension to Wakefield is the superior choice.

Edited November 29, 2013 by dkupf

[qjtransitmaster]

Now I know what some of you are thinking: if the Bx5 goes to Wakefield, then Bx5 summer weekend Orchard Beach service would have to be discontinued.  But try telling that to the people of southern Bronx.  I wouldn't.

 

Which is why the Bx29 extension to Wakefield is the superior choice.

Not what I suggested at all bx5 can't do Wakefield due to length.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

In the early 1990's NYCT proposed to extend the Bx34 in order to give a one-bus ride between Woodlawn and Mount Vernon.  Based on ridership projections at the time, the extension would have payed for itself.  At the public hearings, there was widespread support.  But Westchester County DOT balked, as that they didn't want NYCT to operate local bus service within their borders.

 

Not quite.  The WDOT folks actually supported the idea because it would have let them discontinue the #54 route. Even the mayor of Mount Vernon liked it because it would have given Bronx bus riders the option of shopping on Gramatan Avenue and connecting to Metro-North away from Fordham.

 

The opposition came from two fronts...

 

The Comptroller of Mount Vernon, who demanded that NYCT reimburse Mount Vernon for damage to its streets. NYCT agreed to the same level of reimbursement that WDOT provided (i.e. none).

 

Residents of Woodlawn, who didn't want "those people" riding through their neighborhood and filling up their empty buses. (What they actually said at the public meeting was that bus riders should stay on their respective sides of the border — people in the Bronx shouldn't travel to Westchester and people in Westchester shouldn't travel to the Bronx.)

[Q43LTD]

Now I know what some of you are thinking: if the Bx5 goes to Wakefield, then Bx5 summer weekend Orchard Beach service would have to be discontinued. But try telling that to the people of southern Bronx. I wouldn't.

 

Which is why the Bx29 extension to Wakefield is the superior choice.

Bx29 to Wakefield??? You're joking right?

[B35 via Church]

Bx29 to Wakefield??? You're joking right?

lol.... He's on a crusade to fill whatever gap in service he can think of.....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

lol.... He's on a crusade to fill whatever gap in service he can think of.....

Therefore we must extend the Bx20 to Fieldston (lol.....)

[qjtransitmaster]

Bx29 to Wakefield??? You're joking right?

apparently he has it sloppy and indirect. However you would be wise to pay close attention to bx30&16.

Therefore we must extend the Bx20 to Fieldston (lol.....)

 

Bx20's structure would make such an extension disruptive to it's shape.

lol.... He's on a crusade to fill whatever gap in service he can think of.....

you know what's really sad he idolizes SEPTA BUT SEPTA has WORSE service gaps all over their region and way more than MTA' nyct I should know I used SEPTA several times and got burned by these so called gaps in service.

Edited November 29, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[dkupf]

Therefore we must extend the Bx20 to Fieldston (lol.....)

 

You could use the Hudson Railink on weekdays; it has a stop at Fieldston Rd on Mosholu Ave.

Edited November 29, 2013 by dkupf

[dkupf]

you know what's really sad he idolizes SEPTA BUT SEPTA has WORSE service gaps all over their region and way more than MTA' nyct I should know I used SEPTA several times and got burned by these so called gaps in service.

I hate their schedulers.

 

My critique about their service planners is that they are extremely delusional to demand that new routes must have 100% cost recovery ratios and to claim that there is insufficient operational and/or financial resources to add new routes.

lol.... He's on a crusade to fill whatever gap in service he can think of.....

 

And why not?  Filling in service gaps, where feasible, will boost ridership and revenue.  And that's a good thing.