Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
BxM4Woodlawn

Which Routes Deserve Some Artics?

Recommended Posts

I strongly disagree with that one. The Bx5 needs artics. It gets extremely crowded leaving Southern Blvd.

I guess you're one of those who would say an entire subway train is crowded just because a few cars are. If you look at the entirety of the Bx5 (not just a specific area) it's not that heavily used. Running artics along the full length of that route is just wasting capacity on Bruckner Blvd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you're one of those who would say an entire subway train is crowded just because a few cars are. If you look at the entirety of the Bx5 (not just a specific area) it's not that heavily used. Running artics along the full length of that route is just wasting capacity on Bruckner Blvd.

I guess you're one of those who would say an entire subway train is crowded just because a few cars are. If you look at the entirety of the Bx5 (not just a specific area) it's not that heavily used. Running artics along the full length of that route is just wasting capacity on Bruckner Blvd.

Just because one area dosen't need it doesn't mean a route can't use artics.

The M100 only gets crowded on 125 Street, yet half of the route is artic most days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an operational perspective articulated buses are meant to reduce the expense of running a gauntlet of lower capacity buses. So that means that the routes they should run on are those that would have the most 40' service running on them in the event of no artics. Look at the routes in Queens and Brooklyn that have the most BPH running on them. Ridership on those routes is also ridiculously high to boot. That's where you place your artics because they are more expensive to run. If the Bx5 had to become solely a 40' route there's no way it would be more expensive to run than the vast majority of routes in our system. 

 

Also we need to get rid of this notion that crowded buses are a problem. They're necessary in a well functioning bus system and are downright unavoidable on our busiest routes due to unreliability of service. Artics save money... the MTA could care less whether you got a seat on the bus if you paid and stepped on board. There are a few routes running them that don't save that much money over a full 40' service. That's my point. Artics on the B46 or B6 for example would save a lot of money and would free up buses to run on the Bx5,4/4a and others. What I see is posters just listing routes that are crowded when the MTA wants buses to be crowded. It's a question of where they save the most $$ by running artics and that has not been answered although looking at the schedules online the answer is quite obvious (I just gave away two routes). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe adding service first would have helped the Q10 situation. There are other routes in our bus system with better service levels that still have crowding issues. The Q10 could very well have been in line for articulated buses when the next order of them was ready. My point is that they didn't need to run Q10 artics before they needed to get rid of the ones they were scheduled to retire. If the Q10 needed them so bad we could have 40 footers on the Q44 while JFK has the LFSA instead of D60HF. Someone didn't think this through. 

Yeah...that was then....maybe like 6 years ago....this is now.

 

What you don't seem to realize is that the amount of people that have moved to the Richmond Hill and Ozone Park areas have skyrocketed over the past few years along with more jobs at JFK Airport opening up. They've constantly added service over the past 4 years to all 3 branches of the Q10 and it still wasn't enough because more people kept moving in, thus the demand for service got much higher. And over time, more jobs have opened up at JFK, which meant more workers using the line.

 

And the artics were mostly pushed from a political standpoint. Politicians in Richmond Hill, Kew Gardens and South Ozone Park pressured the MTA time and time again to place articulated buses on the Q10 because crowding conditions in the low floor hybrids were unbearable. When the artics were placed, it solved a lot of the problems that the Q10 would suffer with 40ft low floor buses.

 

Take it from someone that uses the line 5 out of 7 days of the week....the Q10 always needed artics.

 

One can also make the argument that the M60 didn't need artics(in some ways, I think it needed it, but the Q44 needed it more), and the M60 ridership is almost as big as the Q10 in terms of ridership, but not by demand. But I digress....

Edited by Cait Sith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...that was then....maybe like 6 years ago....this is now.

 

What you don't seem to realize is that the amount of people that have moved to the Richmond Hill and Ozone Park areas have skyrocketed over the past few years along with more jobs at JFK Airport opening up. They've constantly added service over the past 4 years to all 3 branches of the Q10 and it still wasn't enough because more people kept moving in, thus the demand for service got much higher. And over time, more jobs have opened up at JFK, which meant more workers using the line.

 

And the artics were mostly pushed from a political standpoint. Politicians in Richmond Hill, Kew Gardens and South Ozone Park pressured the MTA time and time again to place articulated buses on the Q10 because crowding conditions in the low floor hybrids were unbearable. When the artics were placed, it solved a lot of the problems that the Q10 would suffer with 40ft low floor buses.

 

Take it from someone that uses the line 5 out of 7 days of the week....the Q10 always needed artics.

 

One can also make the argument that the M60 didn't need artics(in some ways, I think it needed it, but the Q44 needed it more), and the M60 ridership is almost as big as the Q10 in terms of ridership, but not by demand. But I digress....

lol@M60... No way does the M60 just kind of need artics. I see M60s a lot when I'm on the express bus and they always have folks on them... Maybe they don't need them as much overnight, but otherwise... Definitely needed. Saw one yesterday while on a Super Express BxM1... The bus wasn't packed but would've been had it been a 40 footer.  The Q44... That line should be all artics. I see 40 footers sometimes while waiting for the QM2 in Whitestone and they are packed.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B6, B35, Q58, Bx36, and B41. I hedge on the B82 because it is every 10 minutes off-peak during the midday and weekends. Articulated routes that could do with rigids would be the Bx5 and possibly the Bx22. If a route has one major chokepoint, then short turns should be considered. However, if the bus is full for a long portion even with turnover, then artics are warranted. I did not include the B46 because it is slated for SBS.

Edited by aemoreira81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B6, B35, Q58, Bx36, and B41. I hedge on the B82 because it is every 10 minutes off-peak during the midday and weekends. Articulated routes that could do with rigids would be the Bx5 and possibly the Bx22. If a route has one major chokepoint, then short turns should be considered. However, if the bus is full for a long portion even with turnover, then artics are warranted. I did not include the B46 because it is slated for SBS.

Don't get your hopes up on the B46 right away. The next artic order is stated for late 2015 (for MTA BUS). Unless some of these displaced D60s displace LFSAs instead of replacing the older D60s, the B46 is most likely starting off with XD40s. Edited by MysteriousBtrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Bx3 can use an artic or two during rush hours much like what they do today with the Bx36.

 

And also, the Bx12 doesn't need artics anymore. It needs a subway line now.

 

They've constantly added service over the past 4 years to all 3 branches of the Q10 and it still wasn't enough because more people kept moving in, thus the demand for service got much higher. And over time, more jobs have opened up at JFK, which meant more workers using the line.

Let's put it this way, sometimes there's actually more Q10 service to the airport than Airtrains out of Jamaica, and during the weekends at certain portions of the day more than Jamaica and HB combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you're one of those who would say an entire subway train is crowded just because a few cars are. If you look at the entirety of the Bx5 (not just a specific area) it's not that heavily used. Running artics along the full length of that route is just wasting capacity on Bruckner Blvd.

 

 

From an operational perspective articulated buses are meant to reduce the expense of running a gauntlet of lower capacity buses. So that means that the routes they should run on are those that would have the most 40' service running on them in the event of no artics. Look at the routes in Queens and Brooklyn that have the most BPH running on them. Ridership on those routes is also ridiculously high to boot. That's where you place your artics because they are more expensive to run. If the Bx5 had to become solely a 40' route there's no way it would be more expensive to run than the vast majority of routes in our system. 

 

Also we need to get rid of this notion that crowded buses are a problem. They're necessary in a well functioning bus system and are downright unavoidable on our busiest routes due to unreliability of service. Artics save money... the MTA could care less whether you got a seat on the bus if you paid and stepped on board. There are a few routes running them that don't save that much money over a full 40' service. That's my point. Artics on the B46 or B6 for example would save a lot of money and would free up buses to run on the Bx5,4/4a and others. What I see is posters just listing routes that are crowded when the MTA wants buses to be crowded. It's a question of where they save the most $$ by running artics and that has not been answered although looking at the schedules online the answer is quite obvious (I just gave away two routes). 

 

Like MysteriousBtrain said just because ridership east of White Plains Road is low doesn't mean the Bx5 doesn't need artics. The Bx5 is heavily used along Story Avenue, so that is where artics benefits Bx5 riders. If the Bx5 uses 40 footers than the headways would need to increase. The problem with that would be over serving Bruckner Blvd that doesn't need the extra service or forcing riders to wait for the next Pelham Bay bus longer. The point is the Bx5 needs artics, during rush hours (and off peak) there is a huge crowd of people waiting for the bus at Hunts Point. I would argue that the Bx4 doesn't need artics, unless there is a G.O. with the (2)(5) or (6), but the Bx5 definitely does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bx4 needs them for the crowds at Southern Blvd, otherwise yeah I'd say it should not really be using artics like that.

There's been an ongoing debate about artics on the Bx4 and it's obvious that they're needed at some point, so might as well keep them.  Better to have a bus with some space than a bus stuffed to the rafters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get your hopes up on the B46 right away. The next artic order is stated for late 2015 (for MTA BUS). Unless some of these displaced D60s displace LFSAs instead of replacing the older D60s, the B46 is most likely starting off with XD40s.

There is another order/contract pending after the MTA Bus order is fufilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see these new buses holding up as long.  Most of them look nice but they won't be able to take the pounding that the RTS buses have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see these new buses holding up as long.  Most of them look nice but they won't be able to take the pounding that the RTS buses have.

EXACTLY! they will never live as long as the RTS's and Orion V's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY! they will never live as long as the RTS's and Orion V's

The Orions themselves aren't living that long to begin with

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is, which routes that currently run artics on them, deserve to not have artics on them?

 

I quickly skimmed through the other 4 pages of this thread & someone said the Bx5.... I tend to agree... I would also say the Bx4/a...

Both of those routes carry in the low 10k range IIRC, but regardless, neither one of these 2 routes should really have them.... Now a route like the Bx6 carries over 20k; almost more than those 2 aforementioned routes combined & that's not an artic route.....

 

When artics where first introduced to our system, the MTA went crazy with throwing them on routes that didn't have a dire need for them.... I said that during the advent of them to our city & I'll continue to say it now.... Almost like they wanted to show them off for the sake of simply doing so.... Either that, or to mask the insufficient service that was being provided on some routes....

 

Another route I can think of (had they not later extended it) that didn't particularly need artics, was the Bx39.....

 

A route like the Bx36 that sees the high amt's of ridership that it does, I'm glad that's not an artic route... But I think that may have to do with the fact it ends in Washington Hgts along with a couple other routes on that block.... The amt. of 40' on the route is reminiscent of how the Tremont av routes used to be before the advent of artics in our system (although the 40/42 doesn't have the same problems the 36 does, but still) .... Now look at how the 40/42 is ran (unreliable as shit)....

 

As far as the Q10, I'm not arguing for or against it necessarily.... My thing is & has always been, they just look odd as hell on that route for some odd reason to me.....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooner than later, the D60HF's will be gone. I would go by ridership in each borough to determine artics...I'm surprised no one mentioned the Westchester routes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we also have to look at is that the MTA is getting a whole bunch of new 40 footers to last at least the next 10-15 years. If there was a pressing need for artics on so many routes, the MTA would want much less in the way of 40 footers than they're getting with the XD40/LFS shipment and instead order a bunch of artics. It looks like the next batch of artics will only be enough to replace all of the D60HF's and add some to a couple of new routes. And if you look carefully at the routes that have gained artics recently (M60, M34, B44, Q44) they have all been converted to (or are in the process of converting to) Select Bus Service. 

 

I posted in another thread that the Bx12 local should not have artics and I continue to stand by that. If we look just at the local version of the 12 there's no evidence to suggest it's carrying a lot more than routes like the Bx5 or 4/4a. I would agree with B35 that those routes should not have artics. As far as i'm concerned the only argument that exists for keeping artics on the 12 local is that it mirrors the much busier SBS. That alone is a ridiculous argument. So we can add another route to the non-deserving of artics list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the Q88 only for the school trippers and a few rush hour trippers.

 

 

Most of the Q88's weekday ridership is school-driven. If it were converted to articulated buses, then the same schedule could run with vans on school-closed days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we also have to look at is that the MTA is getting a whole bunch of new 40 footers to last at least the next 10-15 years. If there was a pressing need for artics on so many routes, the MTA would want much less in the way of 40 footers than they're getting with the XD40/LFS shipment and instead order a bunch of artics. It looks like the next batch of artics will only be enough to replace all of the D60HF's and add some to a couple of new routes.

 

And if you look carefully at the routes that have gained artics recently (M60, M34, B44, Q44) they have all been converted to (or are in the process of converting to) Select Bus Service. 

No argument from me.... In general, I have always been in favor of more 40 footers in our system over artics from day one.

 

Let me ask you something, since you are a frequent Bx12 rider....

It's something I never put any real thought into, but what percentage would you say of the Bx12's total ridership, are riders emanating from/heading to Manhattan (on the 12)? Would you say it's comparable to the amt. of ppl. that ride b/w PBP & Co-op, or significantly more, or less?

 

Most of the Q88's weekday ridership is school-driven. If it were converted to articulated buses, then the same schedule could run with vans on school-closed days.

First it's LTD's on the Q88 in that which routes deserve a LTD thread, now it's artics here in this thread.... Lol....

 

Anyway, you're spot on here... I'd say if some Q88 trips were to have artics ran on them during school let in/out hours & the rush, then current headways during those times would soar.... Artics on that route would be far worse than giving that route LTD service.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument from me.... In general, I have always been in favor of more 40 footers in our system over artics from day one.

 

Let me ask you something, since you are a frequent Bx12 rider....

It's something I never put any real thought into, but what percentage would you say of the Bx12's total ridership, are riders emanating from/heading to Manhattan (on the 12)? Would you say it's comparable to the amt. of ppl. that ride b/w PBP & Co-op, or significantly more, or less?

 

I'm actually not the best person to answer that given my usage doesn't take me towards Inwood (I almost never go west of the (D) going Westbound) and there's way too much rider turnover going on to pinpoint the patterns of a riderbase i'm not visually observing. I would guess and say that more riders are going to/from Inwood than Co-op but I can't really give a percentage of total usage. I'll actually get back to you on that if I get a chance because now that I think about i'm interested in figuring that out as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q27 could use some artics due to the QCC and Cardozo crowd slamming the route, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't fit on Holly.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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