Jump to content

Which Routes Deserve Some Artics?


BxM4Woodlawn

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Speaking of the QM6, what's with that 17:00 and 17:30 trip?  LIJ workers?

No. There was originally no service from about 4PM to 7 PM to Manhattan on any of the three lines. That 5:00 PM used to be a 3rd Avenue bus after service was added. QM5 has that same headway.  

Q113/114 ok, but why the Q43?

 

The Q43 is pretty busy itself on Hillside Avenue, even as a limited-stop service (when it runs). That's the only Hillside Avenue bus line where artics should be placed on. The rest should be able to handle Hillside Avenue local crowds. The only problem could possibly be the turnaround at the City Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the fact that artics save money. I just don't see where the MTA has been smart in the routes they've chosen to run them on. Are they needed on Bx5? Nope. That route has mediocre ridership and the majority of trips east of WPR/Story have plenty of seats available. That's just one example. Gun Hill has too many of them to throw around while other depots with highly utilized routes have to throw the kitchen sink at them in terms of service. We have the resources to serve riders well without increasing costs. Said resources are misallocated. I would like the posters who are suggesting routes to also suggest routes that artics should be moved from to make things happen. Routes like the Bx5 I mentioned.

When Walnut Depot closed in 1998, several of it's big routes ( :bus_bullet_bx4:  &  :bus_bullet_bx5:  to GH,  :bus_bullet_bx36:  to KB,  :bus_bullet_bx6:  &  :bus_bullet_bx15:  to AMS and  :bus_bullet_bx19:  to OF[MCH]), Gun Hill & Kingsbridge, who took 2/3s of Walnut's buses, made two of old Walnut's routes all artic after they aquired the routes. Bx36 did see an occasional artic time after time. I remember taking 5271 on the 36 going to GW Bridge, getting off at 181st & Amsterdam. The artics on the 36 would operate during peak hours. 

 

but.......

 

at the same time, many Orion Vs were being sent to Amsterdam & Clara Hale in exchange for RTSes that served there. 

 

The Bx15 was to be an artic a few months after the Bx19 was turned into an artic a few months after West Farms opened in 2003, but was delayed until the Bx41 was made SBS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. There was originally no service from about 4PM to 7 PM to Manhattan on any of the three lines. That 5:00 PM used to be a 3rd Avenue bus after service was added. QM5 has that same headway.  

 

 

The Q43 is pretty busy itself on Hillside Avenue, even as a limited-stop service (when it runs). That's the only Hillside Avenue bus line where artics should be placed on. The rest should be able to handle Hillside Avenue local crowds. The only problem could possibly be the turnaround at the City Line.

I agree with you on this, unless QV sends artics to turn on the next intersection 4 blocks from the city/Nassau County line, artics on the  (Q)  <4>  (3) should be dandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. There was originally no service from about 4PM to 7 PM to Manhattan on any of the three lines. That 5:00 PM used to be a 3rd Avenue bus after service was added. QM5 has that same headway.  

 

 

The Q43 is pretty busy itself on Hillside Avenue, even as a limited-stop service (when it runs). That's the only Hillside Avenue bus line where artics should be placed on. The rest should be able to handle Hillside Avenue local crowds. The only problem could possibly be the turnaround at the City Line.

The BX9 terminal on the Westchester border the bus makes a U turn in the middle of the street, artics could handle the Q43 turnaround.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the artic discussion, I loved how the  :nyct: closed 100th St depot to rebuild it into an artic conversion. I've seen artics on the occasionally on the M102 when it was based out of Westside, now MJQ. Westside & Hudson Pier of old wanted to compete on who would take the routes after M79 & M86 became artics in 1998-99 respectfully. The M23 didn't become an artic until the summer IIRC. but when 100th opened up again, it took back the 86 & the 102, on top of that, made 101 & 103 artics after 6 years of diwindling service while they both was in Manhattanville. The M15 was the lone 126th St artic, and they had massive plans of more artics being put on that route. Quill defeated Hudson Pier when they made the M14 artic in 2003. and finally capping the victory in 2011 with the M34 & M34A (ex-M16) SBS.

 

If anything, I'll start in Manhattan: M96 in my mind should be artic during peak hours

 

In the Bronx: The Bx26, and the Bx28/Bx38 (even though they both see 1 or 2 artics during peak hours)

 

Queens: Q6/Q6LTD, Q12, Q24 (after ENY gets retooled), Q43, Q54, Q55 (Fresh Pond has 6 straight routes), Q60 (I would doubt this route since it runs parallel to the  (E)  (F)  (M)  (R)  (7) subway lines), Q85 (after Jamaica is rebuilt)

 

Brooklyn: B6, B15, B26, B41, B49LTD, B52, B54, B63 (XN60s a probable???)

 

Staten Island: Im gonna keep it on the real: X1 if the  :nyct: wants to test  a MCI artic D6000 or a Prevost X3-60, just saying, then I'll foam on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BX9 terminal on the Westchester border the bus makes a U turn in the middle of the street, artics could handle the Q43 turnaround.

They're not really comparable, as Hillside is "busier" than Broadway at the city line. In addition, South Broadway has much more space for a u-turn. Now, there's space there for the bus to dive down onto E Willston, then on 268 Street, and Hillside, but with the traffic lights and such, it might be a problem in the case of cars being held back by the bus blocking the street (Hillside Avenue that is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not really comparable, as Hillside is "busier" than Broadway at the city line. In addition, South Broadway has much more space for a u-turn. Now, there's space there for the bus to dive down onto E Willston, then on 268 Street, and Hillside, but with the traffic lights and such, it might be a problem in the case of cars being held back by the bus blocking the street (Hillside Avenue that is).

Artics can make the same turns a 40 Footer can, off of the top of my head the only terminal Artics would have trouble with is 165th Bus terminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artics can make the same turns a 40 Footer can, off of the top of my head the only terminal Artics would have trouble with is 165th Bus terminal.

 

Yup, which is part of the reason why the Q6 has yet to debut with artics. They've already expanded most, if not all of the Q6 stops for them to fit artics, but 165 is part of the problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: B6 artics.

 

When Brooklyn College is in spring or fall session only. The route gets too much of its use from college kids, and otherwise you'd be dealing with empty artics riding around. It's odd, really. The route genuinely, really, truly NEEDS artics when BC students use it to get to/from class, but 40-footers handle the line just fine when BC folks aren't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, which is part of the reason why the Q6 has yet to debut with artics. They've already expanded most, if not all of the Q6 stops for them to fit artics, but 165 is part of the problems.

The Q6 in my opinion doesn't need artics. When I've taken it most of the time the problem seems to be that buses bunch and are late. Last Saturday in a span of an hour I've only seen only three Q6 heading down to JFK. Two buses were back to back. This was mid day too and me and a friend out walked to Q6 from Linden Blvd to Liberty Ave. Now that is a good 20 minute walk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- The point about artics on the Q43.... It's not an issue of if the artic can make the turn over there by 268th, but how much traffic would it hinder by making the turn....

 

- About artics on the Q43 itself... Never mind the issue of layover space along (whatever that side street is, where the 30/31/43 all layover at)..... Have that happen & service on the Q1 would be negatively affected... Would it be worth it? I'm actually on the fence with it myself.....

 

- The point about extending the Q27 & the MTA ridding itself of the Q77.... The question was asked how could such an extension work, or something to that effect..... I honestly think that it would have been a simple extension of every single trip that currently terminates at Cambria Hgts - 120th.... Meaning, no additional short turns (service patterns) given to the route, no headway alteration (decrease or increase), or anything of the sort.... Probably would give b/o's a hot 2 or 3 minutes more to get from Francis lewis to merrick & that would be the end of it....

 

If usage was what was being inquired with that question, I think it would still get usage @ Merrick.... Riders from down there probably wouldn't ride past Hillside though...

 

As far as ridding itself of the Q77.... I think the MTA wanted to really rid itself of all the "70's" routes (this was before the Q70 was created obviously).... IIRC, on top of washing its hands with the 74, 75, and 79, they had cut weekend service on both the 76 & the 77....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Q43 is pretty busy itself on Hillside Avenue, even as a limited-stop service (when it runs). That's the only Hillside Avenue bus line where artics should be placed on. The rest should be able to handle Hillside Avenue local crowds. The only problem could possibly be the turnaround at the City Line.

 

Would the Q43 need artics if another route covered part of it west of 165 instead of going to the terminal?

 

 

 

If anything, I'll start in Manhattan: M96 in my mind should be artic during peak hours

 

In the Bronx: The Bx26, and the Bx28/Bx38 (even though they both see 1 or 2 artics during peak hours)

 

Queens: Q6/Q6LTD, Q12, Q24 (after ENY gets retooled), Q43, Q54, Q55 (Fresh Pond has 6 straight routes), Q60 (I would doubt this route since it runs parallel to the  (E)  (F)  (M)  (R)  (7) subway lines), Q85 (after Jamaica is rebuilt)

 

 

the M96 and Bx28/38 for sure and I'd rather see the Q12 LTD than with artics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the Q43 need artics if another route covered part of it west of 165 instead of going to the terminal?

That's what the Q1 should be doing....

If the Q1 took some of the Sutphin riders from off the Q43's hands, the Q43 wouldn't have as much service as it does now.....

 

So to answer/opine on your question, absolutely not....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- The point about artics on the Q43.... It's not an issue of if the artic can make the turn over there by 268th, but how much traffic would it hinder by making the turn....

 

- About artics on the Q43 itself... Never mind the issue of layover space along (whatever that side street is, where the 30/31/43 all layover at)..... Have that happen & service on the Q1 would be negatively affected... Would it be worth it? I'm actually on the fence with it myself.....

 

- The point about extending the Q27 & the MTA ridding itself of the Q77.... The question was asked how could such an extension work, or something to that effect..... I honestly think that it would have been a simple extension of every single trip that currently terminates at Cambria Hgts - 120th.... Meaning, no additional short turns (service patterns) given to the route, no headway alteration (decrease or increase), or anything of the sort.... Probably would give b/o's a hot 2 or 3 minutes more to get from Francis lewis to merrick & that would be the end of it....

 

If usage was what was being inquired with that question, I think it would still get usage @ Merrick.... Riders from down there probably wouldn't ride past Hillside though...

 

As far as ridding itself of the Q77.... I think the MTA wanted to really rid itself of all the "70's" routes (this was before the Q70 was created obviously).... IIRC, on top of washing its hands with the 74, 75, and 79, they had cut weekend service on both the 76 & the 77....

Bolded part 1: that side street is 146 where the 30/31/43 layover after the last discharge stop at Sutphin and Jamaica

 

Bolded part 2: the (MTA) kept the Q72, was that the only exception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolded part 1: that side street is 146 where the 30/31/43 layover after the last discharge stop at Sutphin and Jamaica

 

Bolded part 2: the (MTA) kept the Q72, was that the only exception?

- (I was) Too lazy to look it up.... thanks.

 

- I should have been specific in mentioning *of the NYCT routes*, But technically, you're right...

(side note: ....and to think the 72 only went inside LGA part time....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

- The point about extending the Q27 & the MTA ridding itself of the Q77.... The question was asked how could such an extension work, or something to that effect..... I honestly think that it would have been a simple extension of every single trip that currently terminates at Cambria Hgts - 120th.... Meaning, no additional short turns (service patterns) given to the route, no headway alteration (decrease or increase), or anything of the sort.... Probably would give b/o's a hot 2 or 3 minutes more to get from Francis lewis to merrick & that would be the end of it....

 

If usage was what was being inquired with that question, I think it would still get usage @ Merrick.... Riders from down there probably wouldn't ride past Hillside though...

 

As far as ridding itself of the Q77.... I think the MTA wanted to really rid itself of all the "70's" routes (this was before the Q70 was created obviously).... IIRC, on top of washing its hands with the 74, 75, and 79, they had cut weekend service on both the 76 & the 77....

 

The problem is that the MTA tried to ignore that the Q7Xs routes are crucial for connectivity because the ridership was low....

 

the 74 could have gone, the 75 I'm still iffy about (even though most people are using the QM5/8, you can't get to directly to an express train from 73 av) and the q79 riders actually have a better deal now but I don't think the 36/79 combo has been executed properly (ex. not connecting to most PW trains).

 

combining the Q27/77 makes me cringe because a) service gap on F Lewis Bl b) like you said come Hillside it's gonna dump and I don't see the Q43 LTD coping well with that.

 

Going back to artics, the only QV route that I would really want artics on is the Q46

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q43 artics would be good if it ended that stupid practice of having the Q43 show up in twos at 179th, or if it stopped that nonsense where one bus is at the stop at 179th slowly boarding passengers and there's another one at the corner just before it. If we could get prepayment at major stops to speed up service with all-door boarding, the 179th st stop would be a good place to start.

 

268th St would need a slightly longer light for the cross-street if it got artics, but the traffic there isn't so bad since it comes in waves. That entire intersection needs a rework though, because the light timings there are all sorts of screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he's talking about a wieght restriction of sorts, which would indeed prohibit artics from running on the line, or part of the line, if that is the case.

That was my assumption also, but I just left it alone....

 

 

 

The problem is that the MTA tried to ignore that the Q7Xs routes are crucial for connectivity because the ridership was low....

 

the 74 could have gone, the 75 I'm still iffy about (even though most people are using the QM5/8, you can't get to directly to an express train from 73 av) and the q79 riders actually have a better deal now but I don't think the 36/79 combo has been executed properly (ex. not connecting to most PW trains).

 

combining the Q27/77 makes me cringe because a) service gap on F Lewis Bl b) like you said come Hillside it's gonna dump and I don't see the Q43 LTD coping well with that.

 

Going back to artics, the only QV route that I would really want artics on is the Q46

The 74 to me should've stayed.... It, like the B71 was increasing in ridership IINM when it got cut.....

The 75 I don't have any qualms about it getting discontinued

The 76 on saturdays should have never gotten tinkered with.... sundays, I kinda-sorta agreed with killing service

The 77's span on weekends is what I think should have been shortened, not all service having gotten cut....

The 79 to me should've stayed.... The Q36 isn't cutting it up in NE Queens; it gets too bogged down with all the riders riding along the (what is now) the short turn routing, for service to be any sort of reliable for those folks (NE Queens).....

 

I would also give the Q46 artics over the Q43.... If the Q1 were to be cut, I'd probably split resources (artics) between the two routes....

 

Q43 artics would be good if it ended that stupid practice of having the Q43 show up in twos at 179th, or if it stopped that nonsense where one bus is at the stop at 179th slowly boarding passengers and there's another one at the corner just before it. If we could get prepayment at major stops to speed up service with all-door boarding, the 179th st stop would be a good place to start.

 

268th St would need a slightly longer light for the cross-street if it got artics, but the traffic there isn't so bad since it comes in waves. That entire intersection needs a rework though, because the light timings there are all sorts of screwed up.

The waves that drive like it's the Indianapolis 500 (especially NICE drivers).... Either direction.

 

Anyway, your remedy is a good one (prolonging that light).... Question is, would the DOT oblige just for a particular type of bus.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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