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  
Union Tpke

SI Express Bus Plan Out!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

If the (MTA) was really smart. They could keep the X prefixes and since there's a open block with

X50-X59: North Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x43-x49)

X70-X79: Mid-Island Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x82-x89)

X90-X99: South Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x100-x110)

I find this format a bit easier than what is being proposed.

 

And would you'd just use X1-X42 to fit all the other boro's in?  X1-X12 Bronx x13-x18 Brooklyn? And so forth?

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

If the (MTA) was really smart. They could keep the X prefixes and since there's a open block with

X50-X59: North Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x43-x49)

X70-X79: Mid-Island Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x82-x89)

X90-X99: South Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x100-x110)

I find this format a bit easier than what is being proposed.

 

If you really think about it, maybe the (MTA) is attempting to avoid the express routes from being numbered into the hundreds. By using the BM/QM/BxM/SIM prefix, each boro gets to utilize numbers 1-99 if necessary. Using the 'X' prefix, transit is guaranteed numbers 1-99 for the entire city. I personally hate the BM/QM/BxM/SIM prefixes, but i also would hate to see an x101. That's absolutely ridiculous. At the end of the day, you could tell transit wasn't going to renumber the PBL express routes... If they wanted to, they would've done it already. It's been almost 15 years since the death of the PBL companies. If transit goes thru with this, then they really want nothing more to do with the 'X' prefix. I've actually heard that some customers are truly flabbergasted with the 'X'... And when told it means express, the next response is "why don't they use an 'E' for express" 😑😒

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

If the (MTA) was really smart. They could keep the X prefixes and since there's a open block with

X50-X59: North Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x43-x49)

X70-X79: Mid-Island Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x82-x89)

X90-X99: South Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x100-x110)

I find this format a bit easier than what is being proposed.

 

I mean, if you look at it, there already exists a numbering scheme based on areas served:

The single digit and tens numbers represent bus routes that stop and serve the Mid-Island, with the SiM1 being the full-time route

The SiM20s are the South Shore routes, with the SiM2 being the full-time route

The SiM30s are the North Shore routes, with the SiM3 being the full-time route

 

The only bus that does not follow this scheme would be the SiM4, since it serve part of the south shore, the north shore, and the West Shore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Combined (Midtown & Downtown)

Thanks. Surprised the MTA didn't designate it 'SIM1DM'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dan1 said:

Somebody, somewhere in the MTA bureaucracy came up with the odd idea of using the 'SIM' prefix. You're absolutely right it makes much more sense to retain the 'X#' system, using new 'X' numbers to reinforce the idea that a new network is in place. For example the new Hylan 'SIM' routes could be re-designated 'X#' as follows:

SIM1    =    X70
SIM1C    =    X71 or X70C
SIM5    =    X75
SIM6    =    X76
SIM7    =    X77
SIM10    =    X85

Anyone know what the 'c' in 'SIM1c' signifies?

 

"C" means off peak service extensions or other extensions outside of regular routings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in the MTA loves "SIM" games, so they may have come up with this kinda idea.

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dan1 said:

Somebody, somewhere in the MTA bureaucracy came up with the odd idea of using the 'SIM' prefix. You're absolutely right it makes much more sense to retain the 'X#' system, using new 'X' numbers to reinforce the idea that a new network is in place. For example the new Hylan 'SIM' routes could be re-designated 'X#' as follows:

SIM1    =    X70
SIM1C    =    X71 or X70C
SIM5    =    X75
SIM6    =    X76
SIM7    =    X77
SIM10    =    X85

Anyone know what the 'c' in 'SIM1c' signifies?

 

I think the dual borough designation is better, and simpler. It tells you right away which borough it's heading to, and so is easier to remember. It's consistent with the rest of the borough numbering scheme. (Though don't know why they're adding the "I" to it. Just to be "cute", perhaps?).

I had heard they were supposed to do this and eliminate all the X's after the merger anyway. (Don;t even know why it took this long).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

If you really think about it, maybe the (MTA) is attempting to avoid the express routes from being numbered into the hundreds. By using the BM/QM/BxM/SIM prefix, each boro gets to utilize numbers 1-99 if necessary. Using the 'X' prefix, transit is guaranteed numbers 1-99 for the entire city. I personally hate the BM/QM/BxM/SIM prefixes, but i also would hate to see an x101. That's absolutely ridiculous. At the end of the day, you could tell transit wasn't going to renumber the PBL express routes... If they wanted to, they would've done it already. It's been almost 15 years since the death of the PBL companies. If transit goes thru with this, then they really want nothing more to do with the 'X' prefix. I've actually heard that some customers are truly flabbergasted with the 'X'... And when told it means express, the next response is "why don't they use an 'E' for express" 😑😒

But why use PBL express sceme with NYCT?? Someone eluded that this could possibly be apart of the intergration of NYCT and (MTA) bus.  

I get that TA doesn't want to use the x100+. However, there are considerable blocks with the x50-59, x70-x79 and x90-99 for all of Staten Island.

Also, we need to get rid of the A, B and C combinations. These combinations to me will confuse riders.  SIM1 and 1C will definitely confuse the hell out of me 😩😡. SIM1C would be an SIM36. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

But why use PBL express sceme with NYCT?? Someone eluded that this could possibly be apart of the intergration of NYCT and (MTA) bus.  

I get that TA doesn't want to use the x100+. However, there are considerable blocks with the x50-59, x70-x79 and x90-99 for all of Staten Island.

Also, we need to get rid of the A, B and C combinations. These combinations to me will confuse riders.  SIM1 and 1C will definitely confuse the hell out of me 😩😡. SIM1C would be an SIM36. 

It would probably only use C in the timetable, like the X27 and X28 currently 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

But why use PBL express sceme with NYCT?? Someone eluded that this could possibly be apart of the intergration of NYCT and (MTA) bus.  

I get that TA doesn't want to use the x100+. However, there are considerable blocks with the x50-59, x70-x79 and x90-99 for all of Staten Island.

Also, we need to get rid of the A, B and C combinations. These combinations to me will confuse riders.  SIM1 and 1C will definitely confuse the hell out of me 😩😡. SIM1C would be an SIM36. 

It's been used before, with the X10 and X17. They might still be internally used, but they're not displayed on signs anymore, since one can guess that the 'C' bus makes all stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

But why use PBL express sceme with NYCT?? Someone eluded that this could possibly be apart of the intergration of NYCT and (MTA) bus.  

I get that TA doesn't want to use the x100+. However, there are considerable blocks with the x50-59, x70-x79 and x90-99 for all of Staten Island.

Also, we need to get rid of the A, B and C combinations. These combinations to me will confuse riders.  SIM1 and 1C will definitely confuse the hell out of me 😩😡. SIM1C would be an SIM36. 

if transit uses all those blocks of currently unused 'x' designations, and the plan is to renumber the PBL BM/QM/BxM lines, how's that going to work without tripping over the x100+ threshold? Another reason why transit may not want to use triple digit express line designations is because the current database might be/is overcrowded. Furthermore, the way the NYCTA system works for destination signs is pretty much filled up... 1 & 2's are for Manhattan, 3's for the Bronx, 4's for Brooklyn, 5's for queens, 6's for Staten Island, 7's for express lines, 8 is used for any lines that have multiple (over 10) destination sign codes for a line, and 9's are for Subway shuttles & LIRR shuttles... Where are the triple digit express numbers supposed to fit in the current code system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 11:03 AM, Future ENY OP said:

If the (MTA) was really smart. They could keep the X prefixes and since there's a open block with

X50-X59: North Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x43-x49)

X70-X79: Mid-Island Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x82-x89)

X90-X99: South Shore Exp (Super Express/Off Peak/Weekend/Supplement routes: x100-x110)

I find this format a bit easier than what is being proposed.

 

I like this. Similar to their local/LTD counterparts. I thought the plan was to get rid of the double borough designation. I think the (MTA) can without going over 100.  But then again. there's the Midtown, downtown, via 3/Madison/6 Avs and such

11 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

if transit uses all those blocks of currently unused 'x' designations, and the plan is to renumber the PBL BM/QM/BxM lines, how's that going to work without tripping over the x100+ threshold? Another reason why transit may not want to use triple digit express line designations is because the current database might be/is overcrowded. Furthermore, the way the NYCTA system works for destination signs is pretty much filled up... 1 & 2's are for Manhattan, 3's for the Bronx, 4's for Brooklyn, 5's for queens, 6's for Staten Island, 7's for express lines, 8 is used for any lines that have multiple (over 10) destination sign codes for a line, and 9's are for Subway shuttles & LIRR shuttles... Where are the triple digit express numbers supposed to fit in the current code system?

I think the local, LTD and SBS routes could be integrated relatively easy. For the Bx23, just switch to 323x. For the B100, change to 500x (will not overlap with the Queens routes in my plan), I had the B103 use 8, the Queens ex-PBL's use 50 or 5 in front of their codes. For the Q100-104 and 110-114 they used 6. (Will not overlap with Staten Island codes). The express buses would be a big problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 5:29 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

This reminds me: One of the issues they kept bringing up at the community board meetings/open houses is that they wanted to do away with the whole "Midtown via Downtown" routings, which (their words) was especially an issue on the North Shore. To be fair, they do have a valid point that it does create more unreliable service for those Downtown, and slower service for those in Midtown.

That being said, unlike the last rendition (which eliminated West Street service), I don't see anything in the peak plan that I majorly disagree with (again, as VG8 said, the spans and the frequencies will be the major issues). Off-peak is a different story. 

Though taking another look, I notice that all the Hylan routes start at the ETC, and nothing starts at New Dorp (the old plan at least had the X2 starting at Hylan & Richmond). With the crowds on the Hylan routes, that'll be a problem....

How can I say this... The concept of [nothing starting at New Dorp] is apparently replaced by [SIM_x trips that run straight from the South Beach P&R].... Right off the bat, that's a huge problem I have with the plan.... You already have enough people driving to the Hylan routes for (better) service & instead of not having buses not terminating at some midpoint along Hylan (like, a New Dorp), they're promoting more driving (distances) to express buses.... At that point, I'm like what's the point of even revamping the entire network....

The network on the 'Island should be more expansive, not less...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I like this. Similar to their local/LTD counterparts. I thought the plan was to get rid of the double borough designation. I think the (MTA) can without going over 100.  But then again. there's the Midtown, downtown, via 3/Madison/6 Avs and such

To me this format would work without going to x100. By giving Staten Island a full block of the x43-x99 you can switch the express bus routes between Ulmer Park and Queens Village. (Only focusing on NYCT for now).  Since Staten Island has a large express bus network they will need between 40-45 routes tops for service. 

I'm doing a scratchpad of all express lines that can fit under the X prefix and from the looks of it there's no reach to hit x100 at all. You get rid of the x80 and x81 for special events and classify those as M36 and M37 respectively for Manhattan Division. Why must we have an x80 and x81 for special events. 

Swap around express buses from the other boroughs since they have a smaller network. Only Queens and Staten Island have the biggest networks. Brooklyn is the smallest, Bronx is pretty decent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

How can I say this... The concept of [nothing starting at New Dorp] is apparently replaced by [SIM_x trips that run straight from the South Beach P&R].... Right off the bat, that's a huge problem I have with the plan.... You already have enough people driving to the Hylan routes for (better) service & instead of not having buses not terminating at some midpoint along Hylan (like, a New Dorp), they're promoting more driving (distances) to express buses.... At that point, I'm like what's the point of even revamping the entire network....

The network on the 'Island should be more expansive, not less...

Last I checked New Dorp is an important area out on the island. Those folks would scream hell that they would have to drive to Hylan or Richmond Avenue for easy access to Manhattan. I don't know too much about the Park and Rides in Staten Island. However, this was really a rush job. Those 3 years of research didn't really amount to anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

Last I checked New Dorp is an important area out on the island. Those folks would scream hell that they would have to drive to Hylan or Richmond Avenue for easy access to Manhattan. I don't know too much about the Park and Rides in Staten Island. However, this was really a rush job. Those 3 years of research didn't really amount to anything. 

 

I'm kinda surprised that nobody has entertained the possibility of the TA having variants on the routes, whereby some trips would start at New Dorp instead of going back to ETC. The TA could have omitted this information - though I don't know why.  As of now the New Dorp deadhead trips from Manhattan for those rolling on the x2/x9 etc., run down Fr. Cap. off the VNB from their first AM trip such as the x1/x3/x4/x8 (I'd have to look at the paddles for specifics) but continuing this would make sense if they are truly interested in maintaining reliability for AM rush hour express. 

 

Currently, variants exist on the x17J which has a few trips that originate at ETC, a few trips on the x15 which originates from a few miles in Richmondtown, the x12 which stops serving it's western-most starting point and a trip on the x22 which starts in the middle of it's SI pickup route. 

As for the sign codes, I think it is either a matter of someone with a USB stick simply flashing the device or them doing it wirelessly. At Yukon for example, if done manually, the buses parked on Forest Hill Road can be done over the weekend and some of the buses pulling in Friday can have them done while getting fueled or having someone walk around the yard doing it with a weekend pool of buses getting done last. I don't think it will be a time consuming endeavor and I think that they'll remain the same x1 numbering, i.e 7010, 7011, 7012 scheme for the SIM1 (for example).

Edited by 161 New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I like this. Similar to their local/LTD counterparts. I thought the plan was to get rid of the double borough designation. I think the (MTA) can without going over 100.  But then again. there's the Midtown, downtown, via 3/Madison/6 Avs and such

I think the local, LTD and SBS routes could be integrated relatively easy. For the Bx23, just switch to 323x. For the B100, change to 500x (will not overlap with the Queens routes in my plan), I had the B103 use 8, the Queens ex-PBL's use 50 or 5 in front of their codes. For the Q100-104 and 110-114 they used 6. (Will not overlap with Staten Island codes). The express buses would be a big problem. 

Before renumbering begins, i personally believe several executive decisions need to be made pertaining to certain express branch lines and if their existence. For example, the QM-whatevers that have 3rd Avenue & 6th Avenue branches... If those 3rd Avenue trips, regardless of how frequent or infrequent, are carrying air need to be cut and those runs need to be added to branch that is customer heavy. My personal opinion of the Brooklyn BM's is that separate numbers for Midtown-direct & downtown loop need to be utilized. Furthermore, if transit is about efficiency, to follow the staten island "study", have the x27/28/37/38 and all BM's either be midtown direct or downtown loops... Enough of the Midtown via downtown crap unless in the x27/28/37/38's case, the majority of the ridership comes from the area between church street and 23 street... Which in that case create a 23 street sign, akin to the x1's that don't go to midtown during rush hours. I believe the BxM's are damn near "perfect"... Maybe the Riverdale lines need tweaking, but as far as their path to lower Midtown i see no major flaws. The biggest issues are with Staten, Queens & to an extremely lesser extent, Brooklyn. 

Edited by EastFlatbushLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I like this. Similar to their local/LTD counterparts. I thought the plan was to get rid of the double borough designation. I think the (MTA) can without going over 100.  But then again. there's the Midtown, downtown, via 3/Madison/6 Avs and such

I think the local, LTD and SBS routes could be integrated relatively easy. For the Bx23, just switch to 323x. For the B100, change to 500x (will not overlap with the Queens routes in my plan), I had the B103 use 8, the Queens ex-PBL's use 50 or 5 in front of their codes. For the Q100-104 and 110-114 they used 6. (Will not overlap with Staten Island codes). The express buses would be a big problem. 

I always thought the plan was for the B100/103, Q100-104 and Q110-114 to be renumbered into unused numbers within the boro... I never figured on transit being fully committed to the outer boro triple digit bus line numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

How can I say this... The concept of [nothing starting at New Dorp] is apparently replaced by [SIM_x trips that run straight from the South Beach P&R].... Right off the bat, that's a huge problem I have with the plan.... You already have enough people driving to the Hylan routes for (better) service & instead of not having buses not terminating at some midpoint along Hylan (like, a New Dorp), they're promoting more driving (distances) to express buses.... At that point, I'm like what's the point of even revamping the entire network....

The network on the 'Island should be more expansive, not less...

5

So I went to the meeting and they said that they haven't written the schedules yet, but there will likely be some (possibly many) short-turns starting at New Dorp, since it's been mentioned many times that reliability will be an issue if all trips start from the ETC, but for the sake of simplicity, they didn't mention it.

As for the park-and-ride service, the borough president was there, and he was really hyping up the idea of park-and-rides, so I think part of it may have been political. They said the services will be at an experimental level of service (so it definitely won't be a 50/50 split between the park-and-ride service and the regular service).

8 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Last I checked New Dorp is an important area out on the island. Those folks would scream hell that they would have to drive to Hylan or Richmond Avenue for easy access to Manhattan. I don't know too much about the Park and Rides in Staten Island. However, this was really a rush job. Those 3 years of research didn't really amount to anything. 

 

It's not that they're bypassing New Dorp, it's that they're not short-turning buses at New Dorp (or at least, assigning specific routes to short-turn at New Dorp)

7 hours ago, 161 New York said:

I'm kinda surprised that nobody has entertained the possibility of the TA having variants on the routes, whereby some trips would start at New Dorp instead of going back to ETC. The TA could have omitted this information - though I don't know why.  As of now the New Dorp deadhead trips from Manhattan for those rolling on the x2/x9 etc., run down Fr. Cap. off the VNB from their first AM trip such as the x1/x3/x4/x8 (I'd have to look at the paddles for specifics) but continuing this would make sense if they are truly interested in maintaining reliability for AM rush hour express. 

Currently, variants exist on the x17J which has a few trips that originate at ETC, a few trips on the x15 which originates from a few miles in Richmondtown, the x12 which stops serving it's western-most starting point and a trip on the x22 which starts in the middle of it's SI pickup route. 

3

Those X12 trips are due to the fact that those are the second trips for those runs (so those buses do an X12/42 from Arlington, then deadhead down the SIE and do an X12 trip from Forest & South). That's just due to financial/scheduling issues, not reliability issues.

6 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

Before renumbering begins, i personally believe several executive decisions need to be made pertaining to certain express branch lines and if their existence. For example, the QM-whatevers that have 3rd Avenue & 6th Avenue branches... If those 3rd Avenue trips, regardless of how frequent or infrequent, are carrying air need to be cut and those runs need to be added to branch that is customer heavy. My personal opinion of the Brooklyn BM's is that separate numbers for Midtown-direct & downtown loop need to be utilized. Furthermore, if transit is about efficiency, to follow the staten island "study", have the x27/28/37/38 and all BM's either be midtown direct or downtown loops... Enough of the Midtown via downtown crap unless in the x27/28/37/38's case, the majority of the ridership comes from the area between church street and 23 street... Which in that case create a 23 street sign, akin to the x1's that don't go to midtown during rush hours. I believe the BxM's are damn near "perfect"... Maybe the Riverdale lines need tweaking, but as far as their path to lower Midtown i see no major flaws. The biggest issues are with Staten, Queens & to an extremely lesser extent, Brooklyn. 

That's already the case during rush hour: The X27/28 run to 23rd Street (some even short-turn at Worth Street), while the X37/38 run to Midtown.

Also, a couple of things:

The borough president, and Andy Byford were there (I didn't recognize the borough president at first, or else I would've told him the SIM5/6 super-expresses were stupid ideas). Also, apparently, some Midtown buses will terminate at 57th & 3rd (even though it's not shown on the map), and some Downtown buses will terminate at the World Financial Center instead of Worth Street (and use the present-day X3/4 routing)

Edited by checkmatechamp13
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

So I went to the meeting and they said that they haven't written the schedules yet, but there will likely be some (possibly many) short-turns starting at New Dorp, since it's been mentioned many times that reliability will be an issue if all trips start from the ETC, but for the sake of simplicity, they didn't mention it.

As for the park-and-ride service, the borough president was there, and he was really hyping up the idea of park-and-rides, so I think part of it may have been political. They said the services will be at an experimental level of service (so it definitely won't be a 50/50 split between the park-and-ride service and the regular service).

It's not that they're bypassing New Dorp, it's that they're not short-turning buses at New Dorp (or at least, assigning specific routes to short-turn at New Dorp)

Those X12 trips are due to the fact that those are the second trips for those runs (so those buses do an X12/42 from Arlington, then deadhead down the SIE and do an X12 trip from Forest & South). That's just due to financial/scheduling issues, not reliability issues.

That's already the case during rush hour: The X27/28 run to 23rd Street (some even short-turn at Worth Street), while the X37/38 run to Midtown.

Also, a couple of things:

The borough president, and Andy Byford were there (I didn't recognize the borough president at first, or else I would've told him the SIM5/6 super-expresses were stupid ideas). Also, apparently, some Midtown buses will terminate at 57th & 3rd (even though it's not shown on the map), and some Downtown buses will terminate at the World Financial Center instead of Worth Street (and use the present-day X3/4 routing)

That may be the case during rush hours (i recall doing one x28 trip when I was on the extra list at UP) but as i stated in my post, i believe there needs to be a concerted effort for the x27/28/37/38 to fully commit to midtown direct or downtown loop/water street direct service full time, not short turning x28's during rush, then sending x28's to midtown via downtown, unless ridership dictates that the service provided is a necessity. People i know who have worked the x27/28 would argue that the off-peak service provided is either necessary or unnecessary.. But ultimately, it's added run pay for them eitherway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

That may be the case during rush hours (i recall doing one x28 trip when I was on the extra list at UP) but as i stated in my post, i believe there needs to be a concerted effort for the x27/28/37/38 to fully commit to midtown direct or downtown loop/water street direct service full time, not short turning x28's during rush, then sending x28's to midtown via downtown, unless ridership dictates that the service provided is a necessity. People i know who have worked the x27/28 would argue that the off-peak service provided is either necessary or unnecessary.. But ultimately, it's added run pay for them eitherway

That's how they're going to continue doing it on Staten Island: Downtown-only/Midtown-only during rush hour, and a combined route off-peak. Though based on how the other meetings panned out (with people being upset that they had to transfer), it looks like that was also influenced by political backlash, and may change in the future (so if the SIM2 Downtown-South Shore route proves to be the best-performing route, that might lead to changes in the future on the SIM1/3/4).

Also, one of the union representatives said that by June, the X23/24 should be operated by NYCT instead of Academy (which means those lines will have BusTime on them)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

To me this format would work without going to x100. By giving Staten Island a full block of the x43-x99 you can switch the express bus routes between Ulmer Park and Queens Village. (Only focusing on NYCT for now).  Since Staten Island has a large express bus network they will need between 40-45 routes tops for service. 

I'm doing a scratchpad of all express lines that can fit under the X prefix and from the looks of it there's no reach to hit x100 at all. You get rid of the x80 and x81 for special events and classify those as M36 and M37 respectively for Manhattan Division. Why must we have an x80 and x81 for special events. 

Swap around express buses from the other boroughs since they have a smaller network. Only Queens and Staten Island have the biggest networks. Brooklyn is the smallest, Bronx is pretty decent. 

I definitely agree the people at the top who make the decisions aren’t always thoughtful the X prefix should stay the number sequence is there “reconfiguring the network” doesn’t mean you have to rebrand the service What they need to be worrying about is the full integration and route swaps between NYCT & MTA Bus to reduce running times from the depot to the first stop and the unnecessary mileage accumulated on these buses there’s going to be a lot of upheaval But that’s the true definition of “reconfiguring the network” not worrying about changing a route prefix from X to SIM

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's how they're going to continue doing it on Staten Island: Downtown-only/Midtown-only during rush hour, and a combined route off-peak. Though based on how the other meetings panned out (with people being upset that they had to transfer), it looks like that was also influenced by political backlash, and may change in the future (so if the SIM2 Downtown-South Shore route proves to be the best-performing route, that might lead to changes in the future on the SIM1/3/4).

Also, one of the union representatives said that by June, the X23/24 should be operated by NYCT instead of Academy (which means those lines will have BusTime on them)

Which is what my point was regarding the x27/28 and the 3rd Avenue/6th Avenue branches of the QM's... Do the research, see which is more efficient, and trim the fat accordingly. There's misappropriation of resources that could be potentially used to plug other holes in this express system. The fact that it's taken this long to re-evaluate & "redesign" the largest boros output of express service is a disgrace, and i can imagine the wait time the other boros will endure... The oversaturation of Union Turnpike, the gaping holes in NE Queens, Brooklyn's decline in express patronage... All issues that should be addressed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BusOperator3319 said:

I definitely agree the people at the top who make the decisions aren’t always thoughtful the X prefix should stay the number sequence is there “reconfiguring the network” doesn’t mean you have to rebrand the service What they need to be worrying about is the full integration and route swaps between NYCT & MTA Bus to reduce running times from the depot to the first stop and the unnecessary mileage accumulated on these buses there’s going to be a lot of upheaval But that’s the true definition of “reconfiguring the network” not worrying about changing a route prefix from X to SIM

Agreed. Lines like the Q8 & B100 need to have depot reassignments... There's no way the Q52SBS should run out of JFK if Far Rock is 2 block east of Arverne... But, i for one do understand the wait for the full NYCTA/MaBSTOA/Bus Company merger from an employee standpoint... I'd rather that majority of depots from bus company were represented by TWU Local 100 to integrate them into MaBSTOA, seeing as Bus Company isn't a Civil service title IINM (municipal employees, just like MaBSTOA) the thought of MaBSTOA Division 3 (MaBSTOA Queens) or MaBSTOA Brooklyn (Spring Creek) is quite interesting to say the least. It would definitely make lines being at appropriate depots more doable, but then again transit can do what they want... The lines & runs belong to them, not the unions. So even without a full employee merger, they still could move runs/lines to more appropriate depots, much to the chagrin of employees (remember the infamous LaGuardia/College Point line swap)

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.