Bronx Bus Network Redesign Draft Plan is Coming

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I don't like that the the Co-Op City routes all terminate at the first imstance they imtersect with the Bx23, to then transfer to then transfer Bx23 for continuing service. 

 

Also, not a single change is proposed for the Bx46. Seriously?

 

Terminate the M100 at 125th and Amsterdam, and you basically kill a good portion of the ridership off. SMH.

 

WTF at the BxM4/BxM5/BxM11 changes. I'm waiting to hear from VG8 about this and the BxM18 changes.

Edited June 1, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lawrence St]

That Bx6SBS change though, isnt there ridership on the Hunts Point section?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

30 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I don't like that the the Co-Op City routes all terminate at the first imstance they imtersect with the Bx23, to then transfer to then transfer Bx23 for continuing service. 

 

Also, not a single change is proposed for the Bx46. Seriously?

 

Terminate the M100 at 125th and Amsterdam, and you basically kill a good portion of the ridership off. SMH.

 

WTF at the BxM4/BxM5/BxM11 changes. I'm waiting to hear from VG8 about this and the BxM18 changes.

I don’t like the BxM18 at all and the BxM2 either. They chopped off ALL of the Upper East Side stops. The BxM4... The ADA folks along the Concourse will be PISSED, but message being sent is the service is for Woodlawn, even though Woodlawn is too little to serve alone. I bet the BxM11 routing because Bronxwood is wide and the buses can move better without the El up above, BUT White Plains Road is a major corridor. People would have to walk further to get it as a trade-off. I also don’t understand having it terminate at 233rd? Just run it up to 241st and call it a day. I think the BxM4 routing is what they are thinking about in trying to steal ridership from the BxM11 to make it work. They’re pulling some of the Westchester riders onto the BxM4 to try to make that work.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

22 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don’t like the BxM18 at all and the BxM2 either. They chopped off ALL of the Upper East Side stops. The BxM4... The ADA folks along the Concourse will be PISSED, but message being sent is the service is for Woodlawn, even though Woodlawn is too little to serve alone. I bet the BxM11 routing because Bronxwood is wide and the buses can move better without the El up above, BUT White Plains Road is a major corridor. People would have to walk further to get it as a trade-off. I also don’t understand having it terminate at 233rd? Just run it up to 241st and call it a day. I think the BxM4 routing is what they are thinking about in trying to steal ridership from the BxM11 to make it work. They’re pulling some of the Westchester riders onto the BxM4 to try to make that work.

I agree with you on the BxM2. I'm on the fence with the BxM18. I guess they're trying to redevelop the purpose for the BxM18 since Hudson Yards is developing, and they are attempting to attract people from gentrifying neighborhoods (Inwood, Washington Heights). Sounds okay I guess, but now there's no Downtown transfer to/from the BxM18 in Midtown, so I am conflicted.

At the very least, if they're gonna convert the BxM4 into an peak-only route, they could have had a branch of their so-called BxM5 run to Woodlawn, and another to Wakefield, because terminating at E 233rd saves little to no time. That way, service to those neighborhoods is preserved (except for Sundays, the BxM11 operates half-hourly headways during the day or more frequent). Ideally though, given how the South Bronx is expected to gentrify, I would have kept the BxM4 along the concourse. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lil 57]

24 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I agree with you on the BxM2. I'm on the fence with the BxM18. I guess they're trying to redevelop the purpose for the BxM18 since Hudson Yards is developing, and they are attempting to attract people from gentrifying neighborhoods (Inwood, Washington Heights). Sounds okay I guess, but now there's no Downtown transfer to/from the BxM18 in Midtown, so I am conflicted.

At the very least, if they're gonna convert the BxM4 into an peak-only route, they could have had a branch of their so-called BxM5 run to Woodlawn, and another to Wakefield, because terminating at E 233rd saves little to no time. That way, service to those neighborhoods is preserved (except for Sundays, the BxM11 operates half-hourly headways during the day or more frequent). Ideally though, given how the South Bronx is expected to gentrify, I would have kept the BxM4 along the concourse. 

If anything, the BxM4 could of have super-express trips skipping the concourse during the rush hours but off-peak service should of stayed where it was. Ridership was increasing and more and more people don't want to deal with the trains. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I agree with you on the BxM2. I'm on the fence with the BxM18. I guess they're trying to redevelop the purpose for the BxM18 since Hudson Yards is developing, and they are attempting to attract people from gentrifying neighborhoods (Inwood, Washington Heights). Sounds okay I guess, but now there's no Downtown transfer to/from the BxM18 in Midtown, so I am conflicted.

At the very least, if they're gonna convert the BxM4 into an peak-only route, they could have had a branch of their so-called BxM5 run to Woodlawn, and another to Wakefield, because terminating at E 233rd saves little to no time. That way, service to those neighborhoods is preserved (except for Sundays, the BxM11 operates half-hourly headways during the day or more frequent). Ideally though, given how the South Bronx is expected to gentrify, I would have kept the BxM4 along the concourse. 

The BxM4 is a victim of demographic changes. The Concourse was built to be the crème de la crème in terms of housing and amenities and that’s how the BxM4 came about. People along the Concourse could afford such an amenity. When the South Bronx wasn’t viable and as attractive that’s when the change started, and the BxM4 has suffered. Some of these changes are lackluster. 

With the BxM18 shift, they are sending several messages. My issue is what research did they do to determine that Hudson Yards will be a viable service for those of us in Riverdale? I have visited Hudson Yards and many of my clients have moved there. It’s a beautiful area that will be big. My only question is is there enough ridership to warrant the service? The BxM18 gets most of its ridership from Midtown, not Downtown, so I will definitely be asking questions about that. I also don’t like the stops in Inwood at all. No good...

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

That Bx6SBS change though, isnt there ridership on the Hunts Point section?

I don't really think it's much of an issue of ridership (it is there), I think it's more about the excess service (Hunts Point got more service under the Bx6 Local/Bx6 SBS set-up, even with artics. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: at this point with the redesigns, they'll attempt to make the SBS routes (even more) separate from the local, in terms of routing. 

[Coney Island Av]

Thoughts:

-It's ironic that they eliminate the BxM11 (or turn it into the BxM5 rather) yet they don't even bother fiddling with the Bx39 which also runs directly under the ...

-The Bx15/M125 split is honestly a bad idea just like the M5/M55 fiasco. Same thing with the M100 being cut to Amsterdam/125th. 125 St is such a major corridor, and the only way this could work is if the M60 SBS is heavily increased in service.

-The Bx6 SBS change is something I honestly agree with. Having visited Hunts Point before, it's literally an industrial wasteland with little residential houses. The only places in Hunts Point where there's a considerable amount of housing is west of the Bruckner. Anything east of that is literally tumbleweeds. I don't think anyone would care if the Bx6 SBS were to be rerouted because given the area is very low-density, the Bx6 Local and Bx46 would do fine there. 

-The BxM17 is actually interesting and not bad. It provides support to the BxM7, and gives Co-op City express access to Lower Manhattan. 

-Cutting the Q50 to PBP is honestly a bad idea. That route is very crucial in connecting not just Co-op City with Queens, but also the East Bronx in general. If the Q50 were to be cut back, it would lose a significant amount of ridership... Not to mention that the Bx23 might have to be heavily increased in order for it to be the sole Co-op City Loop service. Also, the Bx26 and Bx28 don't need to have their Co-op City terminals changed. They work fine as-is and it wouldn't really make a difference slightly cutting them back.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Thoughts:

-It's ironic that they eliminate the BxM11 (or turn it into the BxM5 rather) yet they don't even bother fiddling with the Bx39 which also runs directly under the ...

-The Bx15/M125 split is honestly a bad idea just like the M5/M55 fiasco. Same thing with the M100 being cut to Amsterdam/125th. 125 St is such a major corridor, and the only way this could work is if the M60 SBS is heavily increased in service.

-The Bx6 SBS change is something I honestly agree with. Having visited Hunts Point before, it's literally an industrial wasteland with little residential houses. The only places in Hunts Point where there's a considerable amount of housing is west of the Bruckner. Anything east of that is literally tumbleweeds. I don't think anyone would care if the Bx6 SBS were to be rerouted because given the area is very low-density, the Bx6 Local and Bx46 would do fine there. 

-The BxM17 is actually interesting and not bad. It provides support to the BxM7, and gives Co-op City express access to Lower Manhattan. 

-Cutting the Q50 to PBP is honestly a bad idea. That route is very crucial in connecting not just Co-op City with Queens, but also the East Bronx in general. If the Q50 were to be cut back, it would lose a significant amount of ridership... Not to mention that the Bx23 might have to be heavily increased in order for it to be the sole Co-op City Loop service. Also, the Bx26 and Bx28 don't need to have their Co-op City terminals changed. They work fine as-is and it wouldn't really make a difference slightly cutting them back.

Wrong about the Bx6. The Hunts Point Market is one of the largest employment centers for the Bronx and LOTS of people depend on the Bx6 that work there. It is far from an industrial wasteland.

[JeremiahC99]

4 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Cutting the Q50 to PBP is honestly a bad idea. That route is very crucial in connecting not just Co-op City with Queens, but also the East Bronx in general. If the Q50 were to be cut back, it would lose a significant amount of ridership... Not to mention that the Bx23 might have to be heavily increased in order for it to be the sole Co-op City Loop service. Also, the Bx26 and Bx28 don't need to have their Co-op City terminals changed. They work fine as-is and it wouldn't really make a difference slightly cutting them back.

It looks like they got their inspiration for that from the 2004 Urbitran Associates bus study back when the Bx23 and Q50 were the QBx1. In that study, it was determined that the ridership patterns dictated that the line was essentially two separate routes, with the station as the dividing point. Most riders from Queens were not going north of the subway and most riders from Co-op were not going south to Queens. They recommended that the line be split at Pelham Bay Park, with the QBx1 going from Queens to Pelham Bay and a new Bx56 covering everything in Co-op City. I wonder if the MTA though that the 2004 ridership patterns still holds well in 2019.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

As far as the Q50 goes, it should be going to at least Bay Plaza, or continue on to serve Asch, Bellamy , and Drieser Loops (preferred). I'm not in favor of the current routing in Co-Op City but the current routing is better than simply truncating the route at Pelham Bay Park. 

As for the other routes, what I would have done is:

Bx30: Truncated it at Bay Plaza instead.

Bx28: Serve Bellamy and Drieser Loop.

Bx26: Retain current route as is.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[MysteriousBtrain]

Co-op City is honestly screwed over besides adding the BxM17. Every other plan at the very least is ok or decent.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Co-op City is honestly screwed over besides adding the BxM17. Every other plan at the very least is ok or decent.

Most of the local bus changes are thought out. HOWEVER, Co-Op City is going to be pissed. I think the  means well with what they are trying to do, but the layout of Co-Op City makes it very hard. Each section is basically a loop, and it is laid out on a very large footprint. The extra transfers definitely mean longer commutes for those folks. In my area, they did NOTHING to improve local bus service. Removing some stops is not enough.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I bet the BxM11 routing because Bronxwood is wide and the buses can move better without the El up above, BUT White Plains Road is a major corridor. People would have to walk further to get it as a trade-off. 

That depends on where they're walking from. If they're already walking from Bronxwood, then running the bus on Bronxwood would actually help them.

 

36 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

-The Bx15/M125 split is honestly a bad idea just like the M5/M55 fiasco. Same thing with the M100 being cut to Amsterdam/125th. 125 St is such a major corridor, and the only way this could work is if the M60 SBS is heavily increased in service.

- Cutting the Q50 to PBP is honestly a bad idea. That route is very crucial in connecting not just Co-op City with Queens, but also the East Bronx in general. If the Q50 were to be cut back, it would lose a significant amount of ridership... Not to mention that the Bx23 might have to be heavily increased in order for it to be the sole Co-op City Loop service. Also, the Bx26 and Bx28 don't need to have their Co-op City terminals changed. They work fine as-is and it wouldn't really make a difference slightly cutting them back.

 

From the report...

"We are proposing a frequency on the M125 of 8 minutes or better all-day."

"Currently, the Bx23 has a frequency of 30 minutes or better all-day. We are proposing to improve the frequency to 8 minutes or better all-day, with a frequency of 3 minutes in the AM and PM peak periods." (But I would still extend it at least to Bay Plaza and Asch Loop to connect with the other routes.)

[checkmatechamp13]

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I don't like that the the Co-Op City routes all terminate at the first instance they imtersect with the Bx23, to then transfer to then transfer Bx23 for continuing service. 

Neither do I, but I will say this, the fact that Co-Op City has a lot of pedestrian paths between loops, as well as the proposed frequency of the Bx23 will make this easier (assuming that they update the transfer policy so that people don't have to pay twice, which they should do systemwide)

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Also, not a single change is proposed for the Bx46. Seriously?

Agree. Ridiculous.

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Terminate the M100 at 125th and Amsterdam, and you basically kill a good portion of the ridership off. SMH.

That's not the issue (and I say this as somebody who attended CCNY and used that line regularly...sometimes even walking from 125th & St. Nicholas to 125th & Amsterdam because I could either get the M11 or an M100/101 that went drop-off only until Amsterdam). The issue is that the M101 and its reliability issues aren't being addressed yet (with some sort of split). So those people who need a ride between the Amsterdam corridor and the the 125th Street corridor have to hope they don't get screwed over. This is a big part of why the M100 is one of the few routes in Manhattan with growing ridership: It's a more reliable alternative to the M101.

3 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

WTF at the BxM4/BxM5/BxM11 changes. I'm waiting to hear from VG8 about this and the BxM18 changes.

Not saying I necessarily agree with the changes, but the logic is pretty straightforward: Instead of having those BxM11 trips that run super-express south of Gun Hill Road, they'll have people from the northern end of the route take the BxM4, and people south of 233rd take the BxM5 (which will be a little bit more geographically centralized within the neighborhood). 

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

That Bx6SBS change though, isnt there ridership on the Hunts Point section?

Ridership is higher west of Southern Blvd compared to east of it. That section gets a respectable amount of ridership, but not enough for those service levels. This was actually the original plan for the Bx6 +SBS+ if you look back through the documents. Also, this gives them a chance to eliminate most/all of those Bx5 short-turns between Gladstone Square and White Plains Road.

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don’t like the BxM18 at all and the BxM2 either. They chopped off ALL of the Upper East Side stops. The BxM4... The ADA folks along the Concourse will be PISSED, but message being sent is the service is for Woodlawn, even though Woodlawn is too little to serve alone. I bet the BxM11 routing because Bronxwood is wide and the buses can move better without the El up above, BUT White Plains Road is a major corridor. People would have to walk further to get it as a trade-off. I also don’t understand having it terminate at 233rd? Just run it up to 241st and call it a day. I think the BxM4 routing is what they are thinking about in trying to steal ridership from the BxM11 to make it work. They’re pulling some of the Westchester riders onto the BxM4 to try to make that work.

As mentioned above, Bronxwood Avenue is more geographically centered within the neighborhood.  And you answered your own question: They want the BxM4 to have all the riders in the Wakefield area, so it's not just dependent on Woodlawn riders to fill up.

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I agree with you on the BxM2. I'm on the fence with the BxM18. I guess they're trying to redevelop the purpose for the BxM18 since Hudson Yards is developing, and they are attempting to attract people from gentrifying neighborhoods (Inwood, Washington Heights). Sounds okay I guess, but now there's no Downtown transfer to/from the BxM18 in Midtown, so I am conflicted.

At the very least, if they're gonna convert the BxM4 into an peak-only route, they could have had a branch of their so-called BxM5 run to Woodlawn, and another to Wakefield, because terminating at E 233rd saves little to no time. That way, service to those neighborhoods is preserved (except for Sundays, the BxM11 operates half-hourly headways during the day or more frequent). Ideally though, given how the South Bronx is expected to gentrify, I would have kept the BxM4 along the concourse. 

Riders can still transfer to/from the SIM buses or X27/28 if they need to get Downtown. That should be advertised more as an option, so people don't think they're stuck with just the BxM18.

Also gentrification doesn't automatically mean those people will use the express bus. By that logic we should have express buses running along the and lines. As a matter of fact most of those gentrifiers moved to those areas because of the good subway service.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The BxM4 is a victim of demographic changes. The Concourse was built to be the crème de la crème in terms of housing and amenities and that’s how the BxM4 came about. People along the Concourse could afford such an amenity. When the South Bronx wasn’t viable and as attractive that’s when the change started, and the BxM4 has suffered. Some of these changes are lackluster. 

That is inaccurate. Riverdale Transit Corporation didn't begin service until 1968 and the South Bronx was already in a state of decline during that time period.

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I don't really think it's much of an issue of ridership (it is there), I think it's more about the excess service (Hunts Point got more service under the Bx6 Local/Bx6 SBS set-up, even with artics. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: at this point with the redesigns, they'll attempt to make the SBS routes (even more) separate from the local, in terms of routing. 

I don't think they really gave them too much more service. They reduced the local service to create the +SBS+ trips. 

2 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

-It's ironic that they eliminate the BxM11 (or turn it into the BxM5 rather) yet they don't even bother fiddling with the Bx39 which also runs directly under the ...

The ridership base of the Bx39 & BxM11 is entirely different. The Bx39 primarily serves intra-Bronx trips to/from transfer points and commercial areas whereas the BxM11 primarily serves riders going between their homes and Manhattan (plus the Bronx Zoo riders of course). Also, there's already a local route along much of Bronxwood Avenue (the Bx8), so moving the Bx39 there would provide duplicate local bus coverage.

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

As far as the Q50 goes, it should be going to at least Bay Plaza, or continue on to serve Asch, Bellamy , and Drieser Loops (preferred). I'm not in favor of the current routing in Co-Op City but the current routing is better than simply truncating the route at Pelham Bay Park. 

As for the other routes, what I would have done is:

Bx30: Truncated it at Bay Plaza instead.

Bx28: Serve Bellamy and Drieser Loop.

Bx26: Retain current route as is.

I would do something like this, except I would run the Bx30 down Co-Op City Blvd instead of its current route down Baychester Avenue.

Edited June 1, 2019 by checkmatechamp13

[engineerboy6561]

I really don't like what they did with Co-op City because unless they're prepared to make the Bx23 a three-legged transfer, there's a whole lot of connectivity that's just gone; also people coming from the south and east Bronx to use the new Co-op City Metro-North station aren't gonna be able to come straight into the station on their existing crosstown buses, and you'll lose a lot of connectivity. Also, just dead-ending the 30 at Dreiser Loop and White Plains Rd isn't the best idea; I'd be tempted to through-run it to Fordham Plaza on the south end and run it via Co-op City Blvd to Erskine for the MNR connectivity (or at least Bay Plaza like CheckmateChamp suggested) rather than stubbing it out. I'd also suggest both adding a limited to the Bx28 at least on weekdays and maintaining at least some school trips to and from Clinton HS. Honestly, you could just rename the 38 the Bx28 local and drop the headways a little to an even 12 minutes middays on each line, and you'd do fine there. For the Q50 it might make sense to trim a few of the Co-op stops but not to cut it back to Pelham Bay Park (though I am slightly biased because I used to use the Bx26 -> Q50 for a one-fare ride from Bedford Park to Flushing and I want that to still be a viable option). I'm open to a fair number of the other local bus changes, though I really don't like what they've done to the BxM4. Honestly, I'm fine with the BxM5 and expanding the 4 to cover Wakefield, but the 4 really should be left as a full time express bus route on the Concourse; there's not really enough there for either the northern or southern halves of the BxM4 to exist, but when combined they work really well.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

37 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Neither do I, but I will say this, the fact that Co-Op City has a lot of pedestrian paths between loops, as well as the proposed frequency of the Bx23 will make this easier (assuming that they update the transfer policy so that people don't have to pay twice, which they should do systemwide)

Agree. Ridiculous.

That's not the issue (and I say this as somebody who attended CCNY and used that line regularly...sometimes even walking from 125th & St. Nicholas to 125th & Amsterdam because I could either get the M11 or an M100/101 that went drop-off only until Amsterdam). The issue is that the M101 and its reliability issues aren't being addressed yet (with some sort of split). So those people who need a ride between the Amsterdam corridor and the the 125th Street corridor have to hope they don't get screwed over. This is a big part of why the M100 is one of the few routes in Manhattan with growing ridership: It's a more reliable alternative to the M101.

Not saying I necessarily agree with the changes, but the logic is pretty straightforward: Instead of having those BxM11 trips that run super-express south of Gun Hill Road, they'll have people from the northern end of the route take the BxM4, and people south of 233rd take the BxM5 (which will be a little bit more geographically centralized within the neighborhood). 

Ridership is higher west of Southern Blvd compared to east of it. That section gets a respectable amount of ridership, but not enough for those service levels. This was actually the original plan for the Bx6 +SBS+ if you look back through the documents. Also, this gives them a chance to eliminate most/all of those Bx5 short-turns between Gladstone Square and White Plains Road.

As mentioned above, Bronxwood Avenue is more geographically centered within the neighborhood.  And you answered your own question: They want the BxM4 to have all the riders in the Wakefield area, so it's not just dependent on Woodlawn riders to fill up.

Riders can still transfer to/from the SIM buses or X27/28 if they need to get Downtown. That should be advertised more as an option, so people don't think they're stuck with just the BxM18.

Also gentrification doesn't automatically mean those people will use the express bus. By that logic we should have express buses running along the and lines. As a matter of fact most of those gentrifiers moved to those areas because of the good subway service.

That is inaccurate. Riverdale Transit Corporation didn't begin service until 1968 and the South Bronx was already in a state of decline during that time period.

I don't think they really gave them too much more service. They reduced the local service to create the +SBS+ trips. 

The ridership base of the Bx39 & BxM11 is entirely different. The Bx39 primarily serves intra-Bronx trips to/from transfer points and commercial areas whereas the BxM11 primarily serves riders going between their homes and Manhattan (plus the Bronx Zoo riders of course). Also, there's already a local route along much of Bronxwood Avenue (the Bx8), so moving the Bx39 there would provide duplicate local bus coverage.

I would do something like this, except I would run the Bx30 down Co-Op City Blvd instead of its current route down Baychester Avenue.

I don’t need an explanation about Bronxwood Avenue. I’ve been up there plenty of times. That still doesn’t mean that it will be more convenient for people that used to get the bus on White Plains Road. I agree with the move only because Bronxwood is wider and the bus should move faster, but that has nothing to do with accessibility. I also don’t agree with the routing of having it end at 233rd. It seems quite random.  Your comment about the BxM4 I’ll disagree with as well.

Regarding the Bx39, the ridership base may be different, but a lot of people use the Bx39 to avoid the stairs and the subway, so he has a point. They removed the BxM11 primarily because it spends too much time in traffic on White Plains Road mainly because of the El above.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Around the Horn]

I feel like the Co-op City changes are asinine...

That's not going to go over well at all.

[checkmatechamp13]

16 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don’t need an explanation about Bronxwood Avenue. I’ve been up there plenty of times. That still doesn’t mean that it will be more convenient for people that used to get the bus on White Plains Road. I agree with the move only because Bronxwood is wider and the bus should move faster, but that has nothing to do with accessibility. I also don’t agree with the routing of having it end at 233rd. It seems quite random.  Your comment about the BxM4 I’ll disagree with as well.

And I'm sure there's plenty of people reaching it from the east where this change will make it more convenient for them.

And you can disagree with it but that doesn't stop it from being true that the BxM4 came into existence after the South Bronx went into a state of decline. If anything it was the opposite: Crime was going up including in the subway and some people may have been able to scrape up the extra money to take the express bus and have a safer ride.

Edited June 1, 2019 by checkmatechamp13

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And I'm sure there's plenty of people reaching it from the east where this change will make it more convenient for them.

And you can disagree with it but that doesn't stop it fron being true that the BxM4 came into existence after the South Bronx went into a state of decline. If anything it was the opposite: Crime was going up including in the subway and some people may have been able to scrape up the extra money to take the express bus and have a safer ride.

You’re pretty sure based off of what information? I have rode the BxM11 for extended periods of time all the way to the end as well as up in Williamsbridge, and even I don’t know if this will benefit the majority of riders. You are jumping to conclusions. It should speed up the route. That doesn’t mean it will automatically be convenient for the majority of riders. We don’t know if they used any information to come to that conclusion, or if they just decided to remove it for the reason I mentioned. Often times when I ask them about data they can’t answer the question because they don’t know, so I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I’d rather ask and see what they say.

My comments about the Concourse are not accurate because what I said was true which was that it was built to be the crème de la crème in terms of amenities, etc. The only question is the level of decline, not that it was declining. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I feel like the Co-op City changes are asinine...

That's not going to go over well at all.

The  is just trying to cut back on costs, and they are using the “direct” service routine to try to justify the changes.

[checkmatechamp13]

21 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You’re pretty sure based off of what information? I have rode the BxM11 for extended periods of time all the way to the end as well as up in Williamsbridge, and even I don’t know if this will benefit the majority of riders. You are jumping to conclusions.

My comments about the Concourse are not accurate because what I said was true which was that it was built to be the crème de la crème in terms of amenities, etc. The only question is the level of decline, not that it was declining. 

I'm not saying it will necessarily benefit the majority of the riders but what I am saying is that you can't just look at it from the perspective of riders who are closer to White Plains Road without considering those who are closer to Bronxwood. So now we agree, Bronxwood should be faster, and it may or may not be more convenient for riders in that area.

And my point is that when the Grand Concourse was at its prime there was no express bus service provided along it. The neighborhoods along it grew because of the subway. When the express bus service started the neighborhood was far from the premium neighborhood it used to be. Whether the route was routed that way to serve people who were afraid to use the subway or whether the people created it based on outdated information about demographics of the 1940s and 1950s is another issue, but the Grand Concourse was already a blighted area by the late 1960s: https://www.amny.com/secrets-of-new-york/secrets-of-the-grand-concourse-1.10603787

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by checkmatechamp13

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'm not saying it will necessarily benefit the majority of the riders but what I am saying is that you can't just look at it from the perspective of riders who are closer to White Plains Road without considering those who are closer to Bronxwood. So now we agree, Bronxwood should be faster, and it may or may not be more convenient for riders in that area.

And my point is that when the Grand Concourse was at its prime there was no express bus service provided along it. The neighborhoods along it grew because of the subway. When the express bus service started the neighborhood was far from the premium neighborhood it used to be.

At the same time you can’t discount that White Plains Road is a major commercial corridor. Bronxwood Avenue by comparison is mainly residential, so again the question is did they do any actual research, or are they just moving it to get it away from the congestion. My vote is for the latter and they figure people can make their way to Bronxwood if they really want the service. It’s important because while that area isn’t as hilly as others, there are still some very hilly parts going in that direction and this may create a problem for some people. Basically off of White Plains Road you have hills in parts in either direction that are quite steep, so this may seem like a small change that may not be so small. We shall see... 

Regarding the Grand Concourse, fine and good, but that doesn’t take away from how it was originally developed (and most of the Bronx for that matter). Putting transportation aside, most of the Bronx was developed as an escape from the overcrowded Manhattan. What it started out as and the goal, and what it developed into obviously are polar opposites.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

1. That's not the issue (and I say this as somebody who attended CCNY and used that line regularly...sometimes even walking from 125th & St. Nicholas to 125th & Amsterdam because I could either get the M11 or an M100/101 that went drop-off only until Amsterdam). The issue is that the M101 and its reliability issues aren't being addressed yet (with some sort of split). So those people who need a ride between the Amsterdam corridor and the the 125th Street corridor have to hope they don't get screwed over. This is a big part of why the M100 is one of the few routes in Manhattan with growing ridership: It's a more reliable alternative to the M101.

2. Also gentrification doesn't automatically mean those people will use the express bus. By that logic we should have express buses running along the and lines. As a matter of fact most of those gentrifiers moved to those areas because of the good subway service.

1. Yes, but you can't deny that a lot of people are going to destinations along 125th as well. The truncation of the M100 to Amsterdam would sever the connection to every subway station it currently serves in Harlem, along with those going to places along 125th. It would essentially make the M101 THE Amsterdam Avenue bus, since it would be the only route to go into the heart of Harlem. Most people would likely wait for the M101 instead of taking the M100 and walking/transferring, which would put an unnecessary strain on the M101. The M100 might still do well in Washington Heights and Inwood with such a change, but it wouldn't really pull much in Harlem anymore.

2. Of course it doesn't, however they'd be more inclined to if it is more direct and faster than the subway, and reasonably frequent. For the second reason alone, given the lack of highways, any any express bus in northern Brooklyn would fail, and thus is not even a valid comparison.

Edited June 1, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Of course it doesn't, however they'd be more inclined to if it is more direct and faster than the subway, and reasonably frequent.  For the second reason alone, any express bus in northern Brooklyn would fail, and thus is not even a valid comparison.

My overall thoughts are that some of these changes make sense, and others I have lots of questions about. Overall underwhelming. What they did was eliminate stops for a lot of the local lines with no other changes which is absurd, and not much in the way of more frequency either.  The Bx1, Bx7, Bx9 and Bx10.... No changes aside from bus stop elimination.... That is not enough...