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.
Via Garibaldi 8

Bronx Redesign Draft Released

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I don’t get why?

Other places use transit buses - even with back doors - for express service. Why’s it different here? 

We had RTS buses as express buses before with cushioned seats.  Eventually the (MTA) went with coach buses, as they are more suitable for express bus service.  The (MTA) considers express bus service to be a premium service and they want all express bus lines to use coach buses.There are a number of reasons... Supposedly RTS buses didn't perform that well on the expressways.  Regardless the coach buses are governed at higher speeds and move better.

I had a conversation with them about this when they were using those old Orions on the QM4. My understanding is when that occurred, passengers were not charged for the trip.  In any event, we immediately asked that coach buses be used for ALL QM4 trips.  A transfer was made to address the problem.  For $6.75 or $13.50 round trip, we should have coach buses and not have to stand. They also posted signage on the lines that were using the old Orions years ago letting customers know that they were getting new MCI coach buses which were roomier. 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Supposedly RTS buses didn't perform that well on the expressways.  Regardless the coach buses are governed at higher speeds and move better.

That's probably why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

We had RTS buses as express buses before with cushioned seats.  Eventually the (MTA) went with coach buses, as they are more suitable for express bus service.  The (MTA) considers express bus service to be a premium service and they want all express bus lines to use coach buses.There are a number of reasons... Supposedly RTS buses didn't perform that well on the expressways.  Regardless the coach buses are governed at higher speeds and move better.

I had a conversation with them about this when they were using those old Orions on the QM4. My understanding is when that occurred, passengers were not charged for the trip.  In any event, we immediately asked that coach buses be used for ALL QM4 trips.  A transfer was made to address the problem.  For $6.75 or $13.50 round trip, we should have coach buses and not have to stand. They also posted signage on the lines that were using the old Orions years ago letting customers know that they were getting new MCI coach buses which were roomier. 

I understand how it's supposed to be a "Premium" service, but operationally -- from no-tell-motel interiors to HVAC not working to actually delivering service (close to scheduled time as well as all trips operating DAILY) -- it is in no way representative of "Coach Bus"-style service. In fact, the Express bus fleet appears to be maintained WORSE than the local fleet, when in fact it should be the exact opposite. But, obviously, the MTA does not care except for fleecing customers.

I don't see how the RTSes could have been performing that much worse, outside of the MTA and predecessor agencies being stupid enough to govern them so low. And that shouldn't have occurred anyway, being that those buses in the fleet were specifically equipped for "suburban" service. If you keep blowing out engines and transmissions because of specifically causing them to fail, that's not the bus' fault, that's the "experts'" fault.

By the reasoning given ("Premium" service means customers deserve Greyhound-level buses/amenities), then I guess Westchester customers should be demanding OTR coaches only from Bee-Line for BxM4C service when paying $7.50, right? Bee-Line certainly qualifies as an agency that could operate OTRs with their long-ass routes that would qualify for "Premium" fares.

The "snootiness" approach toward Express bus service really needs to end because it's quite apparent that the MTA does NOT want to treat its bus customers the same way as its MNR/LIRR customers. The railroad customers have their localities and the counties themselves (which all pay into the MTA's coffers) on their side to hold the MTA to some sort of accountability, whereas all city-dwellers are beholden to whatever the MTA wants to dish out.

There should be some sort of test anyways of Xcelsiors with suburban-style seating (as well as the "creature comforts" of WiFi and USB ports), especially on Express routes (like in the Bronx) that serve facilities used by seniors/disabled customers. It's not that hard for the MTA, with all of its overhaul facilities, to switch-out seats from a suburban-fleet to a local-fleet for mileage purposes, and vice-versa. Also by bringing more "standardization" to the overall fleet, the depots would be able to meet maintenance goals better.

Standees should always be a no-no, but that it simply solved by righting the schedules, not due to the type of bus being used.

If Express bus customers had: a] On-time schedule adherence from end-to-end, b] Clean and well-maintained buses, c] Dependable ADA/mobility-device access, and d] All trips of the schedule being filled, by an Xcelsior instead of an OTR, I don't think there'd be as much resistance as some would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DetSMART45 said:

I understand how it's supposed to be a "Premium" service, but operationally -- from no-tell-motel interiors to HVAC not working to actually delivering service (close to scheduled time as well as all trips operating DAILY) -- it is in no way representative of "Coach Bus"-style service. In fact, the Express bus fleet appears to be maintained WORSE than the local fleet, when in fact it should be the exact opposite. But, obviously, the MTA does not care except for fleecing customers.

I don't see how the RTSes could have been performing that much worse, outside of the MTA and predecessor agencies being stupid enough to govern them so low. And that shouldn't have occurred anyway, being that those buses in the fleet were specifically equipped for "suburban" service. If you keep blowing out engines and transmissions because of specifically causing them to fail, that's not the bus' fault, that's the "experts'" fault.

By the reasoning given ("Premium" service means customers deserve Greyhound-level buses/amenities), then I guess Westchester customers should be demanding OTR coaches only from Bee-Line for BxM4C service when paying $7.50, right? Bee-Line certainly qualifies as an agency that could operate OTRs with their long-ass routes that would qualify for "Premium" fares.

The "snootiness" approach toward Express bus service really needs to end because it's quite apparent that the MTA does NOT want to treat its bus customers the same way as its MNR/LIRR customers. The railroad customers have their localities and the counties themselves (which all pay into the MTA's coffers) on their side to hold the MTA to some sort of accountability, whereas all city-dwellers are beholden to whatever the MTA wants to dish out.

There should be some sort of test anyways of Xcelsiors with suburban-style seating (as well as the "creature comforts" of WiFi and USB ports), especially on Express routes (like in the Bronx) that serve facilities used by seniors/disabled customers. It's not that hard for the MTA, with all of its overhaul facilities, to switch-out seats from a suburban-fleet to a local-fleet for mileage purposes, and vice-versa. Also by bringing more "standardization" to the overall fleet, the depots would be able to meet maintenance goals better.

Standees should always be a no-no, but that it simply solved by righting the schedules, not due to the type of bus being used.

If Express bus customers had: a] On-time schedule adherence from end-to-end, b] Clean and well-maintained buses, c] Dependable ADA/mobility-device access, and d] All trips of the schedule being filled, by an Xcelsior instead of an OTR, I don't think there'd be as much resistance as some would think.

I don’t think it’s a snootiness factor. There should be better amenities for a premium service.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don’t think it’s a snootiness factor. There should be better amenities for a premium service.

OK, so you've supposedly got those "amenities" now -- what exactly are they and how are they soooo much more "superior" to Local service?

--Sitting up higher above traffic: Don't know how that trade-off really impacts significantly.

--High-floor bus with steps: More opportunities for tripping, slows access for customers with mobility problems on/off the bus, and of course the lift which slows the bus when picking-up/dropping-off ADA customers significantly over a kneeling/ramp access of a low-floor.

--Reading lamps, WiFi, USB ports: With all of the complaints/pictures of dirty and disabled/broken reading lamps, that's really a non-starter. Same with WiFi and USB, as those are being incorporated on the local bus fleet.

--Cushioned, reclining seats: Given how filthy and busted these "amenities" are, no real benefit there either.

--Ride quality: OK, possibly something to crow about. But if you're sitting in a filthy environment, let alone an uncomfortable one if the HVAC isn't working right, do you really care that a few of the street imperfections aren't as perceivable as on a local bus?

--Push-button stop request: Yeah, no ugly "stop cord" to obscure your "tour bus" trip, but all those extra buttons to fail, and if the reading lamps are already falling out/busted, not really a great "amenity".

--"Faster" on the expressways: Sure, possibly, but that's all dependent on the other vehicles on the same roadways. Does this factor make a difference to the customers aboard when the Service Status for the "X27-X68" gets the all-too-familiar "Delays" due to gridlock traffic, or the same on the SIM routes going over the Verrazano? This doesn't also mean a hill of beans when crawling through Manhattan or on local streets of the boroughs.

Naah, "snootiness" sure doesn't apply. *rolls eyes*

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DetSMART45 said:

OK, so you've supposedly got those "amenities" now -- what exactly are they and how are they soooo much more "superior" to Local service?

--Sitting up higher above traffic: Don't know how that trade-off really impacts significantly.

--High-floor bus with steps: More opportunities for tripping, slows access for customers with mobility problems on/off the bus, and of course the lift which slows the bus when picking-up/dropping-off ADA customers significantly over a kneeling/ramp access of a low-floor.

--Reading lamps, WiFi, USB ports: With all of the complaints/pictures of dirty and disabled/broken reading lamps, that's really a non-starter. Same with WiFi and USB, as those are being incorporated on the local bus fleet.

--Cushioned, reclining seats: Given how filthy and busted these "amenities" are, no real benefit there either.

--Ride quality: OK, possibly something to crow about. But if you're sitting in a filthy environment, let alone an uncomfortable one if the HVAC isn't working right, do you really care that a few of the street imperfections aren't as perceivable as on a local bus?

--Push-button stop request: Yeah, no ugly "stop cord" to obscure your "tour bus" trip, but all those extra buttons to fail, and if the reading lamps are already falling out/busted, not really a great "amenity".

--"Faster" on the expressways: Sure, possibly, but that's all dependent on the other vehicles on the same roadways. Does this factor make a difference to the customers aboard when the Service Status for the "X27-X68" gets the all-too-familiar "Delays" due to gridlock traffic, or the same on the SIM routes going over the Verrazano? This doesn't also mean a hill of beans when crawling through Manhattan or on local streets of the boroughs.

Naah, "snootiness" sure doesn't apply. *rolls eyes*

I think that if the express fare was lowered to around $4.50, then transit buses would be acceptable. The speed of the buses is basically because the locals are governed so low (however some SI LFS buses are governed at higher speeds).

Does anyone know if the testing of 23 (the MCI with the low floor) was successful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DetSMART45 said:

OK, so you've supposedly got those "amenities" now -- what exactly are they and how are they soooo much more "superior" to Local service?

--Sitting up higher above traffic: Don't know how that trade-off really impacts significantly.

--High-floor bus with steps: More opportunities for tripping, slows access for customers with mobility problems on/off the bus, and of course the lift which slows the bus when picking-up/dropping-off ADA customers significantly over a kneeling/ramp access of a low-floor.

--Reading lamps, WiFi, USB ports: With all of the complaints/pictures of dirty and disabled/broken reading lamps, that's really a non-starter. Same with WiFi and USB, as those are being incorporated on the local bus fleet.

--Cushioned, reclining seats: Given how filthy and busted these "amenities" are, no real benefit there either.

--Ride quality: OK, possibly something to crow about. But if you're sitting in a filthy environment, let alone an uncomfortable one if the HVAC isn't working right, do you really care that a few of the street imperfections aren't as perceivable as on a local bus?

--Push-button stop request: Yeah, no ugly "stop cord" to obscure your "tour bus" trip, but all those extra buttons to fail, and if the reading lamps are already falling out/busted, not really a great "amenity".

--"Faster" on the expressways: Sure, possibly, but that's all dependent on the other vehicles on the same roadways. Does this factor make a difference to the customers aboard when the Service Status for the "X27-X68" gets the all-too-familiar "Delays" due to gridlock traffic, or the same on the SIM routes going over the Verrazano? This doesn't also mean a hill of beans when crawling through Manhattan or on local streets of the boroughs.

Naah, "snootiness" sure doesn't apply. *rolls eyes*

To be honest most of the express buses I ride are fine because the depot does a really good job. Yonkers Depot is one of the best around. Excellent maintenance overall and the buses are generally clean.  That said, if everything was perfect, I wouldn't have started an advocacy group.  The amenities that we have are fine. Comfortable... I have been riding the express buses for over 10 years and am very happy with the buses I ride. Wouldn't change a thing to be honest. The main focus is on express bus service Citywide and improving maintenance, cleanliness, safety and reliability.  Yes the service is $6.75 but if all of the above is met it's worth it.  Not expecting the Ritz Carlton...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 3:04 PM, Lex said:

That's probably why.

That wasn't really the case until about 4-5 years ago when the decision to cap the entire local fleet at 40-45 mph was made.

That said, returning to the topic, for the BxM1/2, I would do the following: 

  • Rush hours in the peak direction only (since this is along deadhead distance): add stops in the City of Yonkers to Getty Square (the BxM3 already ends at Getty Square).
    • Additional pickups on Riverdale Avenue and:
      • Prospect Street
      • Vark Street
      • Downing Street
      • Ludlow Street
      • Post Street
      • Belvedere Drive
      • Valentine Lane
      • West 263 Street
    • Additional dropoffs at:
      • Valentine Lane
      • Radford Street
      • Morris Street
      • Ludlow Street
      • Herriot Street
      • Prospect Street

Is there a height or weight restriction on the Henry Hudson Bridge that prevents MCI buses from being able to get directly on the HHE at West 232 Street southbound? If the clearance is 12 feet, MCI D-series buses at 11'5" should be able to use this easily...and Prevost X3-45s are even lower. The problem, however, is that you'd miss stops on Kappock on the BxM2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Surprised that the MTA didnt consider adding any new local routes. Theres some bus route proposals in the existing conditions report (e.x. Throgs Neck to Harlem) that could have potential.

Edited by R262

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2019 at 9:35 PM, aemoreira81 said:

That wasn't really the case until about 4-5 years ago when the decision to cap the entire local fleet at 40-45 mph was made.

That said, returning to the topic, for the BxM1/2, I would do the following: 

  • Rush hours in the peak direction only (since this is along deadhead distance): add stops in the City of Yonkers to Getty Square (the BxM3 already ends at Getty Square).
    • Additional pickups on Riverdale Avenue and:
      • Prospect Street
      • Vark Street
      • Downing Street
      • Ludlow Street
      • Post Street
      • Belvedere Drive
      • Valentine Lane
      • West 263 Street
    • Additional dropoffs at:
      • Valentine Lane
      • Radford Street
      • Morris Street
      • Ludlow Street
      • Herriot Street
      • Prospect Street

Is there a height or weight restriction on the Henry Hudson Bridge that prevents MCI buses from being able to get directly on the HHE at West 232 Street southbound? If the clearance is 12 feet, MCI D-series buses at 11'5" should be able to use this easily...and Prevost X3-45s are even lower. The problem, however, is that you'd miss stops on Kappock on the BxM2.

What a stupid proposal. There is no need to extend the BxM1 and BxM2 to Getty Square. NONE. The BxM3 runs there and serves a different ridership base, not to mention the run time of the BxM3. The BxM1 and BxM2 are roughly both an hour, sometimes more depending on the time. Getty Square is not the core ridership of the BxM1 or BxM2, and there is a booming need for express bus service from Getty Square, though there is some ridership. The BxM3 has about an hour or so of run time, so having to run to Getty Square to pick up a more folks isn’t such a big deal, not to mention the whole subsidy issue and it serving Westchester with City resources.

The other absurd idea of having the BxM1 and BxM2 skip Kappock Street... I am so tired of you guys coming up with these asinine ideas. Most of the ridership for the BxM2 is right along Kappock Street. #2, the pick-up segment is not a problem at all, so you wouldn’t be saving that much time anyway. 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 9:35 PM, aemoreira81 said:

That wasn't really the case until about 4-5 years ago when the decision to cap the entire local fleet at 40-45 mph was made.

That said, returning to the topic, for the BxM1/2, I would do the following: 

  • Rush hours in the peak direction only (since this is along deadhead distance): add stops in the City of Yonkers to Getty Square (the BxM3 already ends at Getty Square).
    • Additional pickups on Riverdale Avenue and:
      • Prospect Street, Vark Street,,Downing Street, Ludlow Street, Post Street, Belvedere Drive, Valentine Lane, West 263 Street
    • Additional dropoffs at:
      • Valentine Lane, Radford Street, Morris Street, Ludlow Street, Herriot Street, Prospect Street

You worry too much about non-revenue hours....

I mean really, it's enough that the BxM3 serves SW Yonkers,.... There's no need for the BxM1/2 to serve Yonkers, just because the depot they run out of itself is in Yonkers.....

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe I gave any input to what the changes are in this forum space, although I did this online and gave some of my ideas as to what I think should happen. There are some reroutes in this plan that work, and some that don't work. There are also some that I question their necessity or saw a missed opportunity. Note that this is part one, the next part is going to be on what doesn't work, what I question their necessity, and potential opportunities that were missed.

What works in the Bronx local plan:

  • The 8 to Country Club - Dean/Layton Avenues, and the 24 extension to Locust Point - Tierney Place/Longstreet Avenue: I think this would be great for Country Club and Locust Point because at the very least, Locust Point would still have a bus available to them. The 8 could benefit from a significant shortage of service in the sense that there would not be any reliability issues on the Country Club end, as there is in the current Locust Point end. Perhaps that would cut out the ever growing short turns that exist on the 8 that sends it to Westchester Square. I'm certain that this 24 extension would not cause trouble, similar to the 8 when it served Stadium Avenue (and marked as via Pelham Bay Park in the process).
  • The 6 Select+ to Turnbull/Pugsley Avenues via Story: I had sensed this one coming since I never understood why the 5 has to terminate there at all. Hopefully they would just cut out the 5 short turn and send all weekday runs over to Simpson Street (i.e. West Farms Road/Southern Boulevard).
  • The 11 to Hugh Grant Circle - East 177th Street/Parkchester: The 11 had been long overdue for a new ridership base. This would help to appease 36 riders that would depend on service along 174 Street. Another improvement that I would propose is to make the 11 run overnight with one to three buses running from 1 to 6AM, similar to what's currently done with the 36 overnight.
  • The 18 as the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority's first true Circulator via Morris Heights and Highbridge: While this route is dispatched from Tenth Avenue (i.e. Kingsbridge) considering that home is under the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, this could be a test to see whether a circulator service would become profitable in the long run.
  • The 36 and 40 swapping sections of 177th Street (i.e. Tremont Avenue): I had wanted the 40 to be the 177th Street-Tremont route, but this seems to be better for the 36, as it would just focus on running almost entirely via Tremont and the 40 could take over the 180 Street portion for a better connection to East 180th Street on the #2/5.
  • The 4A to Simpson Street via Metropolitan Oval: This would help eliminate a duplicate of a route that has operated in hand with the 4 since the 14 was cut. Additionally, another improvement I would propose is to call the route the 4M (with the M signifying its operation via Metropolitan Oval).
  • The 35 covering a portion of the 11's route via Jennings Street: Perhaps this could help maintain service in the section that is going to be cut from the 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I don't believe I gave any input to what the changes are in this forum space, although I did this online and gave some of my ideas as to what I think should happen. There are some reroutes in this plan that work, and some that don't work. There are also some that I question their necessity or saw a missed opportunity. Note that this is part one, the next part is going to be on what doesn't work, what I question their necessity, and potential opportunities that were missed.

What works in the Bronx local plan:

  • The 8 to Country Club - Dean/Layton Avenues, and the 24 extension to Locust Point - Tierney Place/Longstreet Avenue: I think this would be great for Country Club and Locust Point because at the very least, Locust Point would still have a bus available to them. The 8 could benefit from a significant shortage of service in the sense that there would not be any reliability issues on the Country Club end, as there is in the current Locust Point end. Perhaps that would cut out the ever growing short turns that exist on the 8 that sends it to Westchester Square. I'm certain that this 24 extension would not cause trouble, similar to the 8 when it served Stadium Avenue (and marked as via Pelham Bay Park in the process).
  • The 6 Select+ to Turnbull/Pugsley Avenues via Story: I had sensed this one coming since I never understood why the 5 has to terminate there at all. Hopefully they would just cut out the 5 short turn and send all weekday runs over to Simpson Street (i.e. West Farms Road/Southern Boulevard).
  • The 11 to Hugh Grant Circle - East 177th Street/Parkchester: The 11 had been long overdue for a new ridership base. This would help to appease 36 riders that would depend on service along 174 Street. Another improvement that I would propose is to make the 11 run overnight with one to three buses running from 1 to 6AM, similar to what's currently done with the 36 overnight.
  • The 18 as the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority's first true Circulator via Morris Heights and Highbridge: While this route is dispatched from Tenth Avenue (i.e. Kingsbridge) considering that home is under the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, this could be a test to see whether a circulator service would become profitable in the long run.
  • The 36 and 40 swapping sections of 177th Street (i.e. Tremont Avenue): I had wanted the 40 to be the 177th Street-Tremont route, but this seems to be better for the 36, as it would just focus on running almost entirely via Tremont and the 40 could take over the 180 Street portion for a better connection to East 180th Street on the #2/5.
  • The 4A to Simpson Street via Metropolitan Oval: This would help eliminate a duplicate of a route that has operated in hand with the 4 since the 14 was cut. Additionally, another improvement I would propose is to call the route the 4M (with the M signifying its operation via Metropolitan Oval).
  • The 35 covering a portion of the 11's route via Jennings Street: Perhaps this could help maintain service in the section that is going to be cut from the 11.

 

I would actually prefer to scrap the Bx4A and extend the Bx11 at least to Metropolitan Oval (or maybe to Westchester Square).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I would actually prefer to scrap the Bx4A and extend the Bx11 at least to Metropolitan Oval (or maybe to Westchester Square).

Let's try to avoid having routes do too much, okay?

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it curious that the Bx19, long considered to be one of the slowest moving turds in any borough, will be left virtually untouched after the redesign. I don’t know if splitting it in half would help, but that stretch on 149th Street from Southern Blvd to Grand Concourse is notoriously brutal. 

 

And even though its already been roasted, that BXM17 route has to be the MTA’s version of a troll post.

Share this post


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

And even though its already been roasted, that BXM17 route has to be the MTA’s version of a troll post.

 

How so? Maybe going through Queens is the fastest route. (Or is it better to slog through local Manhattan streets just to avoid passing through a third borough?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@4 via Mosholu The Bx4A was created by taking existing Bx4 trips and diverting them through Parkchester. So it's not really duplicate service. I do agree with cutting it back to West Farms Road in exchange for more frequent service, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cabanamaner said:

I find it curious that the Bx19, long considered to be one of the slowest moving turds in any borough, will be left virtually untouched after the redesign. I don’t know if splitting it in half would help, but that stretch on 149th Street from Southern Blvd to Grand Concourse is notoriously brutal. 

 

And even though its already been roasted, that BXM17 route has to be the MTA’s version of a troll post.

An M145 would be quite hilarious 😆. It might be good to see the Bx19 split up, but I don’t know where you can turn around the Bx19 or M145...

My pipe dream would be the a split of the Bx12. SBS would run between Sedgwick and Bay Plaza, the local 12 would run between Fordham/Valentine and Pelham Bay and the M207 would run between 207/Broadway and Pelham Pkwy/White Plains Rd (I would’ve split the 12 and 207 at Fordham Plaza but it’s turning 5 routes (6 with the Bx34) already and the area is a major choke point.) The hawk Bx12 local and M207 would be interlined and thru-running like the Bx39/Bx41 late night combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

Anyone think they should extend the Bx26 back to Fordham Center like it did in the 90s?

Nope.

Share this post


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

An M145 would be quite hilarious 😆. It might be good to see the Bx19 split up, but I don’t know where you can turn around the Bx19 or M145...

My pipe dream would be the a split of the Bx12. SBS would run between Sedgwick and Bay Plaza, the local 12 would run between Fordham/Valentine and Pelham Bay and the M207 would run between 207/Broadway and Pelham Pkwy/White Plains Rd (I would’ve split the 12 and 207 at Fordham Plaza but it’s turning 5 routes (6 with the Bx34) already and the area is a major choke point.) The hawk Bx12 local and M207 would be interlined and thru-running like the Bx39/Bx41 late night combo.

Come up with a different name. The bulk of that would be in the Bronx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

why was it ever cut back to BPB?

I couldn't tell you, but if the Bx28 is any indication, it's not needed down there. Hell, it already crosses the Bx34 and Bx41, and it interacts with the Bx12 and weekday Bx22 at/near its extremities.

Share this post


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

An M145 would be quite hilarious 😆. It might be good to see the Bx19 split up, but I don’t know where you can turn around the Bx19 or M145...

My pipe dream would be the a split of the Bx12. SBS would run between Sedgwick and Bay Plaza, the local 12 would run between Fordham/Valentine and Pelham Bay and the M207 would run between 207/Broadway and Pelham Pkwy/White Plains Rd (I would’ve split the 12 and 207 at Fordham Plaza but it’s turning 5 routes (6 with the Bx34) already and the area is a major choke point.) The hawk Bx12 local and M207 would be interlined and thru-running like the Bx39/Bx41 late night combo.

 

Before 1984, the Bx19 was two routes: Bx30 (149th Crosstown) and Bx31 (Southern Blvd).  I would have the crosstown part (Bx49?) run from Riverbank to Southern Blvd & West farms Road, while the north-south leg would run south from the Botanical Garden to Longwood and then absorb the Bx46.

 

Meanwhile, Bx12 used to be two routes through the early 1970s: Bx12 (east of Sedgwick) and Bx19 (west of Fordham Plaza).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 3:04 PM, 4 via Mosholu said:

I don't believe I gave any input to what the changes are in this forum space, although I did this online and gave some of my ideas as to what I think should happen. There are some reroutes in this plan that work, and some that don't work. There are also some that I question their necessity or saw a missed opportunity. Note that this is part one, the next part is going to be on what doesn't work, what I question their necessity, and potential opportunities that were missed.

What works in the Bronx local plan:

  • The 35 covering a portion of the 11's route via Jennings Street: Perhaps this could help maintain service in the section that is going to be cut from the 11.

I'm one that disagrees with the idea, and always thought that the 27/35 should be combined, and one should be the limited route of the other (Bx35 Limited, Soundview to Washington Heights), but, according to the planners I spoke to, the 35 is really bad, while the 27 is really good, so combining the two, would just make the 27 run like absolute dog s#!t. I still think there should be a route that overlaps the two, and have it run limited, but that's just me.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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