Bronx Redesign Draft Released

[Gotham Bus Co.]

31 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I didn’t not mean every Select Bus route. I meant make a select few routes free, such as the Q70, Bx23, etc.

 

The Q70 is free every so often because the Governor likes to accommodate people who enter and leave NYC. If you're traveling within NYC (e.g. from Co-op City to the subway), then he doesn't want to know from you.

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, sovetskii52 said:

I can see what the MTA is doing. Shortening routes. I'm a Co-op City resident and based on these changes, the MTA wants commuters to make more transfers which would require some to pay a second fare. For example: Instead of Bus-to-Subway transfer some commuters will have to do Bus-to-Bus and then a second fare onto the subway. Sneaky way to make more money.

Assuming you're right, that's a stupid strategy on their part..... It's an overt way to lose even more farebox revenue than thay are now....

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Or make it free, along with any select routes in the damn borough. Not that damn hard to do, right?

Not if you're willing to foot the "damn" bill, no.....

[MysteriousBtrain]

Speaking of fare evasion that's one of the things the Bx15 split may somewhat fix. So many people love to go through the back and get on for free in both directions at 149. Definitely not gonna fix it, Just get rid of the back door riding.

Edited June 9, 2019 by MysteriousBtrain

[checkmatechamp13]

58 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Assuming you're right, that's a stupid strategy on their part..... It's an overt way to lose even more farebox revenue than thay are now....

I can guarantee you that they will (at a minimum) program in an extra transfer for Bx23 riders...guarantee...they included 3-legged transfers for Staten Island routes (didn't make them universal for all SIM trips as originally promised, but they did expand it so that if you weren't paying 2 fares under the old system, you wouldn't pay 2 fares under the new system)

The fare structure has been brought up many times in these redesign discussions. They are definitely not looking to make more people pay double fares (whether they're looking to reduce the number of existing riders paying double fares remains to be seen)

On 6/5/2019 at 8:34 AM, B35 via Church said:

Like you said yesterday, neither is good, but hell, I'd resort to taking local roads over the HRD.... I'd resort to taking the Deegan over the HRD.... If the Deegan was as bad as the HRD, the BxMC4 as is, wouldn't be sustainable as a viable option for anyone for as long as it has.....

Bx33: I should have been more specific/less lazy with it, but the part in bold is what I was getting at (I wasn't trying to convey that actual demand for Douglass was greater).... I personally don't see the point in getting rid of that stop, especially enough to be emphatic about it... When the light's red at Fred, Douglass, people tend to be like, oh, f*** it & start walking... I've done it myself; it's a slap in the face to have to wait for a light, when I can walk that 1/2 block in less than a minute.... Maybe petty, but that sort of thing is a peeve of mine.

Only way I'd support getting rid of the Douglass stop, is if the light at that intersection were to removed & placed with stop signs instead (which of course, is a drastic measure & completely unwarranted).... So I'd leave the stop alone.

The detours I've seen the M98 make while I was at CCNY...135th to St. Nicholas was the most common but I've seen them up Amsterdam and even Broadway.

Did they move the Bx33 westbound stop? Last I remember it was always after the light at Frederick Douglas

5 hours ago, sovetskii52 said:

I can see what the MTA is doing. Shortening routes. I'm a Co-op City resident and based on these changes, the MTA wants commuters to make more transfers which would require some to pay a second fare. For example: Instead of Bus-to-Subway transfer some commuters will have to do Bus-to-Bus and then a second fare onto the subway. Sneaky way to make more money.

See my response to B35 above.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

47 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Speaking of fare evasion that's one of the things the Bx15 split may somewhat fix. So many people love to go through the back and get on for free in both directions at 149. Definitely not gonna fix it, Just get rid of the back door riding.

For those going to Manhattan, it'll happen on the subway. For those going north, some might consider taking the Bx41 SBS (especially since service is going to be increased). 

[Deucey]

On 6/1/2019 at 8:44 AM, JeremiahC99 said:

Speaking of 125th Street, one should also look into the possibility of closing the street between St. Nicholas Avenue and 2nd Avenue to all traffic except buses and trucks, similar to what is to be done on 14th Street between 3rd and 9th Avenues, to speed up bus traffic. The concepts and lessons from that project should be applied here.

You do remember the fight over bus lanes and parking there, right?

[GreatOne2k]

Maybe now MTA can finally run a consistent 20 minute headway late night on the Bx15 since there can be up to 60 minute gaps after 4am some days

[DetSMART45]

If the Bx15 would be maintained as currently (since the proposed split really is a bone-headed one), it'd be simpler to make the Limited travel fully Limited end-to-end. In this case, 125th should have Local Service by a Manhattan route, not from a connector. LTD should also operate seven days, alternating using the same pattern on Saturday and Sunday as during weekdays. Only time Local from end to end would be late night and overnight, bump headways to 30 min overnight alternating full route and short, but at the same time move Bx41 service to 30 min headways overnight. With an at-most 4 block difference between the two parallel routes, customers would still have good coverage options.

Edited June 9, 2019 by DetSMART45

[NBTA]

2 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

If the Bx15 would be maintained as currently (since the proposed split really is a bone-headed one), it'd be simpler to make the Limited travel fully Limited end-to-end. In this case, 125th should have Local Service by a Manhattan route, not from a connector. LTD should also operate seven days, alternating using the same pattern on Saturday and Sunday as during weekdays. Only time Local from end to end would be late night and overnight, bump headways to 30 min alternating full route and short, but at the same time move Bx41 service to 30 min headways. With an at-most 4 block difference between the two parallel routes, customers would still have good coverage options.

You can't have the route run Limited in Manhattan, you already got the M60 +SBS doing that duty. However, I do agree with the Limited running 7 days a week. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by NBTA

[DetSMART45]

Just now, NBTA said:

You can't have the route run Limited in Manhattan, you already got the M60 +SBS doing that duty. However, I do agree with the Limited running 7 days a week. 

Point is, a Bronx-based route should not be running Local in Manhattan, since it is acting as a "feeder" in both directions. People are complaining because the proposed split would cut off access to all of the subway stations along 125th. Manhattan customers wanting to access those stations should have that provided by Manhattan-based Local Service. And that's what the M100 is for. If M100 Local isn't cutting the mustard, do alternating Local/Limited trips north of 125th, but keep Local 100% along 125th for all of the transfer points (bus or subway).

The M60 is not really serving the area in a Limited-sense anyways. It's designed as a airport service (and is marketed all over by the MTA as such).

[NBTA]

1 minute ago, DetSMART45 said:

Point is, a Bronx-based route should not be running Local in Manhattan, since it is acting as a "feeder" in both directions. People are complaining because the proposed split would cut off access to all of the subway stations along 125th. Manhattan customers wanting to access those stations should have that provided by Manhattan-based Local Service. And that's what the M100 is for. If M100 Local isn't cutting the mustard, do alternating Local/Limited trips north of 125th, but keep Local 100% along 125th for all of the transfer points (bus or subway).

The M60 is not really serving the area in a Limited-sense anyways. It's designed as a airport service (and is marketed all over by the MTA as such).

I see what you saying, but to answer your wishes, you'd probably have to wait until the Bx15 becomes +SBS, once again, because the MTA doesn't want to expand on Limited service anymore, there's a reason why the last Limited was the Bx36 back in late 2009. There's a reason why all Limited routes are becoming +SBS anyway, so I believe, that for your wishes to be answered, you'd sadly have to wait for the 15 to be +SBS.

[DetSMART45]

1 minute ago, NBTA said:

I see what you saying, but to answer your wishes, you'd probably have to wait until the Bx15 becomes +SBS, once again, because the MTA doesn't want to expand on Limited service anymore, there's a reason why the last Limited was the Bx36 back in late 2009. There's a reason why all Limited routes are becoming +SBS anyway, so I believe, that for your wishes to be answered, you'd sadly have to wait for the 15 to be +SBS.

What is the point of expending MILLIONS of dollars (primarily weaseled from the Feds) to tear up the streets, put in (and maintain) fare collectors, and then abandon them in 4 years? If the current SBS-brand is going to evolve into the "new Limited" once OMNY is fully operational, it's pointless. Because in all reality, even if a maximum of 20% time-savings through SBS is achieved, everything else, infrastructurally-wise, never gets any true return-on-investment. Currently, SBS plans center around the wondrous "Bus Lanes" being plopped down, yet that becomes irrelevant because the DOT doesn't fund any enforcement -- which means NO operational savings comes from SBS in all reality. And look how long it took for enforcement to be shifted onto MTA's shoulders through the on-board cameras -- something that DOT should have had in place on EVERY route they collaborated with the MTA on, since the original Bx12 "experiment", and that was TEN YEARS AGO.

TBH, the M100 should have had the Local/Limited applied a long time ago, which would have made the truncating idea that much more harder to make. And, at the same time, the Bx15 LTD that serves as a cross-borough feeder would not be viewed as the "problem" that would require splitting, along with the creation of a totally separate route to join the two.

[NBTA]

1 minute ago, DetSMART45 said:

What is the point of expending MILLIONS of dollars (primarily weaseled from the Feds) to tear up the streets, put in (and maintain) fare collectors, and then abandon them in 4 years? If the current SBS-brand is going to evolve into the "new Limited" once OMNY is fully operational, it's pointless. Because in all reality, even if a maximum of 20% time-savings through SBS is achieved, everything else, infrastructurally-wise, never gets any true return-on-investment. Currently, SBS plans center around the wondrous "Bus Lanes" being plopped down, yet that becomes irrelevant because the DOT doesn't fund any enforcement -- which means NO operational savings comes from SBS in all reality. And look how long it took for enforcement to be shifted onto MTA's shoulders through the on-board cameras -- something that DOT should have had in place on EVERY route they collaborated with the MTA on, since the original Bx12 "experiment", and that was TEN YEARS AGO.

TBH, the M100 should have had the Local/Limited applied a long time ago, which would have made the truncating idea that much more harder to make. And, at the same time, the Bx15 LTD that serves as a cross-borough feeder would not be viewed as the "problem" that would require splitting, along with the creation of a totally separate route to join the two.

I honestly have no defense to this, but, the "new +SBS" will probably be off door like how it is now, just with different machines. You never know though, which is why I don't completely disagree with you on this statement. 

[DetSMART45]

1 minute ago, NBTA said:

I honestly have no defense to this, but, the "new +SBS" will probably be off door like how it is now, just with different machines. You never know though, which is why I don't completely disagree with you on this statement. 

If OMNY goes like Oyster on TfL, everyone "touches-in" onboard for fare collection (or not, as currently), so street-side fare collection will be done away with (or modified by having some located at the highest-volume locations). In that case, I'd take about 75% of the SBS fare machines and distribute them to high-volume street-side areas outside of subway coverage -- you're ALWAYS going to have the "cash"/non-adopter customers. Would also maintain jobs for that crew.

But as far as the DOT giving up on their penchant through SBS in narrowing streets/putting bus bulbs in/adding street furniture, that isn't going to be shelved.

[Bay Ridge Express]

Perhaps the  was relying on Concourse stations eventually becoming ADA accessible to push the BxM4 off of there...

[DetSMART45]

9 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Perhaps the  was relying on Concourse stations eventually becoming ADA accessible to push the BxM4 off of there...

Actually it'd be cheaper in the long-run for the MTA to switch over to the MCI low-floors than to do a full court push on subway elevators. Not saying the subway stations don't somehow need an expedited accessibility program in place, but changing the OTR coaches over to low-floor would be beneficial, not to mention operational savings achieved by no lifts.

(And, they *could* order Xcelsiors with suburban-style seating to operate on Express routes -- even as a test.)

Edited June 9, 2019 by DetSMART45

[Via Garibaldi 8]

37 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

What is the point of expending MILLIONS of dollars (primarily weaseled from the Feds) to tear up the streets, put in (and maintain) fare collectors, and then abandon them in 4 years? If the current SBS-brand is going to evolve into the "new Limited" once OMNY is fully operational, it's pointless. Because in all reality, even if a maximum of 20% time-savings through SBS is achieved, everything else, infrastructurally-wise, never gets any true return-on-investment. Currently, SBS plans center around the wondrous "Bus Lanes" being plopped down, yet that becomes irrelevant because the DOT doesn't fund any enforcement -- which means NO operational savings comes from SBS in all reality. And look how long it took for enforcement to be shifted onto MTA's shoulders through the on-board cameras -- something that DOT should have had in place on EVERY route they collaborated with the MTA on, since the original Bx12 "experiment", and that was TEN YEARS AGO.

TBH, the M100 should have had the Local/Limited applied a long time ago, which would have made the truncating idea that much more harder to make. And, at the same time, the Bx15 LTD that serves as a cross-borough feeder would not be viewed as the "problem" that would require splitting, along with the creation of a totally separate route to join the two.

They don't care about that because since SBS is considered to be BRT, it allows the  to get federal funding for new buses and other goodies, which the  doesn't have to worry about financially.

[Lex]

28 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

(And, they *could* order Xcelsiors with suburban-style seating to operate on Express routes -- even as a test.)

Personally, I don't have a problem with this (easier on maintenance and allows for some level of route redistribution, especially if we take the LFS into consideration for places like Staten Island), but I can't see too many express riders enjoying the idea of using buses built on the transit platforms.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

1 hour ago, DetSMART45 said:

Point is, a Bronx-based route should not be running Local in Manhattan...

 

So then, what are your specific proposals regarding the Bx6, Bx7, Bx19, Bx20, Bx33?  

 

(Also, a historical note: Prior to 1989, the M100 was a Manhattan-based route that ran local in the Bronx.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

14 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

So then, what are your specific proposals regarding the Bx6, Bx7, Bx19, Bx20, Bx33?  

 

(Also, a historical note: Prior to 1989, the M100 was a Manhattan-based route that ran local in the Bronx.)

The Bx6 and the Bx33 only spend a small amount of time in Manhattan, and primarily connect to subway stations.  The Bx7, Bx20 are different animals, connecting Riverdale to the  train, but the Bx7 serves further to connect Upper Manhattan to Riverdale.

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, DetSMART45 said:

(And, they *could* order Xcelsiors with suburban-style seating to operate on Express routes -- even as a test.)

Wasn’t express bus service run with suburban-style buses before  took the franchises over?

I remember seeing GM Classics on express routes to the Bronx years ago before MCI and Prevosts showed up.

[Deucey]

Am I the only one looking at this redesign and feeling like  mailed this in - especially after the SI express fiasco?

I was kinda hoping to see an actual redesign that likely linked more corridors to the nearest train stations and made more circulator routes to neighborhood destinations like shopping centers and hospitals, but instead it’s “yeah we’re not changing much except to eliminate a stop here and there.”

Plus ça change...

[MysteriousBtrain]

48 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Wasn’t express bus service run with suburban-style buses before  took the franchises over?

I remember seeing GM Classics on express routes to the Bronx years ago before MCI and Prevosts showed up.

Suburban Orion V s and RTS. Changed when 45 ft cruisers began to be offered I believe.

[Deucey]

5 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Suburban Orion V s and RTS. Changed when 45 ft cruisers began to be offered I believe.

I don’t get why?

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

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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  went with coach buses, as they are more suitable for express bus service.  The  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 June 9, 2019 by Via Garibaldi 8