Jump to content

Update on the Release of the Bronx Bus Network Redesign Final Plan


Mpn4179

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The shuttle buses don’t run on weekends to Metro-North here, and on top of that the (1) is constantly knocked out for track work, so that doesn’t leave many options, and taking the unreliable local bus all the way to the (4) and coming that way is another headache or the (A) . The subway situation despite the (MTA) ‘s claims is still a disaster, even within Manhattan. I have given up on it. The (A) is a mess, and the (1) line continues to worsen.

The shuttle buses were at one point targeted to be axed altogether, the (1) and (A) seem to take turns being knocked out for track work every weekend (the (A) is also having a weekend service cut starting next month) and Metro-North is actually more frequent from Fordham than the (4) whenever there's track work on Jerome.

One would think that if one mode of transportation is getting cut, at the very least the transportation provider would step up on providing alternative services on its other modes of transportation. Nope. Everything is cut, cut, cut. The only people that are going to be left riding on anything (MTA) is going to be the homeless people, Showtime, and the basketball teams selling candy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

It's worth noting that, even today, the scheduled running time of the BxM7 from Dreiser to 51 St is almost exactly equal to the time one achieves w/ the <6>

I mean if the (6) ran directly to Co-op City (hint, hint MTA...) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Throwing my hat in the express bus discussion (and fully recognizing that this take will get my head bitten off), I see long term the express network definitely being something that should be trimmed.

On a semi-related note, I would love to hear what you have to say about NJT's express buses to/from Port Authority...

We (as in my family and I) actually switched from taking the North Jersey Coast Line out to my cousins in Matawan to taking the 139 bus to Old Bridge and having them pick us up there. The bus being more frequent than the train, cheaper and quicker makes it so much easier.

IMO I'd like to see express buses in the city become more viable for leisure trips into the core just as much as they currently are at peak times for commutes into the core, playing a similar role as the NJT 139 and others. (These Bronx cuts do the opposite of that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I mean if the (6) ran directly to Co-op City (hint, hint MTA...) then we wouldn't be having this discussion

Invest👏capital👏in👏reducing👏operating👏costs👏

(Imagine what all the Co-Op-PBP bus hours could be doing if they weren't doing that). 

13 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

On a semi-related note, I would love to hear what you have to say about NJT's express buses to/from Port Authority...

We (as in my family and I) actually switched from taking the North Jersey Coast Line out to my cousins in Matawan to taking the 139 bus to Old Bridge and having them pick us up there. The bus being more frequent than the train, cheaper and quicker makes it so much easier.

IMO I'd like to see express buses in the city become more viable for leisure trips into the core just as much as they currently are at peak times for commutes into the core, playing a similar role as the NJT 139 and others. (These Bronx cuts do the opposite of that)

This feels like a textbook argument for treating commuter rail like regional rail? Fare integration, more frequent service, etc? Provided market density, ofc more rail service is almost always going to be cheaper/better for riders than more bus service.

Imagine, for a second, how much better NJT's resource allocation would be if it wasn't spending untold millions on shoveling buses through the Lincoln Tunnel because it can't learn how to operate rail in North Jersey for its life. There is a _lot_ to be said financially (and, usually, temporally) for replacing bus service with rail service -- provided, of course, they go similar places, have similar frequencies/prices, etc. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Around the Horn said:

IMO I'd like to see express buses in the city become more viable for leisure trips into the core just as much as they currently are at peak times for commutes into the core, playing a similar role as the NJT 139 and others. (These Bronx cuts do the opposite of that)

If we had the NJT bus system and the MTA rail system all within NYC, we would have one of the elite public transit systems in the country.

Metro-North made an investment similar to what you're talking about. It started in the late 80s/early 90s with "reverse peak" service for people to work in the suburbs and getaway packages in both the suburbs and the city, and after their first ridership boom with the commuters early on, they had a secondary ridership boom with the leisure travelers (leisure travel and commuter travel are now split just about 50/50) and eventually the MN service area became the #1 reverse-commute market in the entire country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

This is only partially true. There are many express routes in Queens especially that could be replaced easily with LIRR or a short bus ride to LIRR. In the Bronx, the potential is certainly more limited, but, for example in Co Op City, the advent of PSAS should at least prompt a discussion on keeping such a high operating cost service as the BxM7 in light of the fact that a faster alternative will exist. I'm in no way defending the agency's treatment of express bus riders here, I just think there's a conversation to be had about weighting the costs of providing express bus service against a) potential alternate uses of those resources, and b) potential alternate (sometimes faster) routes express bus users could take. 

I'm totally with you on LIRR rule reform, but it's worth noting that even w/o it LIRR service is cheaper to operate than express buses, and the marginal cost of capacity is lower (in some cases, even zero).

Having buses (hell, for all I care, designated shuttle buses to PW stations like Riverdale has to the Hudson Line) in NE Queens would do nothing for the folks who need to go to destinations in East Midtown and the areas in the 50s, since they would still need to backtrack from Penn Station. The express bus provides a lot more/better coverage compared to the LIRR in both Queens and Manhattan. Routes like the QM2/32 and QM20 are relatively close to the LIRR yet still get a lot of riders. To relate to the topic, the Riverdale routes do pretty well even with the Hudson Line closeby. In both cases, the express buses serve areas not served by commuter rail at all. 

A centralized terminal/hub for commuter services going outside of Manhattan is really only permissible for commuter bus/rail coming from LI, Hudson Valley, or New Jersey because there isn't a more direct option. As a city resident going to Manhattan, if I'm transferring to and from getting off the LIRR or Metro-North , I might as well take my chances on the subway or express bus for a lower fare since those options (while slightly longer) would still be relatively similar to the commuter rail option, but with less transfers. 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The express bus network is honestly one of the better examples out there of a network that doesn't play to modal strengths. Internationally, buses do their best work feeding rail lines and serving medium density markets that do not have/cannot justify rail service. In almost all cases, their riders travel over short stage lengths. The express bus network meets none of those criterion; it is an example of a network that does not in fact pursue sensible modal integration. 

Express buses are in large part not going to have riders transferring to other modes because many use it to commute directly to/from work. That was one of their intended purposes when they all started them under the PBLs and it still holds today. You see people transferring from commuter rail to the subway at PABT, Penn, Grand Central, and Atlantic Terminal because there just isn't enough space to build additional tunnels all over the place under Midtown/Downtown Manhattan. 

I'd argue the NYC Ferry is the worst when it comes to integration. In many cases, the locations eventually make the ferry serve a "niche market", which in some cases serves that poorly. The separate fare structure from the subway and buses make it unattractive for quite a lot of people. There's also getting to and from the stations which are inconvenient, since many people are going beyond those locations. At best, they're similar in time to a subway+bus option, and at worst, more time consuming (and expensive).

LIRR also doesn't really have many people transferring to other (non-car) modes on the LI end. Granted, some of that also falls on the state of bus service in Nassau county, but even where there's connections to/from buses, there's very little transferring done between the two, or complimenting between modes.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Couldn't agree more, which is why I qualified my statement in the way I did. But that does not detract at all from the fact that the agency is spending massively to serve a relatively small number of riders. Again, I've gotta ask, is this really the best use of our limited resources? The impacts of express bus service aren't just on express bus riders -- by definition, the opex consumed in their operation is money not being spent elsewhere. Would love to see an analysis of (provided good alternatives to express bus service) the potential alternate uses of those funds.

If express bus service was cut to be theoretically reallocated, the MTA would pull a Houdini the next day and say "we don't have the money". The savings gets pocketed, which is not only an express bus issue but bus service across the board. Also, that $12 (or whatever the exact number is per rider) is a very general term. I don't know by how much, but I would say Bronx express bus routes in general are more efficient than those in other boroughs, as their route lengths aren't as longer as other boroughs, and have higher concentrations of people per bus throughout the day. 

There isn't anything politically or economical feasible to do a complete elimination of parts of the express bus network. With how projects cost to improve/extend trains or increase capacity (whether it's the subway, or commuter rail), you'd actually be better off running the express buses in the long run.

Investing sensibly in rail can still be pursued without having buses being the sacrificial lamb 100% of the time, which is a foreign concept for the MTA. The worst part is, they can't even get the first part right.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Having buses (hell, for all I care, designated shuttle buses to PW stations like Riverdale has to the Hudson Line) in NE Queens would do nothing for the folks who need to go to destinations in East Midtown and the areas in the 50s, since they would still need to backtrack from Penn Station. The express bus provides a lot more/better coverage compared to the LIRR in both Queens and Manhattan. Routes like the QM2/32 and QM20 are relatively close to the LIRR yet still get a lot of riders. To relate to the topic, the Riverdale routes do pretty well even with the Hudson Line closeby. In both cases, the express buses serve areas not served by commuter rail at all. 

If only there were a large terminal for LIRR trains being built under East Midtown at this very second...

12 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

A centralized terminal/hub for commuter services going outside of Manhattan is really only permissible for commuter bus/rail coming from LI, Hudson Valley, or New Jersey because there isn't a more direct option. As a city resident going to Manhattan, if I'm transferring to and from getting off the LIRR or Metro-North , I might as well take my chances on the subway or express bus for a lower fare since those options (while slightly longer) would still be relatively similar to the commuter rail option, but with less transfers. 

You're free to make that choice. But I'd like to see the cost/benefit of providing that option vs expecting people to make those transfers and using the (quite immense) amount of resources consumed by providing that option to a relatively limited number of people elsewhere. 

12 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Having buses (hell, for all I care, designated shuttle buses to PW stations like Riverdale has to the Hudson Line) in NE Queens would do nothing for the folks who need to go to destinations in East Midtown and the areas in the 50s, since they would still need to backtrack from Penn Station. The express bus provides a lot more/better coverage compared to the LIRR in both Queens and Manhattan. Routes like the QM2/32 and QM20 are relatively close to the LIRR yet still get a lot of riders. To relate to the topic, the Riverdale routes do pretty well even with the Hudson Line closeby. In both cases, the express buses serve areas not served by commuter rail at all. 

I understand the reason for the express bus network, what I'm saying is that it doesn't play to the strengths of bus service. Again, I'm not arguing for their elimination tomorrow or even in the near future, just saying that they're an extremely expensive service to provide and, given that we have quite the operating budget issue in this city, it may well be worth the effort to look into reducing their use in favor of more beneficial allocations of resources/less expensive means of providing the same triptimes. Totally off topic, but I feel compelled to note that there does exist more space for tunnels -- we just do not have the creativity or the cost levels necessary to use it. 

No disagreement with you no NYC Ferry! 

I think saying that the lack of bus-LIRR transfers on LI is a result of poor interagency integration can be charitably classified as an understatement. Go look at any European suburb -- buses play *massive* roles in getting people to stations. 

12 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

If express bus service was cut to be theoretically reallocated, the MTA would pull a Houdini the next day and say "we don't have the money". The savings gets pocketed, which is not only an express bus issue but bus service across the board. Also, that $12 (or whatever the exact number is per rider) is a very general term. I don't know by how much, but I would say Bronx express bus routes in general are more efficient than those in other boroughs, as their route lengths aren't as longer as other boroughs, and have higher concentrations of people per bus throughout the day. 

There isn't anything politically or economical feasible to do a complete elimination of parts of the express bus network. With how projects cost to improve/extend trains or increase capacity (whether it's the subway, or commuter rail), you'd actually be better off running the express buses in the long run. 

Saying that you don't trust the MTA to actually do what they say and saying that what they say is bad are different things. I would also want a guarantee from them that they'd make up for the service. 

Re: $12, I'd believe that (though I'd obviously want to see stats). But this is a discussion about the express network as a whole. 

The point I'm making here is that if we made better use of our *existing* commuter rail/bus/subway network, we could mitigate the financial cost of express bus service. That rail service is cheaper to supply on a cost/rider basis than bus service given infrastructure is unquestionable, and in some NYC cases, the cost of rail capacity is *zero* -- many portions of the commuter rail network run significantly below capacity even during peak hours. 

It goes without saying that this shouldn't be so much as thought about until rail fare integration is achieved, and (optimally) this is a conversation that should take place in the broader context of better leveraging NYC's considerable commuter rail network for regional good, but it's nonetheless an important thing to emphasize: there are ways we can, simultaneously, reduce the agency's operating costs and reduce commute times. 

I'm signing off for the night.

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Sure, (the implication behind) increasing the distance/stop may sound nice on paper, but it is directly proportional to something IMO that's highly underrated - an increase of (pissed off) riders/stop.... Some may quantify this as a slippery slope, but I see more altercations between passengers arising... It's bad enough people push & shove their way onto the local buses as it is.... It isn't as prevalent a problem in Queens, but let this stop consolidation shit happen out there & that courtesy/nicety will fly right out the window.....

It sure helps the buses move faster because the biggest complaint is how slow they are, especially when the bell gets rung for every stop. I'm pretty sure we've all been on a bus trying to reach a destination but the bus keeps stopping every 1-2 blocks then has to fight its way back into traffic (if things are heavy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SoSpectacular said:

It sure helps the buses move faster because the biggest complaint is how slow they are, especially when the bell gets rung for every stop. I'm pretty sure we've all been on a bus trying to reach a destination but the bus keeps stopping every 1-2 blocks then has to fight its way back into traffic (if things are heavy).

Sure we have.

Manhattan crosstowns also stop at virtually every stop (some of them, literally every stop).... The avenue blocks in Manhattan are spaced out better than bus stops on most other routes in the city..... Those buses are undergoing the same phenomenon you describe (frequent stopping & fighting to get back into traffic) all the same..... I'm just not buying increasing stop distances as this smoking gun to make buses as fast as it seems people want to believe that it will.... AFAIC, it's a scapegoat.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

Sure we have.

Manhattan crosstowns also stop at virtually every stop (some of them, literally every stop).... The avenue blocks in Manhattan are spaced out better than bus stops on most other routes in the city..... Those buses are undergoing the same phenomenon you describe (frequent stopping & fighting to get back into traffic) all the same..... I'm just not buying increasing stops as this smoking gun to make buses as fast.... AFAIC, it's a scapegoat.

That they are... But, from experiences- there are places where bus stops are so close together it makes zero sense for them to even exist when there could be one stop in between. Practically less than the length of a 8-car train!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lex said:

This is far more viable in the Bronx than in Queens or on that rock sitting closer to NJ than Brooklyn. (I'm not saying that I would do that, just that it's nowhere near as bad up there as in some other areas.)

Some places in the Bronx are far from subways and places that the subway serves (especially at the ends of subway lines) takes a while to get out of The Bronx. For example, afternoon BxM7 riders in Co-op City will have to take a local (6) train 18 stops just to get out of The Bronx. They also have to take a local bus to reach the (6). Don't also forget about the frequent "service changes" in the subway.

 

8 hours ago, Lex said:

Yes, let's do absolutely nothing to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. That's a great idea. /s

Well, why should people have to pay to drive into the busy business districts of Manhattan if the (MTA) decides to not provide quick and efficient transit options for people that live in transit deserts. The city should tell the (MTA), No service = No congestion pricing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoSpectacular said:

That they are... But, from experiences- there are places where bus stops are so close together it makes zero sense for them to even exist when there could be one stop in between. Practically less than the length of a 8-car train!

Oh, I'm not denying that there aren't any bus stops in the city that are too close together.... If (and especially) those are the stops that see little to no usage, then those are the stops that can go (or be combined, or however you want to look at it)....

An example I would bring up on here whenever the opportunity presented itself, is (well, was) the (old) NB B46 local stop at Kings Hwy..... Lion's share of riders (that needed the local or SBS) bombarded the Av H. stop.... Still do (although I don't care for the current placement of the Av H. stop, now on the near side of Utica/Av H, but that's another topic).... Had zero qualms for the removal of that Kings Hwy. stop..... However, it wasn't for reasons for making the B46 local any faster... I don't see the 46 local in that direction being any faster, now that that stop is gone.....

This isn't being aimed at you per se, but my problem is the precedent being set in this redesign/plan, by going on this sort of witch hunt with deleting stops & putting it out there to the public that this is THE solution for making your commute faster..... I don't care for that narrative.

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Regarding the Bx6SBS proposal,

Are they going to add bus lanes onto Story Blvd and not convert the Bx5 into SBS anymore, or will the Bx6SBS just continue with no bus lanes?

Running the Bx6 SBS to the commercial area around WPR, over SBS-ing the Bx5 in & of itself, is a better use of resources.... I will give them credit for that suggestion, as an SBS Bx5 east of Castle Hill is not warranted... At that juncture of the Bx5, it becomes more about basic network coverage than anything.... Thank f*** that the MTA didn't decide to combine the Bx6 SBS over the entire Bx5 east of Southern....

As for putting a bus lane on Story, I see no mention of that anywhere.... Yet, anyway.... I'd be surprised if they did though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

No 21st century transportation network works being rail-oriented. It needs bus, rail, and other applicable modes integrated together.

Thank you for saying this, as it lets me know that I'm not some island onto myself with that very perception....

Let some of these overly pro-rail guys tell it, true integration consists of rail, rail, and even MORE rail.... That mindset is far too pervasive amongst those types enough for me to want to be bothered with 'em..... You've been in this online transit community long enough, so you might remember this dude I'm about to bring up.... His handle was Nexis 4 Jersey (or something to that effect)... He proposed this expansive rail network from here to Timbuctoo to Walla Walla, Washington (figuratively speaking).... While impressive, it's like you sit there & you look at this composition & you ask yourself, where would a public bus come into play into any of this.....

On the flip side of that, I don't think you'd get an overly pro-bus guy to want to drum up a network of buses in some attempt to supplant trains (or, anything akin to the situation that plagues NJ commuters with the funneling of dozens upon dozens upon dozens of bus routes into PABT)..... How many BPH during peak times does PABT garner anyway? But honestly, who's advocating for this shit???? The person that'd come around these parts, hard-body advocating anything of the sort, would get ripped to kingdom come.... Justifiably & undeniably so.

There has long been this *meh*, this *whatever*, this disposition that amounts to a cheapening of buses that I simply don't care for.... It's something to be said where you have those that advocate for buses being willing to come to grips that an integrated public transit system consists of buses & rails working in unison..... Those that advocate for rails have a tendency to diminish & downplay the worth that buses (regardless of service type) have in a public transit system....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

Some places in the Bronx are far from subways and places that the subway serves (especially at the ends of subway lines) takes a while to get out of The Bronx. For example, afternoon BxM7 riders in Co-op City will have to take a local (6) train 18 stops just to get out of The Bronx. They also have to take a local bus to reach the (6). Don't also forget about the frequent "service changes" in the subway.

Apparently, you missed my response to someone else, as it was a comparison. (There's other problems I see with the line of thought, but the main issue is the apparent thought that I was speaking in absolutes.)

1 hour ago, Lil 57 said:

Well, why should people have to pay to drive into the busy business districts of Manhattan if the (MTA) decides to not provide quick and efficient transit options for people that live in transit deserts. The city should tell the (MTA), No service = No congestion pricing.

In general, the traffic is horrendous. A move that risks placing considerably more strain on the roads without some sort of abatement is a recipe for disaster, Moreover, that issue applies primarily to the peaks, whereas the worst of the impacts under this plan are off-peak/reverse peak (not even the peak impacts are remotely enough to justify canning congestion pricing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RR503 said:

If only there were a large terminal for LIRR trains being built under East Midtown at this very second...

 

You're free to make that choice. But I'd like to see the cost/benefit of providing that option vs expecting people to make those transfers and using the (quite immense) amount of resources consumed by providing that option to a relatively limited number of people elsewhere. 

 

I understand the reason for the express bus network, what I'm saying is that it doesn't play to the strengths of bus service. Again, I'm not arguing for their elimination tomorrow or even in the near future, just saying that they're an extremely expensive service to provide and, given that we have quite the operating budget issue in this city, it may well be worth the effort to look into reducing their use in favor of more beneficial allocations of resources/less expensive means of providing the same triptimes. Totally off topic, but I feel compelled to note that there does exist more space for tunnels -- we just do not have the creativity or the cost levels necessary to use it. 

No disagreement with you no NYC Ferry! 

I think saying that the lack of bus-LIRR transfers on LI is a result of poor interagency integration can be charitably classified as an understatement. Go look at any European suburb -- buses play *massive* roles in getting people to stations. 

Saying that you don't trust the MTA to actually do what they say and saying that what they say is bad are different things. I would also want a guarantee from them that they'd make up for the service. 

Re: $12, I'd believe that (though I'd obviously want to see stats). But this is a discussion about the express network as a whole. 

The point I'm making here is that if we made better use of our *existing* commuter rail/bus/subway network, we could mitigate the financial cost of express bus service. That rail service is cheaper to supply on a cost/rider basis than bus service given infrastructure is unquestionable, and in some NYC cases, the cost of rail capacity is *zero* -- many portions of the commuter rail network run significantly below capacity even during peak hours. 

It goes without saying that this shouldn't be so much as thought about until rail fare integration is achieved, and (optimally) this is a conversation that should take place in the broader context of better leveraging NYC's considerable commuter rail network for regional good, but it's nonetheless an important thing to emphasize: there are ways we can, simultaneously, reduce the agency's operating costs and reduce commute times. 

I'm signing off for the night.

Your plan sounds GREAT. What you leave out though is that express buses often go places that trains don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a chance to really read thru this proposal and I will say the following: 

EXPRESS BUS COMMUTERS: You guys have a big fight in your hands. BxM3, BxM4, BxM5, BxM6 have no Saturday/Sunday service and other lines ending no later than 12:15AM. What happened to catering to the late night folk. This has to be by far the worse re-design for the express portion.  I know that @Via Garibaldi 8 and his team is on top of this and get the restored service levels. If this is going to be the norm for this.  Brooklyn re-design plan is in deep s*it. 

LOCAL BUS COMMUTERS:  There are some routes that look good on paper and some improved travel directions. What I will say is this. Leaving the Bx40/42 alone in Throggs Neck was the best thing to do. I disagree with the Bx29 ending at Pelham Bay Park taking away access to Bay Plaza. Bx34 travel pattern makes better sense. Webster-204-Bainbridge. Welcome back to the Bx25. Bx18 in Highbridge gets added service. Bx6SBS to Sound view looks good on paper and Bx11 to West Farms Road is okay on paper. 

However, overall no real changes on the other lines with this plan. I see this plan making mistakes like the Staten Island Express Bus plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Your plan sounds GREAT. What you leave out though is that express buses often go places that trains don't

Sure, there are some routes that go nowhere near alts. But let's not pretend some of the SE/NE Queens routes are wholly irreplaceable, or that Co-Op has no alts post-PSA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Sure, there are some routes that go nowhere near alts. But let's not pretend some of the SE/NE Queens routes are wholly irreplaceable, or that Co-Op has no alts post-PSA. 

Pretend? What exactly is supposed to be replacing these express buses? Please DO tell me... Even when Co-Op City receives Metro-North, it will make ONE stop at Penn Station, which is nowhere near to where the BxM7 runs, so it seems as if you are talking out of your @ss.  On another note, do you live in a transit desert? Just curious. I don't think you have a clue of what it's like to live in a place where there is no subway. Occasionally traveling to one is one thing. Living there is another thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Pretend? What exactly is supposed to be replacing these express buses? Please DO tell me... Even when Co-Op City receives Metro-North, it will make ONE stop at Penn Station, which is nowhere near to where the BxM7 runs, so it seems as if you are talking out of your @ss.  On another note, do you live in a transit desert? Just curious. I don't think you have a clue of what it's like to live in a place where there is no subway. Occasionally traveling to one is one thing. Living there is another thing.

I don't live in NYC anymore, but that's somewhat beside the point -- the point being that data > anecdote or opinion. I also would humbly challenge the notion that the existence of a subway is a cure-all for transport woes. I daresay some lines are unreliable, and, in parts of the city without much political capital, are frequently subject to weekend/night shutdowns.

Re: Co-Op, there are a few answers I could imagine giving here. Answer the first is that I'm not willing to spend the big bucks to save people from transferring from MNR to the (E) when total trip time under that scenario is likely shorter. Answer the second is that we should be considering investments in xfer facilities at Harold to allow people from the region's various commuter rail lines to shuffle their end terminals in Manhattan (@Union Tpke has a plan for this IINM). Answer the third is that the (6) -- *provided some common sense reliability improvements* -- is already time-competitive with the BxM7 to E Midtown. All of these have the benefit of being true/viable, and likely a more generally beneficial use of the MTA's limited operating funding than shelling out the big bucks so a small fraction of Co-Op City residents can get a direct ride to Midtown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I don't live in NYC anymore, but that's somewhat beside the point -- the point being that data > anecdote or opinion. I also would humbly challenge the notion that the existence of a subway is a cure-all for transport woes. I daresay some lines are unreliable, and, in parts of the city without much political capital, are frequently subject to weekend/night shutdowns.

Re: Co-Op, there are a few answers I could imagine giving here. Answer the first is that I'm not willing to spend the big bucks to save people from transferring from MNR to the (E) when total trip time under that scenario is likely shorter. Answer the second is that we should be considering investments in xfer facilities at Harold to allow people from the region's various commuter rail lines to shuffle their end terminals in Manhattan (@Union Tpke has a plan for this IINM). Answer the third is that the (6) -- *provided some common sense reliability improvements* -- is already time-competitive with the BxM7 to E Midtown. All of these have the benefit of being true/viable, and likely a more generally beneficial use of the MTA's limited operating funding than shelling out the big bucks so a small fraction of Co-Op City residents can get a direct ride to Midtown. 

The BxM7 spends most of its time along 5th Avenue and Madison where there are no subways, so again, I'm not sure what exactly the bus is competing with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I don't live in NYC anymore, but that's somewhat beside the point -- the point being that data > anecdote or opinion. I also would humbly challenge the notion that the existence of a subway is a cure-all for transport woes. I daresay some lines are unreliable, and, in parts of the city without much political capital, are frequently subject to weekend/night shutdowns.

Re: Co-Op, there are a few answers I could imagine giving here. Answer the first is that I'm not willing to spend the big bucks to save people from transferring from MNR to the (E) when total trip time under that scenario is likely shorter. Answer the second is that we should be considering investments in xfer facilities at Harold to allow people from the region's various commuter rail lines to shuffle their end terminals in Manhattan (@Union Tpke has a plan for this IINM). Answer the third is that the (6) -- *provided some common sense reliability improvements* -- is already time-competitive with the BxM7 to E Midtown. All of these have the benefit of being true/viable, and likely a more generally beneficial use of the MTA's limited operating funding than shelling out the big bucks so a small fraction of Co-Op City residents can get a direct ride to Midtown. 

 

A BXM7 ride from dreiser loop to Midtown becomes alot more time competitive when you consider the other buses in co-op suck dog meals. Not to mention the comfort offered is something I wouldn't want to trade vs a packed local bus ride. 

Edited by Jdog14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The BxM7 spends most of its time along 5th Avenue and Madison where there are no subways, so again, I'm not sure what exactly the bus is competing with?

Wut?

Let's also not pretend like Lex is some slog from even 5th. We're talking a five minute walk at a conservative 3mph pace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jdog14 said:

A BXM7 ride from dreiser loop to Midtown becomes alot more time competitive when you consider the other buses on  co-op suck dog meals. Not to mention the comfort offered is something I wouldn't want to trade vs a packed local bus ride. 

Sure, which is why I'd like to see improvements to alternatives before considering the route's elimination. But from an equity, financial stability and best allocation perspective, it's piss poor planning to subsidize fares to the tune of 6, 8, 10 dollars per rider so that people can have a cushy ride. There are many more pressing issues in the city than that -- for example, the poor quality of local bus service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

Wut?

Let's also not pretend like Lex is some slog from even 5th. We're talking a five minute walk at a conservative 3mph pace. 

I'm asking what you're comparing the BxM7 to in terms of alternatives? You seem to be all over the place. If we're comparing it to Metro-North from Co-Op City, the two go to completely different places, with totally different stops.  I'll use myself as an example. Do I have an alternative to the express bus? Not really... Metro-North really only makes sense if you're going to Grand Central, otherwise you're transferring a few times, so the time savings is negligible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Sure, which is why I'd like to see improvements to alternatives before considering the route's elimination. But from an equity, financial stability and best allocation perspective, it's piss poor planning to subsidize fares to the tune of 6, 8, 10 dollars per rider so that people can have a cushy ride. There are many more pressing issues in the city than that -- for example, the poor quality of local bus service. 

And so you have so much faith in the (MTA) that they're going to fix these local buses suddenly, as if they really give a damn?  Even on lines like the Bx12SBS with high frequencies, the service is still a mess. The buses still bunch like crazy. I think you talk a good game and it all sounds good, but I know first hand what it is like to have to make several transfers to reach my destination.  One transfer goes wrong, and there's your commute. That's precisely why I switched to the express bus in the first place.

Link to comment
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.