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.

New Bus Newark Initiative


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 10/6/2021 at 11:09 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church Do you think it would work well if the #771/773/775 acted as limited-stop routes along Main Street (while the #21 itself acted as a local), or is ridership too spread out along the corridor for limited-stop service to work?

I would not have the #775 operate as a Main st. LTD...... As for the #771 & the #773 operating as LTD's, while the #21's ridership is spread out b/w Orange & East Orange (let alone the Newark usage), I would try my hand at GO bus service on the #771 first, if & only if the proposed #21's headways were significantly lessened.... What I'm basically saying with that is, NJ riders tend to value basic service, over skip-stop services.... The "express-a-holic" mindset isn't nearly as apparent like it is here in NYC.... It's a scarcity mindset vs. an abundant mindset ordeal, if that makes sense.....

I do wonder though, if the #21 were to be eliminated (to have the #771 & the #773 run to Newark-Penn instead), how patronized the resultant #771 & #773 services would be individually.... If the #771 were to be turned into a straight up GoBus service, at minimum, after having served Newark-Penn, I would have buses run nonstop b/w Broad st. (the street, not the RR station of course) & Main/Winans...

On 10/6/2021 at 11:09 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's definitely a good idea to extend the #774 to Willowbrook Mall...connnects industrial Fairfield (and even Essex Mall itself) with routes to/from all over Northern NJ

Just about every time I ride the #29 & the #71 out to Kirkpatrick, there is this palpable void I feel that there should be something running b/w Essex Mall & Willowbrook Mall.... Not because Essex Mall is such a destination per se (it's actually pretty drab... some, myself included, would say it's not a "real mall"), but more for connecting that specific part of NJ (the Caldwells, etc.) to more of NNJ (Passaic County, etc)... I think the #29 (and even the #71) would see more ridership to Kirkpatrick if that void were to be filled..... The #874 is too scarce & runs too far west (of it) on top of it....

On 10/6/2021 at 11:09 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Do you have any better suggestions on how to handle the #775 service area, or do you think it's just the luck of the draw that the higher-ridership corridors got divided up between the #771 & #773, and the #775 is basically getting the leftovers?

FWIW, I wouldn't bother running anything on Eagle Rock; it's enough that DeCamp did it in the capacity that it did....

Something that may make a difference is to have the #775 run b/w [Main/Day] & Short Hills Mall... While I can't speak to the extent of it, the sentiment appears to be that Livingston Mall has fell off for a while now & people have resorted to head down to Short Hills Mall instead.... If I were to judge based on my rides on the #70, I suppose I can believe it, because in the past decade or so, weekend trips (at least) used to see the lion's share of folks riding to Livingston Mall, with stragglers disembarking for Short Hills Mall..... Now I'd say it's more 50/50, the amt. of people seeking either mall from off the #70 on weekends.... Anyway, instead of running the #775 on Eagle Rock, I'd have it paralleling the #771 to S. Livingston av., then panning southwards on down to Short Hills Mall.... Only thing is, there's no where really to terminate at that mall, so buses would basically do what the M60 does, with the whole unofficial loop bit...

So you'd have the #771 running to Parsippany via Essex Green shopping ctr., the #773 running to Livingston Mall, and the #775 running to Short Hills Mall via Essex Green shopping ctr.... I think Essex Green deserves better than 1/2 hourly service anyway....

On 10/6/2021 at 11:09 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

On a side note, is there any significant ridership in the Livingston area on the #71/73, or is it pretty much dead mileage? (At least heading towards Orange/Newark if anything)

Dead as a doornail on the #71, relatively decent on the #73.... Even if you separate the demand for Livingston Mall & St. Barnabas, the #73 is still more patronized b/w Orange & Livingston Twp., AINEC....

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

@B35 via Church When you say you'd run the #771/775 via Essex Green, do you mean it would do a quick diversion from Mount Pleasant Avenue, or would it do the full loop that the #71 currently does?

What are your thoughts on the elimination of the #65/66? Do you think at least the #59 should be sent to Newark Penn Station to maintain the connection from that part of Weequahic? (Looking a bit further into it, I think the elimination of the #66 is part of the reason the #59 is going to have more short-turns to Roselle Park)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church When you say you'd run the #771/775 via Essex Green, do you mean it would do a quick diversion from Mount Pleasant Avenue, or would it do the full loop that the #71 currently does?

The former, but not the way it looks like they have the #771 doing....

  • What I would have the #771 (and #775) do: Mt. Pleasant av. - Prospect av. - The I-280 itself (for one exit) - Pleasant Valley way - then back to Mt. Pleasant av.
  • What it looks like they have the #771 doing: Mt. Pleasant av. - Prospect av. - Rooney circle - Marion dr. - then back to Mt. Pleasant av.

The current #71 of course runs up to Eagle Rock, past Essex Green... The #71 tends to die at Essex Green itself... Lot of dead mileage b/w Essex Green & Essex Mall :(

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

What are your thoughts on the elimination of the #65/66? Do you think at least the #59 should be sent to Newark Penn Station to maintain the connection from that part of Weequahic? (Looking a bit further into it, I think the elimination of the #66 is part of the reason the #59 is going to have more short-turns to Roselle Park)

Oh, I'm actually not finished with my analysis of this whole plan, but I'll still answer your questions.

Quite frankly, I can agree with wanting to eliminate the #65/#66.... Problem with the old #95 was that it was actually slower than the #65 b/w Union County & Downtown Newark; it was often severely delayed... It was a peak only route that took rt. 22 to McCarter Hwy. to get to Newark-Penn, which is suicide... It also served too much of Union County; had no business running past Echo Plaza, let alone down to Terrill rd....

The latter is the same problem the #65 has, in being the intrastate version of the #114; the thing is pretty dead south of Echo Plaza.... The demand is for the #114 over the #65 past that point... In the more western portion of Union County (west of say, Mountain av), the #59/#113 sees more riders in general than the #65/#114 - and not even on the #59 in the western part of the county, is there any sizable amt. of ridership seeking Newark past Elizabeth.... So this leaves the portion of the #65 north of rt. 22, which is redundant to the more frequent #66 & the #59... Even though it doesn't exactly parallel those two routes in the area, the #39 in Weequahic is (also, way) more sought after than the #65....

The #66 has too many variants & none of them really rivals the demand for the #39 or the #59 b/w Weequahic & Downtown Newark... On top of it, it's basically a (low-performing) coverage route in Union County, thanks large in part to the #114.... You say you think the elimination of the #66 is part of the reason for the proposed #59's increased amount of shorties to Roselle park.... I don't think the #66's elimination has much of anything to do with it.... See, they have the #59 running the length of South av, instead of deviating to serve residential Scotch Plains... That is going to make the #59 busier than it already is b/w Dunellen & Newark, thus increasing the need for more shorties b/w Newark & *somewhere b/w Elizabeth & Plainfield*.... They chose Roselle Park (probably b/c the weekend #59 short turns around there, not to mention they're eliminating service to UCC Cranford, which is also a short turn of the #59, albeit on weekdays)..... Rather odd that they didn't mention (in words) on the page for the #59's changes that service to UCC would be eliminated.... Quite frankly, I'm surprised they kept the #59 running to Dunellen & not perhaps splitting it at Elizabeth... But who knows if that'll be part of a possible Elizabeth area redesign or something....

All of that above opines on your first question... Lol... As for your #59 question, I agree with you... I would drop the whole running to Washington Park bit; almost everybody's off the bus once it hits that Edison pl. stop from the south (which is basically Market st).... Much like why the #11/28/29 ends over there at Hill st. more often than not, it's likely the same reason that they have #59's ending up at Washington Park (lack of capacity at Newark-Penn)....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the 11 could still make sense if they simply restored service along Route 23 north of Willowbrook.  Not everyone from points north is trying to go to PABT, and one of the biggest gripes people up there had was not having easy access to Newark (or Paterson for that matter).

I took the 194 to the 11 to the 62 several times over the years to get to EWR from visiting family in Passaic County.  It's a pain in the ass.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Personally, I think the 11 could still make sense if they simply restored service along Route 23 north of Willowbrook.  Not everyone from points north is trying to go to PABT, and one of the biggest gripes people up there had was not having easy access to Newark (or Paterson for that matter).

I took the 194 to the 11 to the 62 several times over the years to get to EWR from visiting family in Passaic County.  It's a pain in the ass.

Public transportation exists for the masses & the masses up there apparently gun more for NYC over Newark.... If there's enough of a demand for a Newark route to/from that part of Passaic County (north of Willowbrook), those folks should've been spoken up.... No reason a whole community/ies can't get direct service to a major city like Newark, when service to a frickin Walmart (Kearny) is finally being addressed in a redesign/proposal such as this one....

Quite frankly, I think running #11's back up there is null & void at this point, unfortunately....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily I saved this on a text file, or else I'd have been screwed, relying on the forum's save feature (whatever it's called)....

Anyway, continuing on.....

==================================

I have mixed feelings about what they're doing with the #25 (along with doing away with the #go25 & the #375)... While I don't think the full route of the #25 should necessarily be b/w Maplewood loop & Essex County Correctional Ctr. (or the Firmenich plant), I wouldn't go as far as to cut it back to Hilton garage (and Newark-Penn on the other end) full time to run the thing every 5 mins... It's overkill, when the #70 in some capacity would still be available along a decent chunk of Springfield av..... Instead of running to Maplewood loop, I always thought that the #25 should run to that shopping area, just short of the Springfield/Union border.... So the full routed buses could run b/w [that shopping plaza just short of I-78 along Springfield av] & [Newark-Penn], and short turns can do what they're proposing the #25 do (run b/w Hilton garage & Newark-Penn)...

Even though the #25 & the #1 has the same course along Ferry st. east of Newark-Penn, the entire eastern part of the #25 should not be replaced with half of a two-pronged industrial shuttle (their proposed #9).... I would replace that part of the #25 with another route; similar to how they decided to only take the southern half of the NJT #5 to address the lack of bus service to the Walmart in Kearny..... So basically, I get wanting to kill some of the mileage off the thing, but they're going way too far with it AFAIC....

==================================

What they're proposing for the #27 I almost completely agree with.... There's not too much need for the #27 past Branch Brook LRT towards Bloomfield & the #27N with how sparse it is, is basically worthless at this point... Their proposal calls for making the #27R be "the #27", while doing away with directly connecting Forest Hill to downtown Newark.... The latter I disagree with.... I would retain the #27F along with the #27R, instead of having Forest Hill folks walk to an hourly route, to be dumped off at the LRT station.... The #27F performs just as good, if not a little better than the #27R....

==================================

What they're proposing for the #29 is inevitable.... The #29x is actually worse than the #71x with how much an immense waste of mileage it is..... (At least) the #71x in the morning transports a decent amt. of people to the Prudential complex, before hitting Bloomfield av.... The #29x in the morning OTOH isn't utilized all that well b/w Parsippany & Verona towards Newark (the demand is for the Lakeland routes along rt. 46 towards NYC).... I'm not sure what the current schedules state, but having rode the #29x (from Parsippany; the 1st stop), it feels as if the #29x is actually on par with the frickin local #29 b/w the Caldwell's & downtown Newark... Don't get me started on how wasteful the Knoll rd. #29x trips are... That diversion is painstakingly slow & nobody even bothers with the thing.... SMFH....

I just picked up on something.... With what they're proposing system-wide for Newark, it has the #28 & #29 (along with the #11, even though I'd can the thing) terminating at Newark-Penn, instead of at Hill st....

==================================

Lmao... So the #30 literally becomes a short turned #76 to N. Arlington Loop & the #76 gets prolonged b/w Newark & Hackensack.... It appears to me that they're sacrificing the (already long[er]) #76 to make the #30 even faster b/w Kearny/N. Arlington & Downtown Newark.... Of the 3 routes in the area (#30, #40, #76), the real #76 is easily the quickest b/w that respective stretch... Why? Because it avoids both Frank Rodgers blvd (increased traffic due to Harrison, NJ's revamping/growth) & Harrison av (truck & other traffic coming from points east of Frank Rodgers - which includes that Walmart out there)... The real #76 doesn't need a short turn b/w N. Arlington & Newark (which is what this proposed #30 is), it needs the current one b/w Newark & Rutherford (the #76R) retained.... Being that this proposed #30 avoids commercial Kearny av., I see this seeing less ridership than the real #30... Good luck getting ppl. from the north to xfer to this proposed #30, if that's the idea..... Folks aren't going to do that.... Introducing the #76 to commercial Kearny av, to continue having it run to Hackensack I find to be ridiculous... This is an example of why I say straighter isn't always better....

==================================

IDK about leaving the ports with only microtransit, but I have to agree with extracting the #40 away from them.... CoachUSA won't be too fond of the having of the #40 being any closer to being competitive to the #24a/b though :lol:... What's somewhat odd to me about this particular proposal though, is that they're maintaining service along South st. in South Ironbound to have it bypass the ports via rt 1/9 (which is circuitous) instead of via the turnpike.... With the proposed #62 being taken away from the IKEA (which I can agree with), the #40 will end up being the only intrastate route running there...

==================================

The minor changes they're doing with the #37, #39, and the #41.... Well the #37 one makes sense (taking it off Frelinghuysen); not really much more to say about it.... I'm not sure what impact taking the #39 away from directly serving those schools along BIgelow would have, but the impact of eliminating of the #39x would be minimal... The regular routing is solid usage-wise & doesn't necessarily warrant an express anyway IMO.... Taking away the #41 (much like the #30) away from ending at Lincoln Park tells me that they've made enough changes to Newark's network to facilitate having as many routes terminating at Newark-Penn... Either that, or they're really gonna push the limits with how much total BPH across all the routes that will end up terminating there - someone can do the math if they're bored and/or curious enough.... Anyway, while I've never really gauged how utilized the #41 is against/versus CoachUSA's #44 to/from Galento Plaza, I will say that with the having of the #21 operate every 5 mins. along Main st., I'm really not seeing the need to having the #41 turn down off Park to terminate at Galento Plaza.... I would try my hand at running it up to Mississippi Loop (current #21 terminal in W. Orange) via taking Park av. all the way to the end due west.... The #41 can use that ridership more than the #21 AFAIC; they have too many (real) #21's running up to W. Orange IMO anyway...

==================================

The proposed #59 change (along with the #65 & #66 eliminations) I already commented on in an earlier reply to @checkmatechamp13... Aside from my disdain at having anything terminating at NJT Dunellen RR (this includes the #113N/S btw), I don't think I have much more to add.... I'll try though.

While the concern isn't an outlandish one by @BM5 via Woodhaven regarding the #59 in residential Scotch Plains, I don't think those patrons would care too much.... I hate to put it like this, but considering everything else the #59 does, that diversion appears to be a waste, as it seldom garners any notable amt. of patronage through there.... It's akin to the Colonia branch of the #48; specifically along Wood av & within Iselin.... Anyway, while I do admit having the #59 straightened on rt. 28 makes it (more of) a quote-unquote superroute (I mean, the thing is a 5 zone local route FFS), at least they're having less total trips throughout the day running the full gambit (Newark-Dunellen)...

In the PDF under the #59's section, I wonder why they make a mention of service to Bridgewater Commons though... Here's the direct quote: "Service south of Dunellen to Bridgewater Commons will still have access to #114 and #117."... Thing is, the #59 currently terminates in Dunellen & they're not proposing any changes down there.... Much of nobody xfers b/w the #59 & the #114 anyway - neither in Plainfield nor in Dunellen, so the point is null & void.... So yeah, that snippet in question is misleading; it makes it sound like the current #59 runs to Bridgewater Commons, when Dunellen is no where near that mall (for those that don't know).... The other thing is, the #117 a] stops short of Bridgewater Commons (you aint getting people to do that f***ing walk & I'm personally never doing that shit again... it's one of those, so close, yet so far away sort of ordeals), b] is apparently a closed door route again, and c] doesn't even connect to the #59 :lol::lol::lol:...

==================================

They just will not stop with the infamous #62 will they... Lol.... Seriously though, while I generally like what's being proposed, folks from the Newark end do use the #62 to get to that industrial area just outside the airport on the Elizabeth end (Division/Dowd) & it's a pretty sizable amt. in the morning too - even on weekends... While I wouldn't leave it with nothing, that area around the Elizabeth IKEA is spent - esp. when Toys R' us went under... Parents/family members w/ their kids used to take the #62 there (over that of the #40, but the #40 definitely had its usage there also) & at times, buses (62's) would actually fill up on weekends along Ikea dr.... Sad to see how narrowly utilized buses are along IKEA dr. with the #40 & the #62 now... They got one of those home enhancement type stores where Toys R' us used to be now; don't remember if it's a floor & decor, or home sense (since they're popping up everywhere now).... Ironic, when home ownership has been on the decline for decades now....

Anyway, I would still have a peak only branch that does the Bond-Henry-Anna-Division routing, but buses would turn off Division onto Dowd & take Dowd straight to the airport roadway there.... >>Basically this<<

==================================

 

I'll try to finish off my assessment of/commentary on these proposals during the week, if not on the weekend.

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 3:23 PM, R10 2952 said:

Personally, I think the 11 could still make sense if they simply restored service along Route 23 north of Willowbrook.  Not everyone from points north is trying to go to PABT, and one of the biggest gripes people up there had was not having easy access to Newark (or Paterson for that matter).

I took the 194 to the 11 to the 62 several times over the years to get to EWR from visiting family in Passaic County.  It's a pain in the ass.

Where did the #11 terminate when it ran past Willowbrook Mall? (And how long ago was it removed?)

@B35 via Church How exactly does the #375 operate? On the schedule, it seems like the #375 runs nonstop between Downtown Newark and Irvington (en route to Maplewood), but on Google Maps, it shows it making the same stops (but probably pick/drop-off only between Downtown Newark & Irvington). Which is correct? And the go25, I'm assuming makes limited-stops between Irvington Terminal & Newark Penn.

And yeah, they're really squeezing those routes into Newark Penn (which is great from a connectivity standpoint, but hopefully they'll be able to pull if off). I think they mentioned they're reconstructing Newark Penn Station, so hopefully they've accounted for the extra buses terminating there.

Also, I just realized, how long runtime-wise was the #31 end-to-end back when it ran to Livingston Mall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Where did the #11 terminate when it ran past Willowbrook Mall? (And how long ago was it removed?)

It and the express version (#15) used to be one route (114) and terminated in Butler off Route 23; it was truncated and replaced by a farcical, rush-hour runaround route to Newark via Paterson (the 75) around 1990.  After years of mismanagement of the line, the 75 was finally axed in 2012.

 

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church How exactly does the #375 operate? On the schedule, it seems like the #375 runs nonstop between Downtown Newark and Irvington (en route to Maplewood), but on Google Maps, it shows it making the same stops (but probably pick/drop-off only between Downtown Newark & Irvington). Which is correct? And the go25, I'm assuming makes limited-stops between Irvington Terminal & Newark Penn.

And yeah, they're really squeezing those routes into Newark Penn (which is great from a connectivity standpoint, but hopefully they'll be able to pull if off). I think they mentioned they're reconstructing Newark Penn Station, so hopefully they've accounted for the extra buses terminating there.

Also, I just realized, how long runtime-wise was the #31 end-to-end back when it ran to Livingston Mall?

#375 definitely doesn't run nonstop b/w Newark & Irvington (although it probably should, with as much combined service there is on the #25 local & the #go25 during peak times)... It's not a LTD service either (that's the role of the #go25 & yes, it runs b/w Irvington Term. & Newark-Penn).... Not that it exists for my benefit of course, but I personally don't care for the #375.... What it does, is that it's a local service west of Irvington (Maple, IIRC) & a local service east of MLK - so, pickups & dropoffs anywhere on the outer edges of the thing.... Between MLK & Maple OTOH, it's a closed door service; no pickups towards Newark-Penn in the morning & no dropoffs towards Maplewood loop in the PM direction...

I wonder how they're going to restructure Newark-Penn to account for the influx of buses... Maybe kick those line of taxis & the long distance bus services (greyhound, etc) off that roadway adjacent Raymond Plz. West & make Raymond Plz. West itself a lane or two narrower.... That's what immediately comes to mind at the moment....

The #31 from Livingston Mall was surprisingly quick (on weekends anyway)... Don't remember what the "official" posted times were, but I'd say most times I took it, it was around 40-45 mins. - even with all the passenger activity along S. Orange av.... It was definitely less than an hour (unlike the #70 & the #73)..... The #73 is around an hour from the mall (and it feels every bit of it too) & the #70 is closer to an hour & a half (I still love that nonstop stretch b/w Short Hills Mall & Livingston Mall though.. IDC... Lol 😁)...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kinda surprised that they are thinking about cutting the 96 service. But, I guess I can see why since during most of the day, I would usually see like 2 to 3 people on it but also during school season, the 96 can be packed with high school students (I should know since I've been catching that bus for over 18 years now haha). So there is need for that bus service of sorts.

 

I'm even more surprise that they want to extend the 5 service out to the Kearny Walmart. While I'm happy that they are thinking of sending bus service out that way again, I really thought it would have come from the 30 or 40 line since those are closer. I'm probably missing a very obvious reason.

 

Well if it does become a reality then it sure as hell beats having to catch the 40 to Harrison and Davis Ave and then walk 20 minutes the rest of the way and back. There used to be bus service going to that Walmart from the 43 line (I caught it a few times to go there) though, that service wasn't great with only 3 trips leaving out of Newark and 4 going towards Newark which is why that service was discontinued in September of 2012 due to low ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Silver Script That #5 extension to Walmart was proposed during the Greater Newark Bus Study in 2011. Usually in these redesigns they try to straighten out routes, and a diversion of the #30 or #40 would make the route more circuitous (plus, the #5 covers more of Newark than the #30 or #40)

  • Upvote 1
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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