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.

Bee Line redesign plan released


Recommended Posts

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/56d6ca6dad194f7c807241bc16336ded

 

Splitting off from the official Bee Line thread. 

 

Wow, the only connection between Southern and Northern Westchester will be the 14 (and it will skip Verpanck/Montrose and end at Westchester CC area). Everything else will get eliminated. Granted the last time I was on the 15, it didn't really pick up any passengers until Yorktown Heights anyways, but still that whole section of Westchester county will lose service

Seems like they expected people in that area to essentially take Metro North

 

Same goes with elimination of 12 and Loop H. To get to that whole general area, you will have to take MNR or 19 to Chappaqua Station and transfer to microtransit. Ironically this microtransit covers a portion of the former 12 north of Armonk but  then service area of 15 will get eliminated essentially

I am surprised about the low number of riders on the 16. Every time I took it, it carried a good number of passengers. I still think that whole area would warrant a bus route more than microtransit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


20 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Wow, the only connection between Southern and Northern Westchester will be the 14 (and it will skip Verpanck/Montrose and end at Westchester CC area). Everything else will get eliminated. Granted the last time I was on the 15, it didn't really pick up any passengers until Yorktown Heights anyways, but still that whole section of Westchester county will lose service

Seems like they expected people in that area to essentially take Metro North

 

That's always been the intent. if you look at the fine print on a couple of the proposed changes, you'll notice mentions of fare reciprocity. One of the goals of the redesign was to give Bee-Line passengers access to Metro-North services in Westchester for $2.75, hence a lot of the trimmings up north. The 77 will be kept if the MTA refuses such an agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They took "clean slate approach" way too literally in Northern Westchester. 

You would think in the effort of "fare reciprocity", they would have had the 15 end in Katonah, where the Metro North and 19 both operate to White Plains, which is more aligned with areas it serves, compared to Peekskill and the Hudson Line. They've also added service to Peekskill RR full time, at the expense of no more service to Hudson Valley Hospital, Verplanck, everything north of Route 6, Jefferson Valley Mall, and everything else along Route 6 east of the Taconic. They don't even have the 15 deviate to serve the hospital. 

On top of all of this, it infuriates me given what they're doing in Southern Westchester, including quite a few routes that don't seem to have much purpose, if any or shouldn't exist (looking at the 9, 53, 103 and the 107 in particular), as well as all the microtransit zones they're propping up. Like they could have used those resources to at least retain coverage in that part of northern Westchester. 

It would probably be easier to draw out what I had in mind for northern Westchester instead of explaining it out, perhaps I'll do that when I get the chance. Not a fan of it though. As for the southern part, I'd still need to look further before I comment on any of the individual routes. There are some seemingly decent proposals (like the expansion of the 3 to run all day weekdays; how frequent is another question), but others on the glance I would need to look at their descriptions first before saying anything.

One thing I wish is that they would denote the frequencies instead of telling you the category, then listing out what they mean on a separate page. 

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

3 hours ago, 67thAve said:

That's always been the intent. if you look at the fine print on a couple of the proposed changes, you'll notice mentions of fare reciprocity. One of the goals of the redesign was to give Bee-Line passengers access to Metro-North services in Westchester for $2.75, hence a lot of the trimmings up north. The 77 will be kept if the MTA refuses such an agreement.

The 62 has a similar approach to it. I don't think the MTA's gonna agree to giving essentially free transfers between Bee-Line buses and Metro-North. I mean, they don't even do it with NYCT routes... and people have been advocating for that for years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can actually understand the general logic of how they structured the service in northern Westchester, if their goal is to encourage people to use Metro-North for most of their trip. For the BL-16, I think the reason for its conversion to microtransit has more to do with where the major destinations are in Peekskill. You have northern Peekskill, the hospital, and the railroad station, and a fixed route serving all three would have to meander a lot. (Plus you have some areas within Peekskill that are rather far from current fixed-route service, such as the Dunbar Heights development, and the Hudson Avenue corridor, which heads uphill from Washington Street, so it's just simpler to have a microtransit route cover it). Plus you have the Strawberry Road trips, and even in the area around Jefferson Valley Mall, you can skip the area along Main Street if nobody is getting on/off there.

I think the main issue in northern Westchester is that there's no connection to the Harlem Line, even though they're taking away the direct bus routes to White Plains (BL-14/15/77). A simple extension of the BL-15 to Mount Kisco (maybe even interlining it with the BL-19, and having riders at Bedford Hills & Katonah take Metro-North or that microtransit service) would make it a lot easier, versus having to backtrack all the way to Peekskill. It would actually be quicker than the current BL-14 & BL-15 (though still slower than the BL-17 and BL-77). 

5 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

They took "clean slate approach" way too literally in Northern Westchester. 

You would think in the effort of "fare reciprocity", they would have had the 15 end in Katonah, where the Metro North and 19 both operate to White Plains, which is more aligned with areas it serves, compared to Peekskill and the Hudson Line. They've also added service to Peekskill RR full time, at the expense of no more service to Hudson Valley Hospital, Verplanck, everything north of Route 6, Jefferson Valley Mall, and everything else along Route 6 east of the Taconic. They don't even have the 15 deviate to serve the hospital. 

On top of all of this, it infuriates me given what they're doing in Southern Westchester, including quite a few routes that don't seem to have much purpose, if any or shouldn't exist (looking at the 9, 53, 103 and the 107 in particular), as well as all the microtransit zones they're propping up. Like they could have used those resources to at least retain coverage in that part of northern Westchester. 

It would probably be easier to draw out what I had in mind for northern Westchester instead of explaining it out, perhaps I'll do that when I get the chance. Not a fan of it though. As for the southern part, I'd still need to look further before I comment on any of the individual routes. There are some seemingly decent proposals (like the expansion of the 3 to run all day weekdays; how frequent is another question), but others on the glance I would need to look at their descriptions first before saying anything.

One thing I wish is that they would denote the frequencies instead of telling you the category, then listing out what they mean on a separate page. 

I would pick Mount Kisco over Katonah. You cover a bit more of Yorktown Heights along Hanover Street, and Mount Kisco is a bit more of a destination in and of itself compared to Katonah (Plus it has the hospital, and a bit more of a transit-dependent population in general). 

All of those areas you mention (with the exception of Verplanck and the eastern part of U.S.6) are covered by the microtransit route. (And the populated areas of U.S.6 near Jefferson Valley Mall and Baldwin Place are covered by the PART #2 route, though admittedly with much less service compared to the BL-16, and also not listed in the actual report, though they do mention it for the BL-77 section). 

The BL-9, I can actually understand why they're keeping it (It's a steep hill from Nepperhan up to Vineyard, and most streets don't even go through to begin with, plus it allows you to access Executive Office Park from both points east and points west). Plus Walsh Road is rather isolated from the rest of the street grid in Yonkers and has a bunch of apartment buildings along it. Though they'll probably have to ban parking on one side of the street if they expect two buses to pass each other.

For the BL-53, I agree. If there is a need for service to Mount Vernon High School, they should run more of the trippers (400-series routes)

For the BL-107, I definitely agree. They could just run the BL-101 straight across Nereid Avenue and call it a day. (They should be doing that anyway...the only extra Bee Line route they cover with that deviation is the BL-42, which it connects with further down the line anyway, and there's more subway service available at 238th Street anyway). 

For the BL-103, I kind of see what they're trying to accomplish (Tap into the BL-13 demand between Tarrytown & White Plains while reducing duplication in that area). I think the best way of going about that would be to run the BL-103 between Elmsford & White Plains, and the BL-104 between Tarrytown & Valhalla, and just reinvest the remaining resources elsewhere. 

6 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

The 62 has a similar approach to it. I don't think the MTA's gonna agree to giving essentially free transfers between Bee-Line buses and Metro-North. I mean, they don't even do it with NYCT routes... and people have been advocating for that for years!

It depends. If they offer enough money, they might consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these proposals (3's truncation to White Plains, 13's ends being lopped off, 28's canning) are honestly expected.

I can't say I'm too thrilled with things like canning the 16 in favor of microtransit (or the 12's service to/from the airport, for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lex said:

Some of these proposals (3's truncation to White Plains, 13's ends being lopped off, 28's canning) are honestly expected.

I can't say I'm too thrilled with things like canning the 16 in favor of microtransit (or the 12's service to/from the airport, for that matter).

That moment when Westchester County Airport is poised to be the only east coast airport with transcontinental flights but without a proper mass transit option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I'd like to know what these folks are smoking, because this is utter garbage.

Some elements are, but not all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

That moment when Westchester County Airport is poised to be the only east coast airport with transcontinental flights but without a proper mass transit option.

 

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Some of these proposals (3's truncation to White Plains, 13's ends being lopped off, 28's canning) are honestly expected.

I can't say I'm too thrilled with things like canning the 16 in favor of microtransit (or the 12's service to/from the airport, for that matter).

What exactly is the problem with microtransit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lex said:

Some elements are, but not all.

99% of these ideas are downright ridiculous.

9: So we're back to the original 9 again with it no longer being a loop.

12: Why would you eliminate a COLLEGE route that has high ridership that also serves the County Airport, which has no other way of accessing?

14: They streamlined it at the northend, but then screwed it over on the south end by having it deviate towards Pleasentville, and screwed over residents who want to go to the Town Center.

15: Which basically becomes the new 16, screwing over everyone between Yorktown Heights & White Plains.

16: Eliminating this route?!?! Are they insane???

20: To WPR & GUN HILL!?!?! That bus will get stuck in that traffic for more then half an hour. LEAVE IT ALONE.

25: What is this!!?!? Combining it with the 55? No one wants to go to Dyre, they want the (2).

28: Where do people keep getting the idea that the 28 is low ridership? Every bus lately has been standing room coming from New York since Fare-Free.

32: Eliminated?!!?! The 32 carries during rush hours.

53: At that point just run the 53 in a loop, because that's not confusing at all having two branches...

And I haven't even read all of this yet.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I can actually understand the general logic of how they structured the service in northern Westchester, if their goal is to encourage people to use Metro-North for most of their trip. For the BL-16, I think the reason for its conversion to microtransit has more to do with where the major destinations are in Peekskill. You have northern Peekskill, the hospital, and the railroad station, and a fixed route serving all three would have to meander a lot. (Plus you have some areas within Peekskill that are rather far from current fixed-route service, such as the Dunbar Heights development, and the Hudson Avenue corridor, which heads uphill from Washington Street, so it's just simpler to have a microtransit route cover it). Plus you have the Strawberry Road trips, and even in the area around Jefferson Valley Mall, you can skip the area along Main Street if nobody is getting on/off there.

I think the main issue in northern Westchester is that there's no connection to the Harlem Line, even though they're taking away the direct bus routes to White Plains (BL-14/15/77). A simple extension of the BL-15 to Mount Kisco (maybe even interlining it with the BL-19, and having riders at Bedford Hills & Katonah take Metro-North or that microtransit service) would make it a lot easier, versus having to backtrack all the way to Peekskill. It would actually be quicker than the current BL-14 & BL-15 (though still slower than the BL-17 and BL-77). 

I would pick Mount Kisco over Katonah. You cover a bit more of Yorktown Heights along Hanover Street, and Mount Kisco is a bit more of a destination in and of itself compared to Katonah (Plus it has the hospital, and a bit more of a transit-dependent population in general). 

All of those areas you mention (with the exception of Verplanck and the eastern part of U.S.6) are covered by the microtransit route. (And the populated areas of U.S.6 near Jefferson Valley Mall and Baldwin Place are covered by the PART #2 route, though admittedly with much less service compared to the BL-16, and also not listed in the actual report, though they do mention it for the BL-77 section). 

The BL-9, I can actually understand why they're keeping it (It's a steep hill from Nepperhan up to Vineyard, and most streets don't even go through to begin with, plus it allows you to access Executive Office Park from both points east and points west). Plus Walsh Road is rather isolated from the rest of the street grid in Yonkers and has a bunch of apartment buildings along it. Though they'll probably have to ban parking on one side of the street if they expect two buses to pass each other.

For the BL-53, I agree. If there is a need for service to Mount Vernon High School, they should run more of the trippers (400-series routes)

For the BL-107, I definitely agree. They could just run the BL-101 straight across Nereid Avenue and call it a day. (They should be doing that anyway...the only extra Bee Line route they cover with that deviation is the BL-42, which it connects with further down the line anyway, and there's more subway service available at 238th Street anyway). 

For the BL-103, I kind of see what they're trying to accomplish (Tap into the BL-13 demand between Tarrytown & White Plains while reducing duplication in that area). I think the best way of going about that would be to run the BL-103 between Elmsford & White Plains, and the BL-104 between Tarrytown & Valhalla, and just reinvest the remaining resources elsewhere. 

It depends. If they offer enough money, they might consider it.

I don't. What they did to northern Westchester is a gigantic slap in the face to residents.

1. The 16 was created to SERVE all those points which is why it has high ridership. Yes it meanders a lot, but you can blame that on the street layout. That doesn't mean fully cut the route. The 18 and 31 I can understand. The 10 and 11 I can't. They've effectively reduced the only connections to southern White Plains, with the only remaining one being the 14, which people still have to transfer to anyway.

2. The 15 is a slap in the face. If your going to cut it, at LEAST have it run to a train station on the eastern end.

3. The 77 is a slap in the face. Granted, having it end at a bowling alley is stupid, but they should have at least either ended it in FDR State Park or in the Shopping Center at Carmel.

4. The 14, while I like that they have it skipping all those redundant part of the routes, they only moved the problem to Pleasantville when they deviated it to replace the 19. I don't like how they cut it back from the Town Center.

5. What's with these three digit numbers for the new routes? It's stupid.

6. I'm glad they're bringing back the 24, but doing all that in the Bronx after crossing McLean is unnecessary. 

7. I don't know what's going on in Rye, but if they have the 13 ending at Port Chester full time now, all those former #76 riders are going to have a fit with the loss of service. They mention the 13 serving Rye, but don't say whether or not it would still operate there.

7. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

12: Why would you eliminate a COLLEGE route that has high ridership that also serves the County Airport, which has no other way of accessing?

That area will be accessed by microtransit.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

14: They streamlined it at the north end, but then screwed it over on the south end by having it deviate towards Pleasantville, and screwed over residents who want to go to the Town Center.

The purpose of the deviation was to allow people to transfer to the BL-19 or Metro-North, which provide a more direct ride to White Plains.

North of Peekskill, it might not be so bad if they have it timed with the BL-15. That being said, they definitely need to have the coverage on U.S.6 match (or exceed) the span of the present-day BL-14 (whether with expanded BL-15 service, or expanded microtransit hours). For that matter, there's a few other areas seeing a span reduction (e.g. BL-20 route). If anything, they should be looking to make some of the busier routes 24/7.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

15: Which basically becomes the new 16, screwing over everyone between Yorktown Heights & White Plains.

The question is, how many people actually get on/off between Pleasantville & Yorktown Heights?

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

16: Eliminating this route?!?! Are they insane???

Not eliminating it. The areas it serves will be covered with microtransit.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

20: To WPR & GUN HILL!?!?! That bus will get stuck in that traffic for more then half an hour. LEAVE IT ALONE.

This I actually agree with you on. The Concourse Line provides access to the west side of Manhattan.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

25: What is this!!?!? Combining it with the 55? No one wants to go to Dyre, they want the (2).

I think part of it is that the BL-101 would cover the Downtown Yonkers - (2) riders. But yes, I agree that combination is rather odd, considering the BL-7 and BL-101 provide more direct east-west service in that general vicinity.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

28: Where do people keep getting the idea that the 28 is low ridership? Every bus lately has been standing room coming from New York since Fare-Free.

Key phrase, since fare free...

That being said, it's been a long time coming unfortunately, even though it doesn't perform quite as poorly as they make it out to be.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

32: Eliminated?!!?! The 32 carries during rush hours.

Replaced with microtransit.

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

53: At that point just run the 53 in a loop, because that's not confusing at all having two branches...

It'll be like the Westchester version of the Q38....I don't think it's necessarily confusing, though. Buses are still either generally heading northbound or southbound. (Not saying I agree with how they handled it....I think it should be handled with school tripper service).

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

The 16 was created to SERVE all those points which is why it has high ridership. Yes it meanders a lot, but you can blame that on the street layout. That doesn't mean fully cut the route. The 18 and 31 I can understand. The 10 and 11 I can't. They've effectively reduced the only connections to southern White Plains, with the only remaining one being the 14, which people still have to transfer to anyway.

The BL-16 isn't fully cut...it's vehicles are repurposed as microtransit for that same area (with the exception of areas east of JVM).

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

The 15 is a slap in the face. If your going to cut it, at LEAST have it run to a train station on the eastern end.

The remaining route will run more frequently (and have Sunday service) which is good for those in Yorktown Heights. That being said, I definitely agree with extending it to the Harlem Line on the eastern end.

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

The 77 is a slap in the face. Granted, having it end at a bowling alley is stupid, but they should have at least either ended it in FDR State Park or in the Shopping Center at Carmel.

The purpose of ending it at the bowling alley is for park-and-ride purposes. It's not like they expect people to come off the bus and go bowling every night.

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

The 14, while I like that they have it skipping all those redundant part of the routes, they only moved the problem to Pleasantville when they deviated it to replace the 19. I don't like how they cut it back from the Town Center.

I wouldn't consider Verplanck to be redundant. That being said, the point of the Pleasantville deviation is to allow people to connect with Metro-North for a quicker ride to White Plains.

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

What's with these three digit numbers for the new routes? It's stupid.

I'm not sure if those new numbers will be the final numbers.

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

I'm glad they're bringing back the 24, but doing all that in the Bronx after crossing McLean is unnecessary. 

Agree with you on that.

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

I don't know what's going on in Rye, but if they have the 13 ending at Port Chester full time now, all those former #76 riders are going to have a fit with the loss of service. They mention the 13 serving Rye, but don't say whether or not it would still operate there.

It mentions that the current trips serve Rye. The new route will only cover Tarrytown - Port Chester, with the Tarrytown - Ossining portion being covered by the BL-111 (which apparently is doing some stupid double-loop in Ossining)

Midland Avenue in Port Chester is covered by a microtransit route, but for Rye itself, nothing is covering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think the main issue in northern Westchester is that there's no connection to the Harlem Line, even though they're taking away the direct bus routes to White Plains (BL-14/15/77). A simple extension of the BL-15 to Mount Kisco (maybe even interlining it with the BL-19, and having riders at Bedford Hills & Katonah take Metro-North or that microtransit service) would make it a lot easier, versus having to backtrack all the way to Peekskill. It would actually be quicker than the current BL-14 & BL-15 (though still slower than the BL-17 and BL-77). 

I would pick Mount Kisco over Katonah. You cover a bit more of Yorktown Heights along Hanover Street, and Mount Kisco is a bit more of a destination in and of itself compared to Katonah (Plus it has the hospital, and a bit more of a transit-dependent population in general). 

All of those areas you mention (with the exception of Verplanck and the eastern part of U.S.6) are covered by the microtransit route. (And the populated areas of U.S.6 near Jefferson Valley Mall and Baldwin Place are covered by the PART #2 route, though admittedly with much less service compared to the BL-16, and also not listed in the actual report, though they do mention it for the BL-77 section). 

The BL-9, I can actually understand why they're keeping it (It's a steep hill from Nepperhan up to Vineyard, and most streets don't even go through to begin with, plus it allows you to access Executive Office Park from both points east and points west). Plus Walsh Road is rather isolated from the rest of the street grid in Yonkers and has a bunch of apartment buildings along it. Though they'll probably have to ban parking on one side of the street if they expect two buses to pass each other.

For the BL-53, I agree. If there is a need for service to Mount Vernon High School, they should run more of the trippers (400-series routes)

For the BL-107, I definitely agree. They could just run the BL-101 straight across Nereid Avenue and call it a day. (They should be doing that anyway...the only extra Bee Line route they cover with that deviation is the BL-42, which it connects with further down the line anyway, and there's more subway service available at 238th Street anyway). 

 

Fair enough about Mount Kisco. 

As far as PART, it not only is it less frequent, but it would have zero connections to any Bee Line bus, and takes a longer route between both points to be considered a feasible alternative. I also just can't agree with the elimination of the 16, especially the way they did. There's too many connectivity gaps. 

The 9 I would have just said screw it, and included that portion with the rest of that microtransit zone for all I care. 

Personally I've always felt that the 40 should operate to/from the Bronx, and with the new 101 operating with/near the 42 for a good chunk of its route (outside of Mount Vernon), plus with the 41 and 43 (variants of the 40) operate both down to 241st Street, there's really not a need to have the 42 operate between Mount Vernon and the Bronx. 

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

What exactly is the problem with microtransit?

I think the biggest problem is how microtransit is being used as an excuse to not provide any fixed route (and/or flex) service, and not only in this redesign. Microtransit is not the solution for every single low ridership route, which is the route they're seemingly taking, especially in the northern part of the county. It's effectively akin to a cost-cutting measure. I just can't agree with leaving US Rte 6 with zero bus service like that past Lexington Ave. In general, if microtransit was provided as another layer of service, then it wouldn't be received the way it currently is. Same situation with the 12 to the Airport. Then there's also new areas/zones that are being served with this microtransit type of service, so its like a slap in the face to areas that are seeing virtually all its service obliterated. I don't blame people for being up in arms over that at all. 

Personally, the Yonkers microtransit zone I don't really have too much of a problem with. Some of the others I believe should be flex routes instead (Hartsdale, Scarsdale, White Plains to Airport), and other zones I question how useful it would be, or should not be microtransit routes (at the very least, microtransit only). 

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

10 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

As far as PART, it not only is it less frequent, but it would have zero connections to any Bee Line bus, and takes a longer route between both points to be considered a feasible alternative. I also just can't agree with the elimination of the 16, especially the way they did. There's too many connectivity gaps. 

That's where we disagree....I consider the microtransit route (or I guess microtransit zone might be a bit more accurate) to be a Bee Line route. You can get off the PART #2 at Jefferson Valley Mall and take the microtransit route to Peekskill, the same way you could get off the PART #2 at JVM and take the BL-16 into Peekskill (For example, that BL-16 trip that short-turns at JVM around 5pm...for connections to/from points east, you would have to connect to the PART #2 along Main Street). 

In other words, the two vehicles that are dedicated to the BL-16 would end up being used for microtransit in the portion/zone/region west of JVM.

10 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The 9 I would have just said screw it, and included that portion with the rest of that microtransit zone for all I care. 

The thing with microtransit is that if the trips are only going to be following one path, you might as well make it a fixed route and call it a day. For the South Yonkers microtransit zone, on any given trip, buses might be going down Rumsey Road, Van Cortlandt Park Avenue, or Park Hill Avenue (and it might vary with the direction depending on if they're going towards or away from Downtown Yonkers). For a corresponding North Yonkers route,, you're pretty much guaranteed that every trip will have somebody who needs Walsh Road, and every trip will have somebody who needs Vineyard Avenue, and every trip will have somebody who needs Executive Blvd. 

10 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Personally I've always felt that the 40 should operate to/from the Bronx, and with the new 101 operating with/near the 42 for a good chunk of its route (outside of Mount Vernon), plus with the 41 and 43 (variants of the 40) operate both down to 241st Street, there's really not a need to have the 42 operate between Mount Vernon and the Bronx. 

I agree with you on that.

10 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I think the biggest problem is how microtransit is being used as an excuse to not provide any fixed route (and/or flex) service, and not only in this redesign. Microtransit is not the solution for every single low ridership route, which is the route they're seemingly taking, especially in the northern part of the county. I just can't agree with leaving US Rte 6 with zero bus service like that Lexington Ave. If you wanted to have a microtransit type of service on top of having a fixed bus route in that area, then it wouldn't be received the way it currently is. Same situation with the 12. Then there's also new areas/zones that are being served with this microtransit type of service, so its like a slap in the face to areas that are seeing virtually all its service obliterated. I don't blame people for being up in arms over that at all. 

But that's the thing: The buses being used to provide the microtransit are generally the same as those being used to provide the fixed route service, but you have the added flexibility. Think about it this way: Let's say we're talking about the last westbound trip of the evening (passing through Shrub Oak/Mohegan Lake), and you have people on the bus with the following destinations:

3 to the hospital (might be overnight workers, or nearby residents)

3 to Downtown Peekskill

2 to the Peekskill MNRR station

1 to Dunbar Heights

1 to Division & Oakwood

Let's say that you have 2 people waiting at the hospital, 3 people waiting at the Peekskill MNRR station, and one in Downtown Peekskill, and they have destinations at Dunbar Heights and Division & Oakwood.

In this case, the bus is routed straight down U.S.202 to serve the hospital first, then continues to Downtown Peekskill, continues to the MNRR station, and then gets onto the highway to go to Dunbar Heights, and then gets back on the highway to get to Division & Oakwood and drop off the remaining passengers.

When you compare it to the current BL-16, the people heading to the hospital would've been served last, the people heading to Downtown Peekskill would've still had to loop through Oregon Road, the people heading to the MNRR station would've had to walk from Downtown Peekskill, the westbound passenger to Dunbar Heights would've had to walk from Division Street, and all of the eastbound riders would've been completely stranded because the last BL-16 of the evening is a westbound one. 

With microtransit, you have the flexibility to adjust the service to where the passengers are at any given time, rather than just sticking to the same route every single time. For those four trips each way that serve Strawberry Road, I doubt they actively consulted with the residents in that area to figure out when exactly they need to travel. They probably just picked a few random trips to provide minimal coverage in that corridor and called it a day. For some trips, probably nobody gets on/off on that segment, while at other times, there's people walking from the main alignment on U.S.6. For Jefferson Valley Mall, depending on where the passengers are, they probably won't need to make the full loop down Hill Blvd in both directions. For Downtown Peekskill, there might be times when nobody at all is going up Division Street, and buses can run straight down U.S.6. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Fair enough about Mount Kisco. 

As far as PART, it not only is it less frequent, but it would have zero connections to any Bee Line bus, and takes a longer route between both points to be considered a feasible alternative. I also just can't agree with the elimination of the 16, especially the way they did. There's too many connectivity gaps. 

The 9 I would have just said screw it, and included that portion with the rest of that microtransit zone for all I care. 

Personally I've always felt that the 40 should operate to/from the Bronx, and with the new 101 operating with/near the 42 for a good chunk of its route (outside of Mount Vernon), plus with the 41 and 43 (variants of the 40) operate both down to 241st Street, there's really not a need to have the 42 operate between Mount Vernon and the Bronx. 

I think the biggest problem is how microtransit is being used as an excuse to not provide any fixed route (and/or flex) service, and not only in this redesign. Microtransit is not the solution for every single low ridership route, which is the route they're seemingly taking, especially in the northern part of the county. It's effectively akin to a cost-cutting measure. I just can't agree with leaving US Rte 6 with zero bus service like that past Lexington Ave. In general, if microtransit was provided as another layer of service, then it wouldn't be received the way it currently is. Same situation with the 12 to the Airport. Then there's also new areas/zones that are being served with this microtransit type of service, so its like a slap in the face to areas that are seeing virtually all its service obliterated. I don't blame people for being up in arms over that at all. 

Personally, the Yonkers microtransit zone I don't really have too much of a problem with. Some of the others I believe should be flex routes instead (Hartsdale, Scarsdale, White Plains to Airport), and other zones I question how useful it would be, or should not be microtransit routes (at the very least, microtransit only). 

Micro transit will not work in places where they eliminated service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Fair enough about Mount Kisco. 

As far as PART, it not only is it less frequent, but it would have zero connections to any Bee Line bus, and takes a longer route between both points to be considered a feasible alternative. I also just can't agree with the elimination of the 16, especially the way they did. There's too many connectivity gaps. 

The 9 I would have just said screw it, and included that portion with the rest of that microtransit zone for all I care. 

Personally I've always felt that the 40 should operate to/from the Bronx, and with the new 101 operating with/near the 42 for a good chunk of its route (outside of Mount Vernon), plus with the 41 and 43 (variants of the 40) operate both down to 241st Street, there's really not a need to have the 42 operate between Mount Vernon and the Bronx. 

I think the biggest problem is how microtransit is being used as an excuse to not provide any fixed route (and/or flex) service, and not only in this redesign. Microtransit is not the solution for every single low ridership route, which is the route they're seemingly taking, especially in the northern part of the county. It's effectively akin to a cost-cutting measure. I just can't agree with leaving US Rte 6 with zero bus service like that past Lexington Ave. In general, if microtransit was provided as another layer of service, then it wouldn't be received the way it currently is. Same situation with the 12 to the Airport. Then there's also new areas/zones that are being served with this microtransit type of service, so its like a slap in the face to areas that are seeing virtually all its service obliterated. I don't blame people for being up in arms over that at all. 

Personally, the Yonkers microtransit zone I don't really have too much of a problem with. Some of the others I believe should be flex routes instead (Hartsdale, Scarsdale, White Plains to Airport), and other zones I question how useful it would be, or should not be microtransit routes (at the very least, microtransit only). 

In response to the southern Yonkers comment, microtransit wont work with the 32 either. 

Yes; the 32 is a difficult route to navigate, but there are certain areas it does not need to service. It should be shifted to operate via Van Cort Park Ave at all times, and turn right onto Riverdale Ave following the 8 into Getty Square. Certain school trips would still service the original alignment on Buena Vista Ave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I need a route by route detail for a better anyalsis. So bee-line is doing triple digits now? The 62 will no longer go to Fordham?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Q43LTD said:

I'm sorry, but I need a route by route detail for a better anyalsis. So bee-line is doing triple digits now? The 62 will no longer go to Fordham?

Here is the full packet with a route-by-route description: https://www.westchestermobility.org/_files/ugd/b59736_3756f1a6cc7449a4b1ae1f85c3b17e67.pdf

Also some more public outreach:

July 25, 2022 2:30-4:30 p.m. in Peekskill by the Field Library

July 26, 2022 2:30-4:30 p.m. on plaza outside Dunkin Donuts in Getty Square (Yonkers)

July 27, 2022 2:30-4:30 p.m. at Mount Vernon City Hall

July 29, 2022 12:30-1:30 p.m. at Westchester Medical Center (top of the oval)

Note: in case of inclement weather the events in Peekskill, Yonkers, and Mount Vernon will be held the following week. The Westchester Medical Center event will be held at the same time in the basement cafeteria.

Join an online forum:

August 16, 2022 at 7 p.m. Click here to register via Zoom.

August 17, 2022 at 12 p.m. Click here to register via Zoom.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's where we disagree....I consider the microtransit route (or I guess microtransit zone might be a bit more accurate) to be a Bee Line route. You can get off the PART #2 at Jefferson Valley Mall and take the microtransit route to Peekskill, the same way you could get off the PART #2 at JVM and take the BL-16 into Peekskill (For example, that BL-16 trip that short-turns at JVM around 5pm...for connections to/from points east, you would have to connect to the PART #2 along Main Street). 

In other words, the two vehicles that are dedicated to the BL-16 would end up being used for microtransit in the portion/zone/region west of JVM.

But that's the thing: The buses being used to provide the microtransit are generally the same as those being used to provide the fixed route service, but you have the added flexibility. Think about it this way: Let's say we're talking about the last westbound trip of the evening (passing through Shrub Oak/Mohegan Lake), and you have people on the bus with the following destinations:

3 to the hospital (might be overnight workers, or nearby residents)

3 to Downtown Peekskill

2 to the Peekskill MNRR station

1 to Dunbar Heights

1 to Division & Oakwood

Let's say that you have 2 people waiting at the hospital, 3 people waiting at the Peekskill MNRR station, and one in Downtown Peekskill, and they have destinations at Dunbar Heights and Division & Oakwood.

In this case, the bus is routed straight down U.S.202 to serve the hospital first, then continues to Downtown Peekskill, continues to the MNRR station, and then gets onto the highway to go to Dunbar Heights, and then gets back on the highway to get to Division & Oakwood and drop off the remaining passengers.

When you compare it to the current BL-16, the people heading to the hospital would've been served last, the people heading to Downtown Peekskill would've still had to loop through Oregon Road, the people heading to the MNRR station would've had to walk from Downtown Peekskill, the westbound passenger to Dunbar Heights would've had to walk from Division Street, and all of the eastbound riders would've been completely stranded because the last BL-16 of the evening is a westbound one. 

With microtransit, you have the flexibility to adjust the service to where the passengers are at any given time, rather than just sticking to the same route every single time. For those four trips each way that serve Strawberry Road, I doubt they actively consulted with the residents in that area to figure out when exactly they need to travel. They probably just picked a few random trips to provide minimal coverage in that corridor and called it a day. For some trips, probably nobody gets on/off on that segment, while at other times, there's people walking from the main alignment on U.S.6. For Jefferson Valley Mall, depending on where the passengers are, they probably won't need to make the full loop down Hill Blvd in both directions. For Downtown Peekskill, there might be times when nobody at all is going up Division Street, and buses can run straight down U.S.6. 

Well if you keep it exactly the same, of course a more straighter set of ridership is going to beat the existing 16. With a different fixed-route network up there, that could also be mitigated. I also do think there is enough demand to have fixed route service up there, along that entire portion of US Rte. 6, along to Somers Commons, and some of the other areas cut. 

The thing is that even if microtransit provides destination flexibility, there are still drawbacks to it. You have to either call or use an app to request service before you go (and a certain amount of time too), plans may change and you might need to cancel (and might get penalized for it based on the company's policy). While that doesn't seem like much, it can be an issue for people who have other things going on in their lives. Then there's always the  chance that apps can go down for whatever reason or have some issues/bugs.  Also wait times and travel times may differ, or there might be a lot of demand which may slow service down (in which case it should a fixed route), which can impact transfers between bus & microtransit. 

Another thing to keep in mind, people generally like consistency (which is provided by fixed-route service). It also has better ability to grow ridership. While microtransit may initially cause some uptick in new riders, the long term ability to retain and attract riders is still from fixed-route service, given it operates at a reasonable frequency. With a fixed-route service, you know that there is something scheduled at a certain time and location, and you can plan your trip more consistently. Plus when it comes to designing connections, you have the ability to time fixed-route services so that people can meet buses and continue without issue, which is not something you can always do with a microtransit service. You also don't have to deal with apps and putting in info (including credit card) in or anything else.

Again, if there was adequate bus service and perhaps a microtransit zone with it, then maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world. But outright canning the fixed route (in this case multiple fixed-routes) with microtransit is something I'm vehemently against. 

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

13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Well if you keep it exactly the same, of course a more straighter set of ridership is going to beat the existing 16. With a different fixed-route network up there, that could also be mitigated. I also do think there is enough demand to have fixed route service up there, along that entire portion of US Rte. 6, along to Somers Commons, and some of the other areas cut. 

The thing is that even if microtransit provides destination flexibility, there are still drawbacks to it. You have to either call or use an app to request service before you go (and a certain amount of time too), plans may change and you might need to cancel (and might get penalized for it based on the company's policy). While that doesn't seem like much, it can be an issue for people who have other things going on in their lives. Then there's always the  chance that apps can go down for whatever reason or have some issues/bugs.  Also wait times and travel times may differ, or there might be a lot of demand which may slow service down (in which case it should a fixed route), which can impact transfers between bus & microtransit. 

Another thing to keep in mind, people generally like consistency (which is provided by fixed-route service). It also has better ability to grow ridership. While microtransit may initially cause some uptick in new riders, the long term ability to retain and attract riders is still from fixed-route service, given it operates at a reasonable frequency. With a fixed-route service, you know that there is something scheduled at a certain time and location, and you can plan your trip more consistently. Plus when it comes to designing connections, you have the ability to time fixed-route services so that people can meet buses and continue without issue, which is not something you can always do with a microtransit service. You also don't have to deal with apps and putting in info (including credit card) in or anything else.

Again, if there was adequate bus service and perhaps a microtransit zone with it, then maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world. But outright canning the fixed route (in this case multiple fixed-routes) with microtransit is something I'm vehemently against. 

I'm confused by what you say "keep it exactly the same" and then go onto compare the routing of the microtransit vs the existing BL-16. The thing is that a large one way loop (which might have to change direction based on time of day) is also confusing to riders. 

Regarding the app, they usually have a call center as well (and then payment takes place on the bus itself, so you don't have to worry about cancelations). The other benefit is if you're making the same trip on a regular basis, you can usually put in a recurring request (and the other thing is that you can request it for a time that works better for you. If you get out of work at 3:30pm, you can request the next available pickup after 3:30pm (rather than catching an hourly bus that passes by on say, the :20s). It's essentially a modified Uber/Lyft, and I'm sure people in those areas use regular Uber/Lyft.

Regarding transfers, these zones are usually designed around one or maybe two transfer points per zone. So any trips involving connecting at (in this case) Peekskill would take priority.

The way I see it, your options are either a meandering fixed route (which has to make every deviation on the schedule regardless of whether people actually want it), a deviated fixed route (which can bypass certain deviations, but you either have lots of padding in the schedule, or you end of with reliability issues...even with the padding, it kind of defeats the whole purpose if the bus skips the deviation, only to wait at the next timepoint), or microtransit. While the BL-16 might not be a prime candidate (compared to say, those Hartsdale & Scarsdale zones), I don't think it's the absolute craziest idea to make it a microtransit route/zone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'm confused by what you say "keep it exactly the same" and then go onto compare the routing of the microtransit vs the existing BL-16. The thing is that a large one way loop (which might have to change direction based on time of day) is also confusing to riders. 

Regarding the app, they usually have a call center as well (and then payment takes place on the bus itself, so you don't have to worry about cancelations). The other benefit is if you're making the same trip on a regular basis, you can usually put in a recurring request (and the other thing is that you can request it for a time that works better for you. If you get out of work at 3:30pm, you can request the next available pickup after 3:30pm (rather than catching an hourly bus that passes by on say, the :20s). It's essentially a modified Uber/Lyft, and I'm sure people in those areas use regular Uber/Lyft.

Regarding transfers, these zones are usually designed around one or maybe two transfer points per zone. So any trips involving connecting at (in this case) Peekskill would take priority.

I'm referring to the comparison in that particular example between the trips in question being served by the microtransit and the existing 16 (being kept the same). As far as ridersharing service goes, I don't know how prevalent usage is in that area, but without a doubt personal vehicular use is heavy. 

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The way I see it, your options are either a meandering fixed route (which has to make every deviation on the schedule regardless of whether people actually want it), a deviated fixed route (which can bypass certain deviations, but you either have lots of padding in the schedule, or you end of with reliability issues...even with the padding, it kind of defeats the whole purpose if the bus skips the deviation, only to wait at the next timepoint), or microtransit. While the BL-16 might not be a prime candidate (compared to say, those Hartsdale & Scarsdale zones), I don't think it's the absolute craziest idea to make it a microtransit route/zone. 

That depends on such a flex route is designed. If there's a relatively large area where it can deviate, or deviation through very sprawled and disconnected areas, yeah that's going to eat up time. However you can have routes where even that may not be a total issue. Take the 12 for example. If they wanted to, they could have operated it as a fixed route in Downtown White Plains, then have it as a route with deviations to the colleges and some of the businesses on request on the bus from White Plains (or the route from Westchester Ave to King Street be on-demand  with more or less the same zone boundaries) en route to the Airport (with a fixed route along King Street north of Lincoln Avenue). Depending on how you configure it, you could potentially do hourly service during off peak periods, and 30-40 minute headways during peak periods assuming the same amount of resources are kept.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think microtransit is the answer to everything.

Some zones such as the Hartsdale/Scarsdale ones are the ideal microtransit candidates. They can just wait for the train, and maybe have a cutoff for pick up in the other direction

 

Others don't really make sense. I wonder why they didn't just have a semi - flex route that has on-demand timepoint versus going straight up microtransit. Ridership will most likely drop with each route conversion to microtransit especially on routes like the 12 and the 16

 

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.