Bee Line redesign plan released

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven @Mtatransit It ultimately comes up to a tradeoff between productivity and reliability. It is definitely possible to have a microtransit route that leaves the hub at a fixed time (for example, out in Suffolk County, they were going to do that for the microtransit routes proposed out of Patchogue). But effectively for the 12, I think something like that is what it would end up being in practice. Most of the time, they give you a "virtual bus stop" which is located along a street that a fixed route would typically run along. So in White Plains, it's virtually guaranteed that they would have people walk to the streets that the 12 (and all those other bus routes) run along, and then at the far northern/eastern end, the buses pretty much have to run up King Street to the airport. 

The big question is whether you want to use the extra cushion time to pick up passengers, or simply as layover time? (e.g. If a particular trip doesn't have anybody heading to/from the office parks, or to/from the airport, should the trip head straight back to White Plains and make another trip or should it layover for an extra 10-15 minutes to have it leave the terminals at a consistent time?)

That being said, I think it is a good idea to split off the Armonk portion of the BL-12 into its own zone, and use that to provide more coverage in the eastern part of the county. (One of the things that is often overlooked is that a lot of these wealthier areas often have people who use the services of nannies, tutors, maids/butlers, so while ridership may be low, it might not necessarily be abysmal...and of course you may even get some wealthier riders using it to connect to Metro-North for work in Manhattan)

For the BL-16 microtransit replacement, I think it would be reasonable to have its schedule oriented around the Peekskill train station (presumably the BL-14 and BL-15 will be timed and perhaps even interlined at Peekskill, and hopefully they will take Metro-North schedule into consideration when they write the bus schedule, so it makes sense to have the BL-16 microtransit replacement oriented around that schedule as well). 

[JAzumah]

When is this plan supposed to go into effect?

I will be happy to take over the BxM4C. Now that I've said that, they will think twice about cutting it.  

[Lawrence St]

2 hours ago, JAzumah said:

When is this plan supposed to go into effect?

I will be happy to take over the BxM4C. Now that I've said that, they will think twice about cutting it.  

Your going to take over the 4c? Let's entertain this idea for a second.

How would YOU run it? 

[JAzumah]

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Your going to take over the 4c? Let's entertain this idea for a second.

How would YOU run it? 

I would take six surplus MTA cruisers, put USB ports on the buses, and market the service. There are opportunities to add 2-3 trips in each direction, but WCDOT has spent the last 5-6 years chasing people off of those buses to rein in the subsidy on the route. The market is established, even if smaller than before. In the current environment, you could operate reduced service on Fridays if needed, but it is actually a very well designed and simple bus route.

[Lawrence St]

46 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

I would take six surplus MTA cruisers, put USB ports on the buses, and market the service. There are opportunities to add 2-3 trips in each direction, but WCDOT has spent the last 5-6 years chasing people off of those buses to rein in the subsidy on the route. The market is established, even if smaller than before. In the current environment, you could operate reduced service on Fridays if needed, but it is actually a very well designed and simple bus route.

And where are you going to get six MTA cruisers from, considering unless your a museum or a scrapyard, those buses are scrap when retired.

[Railfanner Mario]

Beeline Could’ve done better with the 62 instead of Cutting it to New Rochelle from Fordham. It just makes it useless atp. It would’ve been better if they ran it Down Boston Post Rd/Boston Rd express instead of letting it stop at all stops south of New Rochelle with the 60/61. It would really help riders get to Fordham quicker and be able to transfer to Subway and the MNRR at Pelham Pkwy and Fordham Station (on MNRR)

[Missabassie]

On 7/20/2022 at 6:22 PM, 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?

 

6 hours ago, Railfanner Mario said:

Beeline Could’ve done better with the 62 instead of Cutting it to New Rochelle from Fordham. It just makes it useless atp. It would’ve been better if they ran it Down Boston Post Rd/Boston Rd express instead of letting it stop at all stops south of New Rochelle with the 60/61. It would really help riders get to Fordham quicker and be able to transfer to Subway and the MNRR at Pelham Pkwy and Fordham Station (on MNRR)

As an occasional 62 rider, this sucks. 

[checkmatechamp13]

12 hours ago, Railfanner Mario said:

Beeline Could’ve done better with the 62 instead of Cutting it to New Rochelle from Fordham. It just makes it useless atp. It would’ve been better if they ran it Down Boston Post Rd/Boston Rd express instead of letting it stop at all stops south of New Rochelle with the 60/61. It would really help riders get to Fordham quicker and be able to transfer to Subway and the MNRR at Pelham Pkwy and Fordham Station (on MNRR)

They want White Plains - Fordham riders to take Metro-North (as part of their fare parity program with Metro-North)

[Lawrence St]

I think they should have restored the 12 to Jefferson Valley Mall or combined it with the 15 to Town Center. Discontinued all the buisness park services and Anderson Hill Road services.

[JAzumah]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:01 AM, Lawrence St said:

And where are you going to get six MTA cruisers from, considering unless your a museum or a scrapyard, those buses are scrap when retired.

I would ask for them...and likely get them. Have you seen what DLs put up with in private service? Many of the MTA units can run another 5-7 years easily in the private sector. 

[MysteriousBtrain]

Given my thoughts on the 12, I don't understand why they wanna cut service to the airport and replace it with micro transit. That's likely gonna discourage ridership to the airport and resort people to driving/taking cabs. Even if the Airport is considered a "satellite airport", I feel it's still major enough to warrant a WP-Airport connector like the former 79/Airlink bus.

Perhaps since the airport is in the "suburbs" they might be able to get away with it but still.

[checkmatechamp13]

9 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Given my thoughts on the 12, I don't understand why they wanna cut service to the airport and replace it with micro transit. That's likely gonna discourage ridership to the airport and resort people to driving/taking cabs. Even if the Airport is considered a "satellite airport", I feel it's still major enough to warrant a WP-Airport connector like the former 79/Airlink bus.

Perhaps since the airport is in the "suburbs" they might be able to get away with it but still.

I mean the microtransit is pretty much like a shared taxi. The same way somebody can request an Uber is the same way someone can request a microtransit pickup.

[MysteriousBtrain]

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I mean the microtransit is pretty much like a shared taxi. The same way somebody can request an Uber is the same way someone can request a microtransit pickup.

If it's advertised around the airport sure, but if there's no signage indicating there is an airport bus to WP and vice versa, I see no point in including Westchester County Airport as part of the microtransit service. 

 

[4 via Mosholu]

On 7/20/2022 at 8:03 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

I would definitely be talking with them; all I need is a way to register for the Wednesday meeting.

Just looking at what they wish to do to the W20 and 25 is incomprehensible. Perhaps I could understand the W4 going to Yonkers Metro North via Getty Square. They should really look to extend the W21's operation so that it could also operate during middays on weekdays.

[NBTA]

Don’t know why routes like the 3 gets all day service, while the 21 doesn’t, and with the changes they want to do with the 20, I would look to have the 21 run even on weekends. 

Granted, there’s a couple things I like, the 105, the 78 and 45s extension to tuckahoe, but there are things that are missing the point with this redesign.

[Lawrence St]

2 hours ago, NBTA said:

Don’t know why routes like the 3 gets all day service, while the 21 doesn’t, and with the changes they want to do with the 20, I would look to have the 21 run even on weekends. 

Granted, there’s a couple things I like, the 105, the 78 and 45s extension to tuckahoe, but there are things that are missing the point with this redesign.

Um, where are you going to fit all those 8’s, 45’s, and 78’s at Tuckahoe? Only one bus is allowed there at a time.

[B35 via Church]

Alright, let's get into this.........

 

#1: I get doing away with the current branches (I could break this down further if any further discussion calls for it)... However, I have a huge problem with relegating service from 242nd past Yonkers to just peak direction express service.... Off peak, you have to xfer in Yonkers for the #6 if you want White Plains, or the #5 if you want WCC/WMC.... Regardless of peak or off-peak, if you want Tarrytown, you'd have to xfer to that #109 - which segues to the point I want to make with this proposed #1... It's unnecessary to have the #109 starting from Getty Sq. serving the Warburton corridor AND having a service from 242nd running in Yonkers past Getty Sq. specifically along Warburton.... Warburton continues to be overserved (regardless if they're doing it with the current branches from the Bronx that pans to different parts of Westchester, or having one service from the Bronx & one service emanating in Yonkers running along Warburton).... North of Getty Sq. within Yonkers, between the BL-1/branches, the BL-2, and the BL-6, the demand for the BL-1 is the lowest.....

....but it's apparently overkill/unnecessary to have the current BL-5 & BL-6 running to White Plains from Yonkers though....

....and what's with this propping up of JFK Marina all of a sudden? The park within, is nothing more than a local park.

#2: So it would no longer serve Executive Park.... Once upon a time, the demand for it was quite high... Throughout the course of time though, that demand has evaporated... So I don't really have a problem with taking the #2 away from it....

This part is more or less nomenclature I suppose, but I would fold most of the proposed #1 trips into the #2 (which would all be Getty Sq. short turns)... In other words, the #2 would basically alternate between ending at Getty Sq. & Tudor Woods all day.... This would actually end up saving money.

#3: Saw the truncation to White Plains coming a "mile" away (pun there being, the current BL-3 runs via the Platinum Mile, which would be discontinued under this proposal).... As for the routing change on the Yonkers end, wtf are they doing here???? You can't tell with the maps on the PDF's, but on the interactive map, after serving Getty Sq, they actually have it swinging over to serve MNRR Yonkers... The folks that are taking the Hudson line to Tarrytown to *whatever* bus to get to White Plains aren't going to disembark at Yonkers to catch a bus to White Plains (even if it saves them whatever the difference the fare b/w Yonkers & Tarrytown is).... Folks coming off other buses (that they

As far as the proposed routing b/w Getty Sq. & the Sprain Brook, during the AM & off peak hours won't be much of a problem.... However, that is going to be absolute murder during the PM rush... I'd much rather put up with Tuckahoe rd - Neps - to Getty Sq. during the PM rush over the Sprain Brook to Central Park av to the Cross County pkwy. for the one exit to Yonkers av....

All in all, on the bright side (and I've been saying this on here for a long time now), they're proposing off peak service on this route.... There is simply far too much waste with the 1W route.

#4: Outside of the #5, they have everything ending in the heart of Yonkers ending at the MNRR station.... There's no real need to run the #4 to the RR station.... Everything else they left alone, which is good...

#5: I'm not exactly in favor of it running to WMC, but I can't knock using the BL-5 to phase out the BL-1C.... The BL-1C carries a shit ton of air between Getty Sq. & WMC/WCC (feel funny calling that area "Grasslands" for some reason).... While the BL-1C is used interchangeably (in addressing the demand) b/w the Bronx & Getty Sq., the BL-5 simply carries more, north of Yonkers than the BL-1C does...

As far as the White Plains - Harrison portion of the current route, it's one of those things that makes sense on the surface - but at the same time, I'm not sure if a standalone route running hourly* would be enough to have it stay afloat...

* (doing some rough math; 32 total trips on weekdays / service span of 14 hours, is 2 & change [trips per hour]... Divide that by 2 (because it's obviously a bi-directional service) & you get 1 & change.... Then you factor in layover time... So, yeah, about an hour, as I can see that proposed #108 having uniform service all day)

#6: So they're cutting it back to White Plains to have a diverted #19 cover the Pleasantville - White Plains portion.... Good idea on both fronts... The only thing I would do to with the #6 is run (some amount of trips) to the Bronx, even with the span expansion of the #3.... Regarding what I said about the #2, I would lessen the amount of total trips (including the ones I would have it inherit from doing away with the #1) to have some #6's throughout the day running to 242nd .... IDK exactly how abysmal the demand for Executive Park has gotten, but I still think the #6 should have the few trips that currently serve it, continue to do so.....

#9: Yeah, do away with that unidirectional loop, but I wouldn't bother with randomly ending it at Odell/Neps.... If it's anything that should perhaps run to that Marina, I would try my hand at having the #9 do it (after having served Executive Park, that is).... If the narrowness and/or the steep incline/decline (with respect to direction) of Odell av. would loom too problematic, then there isn't too much of a choice, outside of ending buses inside the business park itself....

BL-10: Have no qualms with getting rid of this thing... It's been a poor attempt at a ridership grab (Everybody's virtually off the bus after Yorktown Hgts; it's been about a handful of people or so when I've taken those PM trips).... The proposed #15 won't actually do anything for it; they (BL-10 riders) don't want to be on the bus with local riders & a lot of those folks that live in that part of Westchester in general have a VERY negative opinion of Peekskill... I don't at all get the sense that anything has changed as far as stigmas are concerned, even given that now it's transformed itself into an artsy-fartsy type of city.....

BL-11: I get phasing it out, but I would try to spare/repurpose this route.... It would still be a peak direction only service, but instead of being a "Croton Commuter", I would start the thing in Ossining (Spring/Waller), have it run the current BL-13 routing to Phelps Hospital, then do the current BL-11 routing non-stop to Dana Rd/ Rt. 9a.... Then have it parallel the BL-14 to Clearbrook rd/Executive Blvd, where it would then serve the industrial park the way the current BL-27 does, to then get back on Rt. 9a at Executive Blvd.... From there, it would make all local stops to rt. 119 (Main st), to then run along rt. 119 to the Trans Center (where it would terminate)... The only stop I would have it make along rt. 119 is the stop for the Crossroads Shopping Center....

Basically, my main target base with this route would be those that work at WMC (or elsewhere within that entire complex around Hospital Oval) & in commercial/industrial Elmsford.... Being that the proposal attempts to make Tarrytown into a major xfer point, riders coming from upstate that want White Plains would be left to taking any one of the services from Tarrytown there...

BL-12: For starters, the proposed #19 will do nothing for the route's elimination.... These days, BL-12 is more or less supplemental #13 service (buses aren't exactly running empty within White Plains; matter fact, I constantly see buses at near crowding levels)... Even if HPN isn't a quote-unquote major airport, I cannot agree with leaving it with no fixed route service of any sort.... I would even resort to drastically taking that proposed #108 away from White Plains & running it up to the airport via the Hutch..... The significant increase in service on the proposed #13 would support this.....

#13: Figured this would happen; a route truncation on both ends of the route to have it run b/w Tarrytown & Port Chester.... Definitely makes sense, although I would worry about having a standalone Ossining - Tarrytown service... Personally I would combine the proposed #109 & the proposed 111 (Yonkers - Ossining, via Tarrytown) & call it a day... I honestly believe you would have a fair amount of people willing to ride back & forth b/w Yonkers & Ossining too, similar to how you have folks riding between Peekskill & Elmsford/White Plains....

The BL-13 has no business running to Playland, even with the elimination of the old BL-76... All in all, with the proposed service increase, I would revert the old BL-13B... It was often quicker getting in/out of Tarrytown....

#14: So north of Ossining, service in Verplanck is being eliminated & service b/w Cortlandt Town Center & Peekskill proper is being eliminated.... All for the sake for having the route take on the BL-19 course b/w Ossining & Pleasantville, and allow for a faster routing (than the BL-15) b/w WCC & Pleasantville.... They mention that the route has solid ridership, so in turn they would increase service on the thing.... The problem here is, the foundation of the "solid" riderbase of the BL-14....

....are of folks riding anywhere between [Ossining & Cortlandt Town Center] & [Ossining & White Plains].

Neutering the thing at WCC on the southern end & in Downtown Peekskill on the northern end defeats the purpose of increasing service! Buses are often packed well before buses hit Downtown Peekskill from Cortlandt Town Center & buses don't exactly tank out in Peekskill either (although there are a noticeable amt. of folks that disembark at Main/James).... On the BL-14, there's more through-riding through Downtown Peekskill than this proposal would have anyone let on....

Never mind White Plains, not having the route serve Elmsford would instantly decimate ridership on the southern portion of the BL-14 (White Plains - Ossining).....  I have to say, they've dropped the ball hard with this redesign in the northern part of Westchester county....

#15: I would have done this whole thing they're doing with the #14 & the #15 differently... While I personally would still maintain *some* sort of service b/w [Peekskill & Cortlandt Town Center] and [White Plains], I can understand wanting to do away with Two routes eating mad mileage like that (which is why I expected them to eliminate the BL-15 outright).... While it sucks for Hawthorne & Millwood, I usually see little to no one utilizing BL-15's in those towns (the latter less so than the former), and even though the BL-15 is my favorite Bee-Line route to 'fan, I have to agree w/ killing off a lot of that empty mileage it has b/w WCC & Yorktown Heights.... 

....But to propose not having either of them (#14, #15) running to White Plains? I can't agree with that..... I'd say their #14 should run b/w White Plains & Ossining (as in, via Pleasantville), and this #15 should run b/w Ossining & Yorktown Heights (via the current BL-14 routing - NOT skipping Verplanck).... Sure, there are plenty riders/residents from Peekskill going to Cortlandt Town Center, but there are also plenty riders on the BL-14 emanating from points well south of Peekskill riding through Peekskill to get to Cortlandt Town Center.... In other words, buses don't come all that close to tanking out in Peekskill (from east of Peekskill or south of Peekskill) on the BL-14.... The smart thing to do, at minimum, would've been to maintain a continuous service b/w Ossining & Cortlandt Town Center....

BL-16: I thought they would at least maintain service b/w Peekskill & JVM, but to propose a complete elimination (IMO, large in part, due to having that #15 run b/w Yorktown Hgts. & Peekskill via Cortlandt Town Center) I can't agree with.... Even if service east of JVM isn't all that hot (even for suburban standards)..... I've grown sick of these redesigns ignoring topography, and the BL-16 in Peekskill serves some pretty hilly areas....

BL-17: The problem I have with Bee-Line's expresses in general is that they're too niche.... All they really have to do is do away with running it past Peekskill to the east, and have it serving select/limited/certain stops along the BL-14 b/w Downtown Peekskill & Croton-Harmon...

BL-18: Considering the amount of proposed trips on that #15, I would definitely have some number of trips run the BL-18's course b/w Conklin av & Downtown Peekskill...

#19: In addition to what I said in my commentary for their proposed #6, this rendition of the #19 will carry far more people than the current BL-19... The folks riding between Mt. Kisco & Pleasantville, large in part, are not trying to get to points west of Pleasantville.... 

[NBTA]

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Um, where are you going to fit all those 8’s, 45’s, and 78’s at Tuckahoe? Only one bus is allowed there at a time.

Extend the Oak Avenue Terminal maybe?

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Okay, so I took the time to look at these proposals more over the past few days, and here are all my comments. 

1/109, 2 - I'm indifferent on the split and the truncation of rte. 1 from Greystone, however them not having any overnight service is a headscratcher. Also I would operate weekend service as follows on the shared segment between Yonkers and the Bronx is as follows:

• Saturdays: Route 2 every 20 minutes, Route 1 every 60 minutes, Route 3 every 60 minutes (see below)
• Sundays: Route 2 every 30 minutes, Route 1 every 60 minutes, Route 3 every 60 minutes (see below)

I would slightly redistribute those trips 

3 - This route I would actually modify from what they've proposed, after giving it some thought. I would have it run off-peak, although I would actually extend it past White Plains to replace most of the 12 to the County Airport. Buses would operate via Anderson Hill Road east of White Plains, and requested stops would be at Manhattanville College, and every stop between Anderson Hill Road/New Street and King Street/Lincoln Avenue.  That way, depending on the requested stops, the fastest route can be taken. For example, if someone requests SUNY Purchase and none of the other Anderson Hill Road or King Street stops are selected, it can simply take the Lincoln Avenue exit and head to the Airport that way.

So service on the full route would operate every 30 minute during peak hours, and every 60 minutes during off peak hours. There would be additional trips in the AM/PM hours that would only operate to/from White Plains (and not to the County Airport).  The span I would keep as its indicated in the plan, however I would also operate weekend service, from roughly 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM to the County Airport, and from 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM to the Bronx. Buses headed northbound would read "White Plains/County Airport", and maybe it can be marketed too. This would also replace the microtransit option they proposed, and resources from the microtransit service would be utilized to partially cover the resources needed for the 3. 

Don't know how much faster taking I-287 to the Sprain Brook would be over taking the existing route outside White Plains, or Cross County Parkway to Central Park Ave to the Sprain Brook Parkway though. If it's faster, then I guess I don't have problems with it.

4 - The service span increases are long overdue with this route. As far as the extension to Yonkers MNRR, personally I think it's unnecessary if the 101 is also doing that. 

5/108 - While I have no issue with the increases in service and the have no qualms with the service spans either on the new route, I am not in favor of eliminating service from White Plains or along Tarrytown Road. The 5 and the 6 do not operate through areas of Yonkers that can be easily walked from, so it's not a useful alternative (save for Getty Square). Also, the 5 also does get a good chunk of riders headed east, after getting off the bus in Yonkers. Anyone going to WMC or WCC can transfer on Tarrytown Road to the 14 or 40/41 (see respective comments below), or the 112.

The split I have no issue at White Plains. The one thing I might suggest for the 108, is to have trips operate to Port Chester, via Osborn Road/Oakland Beach Avenue, and Forest Avenue to Playland Parkway (and Playland), then via the existing route 13 path to/from Port Chester MNRR. It doesn't have to be every trip, although during summer weekends I would perhaps boost service to every trip. I think it White Plains - Playland demand is there, and it would bring more ridership to the 108. Currently you either have to take the 60 to New Rochelle for the 91, or take the 13 to Port Chester, and transfer to the 13 shuttle bus that runs to Playland from there. Plus it maintains coverage in that area. 

6 - I think the truncated route is alright, and the service span increases are also overdue, especially on Sundays. The service is not all that useful on Sundays, I'll say that much, lol. 

7 - What exactly are the route changes on this route? They mention there's changes but I don't see them. 

9 - I personally would have just done away with this route. How much ridership is specifically looking for Executive Boulevard?

11/111 - I would have kept the 111 as the 11, despite it being drastically different from the existing 11. I guess I don't have too much a problem, given that the 104 and the 13 would provide service from Tarrytown to WMC, WCC, and/or White Plains. I always thought the 11 was a bit of an odd route in terms of route structure.

12 - Hard no to converting this route into microtransit, something should run to the airport that is fixed route. I initially suggested here to have the 12 as a flex route, but I have since changed my stance, as it would be covered by the 3 instead (see above). 

13 - Given how long this route was, I guess I kinda saw this coming. Good thing the split was not done in White Plains, I suppose. While I don't have a problem with the 13 operating solely between Tarrytown and Port Chester, I don't necessarily agree with leaving the Playland-Port Chester section with nothing. Yes its not heavily utilized, but I don't think it should be outright cut. I considered having the proposed 108 cover it (see above), with resources from the proposed Port Chester Microtransit zone being used for that instead. 

14 - I cannot agree with having buses terminate at Grasslands, that's a way to kill ridership. It should continue heading to White Plains via its current alignment. There would be connections to/from the 5 at Tarrytown Road and Central Ave / Saw Mill River Rd. I also wouldn't have it running to Pleasantville. What I would do is have a separate Ossining to Pleasantville (see the 19 comments for more info). As far as the north end, I wouldn't terminate it at Peekskill RR, I don't even think too many people are even looking for the station, from points south anyways. I understand that its now a new connection point with the 15, but either way, I don't agree with it. What I would do is keep it running to Cortlandt Town Center, but also deviate it to serve Hudson Valley Hospital. I would probably have timed connections between the 14 and 16 at Cortlandt Town Center, as I wouldn't have the 16 serving Hudson Valley Hospital as a result (see route 16 comments below). 

15 - I don't know what to do with this route on its northern end, but what I would do with the 15, is effectively make it a commuter/regional express route. So, what's basically the same regardless of idea I've thought about is, having the route run between White Plains and Yorktown Heights mainly via the Taconic State Parkway, with several deviations. It would stop in Millwood, make stops along North State Road & Pleasantville Road in Briarcliff Manor, then non-stop to/from WMC. The route between WMC and White Plains would be more or less the same. Between Yorktown Heights and White Plains, the changes would save a little over 20 minutes from each trip. Having buses only serve WMC and then express into White Plains would save more time but decided against it. 

What I'm a little less solid on, is what to do to/from Yorktown Heights. Here's what I've considered:

• Taking US 202 straight into Peekskill, operating to/from Peekskill RR (partially replaces 18)
• Existing route into Peekskill, via Hudson Valley Hospital (partially replaces 17 and 18)
• To Cortlandt Town Centre, via US 6 and NYS 132 (replaces 10)
• To Downtown Peekskill or Peekskill RR via HVH, US 6, and NYS 132 (replaces sections of the 10, 16, 17, 18) 
• To Mahopac Village Centre via Jefferson Valley Mall (replaces parts of the 10 and 77)

I'm leaning more into the second option for coverage purpose, although . Depending on what routing is taken north of Yorktown Heights, the route can operate between terminals within 2 hours, so an off-peak headway of at least bi-hourly can be considered.

I would run the proposed route every 30 minutes during the peak hour. All the resources used on the proposed discontinued routes except for the 16 would be used to operate the additional peak and off-peak service on the 15. The other option would be to have the 15 operate hourly during peak hours, and have a super express variant also operate hourly, making no stops between Yorktown Heights and WMC to/from White Plains. Either the 17 or 77 would do that (see route 17 and 77 sections below for more info). 

16 - I wouldn't replace this route with microtransit, I'm vehemently opposed to that. I would keep most of the route as is, with several exceptions. Instead of operating to/from Hudson Valley Hospital after serving Downtown Peekskill, I would have it operate to the RR station, and have it timed with trains as much as possible. Since the 14 and 16 would operate hourly (or some set of frequencies which allow for transferring), I would have a timed transfer at Cortlandt Town Center for riders on the 16 coming from the east for those going to Hudson Valley Hospital. It would be faster than staying on the 16 anyways into Downtown and then back out. 

17 - I wouldn't personally discontinue this route, but maybe I would change the route structure a bit, perhaps to complement the 15. What could be done is to have it operate from Downtown Peekskill to Cortlandt Town Centre, then along the existing route 10 into Yorktown Heights, then operate via the Taconic State Parkway express to WMC. I did the math, and using existing travel times, Downtown Peekskill to Yorktown Heights (Underhill/Downing) would take 32 minutes, and then from Yorktown Heights to WMC it would take about 53-54 minutes. From there to express into White Plains and making stops in downtown White Plains, it would take about 68-71 minutes to complete, which is not much longer from the existing route 17 (60-66 minutes). 

18 - I would probably partially replace this route with the 15 (see route 15 for more info).

19 - IINM, wasn't this proposed pattern similar to the original route 19 service (to/from White Plains)? Either way, I see this as a net positive, plus it replaces parts of the 15 as well. The section between Ossining and Pleasantville I would have operate as a separate service, and not part of the 14. It would run hourly, and can be done with one bus. The resources used for that Ossining microtransit zone could instead be used for this service. Nomenclature I wouldn't know exactly what to label this, but I guess you can go with 29. 

20/105 - To me this is a mistake, from the nomenclature distinction between White Plains and short-turn trips to rerouting both to Gun Hill Road & White Plains Road. I can perhaps see having the 105 originate at White Plains Road to make it easier for folks to get to/from Yonkers Raceway I suppose. I don't people in the Bronx really looking to get to Cross County like that, versus Bay Plaza. I would also have considered to have the 20 run during overnight hours, the full route too. I wish some of the extra trips on the routes went to overnight service instead. They're apparently reducing the service span instead on the line, which is ridiculous. Besides overnight service, I would maybe look at having more frequent evening service, as those buses can fill up heavy.

As far as the 105 goes, I don't know how I feel about an extension from Cross County to Stew Leonard's and Ridge Hill. It could work out in the long run perhaps, but IDK, I've personally never seen too many people transferring off 20s to 78s. Maybe it's because the 78 isn't the most frequent, but I'm not fully convinced. 

25/55/26/106 - The modified 25 is essentially a 55 extended to Yonkers, don't know why they didn't go with that instead. However I'm not sure another Yonkers - Mount Vernon service was needed, but that's just me. I don't mind the service span increases to the 55 route, I just don't know how that would play out in terms of increased ridership between Yonkers and Mount Vernon, since the 7 is the more direct of the two. 

Also, I don't agree with eliminating the 26, it looks fairly close by on that map, but quite frankly the distance between it and the 25 (Bronx River Rd to Woodlawn/Kimball Aves, respectively) is more than one would think. Also, most of the residential streets don't go the full way across between the two streets. I would have them utilize the frequencies of the proposed 106, but split the frequencies between the routes instead.

30 - Perfectly fine with having Sunday service added, although IDK if I would reroute it down Pelhamdale and Fifth Avenues to partially replace the 53 (I just don't see that as an adequate replacement, since they both have different functions.

32 - I don't have too much of a problem with this route being replaced by a microtransit zone. 

34/38/39 - While I don't have too much of a gripe with making this into a microtransit service, what I do hope is that there's some sort of schedule during the peak hours, because that's where service will be more concentrated. At least in the PM, have it connect with certain trips and then have operators drop off wherever in the zone, and in the process getting riders to/from other locations. 

40/41 - I think that this route should be the route going to WMC. Have shuttles to/from White Plains if needed, but I would have this route be the White Plains to WMC service, instead of that proposed 103. The 40 isn't too long as is, and it would also provide more direct service to more areas. The other thing I would do (and I've mentioned this too), is to have the 40 replace the 42 between Mount Vernon and Wakefield. They have the 41 and 43 both going to the Bronx, but not the 40, especially given the 41 is a 40 limited. They might as well streamline service and make it consistent, and provide riders more options to the same destinations without having to transfers so many times.

42 - I suppose I'm okay with the streamlining in Pelham Manor, the one thing I would do is cut the route at Mount Vernon. The 101 would operate into the Bronx for those getting on in New Rochelle and parts of Mount Vernon and Pelham (I would have that route slightly modified though, see 101 comments), and the 40 would replace between Mount Vernon and Wakefield.

45 - While I don't mind the extension to Tuckahoe RR Station, I thought why not kill two birds with a stone and have it run to Stew Leonard's. The way the 78 doesn't have to run out to Central Park Ave, or Tuckahoe RR. 

53/54 - I think both routes could have been canned outright without too many issues. I don't agree with their routing for the 53 though, although I would be willing to keep the 53 over the 54. I would definitely get rid of the 54, but without any replacement (unlike how they did by having the 107).

60 - The service span increases are overdue on this route, although what I would like is that buses don't DHD from Fordham Plaza to Westchester. They currently do that and it's so annoying, especially since service to Westchester ends fairly early while service into the Bronx is still operating until later on into the evening. As far as the 60 goes at Larchmont RR Station, I don't think that the stop is very lightly used. It depends I guess on the time of day, but there's a fair amount of passenger activity there. I don't buy that justification, although I'm not necessarily opposed to their justification of having buses stay on Boston Post Road for longer amounts of time. 

61 - Honestly, I expected that this route would have been truncated at New Rochelle, but it wasn't. You get zero complaints from me on that though, I'm actually glad that didn't happen, and hopefully it stays that way. Good to see the route is also getting Sunday service and expanded evening service. The only thing Port Chester has on Sundays is the 13, and it sucks if you're not trying to pay Metro North fares and/or are going to somewhere the NHL doesn't hit. 

62 - I'm not really in favor of this proposal, because Metro North doesn't hit any of the areas the 62 serves between Fordham and New Rochelle at all. So it's not an adequate alternative to the route for those heading to/from White Plains. 

63/66/110 - I actually like that new route 66 proposal, sending it to White Plains. Granted almost every north-south connection also goes to White Plains, but that's besides the point. I do think that this could catch on, especially with the increase in service span and frequency. Plus for existing route 63 riders, they can also make connections towards Yonkers and the Bronx if needed, in addition to having direct crosstown service in that part of the county. 

64/65 - While I'm not opposed to converting those routes into a microtransit service, I wonder if microtransit service will even be needed a few years from now. I guess that would depend on the schedules of both the 66 and the 110 to/from Scarsdale station and how they connect with Harlem line trains, since the two routes do provide a fair amount of coverage within Scarsdale. 

70/71 - I don't know how these routes used to do in the past (talking years ago), but nowadays I have to agree with eliminating it with no replacement. The ridership stats pre-covid were abysmal to begin with, but now they're just outright carrying air more often than not. I've never seen a trip with more than one rider in recent years, I honestly don't see ridership on either one of these routes getting back to 2019 levels, especially since they serve fairly affluent areas and WFH is more or less here to stay in one way or another, so I don't see how that can be a sustainable service in any way.

77 - While this route doesn't have the heaviest usage, I don't think that this route should be outright eliminated. The 77 is another route I would make into a route 15 variant (in conjunction with or instead of the 17; see routes 15 and 17 for more information). If this route isn't eliminated, what I would do is have the route make local stops in Yorktown Heights, and then take Underhill Avenue to/from the Taconic State Parkway, and then run express to WMC, and then into White Plains. 

78 - Personally I would truncate this route at Stew Leonard's and call it a day. The 78 is more or less an afterthought past that. It might be helpful for whoever is getting to Central Park Avenue or whoever missed the 8, but outside of that there's no need for that section of the route, much less extending it to Tuckahoe. That deviation eats up a relatively large amount of time. Like I said earlier, I would have the extended 45 cover the section from Tuckahoe RR to Stew Leonard's.

BxM4C - Lol. As soon as I saw this I thought that a certain someone may have something to say about this. , 

Shuttle Loops - I have to agree with basically gutting all of the trips, most people can take the 13. They virtually all operate with extremely low ridership. There's times where Loop H in particular just goes back to IBM because it doesn't pick anyone up, in the more extreme cases the bus never hits White Plains in the PM. 

101 - I generally don't have too many issues with this route, The one thing is the routing through Wakefield, I'm not sure if the connection at Wakefield RR station was intentional or not, but I would have had it enter Wakefield via Nereid Ave and then go up White Plains Road to 241st Street, then resume its proposed route. 

103 - Personally I wouldn't bother with this route. I would have the resources reallocated to the 40 which I would keep running to WMC and to other routes (see route 40 comments for more info). 

104 - Since the 103 would not operate, I would have this route serve Skyline Drive, along with WMC and WCC. I understand why Valhalla was chosen to be served, although depending on how frequent the 19 is between Valhalla and White Plains, this part of the 104 may not be needed. If the 19 is frequent enough (by that, I mean every 30 minutes peak / 60 minute off peak at the very least), then I would be okay with just running the 104 between Valhalla and Tarrytown. 

107 - This route is completely unnecessary, the 101 covers most of the route anyways and connects to the subway (albeit at a different station). Before coming up with this route, I would have considered adding Sunday service to the 52.

112 - So the 1X is now becoming a weekday route with off-peak service. Since it says that there's 18 trips, I wonder exactly how much service will be provided and when. The thing is, 18 trips cannot mean that hourly service in each direction is provided in each direction throughout that span of service. So I'm wondering what the schedule would look like. 

[checkmatechamp13]

@B35 via Church The microtransit zone extends to Hudson Valley Hospital and essentially takes the two buses that the BL-16 is assigned and has them run on-demand (or at least somewhat on-demand, my guess is that there would be a timed transfer in Peekskill) between JVM and Peekskill. The same attention to topography seems to apply to the Ossining microtransit zone as well (and obviously the BL-32/South Yonkers microtransit replacement)

@BM5 via Woodhaven While I can see the use in an extension of the BL-108 to Port Chester, I don't think it would be worth getting rid of the Port Chester microtransit zone for it. The King Street corridor could definitely use some type of transit service.

For the BL-5 being routed away from White Plains, I think the big idea is to encourage use of the added BL-13 service. (I didn't check the map but depending on the routing of the BL-3, perhaps a stop or two can be added along Nepperhan, especially if the alternative is diverting it to the Yonkers MNRR station)

[aemoreira81]

My reactions:

1. Should continue to operate to the city line

1C (being discontinued): I wonder why this wasn't thought of earlier, especially with the redesign to the 5 (see below).

1T (to be the 109): I would extend the route to Phelps Memorial Hospital.

1W (being discontinued): I wonder why this wasn't thought of earlier, especially since the ideal route between White Plains and Yonkers is the 6 (or the proposed 3)

1X (to become 112): agree with this

2: I never understood the extension to Executive Boulevard. Revert it to Tudor Woods as proposed.

3: Trading the section to Purchase for all-day express service between Yonkers and White Plains makes perfect sense. However, I would make the 3 the primary route to the airport as well on weekdays, operating express via Lake Street. (The route is proposed to run weekdays only but all day.)

4. Remains roughly the same. More service planned on all days.

5. Given that I don't know of too many from Hastings or along Ardsley Road who need the Westchester CC area, this is perfect. (The section to Harrison becomes the 108, addressed later.)

6. Honestly not surprised, given that the 19 is proposed to take this over to White Plains. I would, however, make this the weekend route to the airport, via what I suggest for the 3. Significantly more Sunday and slightly more Saturday service is planned...only alternate 6 trips would continue onto the airport.

7. Remains roughly the same. More weekday service is planned.

8. Remains roughly the same. More weekend service planned. I wish that this route could run (closed door) to 231 Street  though, even if it means trading a few trips for the more direct service. 

9. Agree with this as it eliminates duplicate service.

10 (being discontinued): I wouldn't discontinue it but also not keep it as is. Instead, the route should operate to the Katonah RR station on the Harlem Line, which would be much shorter.

11 (being discontinued): not surprised either. The 10 was basically a continuation of the 11.

12 (being discontinued): for the airport, I would suggest the 3 (weekdays) and the 6 (weekends). For the colleges, this is where an E450-based cutaway or a 35-foot bus would make sense only servicing Manhattanville College and SUNY Purchase full-time. Additional service can serve the office parks in Manhattanville (i.e., MasterCard, PepsiCo, IBM, Reckson) during peak hours only, but the trunk route would be just to Manhattanville College and SUNY Purchase.

13: agree with this change and split. Also significant weekday service increases are planned.

14: This is the hardest one as the plan cuts off north county from White Plains completely, but trades that for more Saturday service. Also, Montrose and Verplanck would lose transit service. I would extend this to White Plains via the quickest route from SUNY WCC: Virginia Road. However, service via Route 6 should be maintained to Mohegan Lake. If Virginia Road is restricted, then Legion Drive and via the 19 can be done.

15: I would re-structure this route to operate between Montrose and Mount Kisco, as a cutaway route or with 35-foot buses. The western end of the route would be Montrose VA Hospital, and the eastern end would be Mount Kisco RR station. The route would operate Kings Ferry Road, Broadway, Peekskill RR Station, the current route to Yorktown Heights, and then the former 12 route (Seven Bridges and Millwood Roads, to end at Mount Kisco RR station. Customers who would have boarded in Pleasantville can board in Mount Kisco.

16: discontinuing this route is a mistake, even if ridership is low. It should be maintained as a route with 35-foot buses to Jefferson Valley Mall only.

17. I am not surprised here. Customers can use Metro North and the 15 should be re-structured to connect in Mount Kisco.

18. This could be replaced with my proposed Route 15.

19. Proposed for new Sunday service to White Plains, replacing the 6 to White Plains. But is this route ready for Sunday service, which would be new for the area? (It also restores a link to Northern Westchester Hospital from White Plains.)

20. Rerouting to serve Montefiore/North Bronx Central, and to an ADA-compliant station? I am open to that but I didn't see that coming (it would share the Bx41 SBS terminus). I don't agree with cutting the last 1-2 hours of service though. (The 21 would continue to run to Bedford Park.)

21: No changes proposed

25: This route change should be canned. People want to get to the  from Yonkers, not the .

26: I am not sure about discontinuing this route. While the 25 runs parallel to the 26 (25 on Kimball, 26 on Bronx River Road), between Wakefield Avenue (serving as an extension of East 241 Street) and the Cross County Parkway, only four streets flow between them.

30: I am not sure this route is ready for Sunday service.

31: This route averaged 2 riders each daypart. The source for ridership was Indian Point, but that plant closed for good in mid-2021 and is being decommissioned. No replacement planned.

32. A tough one as it has around 50 percent load factor on 40-foot buses...and bidirectional service is not possible because of low bridges on the Saw Mill Parkway. This complicates service along Rumsey Road, which may be the reason for keeping the route.

34/38/39: this is why Bee Line retiring cutaways about a decade ago without replacement was a mistake; all would be candidates for cutaway service, but instead use 40-foot buses. The 38 should definitely be discontinued. The 34 and 39 should be replaced with E450-based cutaway buses or 35-foot buses.

40/41: not really sure, since I also believe that the 103 route makes no real sense.

42: why wasn't this done years ago?

43: this seems similar to the plan with the 112 (1X)...segregate Grasslands riders.

45: about time, honestly. This finally creates a connection between White Plains and Bronxville that makes sense. It should have been done years ago. I doubt Q trips will be missed.

52: No changes proposed.

53: I would just make it a bidirectional circulator, changing directions in downtown Mount Vernon.

54 (to be discontinued): I honestly don't get the reason for this route; it was close to the 52.

55 (to be discontinued): I see this as a major mistake; I would leave the 55 as is.

60: rerouting along Boston Road into Mamaroneck would indeed be better. Unlike the situation between the 25 and 26, there are more streets connecting between Boston Road and Palmer Avenue. However, I do not agree with placing the 60 on Richbell Road, as that short street is not really designed for buses, especially articulated buses. Instead, I would keep the 60 on Boston Road to Mamaroneck Avenue, and have the part-time 61 be the sole Palmer Avenue route. (The 61 is proposed to go to daily service.)

61: Generally agree with this plan.

62: unsure about this

63 (to be discontinued): this seems interesting. (The 66 is proposed for daily service, but I see only Saturday service as warranted additionally.)

64: basically duplicates the 66.

65: would be better served with cutaway bus service if anything. I suspect existing customers will drive instead.

66: basically admits that no one rides the route to and from Mercy College. Proposed for daily service, but Monday-Saturday would suffice, as a cutaway route or with 35-foot buses.

70/71: honestly surprised that they still exist.

77: given that service is to park-ride areas, I believe those people could just drive to Metro-North stations instead.

78: badly needed, since right now, one can only approach Stew Leonard Drive from the west. This allows an approach from the east.

All of the Shuttle Loops: ridership cratered as a result of WFH and never returned.

BxM4C: even though it carries, it is basically peak direction only now.

101: this could just have been called the 24. It also makes the 107 superfluous, even though that's a new route proposed.

103/104: I honestly would take the 103's eastern portion and the 104's western portion...and assign the 104's eastern portion to the 14 (if Virginia Road is restricted).

105: I don't get this at all. The 78 would be sufficient to reach Stew Leonard's and Costco that way.

106: on paper, it may look good. But the street network makes it not. I would keep the 26 as is.

107: duplicates the 101 (24) and 42 too much.

108: basically a replacement for the eastern portion of the 5, with no change in route.

109: See 1T.

110: basically a replacement for the eastern portion of the 66.

111: basically a replacement for the Broadway portion of the 13. I would supplement it with the 109 to Phelps.

112: see 1X.

As for microtransit zones, I'm generally not a fan of them except for the one east of Route 19.

[Lawrence St]

@aemoreira81 I have some responses but I’m not at my computer, but I do have time to write one thing:

Re: 32

The 32 is one of those routes that is tricky to run. I don’t know why the county is running 40 footers on it when it should be using 30 footers (but then again all the 30 footers are used on the 9 and all the loop routes), and the route should be modified. Service should run via Van Cort Park Ave at all times.

And the Saw Mill Pkwy isn’t the reason why the route dosent have no-directional service, it’s because along Park Hill a lot of streets have tight corners that can not be done from the opposite direction.

I know this because there was a massive detour on the  that northbound buses had to do the 32 in reverse, from Park Hill to Getty Square and back to Midland. It was extremely difficult to do.

[B35 via Church]

continuing on.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

#20:  I like this idea.... on paper.

In actuality, this would be a logistical nightmare... Gun Hill is often a slow crawl b/w Bainbridge & WPR (large in part, due to traffic from the Bronx River Pkwy), and there's no where in the immediate vicinity of Gun Hill rd to terminate all the service being provided for this route, with the Bx41/SBS also terminating around there.... Surely they're doing this for increased ridership potential.... I've always gotten the sense that a lot of Bronxites that board BL-20's/21's at Bedford Park, are more proximate to the than they are the or the ... More of them gun for the BL-20 over the BL-25/26 in general, due to service being more superior on the BL-20.....

I find it "interesting" that this is being suggested for the BL-20 - but they can suggest cutting BL-40's back to White Plains, to still have it ending at Petrillo Plaza (instead of perhaps, ending at 241st subway, or even 233rd)... It's the same exact concept of increased ridership potential in the Bronx... That walk from the BL-42 (1st/5th) to the BL40 (Petrillo Plaza), while relatively short, I find to be a PITA....

#21: You would think they'd have the variant emanating from Gun Hill (proposed #20) being the White Plains limited, and the variant remaining at BPB (this proposed #21) being the White Plains local.... What this whole breaking up the variants like this is saying to me, is that demand for the current BL-20 during off peak hours is rather weak.... So they're increasing its footprint over to Gun Hill/WPR.....

#25: Some may not pick up on this, but a BL-25/BL-55 combination would be mean that nothing would serve both sides of Cross County.... I've seen a fair amt. of ppl. come off BL-55's to take the BL-20... Aside from that, I have no problem with essentially extending a BL-55 of sorts to Yonkers.... The current BL-25 is often delayed, whereas the BL-55 more often than not, runs like clockwork almost..... I used to be a semi-regular rider (non-fanning purposes) of the BL-55 & let me tell you, this route carries a lot more than some might think.... Even though Cross County is obviously a major destination in general, it always felt like a stub on the BL-55 in particular to me for some weird reason.... I would use the #55 notation for this route though (over using the #25)...

What this would boil down to is, how many BL-25 riders riding through Cross County would be inconvenienced, vs. how many BL-55 riders would benefit from a 1-seat ride to Yonkers (riding through Cross County).... Currently, they use the BL-25 & the BL-26 in a complementary fashion b/w Nereid & Cross County... The BL-26, have it not be for serving Cross County, would basically carry a shit ton of air all day... So the proposed alignment (#25 to Dyre , for as winding as it looks on a map, & that #106 doing Bronxville - Nereid via Cross County, via Kimball) I easily see being more cumulatively productive.... That isn't to say that the current BL-25 performs poorly, because it most certainly doesn't... At the same time, what I'm more saying is that there's less of a real need to keep it intact - especially when you have untapped potential (IMO) with the BL-55 west of Mt. Vernon & the demand for the BL-26 outside of Cross County being absolute doo-doo 💩

BL-26: Hate to say, but while Kimball b/w Cross County & McLean (not inclusive) isn't anything special, it easily garners more patronage than along Bronx River rd.... The only other thing I can think of to maintain some sort of service along Bronx River rd. is to have the proposed #25 shifted from serving the immediate area east of the tracks (Terrace, etc.) to running via Bronx River rd. b/w Midland & Yonkers (av)... That part of the current BL-55 tends to have straggler level ridership as well.... So I would choose one or the other, but I wouldn't continue to have two separate services serving each side of the tracks in that general area.....

BL-27: Should've been a loop route, over that (now discontinued) Loop T.... It has a fair share of riders, but I understand trying to phase it out (large in part, with that proposed #103)...

#30: Partially agree with the changes in New Roc', disagree with having buses operate bi-directionally along Pondfield around MNRR Bronxville, and disagree with having buses end at Yonkers RR....  Taking Webster - Lincoln - 5th (which turns into Pelhamdale) I can see being more useful than currently going Webster - Eastchester - Pelhamdale... However, I would've kept buses going Union - 4th - Lockwood.... So I would have the #30 going Union - 4th - Lockwood - Webster - Lincoln - 5th....

With Pondfield rd, the closer you get to the RR station/downtown area, they have it to where you have to park at a 45 degree angle... Worse than that, Pondfield tends to get congested at certain times, with as many people (coincidentally) wanting to pull in/out of those parking spots... It's not like say, downtown Englewood, NJ, where Palisade av. (with those 45 degree parking spots) is a little wider than Pondfield rd. in Bronxville..... So I'd continue to have that setup the way it currently is, where the Yonkers bound buses use Pondfield, and the New Roc' bound buses use the next street over.... And as far as ending at Yonkers RR, well virtually everyone off the #30 that disembark at Riverdale/Main (current last stop) pan due east.... As an aside, I find that those that disembark at either of the stops along N. Broadway (cumulatively) & those that disembark at Riverdale/Main, are about the same....

BL-31: Take this FWIW, but every single time I fanned this thing (I wanna say about 5 or 6 times throughout the course of life) there was only one time where I wasn't the only person on it).... Fast forward from the last time I took the thing up until now (and this I believe is the first time I ever said this about any bus route), there's literally no need for the thing, now that Indian Point is closed.

BL-32: I don't think it should be completely discontinued, and looking through my google map list, I'm surprised I didn't delete this.... This is how I would reconfigure the BL-32

BL-34, BL-38, BL-39: I take no issue with eliminating all three & don't really care what they're replaced with that is or isn't public transit.... I've taken the #39 (PM hrs) the most & funny enough, Ardsley Sq. appears to be the main destination on the thing, instead of anything within residential Hartsdale.... I really would like to see how stark the difference is b/w AM usage & PM usage, b/c throughout the course of time (well, being more specific, ever since I've started fanning Bee-Line, which was back in the mid 90's), I've never seen anything remotely close to a decent crowd (even for suburban standards) cumulatively waiting for either of these 3 routes during the PM hrs.... I've seen better crowds waiting for & boarding the frickin BL-70/71 over these 3 routes, which is pretty telling....

#40: I have more of a problem with (what I find to be) being insinuated with this proposal, moreso than what's being proposed.... I don't really mind severing WMC from the BL-40 per se (given what they're doing with those Tarrytown - White Plains routes, and I do think there's too much service on the thing running up to WMC at times), but what's being insinuated with continuing having this route end at Petrillo Plaza AFAIC, is that there's a greater demand for the BL-42 from the Bronx over that of the BL-40... Quite frankly, I don't believe that to be true.... Running this thing back & forth b/w White Plains & Petrillo Plaza all day just seems like a waste - and on top of it, they'd significantly increase the amount of trips on this proposed #40 also....

#41: What they point about about the BL-41 is part of the problem I have with the BL-41 - the fact that it exists to be a commuter service.... I would use the #41, similar to how we here in NYC generally use our LTD's (not as commuter routes, but much more as counterparts/complements to locals).... I wouldn't bother increasing service on the #40 local and the #41 limited.... If the #40 is not going to go to The Bronx, then I would actually decrease the current amount of service/trips (compared to the current BL-40) running back & forth b/w White Plains & Petrillo Plaza.... In turn, I would significantly increase service on the #41 during peak times (including introducing service in the reverse peak direction)... The only thing I'd be a little iffy about is expanding the span of it, to the point where it'd basically run throughout most of the day....

#42: I couldn't care less what routing buses take through Pelham Manor; much of nobody there utilizes the BL-42 anyway & you're not gonna to save any significant amt. of time with what's being proposed there... I'm a little surprised that they basically left the BL-42 alone, while adding another layer of service (proposed #101) along the weaker portion of the BL-42.... I'm sure this will be the unpopular opinion, but considering the proposed #101 & the proposed #107, I would phase this route out (more on that, upcoming)... From The Bronx, there are way too many ppl. disembarking in Mt. Vernon & from New Roc', while the ridership is divided into folks either disembarking for Mt. Vernon or The Bronx, there is a bias/more of a tendency towards folks riding it to The Bronx..... In Mt. Vernon, there are definitely more people waiting for Bronx bound buses over that of New Roc bound buses..... After it leaves the confines of Mt. Vernon, it's often a straight shot to Mt Vernon (you may get a few folks at Boston Post rd/Pelhamdale, but that's more or less about it....

#43: Now this, I would (continue to) have exist as being a commuter route... I was about to say that I would add one more trip in each direction (specifically, a 7:30 AM trip & a trip a little later after the current last PM trip (say, around 5:45, if not at 6PM, being the new last trip of the day... 5:10 is too early IMO), but they're proposing a span expansion & a bit of a service increase.... I think that might be a bit much...

#45: The main gripes I've always had with the current BL-45 is that 1] it runs via Shore rd. instead of running through Co-op City, 2] there's usually a significant dropoff after it touches down at New Roc' Transcenter from PBP , and.... 3] the current NB terminal is a stub (don't get me started on the 45Q variant).... I don't particularly care for running it to MNRR Tuckahoe (large in part, because I think it's a non-starter), but I most certainly agree that there needs to be more service on Saturdays on the current route...

What's not really clear with the proposal though, is if they would continue having some midday service stopping dead at New Roc', or would all trips throughout the day run out to Tuckahoe (which I think would be quite stupid).... Personally, I would split the route at New Roc, to have every trip running b/w New Roc' & PBP via Co-op City (blvd) - and it wouldn't be just midday trips doing it either.... This is basically what I would do with the BL-45.

#52: ...is a solid route that I can agree shouldn't be touched... When I worked out in Mt. Vernon, I used to take mental notes of how many people would gun for it vs. gun for the BL-55 at Dyre .... While more of a crowd would build up for the BL-55 in the morning, usage was more consistent/uniform with the BL-52....

#53: They make a sticking point of how poorly the (vast majority of the) portion of the current BL-53 above Lincoln performs, but quite frankly, I wouldn't bother with the proposed #53's routing above Lincoln either.... I would try my hand at making everything the current BL-53 does south of Lincoln a variant of the BL-7, instead of what they're proposing for the route (53)

BL-54: Used to work near where this thing terminated.... Would sometimes take the route from end to end... Seriously doubt things have changed in almost 20 years or so regarding this route.... According to the 2019 ridership stats, looks like they haven't (smh lol).... I can say without hesitation that this route should be canned... While it appears as if they're using that proposed #107 to phase out the BL-54, I think they're not going far enough with that proposed route because of that intent/purpose, in terms of potential....

BL-55: See commentary on the proposed #25 above.... To sum it up, I don't really have a problem running it over the BL-25 to Yonkers.

#60: I was hoping that they'd drum up some sort of skip-stop variant for the BL-60 that isn't the BL-62.... Instead, they propose removing buses off Bryant av & have buses evading MNRR Larchmont.... There's something to be said about band-aids & bullet wounds in regards to this change (y'all will figure it out).... Anyway, just like with the proposed #45, they are adding a good deal of Saturday service, which is even more warranted on the BL-60.... One of the few underwhelming suggestions of this whole redesign/revamp AFAIC....

#61: Unlike the BL-60, I don't really think the BL-61 needs too much of a service increase on Saturdays.... I wonder if those 18 extra trips would be spread out throughout the day, or are they particularly honing in on certain hrs. of the day to increase frequencies on/at..... Regarding the routing change in Rye, yeah, agreed.....

#62: They need to stop with this fare reciprocity bit... As a commuter, I'm not going to take a RR to an express bus to get to my ultimate destination; that borders on insulting to me.... Much of nobody's going to take #60's or #61's to New Roc' to xfer for the #62 either; you'll lose way too much time even attempting that shit...

I mean, while I despise the BL-62's routing (hence my commentary for the proposed #60), even I have to admit that truncating the route at New Roc' is pretty dumb.... Increasing the span & service levels for a neutered route like this, defeats the purpose.... The majority of BL-62 patronage emanates from The Bronx... Matter fact, I find BL-62 patronage in New Roc' (towards White Plains) to be pretty weak....

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by B35 via Church

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

23 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@BM5 via Woodhaven While I can see the use in an extension of the BL-108 to Port Chester, I don't think it would be worth getting rid of the Port Chester microtransit zone for it. The King Street corridor could definitely use some type of transit service.

For the BL-5 being routed away from White Plains, I think the big idea is to encourage use of the added BL-13 service. (I didn't check the map but depending on the routing of the BL-3, perhaps a stop or two can be added along Nepperhan, especially if the alternative is diverting it to the Yonkers MNRR station)

Here's what I'll say, given that I just realized this:

The runtime on the 5 between White Plains and Harrison is 32 minutes. I don't know how they're exactly scheduling buses here with the 108, but if service is to be provided hourly, then you would need two buses. If that's the case, and doing a rough estimation, it actually is possible to extend it to Port Chester on all trips, without having to add resources from elsewhere. So that microtransit zone could stay intact.  

I agree on King Street having transit service, although I believe it should definitely have some fixed route service. Problem is what route would it be (existing or new) and where would it go, especially since there aren't too many turnaround options along King Street. I would probably choose a rerouted 61 up to around Comly Avenue though, if I had to choose. The 76 is no longer an option (although the 13 partially replaces it I guess), and I would have suggested that if it was still around. That route was left to die out.  Besides the neighborhoods it served, its routing north/east of Rye (which was Midland Ave, Westchester Ave, then Regent Street and doubling back on the other side of the tracks, to the shopping center off I-287) basically capped ridership.

As far as the 5 & 13 goes, it would be one thing if the two routes effectively have similar functions whether on paper or in real life. The enhanced service on the 13 argument I can see for gutting the WP shuttle loops, but the 5 & 13 are two very different routes with different bases and not a lot of  overlap/interchangeability. If that's what the planners think, then that just comes off as desperate to achieve a certain outcome and not very confident in their initial proposal (let alone that they aren't too aware of ridership patterns). The 13 can hold on its own, even with the 5 running alongside it for a portion of its route. Most of the riders getting on 5s in White Plains and along Tarrytown Road , remain on the bus once it turns off it (technically Main Street at that point) and not just for one, two, or three stops after. There's no need to screw riders over on the 5 for that. 

6 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

My reactions:

3: Trading the section to Purchase for all-day express service between Yonkers and White Plains makes perfect sense. However, I would make the 3 the primary route to the airport as well on weekdays, operating express via Lake Street. (The route is proposed to run weekdays only but all day.)

6. Honestly not surprised, given that the 19 is proposed to take this over to White Plains. I would, however, make this the weekend route to the airport, via what I suggest for the 3. Significantly more Sunday and slightly more Saturday service is planned...only alternate 6 trips would continue onto the airport.

12 (being discontinued): for the airport, I would suggest the 3 (weekdays) and the 6 (weekends). For the colleges, this is where an E450-based cutaway or a 35-foot bus would make sense only servicing Manhattanville College and SUNY Purchase full-time. Additional service can serve the office parks in Manhattanville (i.e., MasterCard, PepsiCo, IBM, Reckson) during peak hours only, but the trunk route would be just to Manhattanville College and SUNY Purchase.

For simplicity's sake, I would choose one or the other to the Airport (but not both). 

Also, both Manhattanville and SUNY Purchase have shuttle buses to/from White Plains, so that's already covered. The only reason why I had them as on-request stops in my suggestions for the 3 was because the route is coming from Yonkers and the Bronx, effectively for the courtesy of providing direct service for anyone from points south of White Plains. Otherwise I would have just had the bus go straight on Anderson Hill Road to King Street and up to the Airport, with only deviations for maybe certain office parks east of SUNY purchase.

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[checkmatechamp13]

@BM5 via Woodhaven The BL-5 is likely interlined with something in White Plains. I'd be shocked if they gave it all that layover time for the whole day.

That being said, it seems like it's the resources of multiple routes being used to add that extra BL-13 service (BL-5 & BL-14 to Elmsford, BL-1W to Tarrytown), though they have the BL-103/104 (moreso the 103) competing with it to a certain extent.