Bee Line redesign plan released

[aemoreira81]

On 8/1/2022 at 6:42 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

@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. 

For many years, the final 5 trip to Harrison was a short turn 13 that ended in White Plains, actually arriving changing its sign to Route 5. Until the 12 was truncated, the finally Route 5 trip to Yonkers actually began as a Route 12 trip and then operate via 333 Westchester, changing to Route 5. The 13 and 19 may still be interlined.

As for one or both to HPN, I would suggest the 3 being there 7 days a week…but not going to the Bronx on weekends, with alternating trips only between HPN and the Transcenter on weekends. How poor service is to HPN is criminal.

Edited August 3, 2022 by aemoreira81

[Lawrence St]

When I was down in fordham yesterday, I noticed that there are 60/61 signs up past Fordham towards I-87 for quite a few stops, and a 90 sign for Playland, I wonder if there’s an update that hasn’t been uploaded yet.

[Jamall Hayden]

On 7/19/2022 at 8:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

long

 

On 7/19/2022 at 8:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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.

The Bxm4c used to have Commuter Coaches, a fare on par with MTA Express routes, 7 day service, serve lower Manhattan and (correct if I’m wrong) used to serve the White Plains Trans-Center. They strip all this away and wonder why it’s not performing as well as it used too? 😂 

[Cait Sith]

9 hours ago, Jamall Hayden said:

 

The Bxm4c used to have Commuter Coaches, a fare on par with MTA Express routes, 7 day service, serve lower Manhattan and (correct if I’m wrong) used to serve the White Plains Trans-Center. They strip all this away and wonder why it’s not performing as well as it used too? 😂 

Not really. Their end goal is to get rid of the BxM4C. The BxM4C is a 5-day service, not 7.

Every other year, they've been making noticeable cuts to the BxM4C. 2009/2010 was basically the last time the BxM4C was used as anticipated. The fare hike to $7.50 drove away more people along with several more trips being cut, which made people move over to Metro-North or just drive. They've made cuts to the point where its ridership base is basically gone and the cost to operate the route is getting to the point where it makes no sense to actually run it.

[Lawrence St]

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Not really. Their end goal is to get rid of the BxM4C. The BxM4C is a 5-day service, not 7.

Every other year, they've been making noticeable cuts to the BxM4C. 2009/2010 was basically the last time the BxM4C was used as anticipated. The fare hike to $7.50 drove away more people along with several more trips being cut, which made people move over to Metro-North or just drive. They've made cuts to the point where its ridership base is basically gone and the cost to operate the route is getting to the point where it makes no sense to actually run it.

Well, the last time they tried getting rid of the 4C people petitioned and the county brought it back.

 

[checkmatechamp13]

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Well, the last time they tried getting rid of the 4C people petitioned and the county brought it back.

And when was that? I know they are slowly and obviously trying  to eliminate it but I don't recall them actually directly proposing it's elimination until this draft plan.

[Lawrence St]

39 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And when was that? I know they are slowly and obviously trying  to eliminate it but I don't recall them actually directly proposing it's elimination until this draft plan.

I think it was 2010

[jaf0519]

12 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Not really. Their end goal is to get rid of the BxM4C. The BxM4C is a 5-day service, not 7.

I think they were referring to how the BxM4C used to be. It had daily service until 2010.

[Mtatransit]

13 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

And when was that? I know they are slowly and obviously trying  to eliminate it but I don't recall them actually directly proposing it's elimination until this draft plan.

In 2010 they proposed to eliminate this service. I think the riders compromised with WCDOT. They would keep peak service to Midtown ,no more Wall St, no more off peak minus a couple of afternoon/evening trips, no more weekend, and the fare was proposed to be raised to $8.50, but eventually it was brought down to $7.50

https://www.westchestergov.com/previous-releases/3804-compromise-saves-bxm4c-express-bus

https://westchester.news12.com/bee-line-express-bus-could-get-nixed-34908608

Edited August 14, 2022 by Mtatransit

[B35 via Church]

Enough procrastinating, let me finish this.......

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

BL-63: See commentary for the proposed #66 below...

BL-64: Never actually rode this route (tried to, many many moons ago)... The b/o said, verbatim "The 66'll be here in about 10 minutes".... While he was right, that wasn't the point (of course, I noticed the two people that were already on the bus ).... I already knew what time it was, and I'm not referring to hours, minutes, and seconds when I say that either.

BL-65: Each time I rode it (PM trips on different occasions), I was surprised it had as many riders as it did... First time I took it was back in the late 2000's, and there were about 15 other ppl. or so that boarded.... The last time I took it, I wanna say, was back in 2016 or 17; have to check my logs.... There were about 10 of us on that particular trip... Unlike the Hartsdale commuters (34/38/39), you do see a decent grouping/pack of people waiting for buses at MNRR Scarsdale.... Unfortunately, I can understand opting to axe the thing.....

#66: Upon first glance of the map, I thought to myself this was one of the better ideas of the proposal... But the more I've been doing some thinking about it, it's become *whatever* to me.... I say that because the current BL-66 isn't much more than a poor-performing coverage route within the network... The current BL-63 is too hit or miss when it comes to overall performance....

I don't agree with their assessment that the BL-66 carries more b/w Scarsdale & Dobbs Ferry than it does b/w Scarsdale & New Roc', like it's that significant, or cut & dry.... I think it's a push at best, because I'd say the BL-66 tends to carry just as much people between New Roc' & MNRR Larchmont as it does b/w Scarsdale & Dobbs Ferry.... Whatever few people that ride from New Roc' or Larchmont to Scarsdale would put the southern half of the route over the top.... All this proposed route (potentially) does IMO is make buses a little less empty leaving White Plains; although I do think that (more) people would still gravitate towards the proposed #6 b/w White Plains & Dobbs Ferry, over the proposed #66.... Nobody takes BL-66's specifically to Mercy College, it's not much more than a convenient turnaround for the thing....

BL-70: I was going to mention seeing those minibuses in the morning with a good amount of usage, but shit, if it's just the one trip, the good people of Larchmont should pull together & form a community shuttle out of the route, I suppose... Always wanted to take that particular trip, but never did... I would always catch a #70 that had about 5-10 people on it (aside from myself)....

BL-71: Riding this route kind of felt like a ride on the eastern half of the n57 (NICEbus).... Unlike the BL-70, I wouldn't even bother with a community shuttle.. Surprised it's still lasting for as long as it is.....

BL-77: I wouldn't eliminate it.... I'd have it serving more of Westchester & less of Putnam County.... Don't really feeling like drawing a map right now, but I always thought it should end in Mahopac ("mayo-pack", not "mo-ho-pick".. lol), over there by the Library.... Aside from that, I would append the serving of (the heart of) Yorktown Heights to the route.... So basically, from Mahopac, it'd continue the current route to the FDR park & ride (not sure if I'd have it be a regular stop or a courtesy stop though)... Instead of diving onto the Taconic afterwards though, it'd double back to Crompond Rd, where it would go on to serve the heart of Yorktown Heights.... Afterwards, it would run nonstop to White Plains via the current BL-10 to the Taconic & the current BL-77 to White Plains.... The demand for White Plains is greater than the demand for the Hudson line (of all things) from Yorktown Hgts....

#78: My opinions of the BL-78 have definitely changed over time... I used to wax poetic over the thing & it used to garner more riders than it currently does..... It started out as a limited route that ended at Stew Leonard's... Then sometime later, that shopping center in Ridge Hill opened up, so they had the thing serve it (rightfully so)... However some time after that, it became an all local route... They extended it to Central Park av. when it started serving Ridge Hill.... Service levels on this route are underwhelming & the route relies too heavily on xfers from off other routes (which was always a problem, but still).... While I initially got the point of having ended buses at Central Park av (to help the BL-8 b/w Central Park av & Getty Sq.), I don't agree with the proposal to run it over to MNRR Tuckahoe, because they have their proposed #45 running up to MNRR Tuckahoe.... You'd be hard pressed to get any significant amt. of people xferring b/w buses at the MNRR Tuckahoe.... Besides, where do they plan on effectively having 3 routes ending in that immediate area anyway? There's barely enough space for normal traffic funneling in/out of the station/parking lot.... I think Bee-Line is shortchanging this route, because they're apparently using it more as supplemental BL-8 service, than they are treating as "the Yonkers - Ridge Hill/Stew Leonards (shopping) route"....

Instead of what's being proposed for this route, I would try my hand at reverting it back to a limited route, but have it run from 242nd instead of from Getty Sq... If that means taking service away from the BL-2/proposed #2, I think it's more than worth it (this is still concurrent with my suggestion of doing away with the proposed #1 btw)....

BxMC4: I've been saying this for a very long time now... It's what's even prompted the BxMC4 pun from me & a couple of the of the long time posters on here.... When they cut off-peak service to solely cater to peak direction commuters, it was only a matter of time before the route'll go KA-BoOm..... Having truncated the thing from the White Plains Transcenter to (basically) Central Park av/Rt. 119 wasn't much of a death knell to the thing... I can't even say it recovered from it, because it wasn't much of a loss.... But yeah, had they kept weekend (at least Saturday) service on the thing, it would've did quite well (to the Casino at least)... Now you have all those people taking BL-20's there from Bedford Park .... I don't believe for a second that those are majority Bronxites (Bronx residents) that are riding to/from the Casino....

Loop routes : I'll just keep this short, because I don't want to comment on each one.... I'm going to say it... The premise behind these routes are antiquated... Hell, even when they were doing much better (than averaging less than a handful of riders/trip), I never understood the exact rationale behind the choosing of which route served which bldg's/complexes on both sides of 287 along the Platinum Mile.... Anyway, I can't quite recall when it happened, but there was an exodus of sorts, from people taking the loop routes to people taking cabs at MNRR White Plains....

I remember when loops A-D used to carry around (I'd say) about a dozen people per trip on each route... After they got rid of Loop G, they got rid of the Purchase Loop & the Tarrytown Loop (which was primarily used for the Kraft employees... I believe that facility eventually got shut down not too long after Loop T got cut)... I don't remember anyone actually riding b/w Tarrytown & White Plains on this thing.... Screw it, I'll stop here, b/c I'll eventually end up commenting on each one... lol....

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

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

#101: I proposed something a little similar to this.... The exact same routing b/w New Roc' & Baychester/Nereid, but I had it connecting to the at Nereid to eventually swing down to BPB ... This proposal entails continuing on Baychester to connect to the at 241st, to go onto cover a small portion of the BL-26 along Bronx River, to run along McLean & eventually parallel the BL-4 to Getty Sq.... Purpose of my proposal was to fill that gap along McLean & quite frankly, have riders from points east of the heart of Mt. Vernon trying to get to the subway not have to deal with the backtrack that the BL-42 does before getting to the subway.... The only thing I'm not in favor of with this proposal is the running up along Baychester to access the subway at 241st (let the Bx39 do that)... I see serving the area b/w WPR/241st & Nereid/Bronx River rd. with this route as a waste of time.... Regardless, overall, I see this route carrying quite heavy if it ever comes to fruition - But specifically, between [that Target along Sandford just short of the Hutch] & [Getty Sq.]....

#103: Even though I don't care for this whole making Tarrytown into a mini-hub bit, I do like what they're trying to do with the #103 & the #104.... Both of these routes expose what was flawed with said aforementioned Loop G - nobody wanted to ride up to MNRR North White Plains to catch a bus to gain access to WMC.... With that said though, you don't need both of those routes running between Tarrytown & White Plains - specifically though, between WMC & Tarrytown... That is the very portion of this proposed route I would do away with, to have this route operating as a White Plains - "Grasslands" loop - with the Skyline Dr. portion only having weekday peak direction service....

I can understand wanting to split the White Plains - WMC portion of the current BL-40 & having another route take on that task... If they can currently have BL-63's running back & forth b/w Scarsdale & White Plains (especially on weekends) throughout most of the day carrying light, they can definitely have buses running back & forth between White Plains & WMC at minimum, over having as many BL-40's carrying moderately to lightly b/w White Plains & WMC throughout the day....

Being that I would use this route as a "Grasslands" loop to/from White Plains, I would have it take on THIS routing....
(( Bear in mind that the trips that would bypass Skyline Dr. would head back towards White Plains after serving WMC [Ruth Taylor])

- It looks confusing on the map, but East of S. Broadway in White Plains, eastbound buses go Main st > up N. Broadway > right on Lake st > right on S. Kensico av, to stand... The routing leaving S. Kensico av/Lake st go down S, Kensico av > right onto Main st. > right up N. Broadway > then left on Hamilton av...

#104: Even though the routing as proposed would avoid TZ bridge traffic (which I'm almost certain is the idea with that) in Tarrytown, I would still have this route take over the proposed #103 routing between Tarrytown & Saw Mill River rd./Hunter Ln. - As again, there isn't a need for the proposed #103, #104, and the #13 all (respectively) running between Tarrytown & White Plains.... This route would need the ridership along Saw Mill River rd. in Elmsford more than the #103 would (as an aside, I could see the proposed #5 doing quite well along that stint).... Besides, to have a route running down from Skyline Dr. to turn off Saw Mill River Rd. to get to Tarrytown would be massively wasteful... It's one of a couple reasons why I'd turn the #103 into a loop route.... But yeah, but to have something like this turn off for WMC at Valhalla would finally address demand.....

#105: I get that it's essentially a variant of the proposed #20, but I still don't see why it's necessary to have a route from Gun Hill and a route from Nereid serving Cross County.... I would kill 2 birds with one stone, by combining this with the proposed #106.... I'm of the opinion that Ridge Hill Mall has taken a significant amt. of people away from The Galleria (hell, the demand for shopping in White Plains in general).... I also believe it's taken people away from Cross County as well, albeit at a much smaller rate.... I mean,  I could see something doing the current #25 from Nereid to Cross County, to then run nonstop to Ridge Hill Mall (and eventually, the Stew Leonard's) taking-the-absolute-f**k-off in terms of success/patronage - Even more so than (my suggestion of) having the #78 run to 242nd ....

Pretty sure some of you have heard the term "bar hopping".... Well, mall "hopping" is a thing also & I do like the fact that it's the basic premise of this proposed route....

#106: I erased the mini-rant I originally just typed, to cordially ask this one simple question.... Why are they retaining the current BL-26 portion b/w Cross County & MNRR Bronxville for??? That portion of the BL-26 virtually carries air all day.... I don't want to (read) network coverage, given the totality of what's being proposed in this network redesign.... There isn't a single doubt about it that it would be massively more beneficial to run this up to RIdge Hill mall (and eventually the Stew Leonard's) instead of Bronxville, and instead of adding a layer of service along Central Park av. to accomplish the same thing....

Side note: What's going on here? The maps in the PDF's show this running to Nereid , but the interactive map has this route going McLean > Webster > 233rd to get to 233rd ...

#107: Going back to what I said in the 2nd part of my analysis of this redesign (commentary on the proposed #42), I would use this route, along with the proposed #101 to phase out the #42... As proposed, there's no real point, especially for the amount of trips they're suggesting for it.... But yeah, while I haven't decided on which of these would be best (I'm leaning towards the first idea), I would either:

• Turn this route into a bi-directional circulator, using the proposed #107 to take over the #42 b/w Mt. Vernon's City Hall (well, 5th) & the Bronx - with the sole terminal being at Petrillo Plaza.
• From Petrillo Plaza, extend it to Woodlawn from 233rd ...

#108: Yes, network coverage, but I still don't see it as being worth it to form a standalone route from the Harrison - White Plains portion of the BL-5... Been on more than my fair share of BL-5's where there's been more activity along Lake st, than anything b/w Harrison Market Sq. & Westchester av.... I would consider combining this with the #104 (Harrison - Tarryown via Downtown White Plains) & let the #103 have Lake st & call it a day....

#109: Like I said in my commentary on the proposed #13 in the 1st part of my analysis, I would combine this with the #111 (so, a Yonkers - Ossining route, since the 1T is cut back to Getty Sq. from 242nd )..... Vast majority of this route's ridership is going to be from the lower 1/3rd of the route (basically, within the confines of Yonkers).... Almost all of the proposed #111's ridership will be from Ossining & those using it within Tarrytown..... Like with the old Q45 & Q47 that ended up being combined to form today's Q47 in Queens, I think there's a happy medium with these two routes (#109/#111)... Runtime should be close to a hour and a half; you may be able to pull it in an hour & 15....

#110: Not to defend the totality of the current BL-66, but if they're going to run the proposed #66 over the current BL-66 b/w Scarsdale & Dobbs Ferry, I wouldn't bother formulating a standalone route from the New Roc - Scarsdale portion of the BL-66..... Being that the proposed #66 got Scarsdale covered (for the most part), I'd run this #110 up to White Plains along with the proposed #66 from Palmer instead.... Would instantly take people off #60's seeking New Roc' from White Plains.... The demand for Palmer av. in New Roc' is just as strong for the demand for Main st. in New Roc - the problem is that it's underserved with the current BL-66....

#111: See commentary for the proposed #109 above...

#112: Interesting that they're keeping the BL-1x as is, but they're proposing a whole different routing with the proposed #3 (in comparison to the BL-3) in Lower Westchester.... While I knew there weren't many, I didn't realize there were so few total trips on the BL-1x.... While I agree with a service increase in general, I'd have to see how those 18 trips they're proposing would be divvied up throughout the day... Or even, if they'd be evenly divided in each direction (as in, 9 NB, 9 SB).... I'm stating it like this because I think the 18 trips still might be overkill.....

 

** I'm not going to comment on the microtransit zones, since it's not public transit.... It's a separate discussion IDRC to get into.

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

 

That concludes my analysis of this redesign.....

• My analysis of proposed routes #1 - 19 can be found here: Routes 1-19
• My analysis of proposed routes #20 - 62 can be found here: Routes 20-62
• This very post contains my analysis of proposed routes #66 - 112

[B35 via Church]

On 7/19/2022 at 4:55 PM, 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

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

It's worse than an expectation, this plan attempts to force folks to embark/rely more on MNRR....

Ridership isn't all that low on the BL-16 in general; our eyes are not lying to us.... The reason for that 8.8 riders/trip, large in part, is because the BL-16 isn't a route that's close to having consistent usage per trip (similar to the BL-63).... The route should definitely be kept around; albeit not necessarily running to Mahopac at all & most trips needing to run out to Somers Commons....

On 7/19/2022 at 5:19 PM, 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.

This fare reciprocity bit is wishful thinking & any notion that the MTA (of all agencies) will be open to it, is pretty comical.....

On 7/19/2022 at 8:45 PM, 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.

A public/fixed bus route most certainly doesn't have to be a jack of all trades.... And there's certainly nothing saying that you can't have microtransit & fixed-route public bus service operating concurrently.... The problem as I see it, isn't one of *what's wrong with microtransit*, as much as it is - Why is microtransit being invoked as part of a redesign to a network for fixed route public bus service....

Specific to the network in northern Westchester, their proposed #15 would make more sense covering the BL-16's portion b/w Hudson Valley Hospital & downtown Peekskill, than running to the RR station... Those that take public buses in Peekskill are hardly seeking the RR station... Yorktown Hgts. patrons I simply don't see riding buses to MNRR Peekskill.... Nerfing the BL-14 at WCC is a disgusting attempt at forcing more people intra-county commuters to use the MNRR down from Peekskill.... If the idea is to have Peekskill patrons ride down to Tarrytown to take the proposed #13, #103, or #104 to White Plains, well they're going to have another thing coming..... There should be at least 1 bus route running b/w Northern Westchester & White Plains.... The demand definitely exists for it.

On 7/19/2022 at 8:45 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) 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). 

2) 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).

3) 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). 

4) 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.

1) Main issue, in regards to what? The bus network? If so, I hardly see that as an issue, as a lot of patrons in communities in northern Westchester aren't exactly the type to do the bus-to-train bit.... Even though its route structure leaves much to be desired for northern Westchester residents, the BL-10 is one example of that.... Hell, even Peekskill is an example of that.

2) Katonah is more proximate, but Mt. Kisco as you said, is more of a destination.... I know that the discussion was regarding a basic connection to the Harlem line, but if push came to shove (because I'm not exactly adamant about either for that particular purpose), I'd also choose Mt. Kisco - Solely for the reason that that town has more going for it.... Come to think of it, if they were to send the proposed #15 to Katonah, they would have to schedule buses to where those #15's & those #19's wouldn't come close to arriving together.... Space issues....

3) Yeah, to have the #101 meander to serve 241st to have that #107 serve Nereid makes no sense... Even in having that #101 serve Nereid , I would consider scrapping the #42 for (an altered) #107.... The current BL-42 works because there's no other alternative from the east (of Mt Vernon) that directly takes you to the ... With what the plan/redesign is offering, that would no longer be the case....

The thing with the BL-42 that's a PITA is that it has to make that diversion to downtown Mt. Vernon from New Roc.... Even though it made no difference for me whether I took the or the when I worked in Mt. Vernon (being that both serves Church av on weekdays, of course), I would rarely ever take the #42 because of it.... I was closer to the BL-55 than the BL-42, but that's besides the point.... Lol... Of the times I would take the BL-42, I would get fed up & walk to Petrillo Plaza & just take MNRR to GCT... And not for nothing, but that BL-42 around that time I would catch it, would always have everybody seeking the just missing it (that was another reason I generally refrained from taking it)... Whereas with (the slightly longer wait for) the BL-55 had me linking up with the next out with like 5-7 mins. to spare.....

While a lot of folks likes to rag on the BL-55, the thing is definitely underrated.... Most folks I worked with, would cram onto the BL-42 (which, for me, was yet another deterrent).... That BL-55 that arrived around the time we let out, was generally half full... Always got a seat...

4) Highly doubt that being a reason, because they're suggesting quite a significant amt. of increased trips to the proposed #13 - this is with it wholly running b/w the core part of the current BL-13 (as in, Tarrytown - Port Chester)... I don't agree with him (@BM5 via Woodhaven) that that proposed #103 doesn't appear to have a purpose and/or shouldn't exist; from White Plains, there would definitely be more people gravitating to that #103 over that #104 for access to WMC... I see the purpose, I just think having both of those routes run b/w Tarrytown & White Plains is overkill....

As to your comment, stopping a route like that (103) in Elmsford would be a stub... As I mentioned earlier in my assessment, to run it down from Skyline Dr. to rt. 119, to eventually get to Tarrytown, is wasteful... Sure, stopping it dead in Elmsford would make it less wasteful, but then you'd end up stubbing the route.... Remember, they got that proposed #5 running to WMC via Saw Mill River rd, which would get you to WMC well before the proposed #103 would from Elmsford.... Instead of running it down to Tarrytown or Elmsford, I would turn thing into a loop - After it finishes serving Skyline Dr., I'd have it head right back to White Plains.... I wouldn't even have all #103's throughout the day even serving Skyline Dr., so there'd be some more savings right there....

On 7/19/2022 at 11:11 PM, Lawrence St said:

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

6. 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.

1) Agree with you regarding the BL-16; at worst, it should stop dead at JVM (even though it appears that it's set to suffer a fate similar to that of Sunrise Mall in Massapequa).... Now that mall has nothing in terms of public transit.... I can understand getting rid of all 4 (10, 11, 18, 31), but the only one I would consider sparing by restructuring is the 11... There's definitely a strong enough market/demand for Ossining - White Plains travel.....

2) The current BL-15 is a massive waste of mileage... I can understand ending it in Yorktown Hgts, since it's usually the area where usage noticeably picks up after whatever small passenger activity that it encounters in Pleasantville... That is a lot of dead mileage b/w Pleasantville & Yorktown Hgts.... I don't see connecting it to the Harlem line up in that part of the county really being this make or break thing....

3) I agree with the general point that the BL-77 doesn't need to travel as far as it does anymore (especially to Carmel, regardless if it ends at a bowling alley... Lol), but if you were to have the thing end at that P&R, you may as well cut it.... I suppose it could end at Somers Commons, but I would still find a way to have it directly serve more residents of that region of Westchester

4) Redundant? What other route currently serves Verplanck & Montrose?.... While I'd say your concern about truncating it from Cortlandt Town Center is valid, your concern regarding shifting whatever problem you're talking about to Pleasantville, is much ado about nothing - when the thing is now severely stubbed at WCC....

5) They haven't brought back the old BL-24...

6) Lol... The fit came when they got rid of the old BL-76.... The current #13 is shunned past Port Chester... There isn't anymore of a fit to be had

On 7/24/2022 at 10:14 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

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

Vast majority of the BL-62's riders emanate in The Bronx... The thing sees very few riders at New Roc' (I could never quite figure that out as to why, but w/e).... They may as well cut it.

On 7/25/2022 at 1:09 AM, Lawrence St said:

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.

Yeah, but we both know a restoration of the BL-12 to JVM was never going to happen - especially considering all the mileage they knocked off the BL-15 with this redesign...

On 7/26/2022 at 6:23 AM, MysteriousBtrain said:

On 7/25/2022 at 9:26 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

On 7/25/2022 at 11:59 AM, 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.

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.

Microtransit services can do whatever they want AFAIC.... Regardless, someway, somehow, there should be public bus service to/from HPN.... Agreed.

With that old AirLink, also AFAIC, they buried that thing by having it start alongside MNRR White Plains, instead of starting it inside the Transcenter.... It alighted/onboarded passengers in a rather obscure part of the station too... I don't think too many people really knew where they could catch it at....

Good, Google maps gets close enough to it... It picked up right here, right where that arrow is.

On 7/30/2022 at 6:49 AM, NBTA said:

Don’t know why routes like the 3 gets all day service....

Because of the (justified, IMO) elimination of the BL-1W...

Edited August 15, 2022 by B35 via Church

[Mtatransit]

Maybe the 18 can do a Cortland Town Center - Montrose - Verplanck - Peekskill - Crompound Hospital area. I can't imagine that variation of the 18 doing worse than going to a closed Indian Point

Regarding the 15, if they extend that service from Yorktown Heights to Katonah, I think it would gather more riders than expecting Yorktown residents to go into Downtown Peekskill. Just a general "safety thing" for that area of the county. Plus riders can transfer to the 19 for a direct bus trip to White Plains or take the Harlem Line (with or without fare reciprocity). Granted it would probably skip most of Yorktown height proper

Regarding 105 I am a fan, that whole area of Ridge Hill, Stew Leonard is very hard to get to by public transportation, so I can kind of see that being a success. Though a lot of it was  because the 78 doesn't run often enough

45: Finally that route doesn't end at Mill/WPR. I definitely think it is a good idea to extend service to Tuckahoe (and on going westbound connection to Yonkers/beyond) (and north to WP with Metro North fare reciprocity)   

 

Regarding fare reciprocity, 

I personally don't think it will happen. Considering the fact that the city has been trying for years to have a cheaper fare intra-city, and when the MTA implemented it, it was half -assed with the hidden (at first) Atlantic Ticket, Westchester County will probably pay a pretty penny for the MTA to even consider it. 

I think the planners intention is to create more of a bus- train culture in Westchester County. However, I always had a feeling that Bee Line riders were even less likely to take the bus to the train than NICE riders are (although that itself is declining significantly as well to the point where its kind of the same). Train riders are train riders, and bus riders are bus riders, there doesn't seem to be much interchange in these two county (though LIB used to be better at this). 

[checkmatechamp13]

On 8/15/2022 at 2:08 PM, Mtatransit said:

Maybe the 18 can do a Cortland Town Center - Montrose - Verplanck - Peekskill - Crompound Hospital area. I can't imagine that variation of the 18 doing worse than going to a closed Indian Point 

It's the BL-31 that goes to Indian Point right now (though to be fair, the two routes are interlined, so it's the same physical bus serving both routes).

At tonight's meeting, they seemed to be lumping "Those waterfront areas west of Route 9" all together. Obviously Verplanck is residential, while the area around Indian Point is industrial. (Though they did seem open to the possibility of running microtransit to that area). But in any case, if they want all the long-distance passengers to take Metro-North anyway, I don't see the harm in having the BL-14 make the deviation to Verplanck.

On 8/15/2022 at 2:08 PM, Mtatransit said:

Regarding the 15, if they extend that service from Yorktown Heights to Katonah, I think it would gather more riders than expecting Yorktown residents to go into Downtown Peekskill. Just a general "safety thing" for that area of the county. Plus riders can transfer to the 19 for a direct bus trip to White Plains or take the Harlem Line (with or without fare reciprocity). Granted it would probably skip most of Yorktown height proper

If it runs to Mount Kisco, it'll be able to serve Yorktown Heights proper and still offer the connections to Metro-North and the BL-19.

On 8/15/2022 at 2:08 PM, Mtatransit said:

I personally don't think it will happen. Considering the fact that the city has been trying for years to have a cheaper fare intra-city, and when the MTA implemented it, it was half -assed with the hidden (at first) Atlantic Ticket, Westchester County will probably pay a pretty penny for the MTA to even consider it. 

I think the planners intention is to create more of a bus- train culture in Westchester County. However, I always had a feeling that Bee Line riders were even less likely to take the bus to the train than NICE riders are (although that itself is declining significantly as well to the point where its kind of the same). Train riders are train riders, and bus riders are bus riders, there doesn't seem to be much interchange in these two county (though LIB used to be better at this). 

FWIW, they did mention at the meeting that they were having regular meetings with the MTA about this, so it's possible. 

I will say, you are right about the contrast. I remember a rush hour Metro-North training pulling into Port Chester and a whole crowd of people got off, and not a single one transferred to the BL-13. (Granted, Metro-North doesn't exactly make it easy considering it has all these random stopping patterns that make it hard to use for intra-Westchester travel, especially on the New Haven Line)

On 8/14/2022 at 8:27 PM, B35 via Church said:

A public/fixed bus route most certainly doesn't have to be a jack of all trades.... And there's certainly nothing saying that you can't have microtransit & fixed-route public bus service operating concurrently.... The problem as I see it, isn't one of *what's wrong with microtransit*, as much as it is - Why is microtransit being invoked as part of a redesign to a network for fixed route public bus service....

Because in some areas, fixed route service may not be the most efficient method of serving the transportation needs of that area. If you have a meandering route with a bunch of deviation that are hit-or-miss as to whether a single person wants to get on/off there on a given trip, running it as a fixed route is going to waste time going through every single deviation. In the age of smartphones, it is a lot easier to call the dispatcher and have a more efficient trip than it was way back when the route was first established.

On 8/14/2022 at 8:27 PM, B35 via Church said:

Specific to the network in northern Westchester, their proposed #15 would make more sense covering the BL-16's portion b/w Hudson Valley Hospital & downtown Peekskill, than running to the RR station... Those that take public buses in Peekskill are hardly seeking the RR station... Yorktown Hgts. patrons I simply don't see riding buses to MNRR Peekskill.... Nerfing the BL-14 at WCC is a disgusting attempt at forcing more people intra-county commuters to use the MNRR down from Peekskill.... If the idea is to have Peekskill patrons ride down to Tarrytown to take the proposed #13, #103, or #104 to White Plains, well they're going to have another thing coming..... There should be at least 1 bus route running b/w Northern Westchester & White Plains.... The demand definitely exists for it.

1) Main issue, in regards to what? The bus network? If so, I hardly see that as an issue, as a lot of patrons in communities in northern Westchester aren't exactly the type to do the bus-to-train bit.... Even though its route structure leaves much to be desired for northern Westchester residents, the BL-10 is one example of that.... Hell, even Peekskill is an example of that.

I think a certain amount of that is related to how hard bus-train connections are in that part of the county to begin with. Peekskill MNRR is only served by buses during rush hour, (and for all the distance that the BL-14 runs near the Hudson Line, it doesn't actually serve any of its stations). Between the lack of connections and the extra fare (not to mention that intra-Westchester commuters need to transfer again at Croton-Harmon), the current setup isn't conducive to using a train-bus combo. But if there were consistent all-day service connecting to the train, and it was the train heading directly to White Plains, and you had a free transfer, I think you could get people on-board (no pun intended) with the idea.

That being said, I do agree there should at least be some direct rush hour service between Peekskill & White Plains (e.g. Run the BL-77 through the heart of Yorktown Heights, then head up towards JVM and back down to Peekskill)

[4 via Mosholu]

I just came off a webinar where I participated in the discussion regarding the Liberty Lines Transit revamp project.

I asked questions in the chat regarding the Grasslands area, the W66 regarding why the Ardsley on Hudson area was going to be nixed (since it has a spur branch directly serving Mercy College near Ardsley), and whether the W25 was going to be re extended back to Yonkers Metro North from Manor House Square. In the live portion, I asked two questions whether they were looking to extend the time the W21 was going to run from just peak hours to midday if they were sending the W20 to Williamsbridge via the Montefiore/North Central area and if the bus stop poles were going to be revamped in such a way that it was going to look like the ones from the Bronx. Someone actually proposed the W20 to run all night as well and I just remarked: you wish.

The video recording is coming soon as it was recorded via Zoom.

Edited August 17, 2022 by 4 via Mosholu

[40MntVrn]

1 hour ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

Someone actually proposed the W20 to run all night as well and I just remarked: you wish.

It's a far fetched idea that will probably never happen, but there are enough parameters around this that could support such a change. On weekdays, the first 20 probably leaves the Yonkers depot at 4:30a and the last run probably gets back to the depot at 2:15/2:30a. 

[B35 via Church]

On 8/15/2022 at 2:08 PM, Mtatransit said:

I think the planners intention is to create more of a bus- train culture in Westchester County. However, I always had a feeling that Bee Line riders were even less likely to take the bus to the train than NICE riders are (although that itself is declining significantly as well to the point where its kind of the same). Train riders are train riders, and bus riders are bus riders, there doesn't seem to be much interchange in these two county (though LIB used to be better at this). 

An attempt at such an induced culture is quite obvious..... As to the [NICE-to-LIRR] to [Bee-Line-to-MNRR] compafison, even with that decline, I'd say there's still a significant advantage in that category that favors the former...

On 8/17/2022 at 2:24 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Because in some areas, fixed route service may not be the most efficient method of serving the transportation needs of that area. If you have a meandering route with a bunch of deviation that are hit-or-miss as to whether a single person wants to get on/off there on a given trip, running it as a fixed route is going to waste time going through every single deviation. In the age of smartphones, it is a lot easier to call the dispatcher and have a more efficient trip than it was way back when the route was first established.

This is a reiteration of the benefits of microtransit (compared to fixed route transit), which isn't what I'm inquiring about.... What I am getting at, is that microtransit has no business really being presented in a network revamp explicitly for public fixed route bus service - especially in the manner with which it was done in the presenting of this redesign.... To me, it's off-putting, and comes off as a push to supplant fixed route services for it.... It's a reason why you have as many people feeling some type of way about microtransit...

I'd like to see more Via Jersey City's, and less *using of the concept of microtransit in support of eliminating fixed route services*... The latter severely bastardizes microtransit AFAIC...

[B35 via Church]

On 7/31/2022 at 6:35 PM, aemoreira81 said:

My reactions:

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

Yeah, they should've been parted ways with these branches/routes... Hell, the whole branching of the BL-1 in general.

1T (to be the 109): I would extend the route to Phelps Memorial Hospital.
111: basically a replacement for the Broadway portion of the 13. I would supplement it with the 109 to Phelps.

I thought of that also (proposed 109 to Phelps), but I'd just combine the two services (proposed #109 & #111) and call it a day... One service between Yonkers & Ossining, rather than have a separate service running b/w Tarrytown & Ossining (proposed #111), or having separate services serve areas b/w Tarrytown RR & Phelps Hospital....

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

Provided supplementary service, back when demand for Executive blvd. was far greater....

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.)

Interesting that you see it as a trade.... I don't think there was anything symbiotic about it (as if to say, their proposed cutting of the BL-3 at White Plains had any bearing on the span expansion & service increase of the resultant route).... As for running the #3 to HPN, I'm not so sure that it would be worth it... How many folks would be willing to travel to Yonkers (from points well south of White Plains, including NYC) to take a bus to HPN?

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.

Having the #3 & the #6 run to HPN (via whatever routing) is overkill.... All the airport needs is one route serving it.... Just, something.

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.

Serious question (because I've never cared enough to think about it before the fact) - Which gets you to GCT faster, service from Katonah or (express) service from Croton-Harmon??

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

In what way? Because they're two routes with very different purposes....

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

If there's any trades being done with this redesign, it's the cumulative service cuts in the northern part of the county, to facilitate a service increase of the magnitude they're proposing for this route.... As far as importance goes, it'll basically be Westchester's version of the TOR #59.... What's underrated, are the amt. of CT transit riders that xfer to the #13 in Port Chester....

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.

More Saturday service to nerf the thing at WCC defeats the purpose... Rather than have a route running b/w MNRR Peekskill & WCC, I'd much rather have a route running b/w Ossining & Somers Commons via parts of the BL-14 & BL-16....

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

Having your proposed 15 continue on Broadway, from Verplanck, via the plant, to connect to MNRR Peekskill, is a non starter (I still can't get over that Holiday Inn they built over there along John Walsh blvd, but that's neither here nor there)... That part of your suggestion I can't concur with.....

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

I'm not surprised either, but not for your reason...

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.)

I question that also, to be honest....

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.)

No way they're going to have these proposed #20's & the Bx41 terminating in that immediate area - especially considering both are artic routes.... Service on both routes are simply too frequent to support that....

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

They're not eliminating a connection to the from Yonkers... It just wouldn't be via the current BL-25.... Quite frankly, I always thought SW Yonkers folks really wanted the moreso than the anyway.....

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.

Yeah, it's nothing more than a convenient turnaround....

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

People like to believe this, but it's not as easy as parking any ole car at any ole station... There's a whole process & it's onerous as hell with these parking spots at RR stations in the suburbs.....

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

Yeah, but those loop routes were hanging on by a thread for a long ass time... Lol..... They should've been washed their hands with those routes....

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

I'm not a fan of these transit providers resorting to microtransit to supplant fixed route services....

Replies in dark red.....

[Lawrence St]

Ok, been putting this off for a while, here are my thoughts:

1/1C/1T/1W: What prompted this route to be split into 4 branches in the first place is beyond me, but I'm shocked that they chose to keep the 1T despite the Hudson Line duplicating service for the entire route instead of the 1W. But instead of having two separate services, the 109/111 should be one route.

2: I can understand why, but they should look at which trips currently have the most ridership to Executive Park and keep those specific trips while eliminating the rest.

3: So they're proposing to reroute the 3 via Yonkers Ave and Yonkers RR...that's beyond dumb. One, the Yonkers Ave entrance ramp to Cross County is blocked by a very low bridge that any hybrid can't fit under. Second, putting the 3 on Yonkers Ave will delay the route even more with all the lights and traffic coming from the Saw Mill. I also don't like how they removed the Dobbs Ferry Rd segment and instead have it looping on top of the Sprain to get to I-287.

4: I see why, but no. Yonkers RR is already a mess with all the 6's, 7's, 25's and 32's down there.

5: I don't particular like how they cut off 9A from White Plains forcing passengers to transfer to another bus. The 5 should run White Plains via Westchester Med Center to replace parts of the 40.

6: I saw this coming, but I would have instead combined the Lake St portion of the 5 with the White Plains-Pleasantville portion of the 6.

7: I'm glad they're getting rid of all those useless turns in New Rochelle.

8: They should have eliminated the Elm St portion until they can figure out a way to redesign that street grid.

9: At that point, just revert the 9 to the way it used to be.

10/11: I haven't used these routes so I can't give an opinion.

12: Absolutely not. You must be out of your mind to think you can replace that entire portion, let alone an AIRPORT route with micro transit. Not only did they **** up the route when they cut it from Jefferson Valley severing a north-south connection, now they want to cut it entirely? If anything, at least have the 15 assume part of the 12.

13: Can't comment as I can't get a straight answer whether or not service into Rye is being cut, even though service between Port Chester to Rye is heavily used.

14: Several things I like. They discontinued service via Verplank which reduces mileage, but there should be 4 trips that continue to serve Verplank, 2 in the AM and 2 in the PM. They cut service in Ossining so it also doesn't do that stupid loop and waste time meandering. What I don't like, why service in Croton wasn't straightened along Riverside Drive, no one uses the 14 up there. Service should also be discontinued inside V.A Hospital with that funding being used to create a train-VA hospital shuttle. Now they moved the problem to the southern part of the route where it now has to deviate to serve Pleasantville, no one is going to ride the 14 there. Weekend & off-peak service should continue to Cortlandt Town Center.

15: So the 15 is the new 16...I don't like it. If anything, the 15 should continue on Underhill Ave to the Taconic/Sprain Pkwy and run express to White Plains, rush hours only. 

16; Not only does P.T.L.A lose every route they have, now everyone has to take the 15 for service.

More to come...

[B35 via Church]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:45 PM, Lawrence St said:

Ok, been putting this off for a while, here are my thoughts:

1/1C/1T/1W: What prompted this route to be split into 4 branches in the first place is beyond me, but I'm shocked that they chose to keep the 1T despite the Hudson Line duplicating service for the entire route instead of the 1W. But instead of having two separate services, the 109/111 should be one route.

2: I can understand why, but they should look at which trips currently have the most ridership to Executive Park and keep those specific trips while eliminating the rest.

3: So they're proposing to reroute the 3 via Yonkers Ave and Yonkers RR...that's beyond dumb. One, the Yonkers Ave entrance ramp to Cross County is blocked by a very low bridge that any hybrid can't fit under. Second, putting the 3 on Yonkers Ave will delay the route even more with all the lights and traffic coming from the Saw Mill. I also don't like how they removed the Dobbs Ferry Rd segment and instead have it looping on top of the Sprain to get to I-287.

4: I see why, but no. Yonkers RR is already a mess with all the 6's, 7's, 25's and 32's down there.

5: I don't particular like how they cut off 9A from White Plains forcing passengers to transfer to another bus. The 5 should run White Plains via Westchester Med Center to replace parts of the 40.

6: I saw this coming, but I would have instead combined the Lake St portion of the 5 with the White Plains-Pleasantville portion of the 6.

7: I'm glad they're getting rid of all those useless turns in New Rochelle.

8: They should have eliminated the Elm St portion until they can figure out a way to redesign that street grid.

9: At that point, just revert the 9 to the way it used to be.

10/11: I haven't used these routes so I can't give an opinion.

12: Absolutely not. You must be out of your mind to think you can replace that entire portion, let alone an AIRPORT route with micro transit. Not only did they **** up the route when they cut it from Jefferson Valley severing a north-south connection, now they want to cut it entirely? If anything, at least have the 15 assume part of the 12.

13: Can't comment as I can't get a straight answer whether or not service into Rye is being cut, even though service between Port Chester to Rye is heavily used.

14: Several things I like. They discontinued service via Verplank which reduces mileage, but there should be 4 trips that continue to serve Verplank, 2 in the AM and 2 in the PM. They cut service in Ossining so it also doesn't do that stupid loop and waste time meandering. What I don't like, why service in Croton wasn't straightened along Riverside Drive, no one uses the 14 up there. Service should also be discontinued inside V.A Hospital with that funding being used to create a train-VA hospital shuttle. Now they moved the problem to the southern part of the route where it now has to deviate to serve Pleasantville, no one is going to ride the 14 there. Weekend & off-peak service should continue to Cortlandt Town Center.

15: So the 15 is the new 16...I don't like it. If anything, the 15 should continue on Underhill Ave to the Taconic/Sprain Pkwy and run express to White Plains, rush hours only. 

16; Not only does P.T.L.A lose every route they have, now everyone has to take the 15 for service.

More to come...

They've been wanting to cut the BL-12, so that part of it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone paying attention over the years.... As for the BL-13, that's just not true.... On the contrary as a matter of fact - EB buses practically tank out at Port Chester... It's Rye patronage is very much straggler level at best... Even Bee Line's route by route breakdown portrays that...

[Lawrence St]

 

Alright, here is my proposed version of the redesign. With the map, please do not pay attention to the inserts as those haven't been updated. Details below: (if you can't see the map let me know)

 

1: 242 St to City Line

2: 242 St to Tudor Woods (select trips continue to Executive Park with the highest ridership)

3: 242 St to White Plains & SUNY Purchase via S.B.P & Andersonhill Road.

4: Remains Unchanged

5: Yonkers RR Station to White Plains via Westchester Medical Center & College.

6: Yonkers RR Station to White Plains.

7: Yonkers RR Station to New Rochelle (service will now operate straight across Memorial Highway to North Ave instead of detouring via southern N.R)

8 Local: Getty Square to Pelham Bay Subway via Tuckahoe.

8 Express: Getty Square to Central Ave via Yonkers Ave (skips Elm & Walnut section). Peak service only, interlined with 21.

9: Executive Park to 238 St Subway via Getty Square & Midland Ave.

10: Getty Square to Ossining.

11: 242 St Subway to Westchester Medical Center.

12: White Plains to Mt. Kisco via Armonk. All meandering service patterns eliminated.

13: Tarrytown RR to Rye RR. Service south of Rye discontinued. 

14 PEAK: White Plains to Peekskill. Does not serve V.A Hospital or Cortlandt Town Ctr. Service in Croton eliminated. Peak service serves Verplank with two trips.

14 OFF-PEAK: White Plains to Cortlandt Town Center. Serves V.A Hospital. Service rerouted via Western Pleasantville Road in Briarcliff, service in Ossining loop eliminated. 

15: White Plains to Peekskill via Taconic Pkwy. Service in mid-section along S.M.R.R eliminated, partially rerouted via Underhill Ave & Taconic Pkwy. Service was also rerouted via eastern Pleasantville Road.

16: Meandering sections eliminated.

17: Unchanged.

18: Eliminated

19: Katonah to Harrison via White Plains & Lake St.

 

There's more but I'm running out of character limits so I'll make a follow up post.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

stuff

The first thing that sticks out in my mind is the stubbing of the Boston Road routes. If this is an attempt to force people to use the Bx30,, it'll only serve to piss people off and likely push more people off the bus, if not public transit entirely.

What makes this proposal particularly infuriating is that many people -- myself included -- correctly identified the old Bx7's southwestern terminus as a stub. Hell, even the MTA implicitly (if not explicitly) realized this when combining it with the old Bx6, only to foolishly go right back to it in June. To do this just to spite Bronxites not only hurts them, but also those in Westchester currently using those routes to reach Fordham. This is made even worse because the official draft calls for stubbing the 62 in New Rochelle, but it at least tries to build on the 60 and especially the 61.

[Lawrence St]

4 minutes ago, Lex said:

The first thing that sticks out in my mind is the stubbing of the Boston Road routes. If this is an attempt to force people to use the Bx30,, it'll only serve to piss people off and likely push more people off the bus, if not public transit entirely.

What makes this proposal particularly infuriating is that many people -- myself included -- correctly identified the old Bx7's southwestern terminus as a stub. Hell, even the MTA implicitly (if not explicitly) realized this when combining it with the old Bx6, only to foolishly go right back to it in June. To do this just to spite Bronxites not only hurts them, but also those in Westchester currently using those routes to reach Fordham. This is made even worse because the official draft calls for stubbing the 62 in New Rochelle, but it at least tries to build on the 60 and especially the 61.

There’s no reason for all 3 Boston Road routes to continue down to Fordham while the Bx30 is there now. You still maintain a subway connection, and the 62 still runs down there making Limited Stops.

And I’ve ridden the 60 and 61 for a long time, most Westchester residents use it to get to the subway. A lot of NYC riders use it for local service.

[Lex]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

There’s no reason for all 3 Boston Road routes to continue down to Fordham while the Bx30 is there now. You still maintain a subway connection, and the 62 still runs down there making Limited Stops.

And I’ve ridden the 60 and 61 for a long time, most Westchester residents use it to get to the subway. A lot of NYC riders use it for local service.

I don't know which universe you're in, but if you could return to this one, that would be great.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

There’s no reason for all 3 Boston Road routes to continue down to Fordham while the Bx30 is there now. You still maintain a subway connection, and the 62 still runs down there making Limited Stops.

And I’ve ridden the 60 and 61 for a long time, most Westchester residents use it to get to the subway. A lot of NYC riders use it for local service.

That's just not true, you have people coming from Westchester and a good chunk stays on to Fordham, and also a lot of alighting on Boston Road too. Buses to Westchester can be SRO from Fordham and hold that all the way through the Bronx. Yes there'll be intra NYC ridership (even still given the Bx30 is still a lousy excuse of an alternative as it doesn't go to Fordham), but there's also a lot of riders going to Westchester. 

I don't know what buses you've been riding but they don't match up with typical ridership habits on the 'trunk'. 

[Lex]

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

That's just not true, you have people coming from Westchester and a good chunk stays on to Fordham, and also a lot of alighting on Boston Road too. Buses to Westchester can be SRO from Fordham and hold that all the way through the Bronx. Yes there'll be intra NYC ridership (even still given the Bx30 is still a lousy excuse of an alternative as it doesn't go to Fordham), but there's also a lot of riders going to Westchester. 

I don't know what buses you've been riding but they don't match up with typical ridership habits on the 'trunk'. 

Let's not forget that this is the same person who complained about people piling onto Westchester's buses while the Bx30 basically carries air.

Let's also not forget that this is the same person who claimed that B35 ridership on 39th Street is higher than B35 ridership on Church Avenue.