2023 Revamped Bee-Line Redesign Draft Plan

[Lawrence St]

This was hidden in the site and I didn't notice until I saw that the 2022 one was superseeded.

https://www.westchestermobility.org/_files/ugd/b59736_8b0dab69ab9e48efa780ef0918ae4d16.pdf

https://www.westchestermobility.org/_files/ugd/b59736_d213b299b17b445e984edcedaf8cde15.pdf

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

They've seemed to have done relatively few changes, and in some cases made things worse. 

So they expanded the Peekskill area microtransit to Verplank and Buchanan, while maintaining the 14 out of that area like in the previous draft. In the White Plains area, they've appeared to combine the eastern portion of the 104 with the their suggested proposed 14 (Grasslands to Peekskill). 

Now in this new draft, they extended the 15 from Yorktown Heights to Katonah, which I guess is somewhat better than what it was previously (but that's not saying much). They still don't have any fixed route directly serving Hudson Valley Hospital. 

In the process of all that, they're cutting the 19 between Katonah and Chappaqua, when they co-existed together in the previous draft. Seemingly for the sake of further justifying the microtransit zone in that area. 

The only other major route changes that stand out, is that route 53 was changed in this updated plan. The 101 will also now connect to the Nereid Avenue subway station and will not go up to 241st Street. 

Service wise I see that it's more or less the same, with some changes like the 20 no longer having a service cut in the evening (it will apparently have the same span it currently has more or less).

Personally I think they dropped the ball here, especially with Northern Westchester. They went too far with straight up eliminating routes and just leaving them with microtransit zones. It's one thing to add a microtransit zone to complement a service area, it's a whole nother thing to replace a bunch of routes with them. The current way they're attempting to place and justify their microtransit zones I'm not onboard with. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lawrence St]

40 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

They've seemed to have done relatively few changes, and in some cases made things worse. 

So they expanded the Peekskill area microtransit to Verplank and Buchanan, while maintaining the 14 out of that area like in the previous draft. In the White Plains area, they've appeared to combine the eastern portion of the 104 with the their suggested proposed 14 (Grasslands to Peekskill). 

Now in this new draft, they extended the 15 from Yorktown Heights to Katonah, which I guess is somewhat better than what it was previously (but that's not saying much). They still don't have any fixed route directly serving Hudson Valley Hospital. 

In the process of all that, they're cutting the 19 between Katonah and Chappaqua, when they co-existed together in the previous draft. Seemingly for the sake of further justifying the microtransit zone in that area. 

The only other major route change that stands out, is that route 53 was changed in this updated plan.

Service wise I see that it's more or less the same, with some changes like the 20 no longer having a service cut in the evening (it will apparently have the same span it currently has more or less).

Personally I think they dropped the ball here, especially with Northern Westchester. They went too far with straight up eliminating routes and just leaving them with microtransit zones. It's one thing to add a microtransit zone to complement a service area, it's a whole nother thing to replace a bunch of routes with them. The current way they're attempting to place and justify their microtransit zones I'm not onboard with. 

I agree. But some of the points their making for justifying cutting routes aren’t even true.

The BxM4C, for at least 80% of trips, have a seated load of 20-30 per trip. The 32 has a seated load of 20-27, which drops off when you get to S. Broadway.

The real shocker is the 15, which does carry into white plains because it’s somewhat faster than the 14 and isn’t as busy. That bus is normally 85% full each trip. The 17 also carries at 90% each trip.

[40 to 241st]

The 14 should just run in between Grassland and Peekskill and then return the 104 it 2hrs between White Plains and Peekskill on the bus 

The 5 would be better in White Plains than the 14 have it there via Hillside 

They can't even put 40 at 241st but the 20/60 can meet the 2 train what the f**k currently the 40 is the fastest white plains to bronx local w/ 101 the 40 would be more useful there than 42 tat 241st that way 241st people get a local bus to both NewRochelle and White Plains

The 105 clones the 20 just put the 20 at bedford park

The 16 should be back everyone knows that 

The Bxm4c should have more service 

Reroute the 42 on s11th av and mundy ln to 233rdst then have the 40 on 1st to 241st 

The 10,11,17,77 should be back 

Honestly I rather keep the system the way it is than these bullshit proposals

 

 

 

[NBTA]

15 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

This was hidden in the site and I didn't notice until I saw that the 2022 one was superseeded.

https://www.westchestermobility.org/_files/ugd/b59736_8b0dab69ab9e48efa780ef0918ae4d16.pdf

https://www.westchestermobility.org/_files/ugd/b59736_d213b299b17b445e984edcedaf8cde15.pdf

That first link doesn’t work.

[40 to 241st]

7 hours ago, NBTA said:

That first link doesn’t work.

if you go to westcheser mobility.org you can find the new map (recomended) 

[B35 via Church]

It's always going to rub me the wrong way when a public transit provider themselves opts to advocate for microtransit to supplant the supplying of fixed route service... It just screams "it's better than nothing, yo"....

Anyway, with the final "network" itself up in northern Westchester, one of the problems I have with it is that they're terminating the #14 & #15 in Peekskill.... It goes without saying that the BL-16 should've been kept; at least b/w Hudson Valley hospital & JVM (even in it's abysmal state).... With the first draft, they had the #14 running b/w MNRR Peekskill & WCC - now they did away with that initially proposed #104 (which by itself I agree with) to have the #14 run over the (104's) portion b/w WCC & White Plains.... Great, so the proposed #14 will run to White Plains - however, it'll run b/w White Plains & Peekskill via Valhalla, instead of via Elmsford - and that's what's going to end up limiting growth on the thing (never mind truncating it at MNRR Peekskill).....

Quite honestly, I would've left the current BL-14 alone from start to finish... But given that they swapped out the current BL-19 b/w Ossining & Pleasantville with the proposed final #14 (to do away with the current nonstop BL-14 portion b/w Hawthorne & Ossining) - on top of truncating the #14 at Peekskill, at that point, I'd just have a route of sorts running b/w White Plains & Ossining.... To sum it up, I would split the proposed final #14 at Ossining (Spring/Waller) - with the northern split running up to Cortlandt Town Center via Hudson Valley Hospital..... It makes more sense to have people xferring at Ossining, compared to at MNRR Peekskill..... I can agree with not having both the current BL-14 & the BL-15 run on rt. 6 b/w Cortlandt Town Center & Peekskill proper....

...Which segues perfectly into what I want to say about this #15.... I know their focus is to try to promote more bus-to-rail travel (among other things), but to have buses running b/w Yorktown Hgts. & Katonah is an absolute waste (funny how there's no microtransit zone set up between those 2 points ).... IMO, the proposed #19 in the first draft was one of the better ideas they had.... Now. they resorted to cutting it back to Chappaqua.... While originally stubbing buses (#15) at Yorktown Hgts made little sense, having it swing out to Katonah to me, is worse.... Whatever the net mileage results to between [Yorktown Heights' Town Hall & MNRR Katonah] & [Chappaqua & Mt. Kisco], I think that mileage is far better spent on having the #19, at minimum, run up to Mt. Kisco.... There's simply more "there" there, than at Chappaqua... It's also more feasible to terminate buses at Mt. Kisco than at Chappaqua....

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

It's always going to rub me the wrong way when a public transit provider themselves opts to advocate for microtransit to supplant the supplying of fixed route service... It just screams "it's better than nothing, yo"....

Anyway, with the final "network" itself up in northern Westchester, one of the problems I have with it is that they're terminating the #14 & #15 in Peekskill.... It goes without saying that the BL-16 should've been kept; at least b/w Hudson Valley hospital & JVM (even in it's abysmal state).... With the first draft, they had the #14 running b/w MNRR Peekskill & WCC - now they did away with that initially proposed #104 (which by itself I agree with) to have the #14 run over the (104's) portion b/w WCC & White Plains.... Great, so the proposed #14 will run to White Plains - however, it'll run b/w White Plains & Peekskill via Valhalla, instead of via Elmsford - and that's what's going to end up limiting growth on the thing (never mind truncating it at MNRR Peekskill).....

Quite honestly, I would've left the current BL-14 alone from start to finish... But given that they swapped out the current BL-19 b/w Ossining & Pleasantville with the proposed final #14 (to do away with the current nonstop BL-14 portion b/w Hawthorne & Ossining) - on top of truncating the #14 at Peekskill, at that point, I'd just have a route of sorts running b/w White Plains & Ossining.... To sum it up, I would split the proposed final #14 at Ossining (Spring/Waller) - with the northern split running up to Cortlandt Town Center via Hudson Valley Hospital..... It makes more sense to have people xferring at Ossining, compared to at MNRR Peekskill..... I can agree with not having both the current BL-14 & the BL-15 run on rt. 6 b/w Cortlandt Town Center & Peekskill proper....

...Which segues perfectly into what I want to say about this #15.... I know their focus is to try to promote more bus-to-rail travel (among other things), but to have buses running b/w Yorktown Hgts. & Katonah is an absolute waste (funny how there's no microtransit zone set up between those 2 points ).... IMO, the proposed #19 in the first draft was one of the better ideas they had.... Now. they resorted to cutting it back to Chappaqua.... While originally stubbing buses (#15) at Yorktown Hgts made little sense, having it swing out to Katonah to me, is worse.... Whatever the net mileage results to between [Yorktown Heights' Town Hall & MNRR Katonah] & [Chappaqua & Mt. Kisco], I think that mileage is far better spent on having the #19, at minimum, run up to Mt. Kisco.... There's simply more "there" there, than at Chappaqua... It's also more feasible to terminate buses at Mt. Kisco than at Chappaqua....

I agree with all of your statements. What sucks is that there was very little advertisement about this redesign, so no one knows that 90% of the buses they use will be heavily modified.

[40 to 241st]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I agree with all of your statements. What sucks is that there was very little advertisement about this redesign, so no one knows that 90% of the buses they use will be heavily modified.

It like they want no one to know so they can say they never said anything

 

[JAzumah]

I am making the assumption that this is a January 2024 implementation.  Am I correct on that?

I am a firm believer in having nearby bus systems connect to each other. In this case, it looks like the connection to PART is broken, which is not a good thing. I do not count microtransit as a connection between systems.

[B35 via Church]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:34 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

....The 101 will also now connect to the Nereid Avenue subway station and will not go up to 241st Street.

smh....

Having the #101 continue along Nereid is what should've been proposed in the first place... Much of nobody from either side of the proposed #101's service area is thinking about getting to MNRR Wakefield.

On 5/10/2023 at 7:44 PM, 40 to 241st said:

1) The 14 should just run in between Grassland and Peekskill and then return the 104 it 2hrs between White Plains and Peekskill on the bus 

2) The 5 would be better in White Plains than the 14 have it there via Hillside 

3) They can't even put 40 at 241st but the 20/60 can meet the 2 train what the f**k currently the 40 is the fastest white plains to bronx local w/ 101 the 40 would be more useful there than 42 at 241st that way 241st people get a local bus to both NewRochelle and White Plains

4) The 105 clones the 20 just put the 20 at bedford park

5) Reroute the 42 on s11th av and mundy ln to 233rd st then have the 40 on 1st to 241st 

6) The 10,11,17,77 should be back

1) I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with that point about the #14... It seems as if you're concurring with the originally proposed #14 & the originally proposed #104.....

2) I'd say for most people riding b/w White Plains & Yonkers, the current BL-5 is a faster version of the BL-6... I don't really have as much of an issue with taking the #5 away from White Plains (apparently, to phase out the current BL-1C), since they're increasing the service span & the frequency of the #3 & making the #6 a more compact route b/w Yonkers & White Plains.... With that said, having the proposed #5 from Yonkers meander around the Grasslands area before getting to White Plains would be a deterrent.... Can't agree with the sentiment that the #5 needs to serve White Plains over any route in the northern region of the county (which, thanks to this redesigned network, is only the one route - the #14)

3) Yeah, the reluctance to extend the #40 to 241st (even given the truncation from WMC to White Plains) & the willingness to run the #20 over to Gun HIll rd is a pretty blatant display of hypocrisy... The #40 needs a major ridership generator more than the #20 (which already has the casino & Cross County shopping ctr.) does....

4) Regardless of the quote-unquote cloning, neither one of those routes (#20 & #105) should be terminating at Gun Hill , for reasons mentioned above.... So yeah, put the #20 back at Bedford Park... The #105 OTOH, instead of bothering to run it along Central Park av., I'd be more inclined to combine it with that #106 (as I don't see a need for having two separate routes run to Cross County from Nereid and from Gun Hill )... "Combine", as in, have the #106 run up to Stew Leonard's via Ridge Hill, instead of running up to Bronxville via Sarah Lawrence college..... Don't remember where I read it, but someone a while back suggested having the #105 run from Fordham Plaza instead of from Gun Hill rd., as it would draw more people to the route... Can't really say I disagree with the notion...

5) I wouldn't bother with rerouting the #42, because I would phase it out with the #40 (to 241st ) , the #101 (the finalized version of it, not the previously proposed version that served MNRR Wakefield). and (an altered) #107...

6) The only one of those routes I'd strongly vouch for (needing to come back), is the BL-17 - especially considering the proposed/final #14.... I have no doubts that it would be more popular if it existed in this redesigned network, compared to its performance in the current network..... The #11 & the #77 I would try to repurpose before outright axing them... The #10 simply needs to go....

[40 to 241st]

27 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

smh....

Having the #101 continue along Nereid is what should've been proposed in the first place... Much of nobody from either side of the proposed #101's service area is thinking about getting to MNRR Wakefield.

1) I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with that point about the #14... It seems as if you're concurring with the originally proposed #14 & the originally proposed #104.....

2) I'd say for most people riding b/w White Plains & Yonkers, the current BL-5 is a faster version of the BL-6... I don't really have as much of an issue with taking the #5 away from White Plains (apparently, to phase out the current BL-1C), since they're increasing the service span & the frequency of the #3 & making the #6 a more compact route b/w Yonkers & White Plains.... With that said, having the proposed #5 from Yonkers meander around the Grasslands area before getting to White Plains would be a deterrent.... Can't agree with the sentiment that the #5 needs to serve White Plains over any route in the northern region of the county (which, thanks to this redesigned network, is only the one route - the #14)

3) Yeah, the reluctance to extend the #40 to 241st (even given the truncation from WMC to White Plains) & the willingness to run the #20 over to Gun HIll rd is a pretty blatant display of hypocrisy... The #40 needs a major ridership generator more than the #20 (which already has the casino & Cross County shopping ctr.) does....

4) Regardless of the quote-unquote cloning, neither one of those routes (#20 & #105) should be terminating at Gun Hill , for reasons mentioned above.... So yeah, put the #20 back at Bedford Park... The #105 OTOH, instead of bothering to run it along Central Park av., I'd be more inclined to combine it with that #106 (as I don't see a need for having two separate routes run to Cross County from Nereid and from Gun Hill )... "Combine", as in, have the #106 run up to Stew Leonard's via Ridge Hill, instead of running up to Bronxville via Sarah Lawrence college..... Don't remember where I read it, but someone a while back suggested having the #105 run from Fordham Plaza instead of from Gun Hill rd., as it would draw more people to the route... Can't really say I disagree with the notion...

5) I wouldn't bother with rerouting the #42, because I would phase it out with the #40 (to 241st ) , the #101 (the finalized version of it, not the previously proposed version that served MNRR Wakefield). and (an altered) #107...

6) The only one of those routes I'd strongly vouch for (needing to come back), is the BL-17 - especially considering the proposed/final #14.... I have no doubts that it would be more popular if it existed in this redesigned network, compared to its performance in the current network..... The #11 & the #77 I would try to repurpose before outright axing them... The #10 simply needs to go....

When I was talking about 14 I was refering to how a whole route 14 is 2hrs which is very long for a local bus route so I suggest cutting it back to WCC I don't mind the 104 being deleted 

The 5 should have an extension to White Plains so the Harrison riders can have a direct tranfser to the 108

I'm glad were on the same page on the 40 at the  and it should be there all the time and the 20 should just keep it's current alignment.

The 105 combinding w/ the 106 is fine but then the part were Bronxville to Cross County riders will need a bus so you might as well return the 26 and put it on it's current alignment. For Fodham Plaza I think we can just extend the BL-4 there it will give it an increase in ridership anyway

Deleting the 42 for the 40 and 101 is a good idea Mundy Ln and s11th av people can use one of those route and the 107 is a redundant route unless we do like you said alter it I like most of the stuff your saying but then we need to level the 101 to category 2 frequency and put most artics there you could give the 101 a category 1 frequency but then the 4 would be useless. 

The 17 should really have a return so people can get a direct express b/w White Plains and Northern Westchester the 11 could combine w/ the 10 if you really want the 10 deleted the 77 should come back with better service Part trans has only Micro Transit Connection they should just have the 16 and 77  would give better connection with the route. W/ half of these proposals MicroTransit is fine but some just don't need it like the 12 

 

 

 

[checkmatechamp13]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:34 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

So they expanded the Peekskill area microtransit to Verplank and Buchanan, while maintaining the 14 out of that area like in the previous draft. In the White Plains area, they've appeared to combine the eastern portion of the 104 with the their suggested proposed 14 (Grasslands to Peekskill). 

To be clear, it looks like it's a separate zone that feeds into the Peekskill station.

Quote

The only other major route changes that stand out, is that route 53 was changed in this updated plan. 

I believe it is the same as the previous draft if I read it correctly. I know it's different from the present-day version)

On 5/10/2023 at 3:34 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Now in this new draft, they extended the 15 from Yorktown Heights to Katonah, which I guess is somewhat better than what it was previously (but that's not saying much). They still don't have any fixed route directly serving Hudson Valley Hospital. 

In the process of all that, they're cutting the 19 between Katonah and Chappaqua, when they co-existed together in the previous draft. Seemingly for the sake of further justifying the microtransit zone in that area. 

I think Mount Kisco is a no-brainer compared to Katonah (It's similar distance-wise and doesn't involve the backtrack through Yorktown Heights). My guess is their logic was they wanted a fixed route at both the northern and southern ends of the microtransit route.

On 5/10/2023 at 3:34 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Personally I think they dropped the ball here, especially with Northern Westchester. They went too far with straight up eliminating routes and just leaving them with microtransit zones. It's one thing to add a microtransit zone to complement a service area, it's a whole nother thing to replace a bunch of routes with them. The current way they're attempting to place and justify their microtransit zones I'm not onboard with. 

I personally don't think the BL-16 is the worst candidate for microtransit service. On the western end, you have the Hudson Valley Hospital, Peekskill MNRR station, Division Street corridor, and (in the microtransit coverage area) the Highland Street corridor, which has a Peekskill Housing Authority development at the northern end. Then in the middle, you have the Strawberry Road deviation.

That being said, given that they added the Verplanck microtransit route, it might be worthwhile to have that cover the northern sections of Peekskill & Cortlandt, and have the BL-16 run straight down U.S.6, swing up to the hospital, and then continue down U.S.202 into Downtown Peekskill and the MNRR station. Depending on the exact routing choices (e.g. Cutting it back from Mahopac Village Center to Somers Commons, or even having the BL-15 run straight down U.S.202 and leaving the BL-16 to cover U.S.6), it might be possible to extend one of those routes to Verplanck and allow the microtransit route to focus on northern Peekskill/Cortlandt. (The BL-14 would cover the areas up the hill on Washington Street, and either the BL-15 or BL-16 would cover the waterfront areas)

On a side note, these route profiles are pretty interesting.

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

4) Regardless of the quote-unquote cloning, neither one of those routes (#20 & #105) should be terminating at Gun Hill , for reasons mentioned above.... So yeah, put the #20 back at Bedford Park... The #105 OTOH, instead of bothering to run it along Central Park av., I'd be more inclined to combine it with that #106 (as I don't see a need for having two separate routes run to Cross County from Nereid and from Gun Hill )... "Combine", as in, have the #106 run up to Stew Leonard's via Ridge Hill, instead of running up to Bronxville via Sarah Lawrence college..... Don't remember where I read it, but someone a while back suggested having the #105 run from Fordham Plaza instead of from Gun Hill rd., as it would draw more people to the route... Can't really say I disagree with the notion...

5) I wouldn't bother with rerouting the #42, because I would phase it out with the #40 (to 241st ) , the #101 (the finalized version of it, not the previously proposed version that served MNRR Wakefield). and (an altered) #107...

To clarify, would you have the BL-106 go to Cross County and then cut across the mall and take the rest of the BL-105 route? (Rather than going back to Kimball and taking that to Tuckahoe Road to reach Ridge Hill)?

And yes, definitely agree with phasing out the BL-42. Would you have the BL-107 run to Nereid Avenue, so it can be used interchangeably with the BL-101 out to South Fulton Avenue?

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

To be clear, it looks like it's a separate zone that feeds into the Peekskill station.

I believe it is the same as the previous draft if I read it correctly. I know it's different from the present-day version)

I think Mount Kisco is a no-brainer compared to Katonah (It's similar distance-wise and doesn't involve the backtrack through Yorktown Heights). My guess is their logic was they wanted a fixed route at both the northern and southern ends of the microtransit route.

I personally don't think the BL-16 is the worst candidate for microtransit service. On the western end, you have the Hudson Valley Hospital, Peekskill MNRR station, Division Street corridor, and (in the microtransit coverage area) the Highland Street corridor, which has a Peekskill Housing Authority development at the northern end. Then in the middle, you have the Strawberry Road deviation.

That being said, given that they added the Verplanck microtransit route, it might be worthwhile to have that cover the northern sections of Peekskill & Cortlandt, and have the BL-16 run straight down U.S.6, swing up to the hospital, and then continue down U.S.202 into Downtown Peekskill and the MNRR station. Depending on the exact routing choices (e.g. Cutting it back from Mahopac Village Center to Somers Commons, or even having the BL-15 run straight down U.S.202 and leaving the BL-16 to cover U.S.6), it might be possible to extend one of those routes to Verplanck and allow the microtransit route to focus on northern Peekskill/Cortlandt. (The BL-14 would cover the areas up the hill on Washington Street, and either the BL-15 or BL-16 would cover the waterfront areas)

On a side note, these route profiles are pretty interesting.

To clarify, would you have the BL-106 go to Cross County and then cut across the mall and take the rest of the BL-105 route? (Rather than going back to Kimball and taking that to Tuckahoe Road to reach Ridge Hill)?

And yes, definitely agree with phasing out the BL-42. Would you have the BL-107 run to Nereid Avenue, so it can be used interchangeably with the BL-101 out to South Fulton Avenue?

Phase out the 42 and people will riot. Even though the farebox recovery ratio is extremely low, it’s utilized ALOT.

[40 to 241st]

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Phase out the 42 and people will riot. Even though the farebox recovery ratio is extremely low, it’s utilized ALOT.

But the 101 covers 90% of it's route and we can use 40 in addition in the bronx

 

[Lawrence St]

28 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

But the 101 covers 90% of it's route and we can use 40 in addition in the bronx

 

I don’t think you understand people don’t like things to change. With the current 42 detour right now people are losing their minds.

[40 to 241st]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I don’t think you understand people don’t like things to change. With the current 42 detour right now people are losing their minds.

They might as well then get used to change b/c it's either we keep the route but serves Mundy Ln and S11th av to 233 or we just delete b/c W 1st can have the 40 there as an all  time service  and 101 basically does all of the route the 107 is also there too so 3 different replacements so if they get pissed off it's there own ignorance 

[checkmatechamp13]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Phase out the 42 and people will riot. Even though the farebox recovery ratio is extremely low, it’s utilized ALOT.

I swear, sometimes I think you're mixing and matching words when you write your posts....

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I don’t think you understand people don’t like things to change. With the current 42 detour right now people are losing their minds.

That's their problem...if they're still able to make their trip in a similar (or even better) matter than they were previously and they don't want to figure out their new route, that's on them...there's a difference between valid complaints and complaints just to complain....

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I believe it (the #53) is the same as the previous draft if I read it correctly. I know it's different from the present-day version)

The final rendition of the proposed #53 is almost the same as the present day version... The difference is that the current BL-53 ends at Oregon av (Mt. Vernon HS during school let in/let out hours) & the final proposed #53 runs past the high school to connect with the #40/41 to terminate...

The #53 they proposed in the first draft OTOH was pretty close to being a circulator... One of its terminals was Lincoln/5th & the other one was over there in Chester Heights, where Pelhamdale av turns into New Rochelle rd... Petrillo Plaza was the midpoint of the route, instead of being one of its terminals.

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

To clarify, would you have the BL-106 go to Cross County and then cut across the mall and take the rest of the BL-105 route? (Rather than going back to Kimball and taking that to Tuckahoe Road to reach Ridge Hill)?

And yes, definitely agree with phasing out the BL-42. Would you have the BL-107 run to Nereid Avenue, so it can be used interchangeably with the BL-101 out to South Fulton Avenue?

I should have spelled it out, but yeah, the combined route would consist of the proposed #106 b/w Nereid & Cross County & the proposed #105 b/w Cross County & Stew Leonard's.... It would have to pan from the east side of the mall to the west side of the mall in the process.... I should've spelled it out, but it's what I was alluding to when I said "instead of running up to Bronxville via Sarah Lawrence college"... Taking the entire #106 route from start to finish & then extending it from MNRR Bronxville up to Stew Leonard's would be a massive waste of time...

As for my #107 suggestion, yeah... I'd have it circulate to where it starts (and ends) at Petrillo Plaza (the current bus shelter for the BL-55, to be specific).... I tried drawing it on google, but the snap to roads feature won't let me go on certain streets for some reason, so I'll do it like this... From Petrillo Plaza, clock-wise buses would go Park av - 1st st - 5th av - 3rd st - Columbus - Sandford - proposed #101 to Bronx River rd - current BL-26 to Yonkers av - current BL-7 to Petrillo Plaza.... CCW buses would more or less be the reverse of that.

6 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

When I was talking about 14 I was refering to how a whole route 14 is 2hrs which is very long for a local bus route so I suggest cutting it back to WCC I don't mind the 104 being deleted

The 5 should have an extension to White Plains so the Harrison riders can have a direct tranfser to the 108

I'm glad were on the same page on the 40 at the  and it should be there all the time and the 20 should just keep it's current alignment.

The 105 combinding w/ the 106 is fine but then the part were Bronxville to Cross County riders will need a bus so you might as well return the 26 and put it on it's current alignment. For Fodham Plaza I think we can just extend the BL-4 there it will give it an increase in ridership anyway

Deleting the 42 for the 40 and 101 is a good idea Mundy Ln and s11th av people can use one of those route and the 107 is a redundant route unless we do like you said alter it I like most of the stuff your saying but then we need to level the 101 to category 2 frequency and put most artics there you could give the 101 a category 1 frequency but then the 4 would be useless. 

The 17 should really have a return so people can get a direct express b/w White Plains and Northern Westchester the 11 could combine w/ the 10 if you really want the 10 deleted the 77 should come back with better service Part trans has only Micro Transit Connection they should just have the 16 and 77  would give better connection with the route. W/ half of these proposals MicroTransit is fine but some just don't need it like the 12

- The current BL-14 is that long because Northern Westchester is that sparsely populated.... FWIW, it does a pretty good job connecting all the communities that it does to White Plains.... Cutting it back to WCC makes little sense, when White Plains proper is by far a major destination in the entire county... I would have actually been more shocked if they would've retained the originally proposed #14 (ending at WCC), over having it retained to serve White Plains in some capacity...

- There is a minuscule amount of through-riding (through White Plains) from either end of the current BL-5... I wouldn't extend the #5 as proposed to White Plains for that reason... Splitting the current BL-5 into the proposed #5 & the proposed #108 makes sense, as the vast majority of Harrison patrons are off the bus at White Plains...

- Yeah, the #40 should be a full time route to #241... Not just this weekday rush hour only crap Bee Line's currently got going on for it....

- May not be the ideal solution, but I take no issue whatsoever with cutting service b/w Cross County & MNRR Bronxville... The #52 & the #30 suffices up there in Bronxville..... Been on & seen far too many Bronx bound BL-26's arrive at Cross County literally empty & far too many Bronxville bound BL-26's literally tank out at Cross County (meaning, literally 100% turnover ratio) over the years.... Maybe you have, but I personally never been on a Bronxville bound BL-26 where someone actually boarded at Cross County seeking NB service....

- I wouldn't go as far as to say useless, but if the #4 has to be taken down a notch for a route like the #101 to co-exist in the network, then I say so be it, because the latent ridership that's finally being addressed with this #101 is long overdue.... I'd say the #4 will still be popular, just not as popular as it currently is (I wouldn't worry about it, TBH).... Still though, yeah, 58 total trips on weekdays across a 17 hour span or whatever does sound low, so I'd support more BPH on the thing....

- Not the first time I've seen this suggested, and I never understand what's supposed to the be the rationale of combing the BL-10 (a railroad commuter route) & the BL-11 (an underappreciated limited route)... Just b/c they have a mutual terminal doesn't necessarily mean they should be combined... As far as the rest of what you're saying under that bullet point, well, yes, I would opt to revert the BL-77 with better service - and I wouldn't have it running way up to Carmel either...

Edited May 14, 2023 by B35 via Church

[JAzumah]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

well, yes, I would opt to revert the BL-77 with better service - and I wouldn't have it running way up to Carmel either...

I feel like this is more of a regional bus route than simply a rush hour express. I think of the I-Bus when it went from a commuter express to a regional route and it did so much better being that way. It may be that drawing some CMAQ funding to restructure the 77 as a route with hourly rush hour service and bi-hourly off-peak service might improve its performance significantly.

[40 to 241st]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The final rendition of the proposed #53 is almost the same as the present day version... The difference is that the current BL-53 ends at Oregon av (Mt. Vernon HS during school let in/let out hours) & the final proposed #53 runs past the high school to connect with the #40/41 to terminate...

The #53 they proposed in the first draft OTOH was pretty close to being a circulator... One of its terminals was Lincoln/5th & the other one was over there in Chester Heights, where Pelhamdale av turns into New Rochelle rd... Petrillo Plaza was the midpoint of the route, instead of being one of its terminals.

I should have spelled it out, but yeah, the combined route would consist of the proposed #106 b/w Nereid & Cross County & the proposed #105 b/w Cross County & Stew Leonard's.... It would have to pan from the east side of the mall to the west side of the mall in the process.... I should've spelled it out, but it's what I was alluding to when I said "instead of running up to Bronxville via Sarah Lawrence college"... Taking the entire #106 route from start to finish & then extending it from MNRR Bronxville up to Stew Leonard's would be a massive waste of time...

As for my #107 suggestion, yeah... I'd have it circulate to where it starts (and ends) at Petrillo Plaza (the current bus shelter for the BL-55, to be specific).... I tried drawing it on google, but the snap to roads feature won't let me go on certain streets for some reason, so I'll do it like this... From Petrillo Plaza, clock-wise buses would go Park av - 1st st - 5th av - 3rd st - Columbus - Sandford - proposed #101 to Bronx River rd - current BL-26 to Yonkers av - current BL-7 to Petrillo Plaza.... CCW buses would more or less be the reverse of that.

- The current BL-14 is that long because Northern Westchester is that sparsely populated.... FWIW, it does a pretty good job connecting all the communities that it does to White Plains.... Cutting it back to WCC makes little sense, when White Plains proper is by far a major destination in the entire county... I would have actually been more shocked if they would've retained the originally proposed #14 (ending at WCC), over having it retained to serve White Plains in some capacity...

- There is a minuscule amount of through-riding (through White Plains) from either end of the current BL-5... I wouldn't extend the #5 as proposed to White Plains for that reason... Splitting the current BL-5 into the proposed #5 & the proposed #108 makes sense, as the vast majority of Harrison patrons are off the bus at White Plains...

- Yeah, the #40 should be a full time route to #241... Not just this weekday rush hour only crap Bee Line's currently got going on for it....

- May not be the ideal solution, but I take no issue whatsoever with cutting service b/w Cross County & MNRR Bronxville... The #52 & the #30 suffices up there in Bronxville..... Been on & seen far too many Bronx bound BL-26's arrive at Cross County literally empty & far too many Bronxville bound BL-26's literally tank out at Cross County (meaning, literally 100% turnover ratio) over the years.... Maybe you have, but I personally never been on a Bronxville bound BL-26 where someone actually boarded at Cross County seeking NB service....

- I wouldn't go as far as to say useless, but if the #4 has to be taken down a notch for a route like the #101 to co-exist in the network, then I say so be it, because the latent ridership that's finally being addressed with this #101 is long overdue.... I'd say the #4 will still be popular, just not as popular as it currently is (I wouldn't worry about it, TBH).... Still though, yeah, 58 total trips on weekdays across a 17 hour span or whatever does sound low, so I'd support more BPH on the thing....

- Not the first time I've seen this suggested, and I never understand what's supposed to the be the rationale of combing the BL-10 (a railroad commuter route) & the BL-11 (an underappreciated limited route)... Just b/c they have a mutual terminal doesn't necessarily mean they should be combined... As far as the rest of what you're saying under that bullet point, well, yes, I would opt to revert the BL-77 with better service - and I wouldn't have it running way up to Carmel either...

I think the 53 is better off a loop route 

Would your version of 107 serve 233st or 238st

Now I have a better understanding of the 14 but it should go to White Plains via Hillside Av 

The Bronville to Cross County People are going to be pissed that they have no service especailly to the Bronx I'd never been on the 26 so I won't know what it's like for 26 riders. 

like I said the 4 at Fordham plaza would be not just earn more ridership but would give Fordham people a direct ride  to the west side of westcheter but probably decrease service on the route just to give 101 more service w/ the deleted 42

The 10 and 11 could combine if we turn them both to an express the 11 is basically a continuation of the 10 and would provide all of the 10's riders that big loss of service truncating the 15 (which i'm fine w/) and deleting the 10 only creates a big transit desert and b/c the 10 runs similar w/ the 15 and this combination can give a direct White Plains ride. I would have 77 at Carmel to give Westcheter people a direct ride to Putnam. You just stated that upper Westchester people should have a direct ride to White Plains as people up there use the 14 for that if we're going to do such thing why not have express service to White Plains.

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, 40 to 241st said:

I think the 53 is better off a loop route 

Would your version of 107 serve 233st or 238st

Now I have a better understanding of the 14 but it should go to White Plains via Hillside Av 

like I said the 4 at Fordham plaza would be not just earn more ridership but would give Fordham people a direct ride to the west side of westcheter but probably decrease service on the route just to give 101 more service w/ the deleted 42

- If not for folding it into a school tripper, I think the #53 should be completely restructured (to where it's more than just a peak hour route)...

- I'd restructure the #107 to where it'd parallel the #101 b/w Columbus & Bronx River rd... So it would serve Nereid... Saves time.

- Yeah, I'd have the #14 & the #103 on Hillside, and the #19 on N. Broadway...

- I was talking about the current BL-4, not how it would perform if it ran to Fordham Plaza.... I never said anything about running BL-4's to Fordham Plaza...

1 hour ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 10 and 11 could combine if we turn them both to an express the 11 is basically a continuation of the 10 and would provide all of the 10's riders that big loss of service truncating the 15 (which i'm fine w/) and deleting the 10 only creates a big transit desert and b/c the 10 runs similar w/ the 15 and this combination can give a direct White Plains ride. I would have 77 at Carmel to give Westcheter people a direct ride to Putnam. You just stated that upper Westchester people should have a direct ride to White Plains as people up there use the 14 for that if we're going to do such thing why not have express service to White Plains.

It's a common belief, but the BL-11 is not a continuation of the BL-10.... Folks are not taking BL-11's to BL-10's (or vice versa) to aid in completing their commutes..... Like I synopsized earlier, the BL-10 is a railroad commuter for the northern part of the county & the BL-11 is a White Plains limited (I should say express)... To analogize, what the BL-17 is for the BL-14, is what the BL-11 is for parts of the BL-13 & BL-14....

Why would anyone from say, Yorktown Heights, take a bus that swings way over to Croton-Harmon, to then run down to serve the communities along the Hudson that the current BL-11 does, to then swing over from Sleepy Hollow to run down Saw Mill River rd, en route to White Plains? It's very impractical & you can't expect people to be on board (no pun intended) with that.... People tend to like their commutes to be direct as possible; combining the BL-10 & BL-11 & trying to convey that something like that would be a direct ride, is just off-base..... The two routes have completely different riderbases & you're not going to be able to satisfy each of those riderbases by having them take a meandrous route like a combination of the BL-10 & the BL-11.....

Also. How can you claim eliminating the BL-10 would create a transit desert on one hand & be fine with truncating the BL-15 the way they did in this redesign OTOH? The neutering of the BL-15 & BL-19 & the nerfing of the BL-16 are the very extractions to the network that's going to cause a transit desert in that part of the county.... Sure it doesn't help the network, but I would side with the transit desert argument more for the BL-10 if it actually made stops b/w Yorktown Hgts. & Croton-Harmon (which it doesn't)....

In any case, Bee-Line's hope is that BL-10 riders make their way to the final proposed #15 to MNRR Peekskill or MNRR Katonah to catch a train (personally, I don't see it happening, but it remains to be seen).... A direct route for folks in Northern Westchester would be something like.....

5 hours ago, JAzumah said:

I feel like this is more of a regional bus route than simply a rush hour express. I think of the I-Bus when it went from a commuter express to a regional route and it did so much better being that way. It may be that drawing some CMAQ funding to restructure the 77 as a route with hourly rush hour service and bi-hourly off-peak service might improve its performance significantly.

...and served more of Westchester & less of Putnam.

Edited May 14, 2023 by B35 via Church

[40 to 241st]

5 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

- If not for folding it into a school tripper, I think the #53 should be completely restructured (to where it's more than just a peak hour route)...

- I'd restructure the #107 to where it'd parallel the #101 b/w Columbus & Bronx River rd... So it would serve Nereid... Saves time.

- Yeah, I'd have the #14 & the #103 on Hillside, and the #19 on N. Broadway...

- I was talking about the current BL-4, not how it would perform if it ran to Fordham Plaza.... I never said anything about running BL-4's to Fordham Plaza...

- It's a common belief, but the BL-11 is not a continuation of the BL-10.... Folks are not taking BL-11's to BL-10's (or vice versa) to aid in completing their commutes..... Like I synopsized earlier, the BL-10 is a railroad commuter for the northern part of the county & the BL-11 is a White Plains limited (I should say express)... To analogize, what the BL-17 is for the BL-14, is what the BL-11 is for parts of the BL-13 & BL-14....

Why would anyone from say, Yorktown Heights, take a bus that swings way over to Croton-Harmon, to then run down to serve the communities along the Hudson that the current BL-11 does, to then swing over from Sleepy Hollow to meander throughthe Grasslands area, en route to White Plains? It's very impractical & you can't expect people to be on board (no pun intended) with that.... People tend to like their commutes to be direct as possible; combining the BL-10 & BL-11 & trying to convey that something like that would be a direct ride, is just off-base..... The two routes have completely different riderbases & you're not going to be able to satisfy each of those riderbases by having them take a meandrous route like a combination of the BL-10 & the BL-11..... How can you claim eliminating the BL-10 would create a transit desert on one hand & be fine with truncating the BL-15 the way they did in this redesign OTOH? The neutering of the BL-15 & BL-19 & the nerfing of the BL-16 are the very extractions to the network that's going to cause a transit desert in that part of the county.... I would side with the transit desert argument for the BL-10 if it actually made stops b/w Yorktown Hgts. & Croton-Harmon (which it doesn't)....

In any case, Bee-Line's hope is that BL-10 riders make their way to the final proposed #15 to MNRR Peekskill or MNRR Katonah to catch a train (personally, I don't see it happening, but it remains to be seen).... A direct route for folks in Northern Westchester would be something like.....

 

I'm fine w/ the BL-15 at Katonah b/c that a better way of connecting Katonah to Peeskskill and the 15 is used more in upper Westchester and if you saw the recommended map you would see that the there is a big loss of service in Upper Westchester. So maybe it's better for the 10 and 11 not to combine I can see the point there but I would highly suggest bringing the 10 b/c of the loss of service if not the 77. 

[B35 via Church]

8 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

I'm fine w/ the BL-15 at Katonah b/c that a better way of connecting Katonah to Peeskskill and the 15 is used more in upper Westchester and if you saw the recommended map you would see that the there is a big loss of service in Upper Westchester. So maybe it's better for the 10 and 11 not to combine I can see the point there but I would highly suggest bringing the 10 b/c of the loss of service if not the 77. 

Nobody's debating that there aren't huge service losses in Northern Westchester.

The point of contention here as I see it, is that you're trying to convey that the loss of the BL-10 is more detrimental to the network than the diminution of the catchment area of the BL-15 (as in, south of Yorktown Heights).... I can't concur with such a sentiment (if that is in fact the case here).... Where I have to concur with Bee-Line in this case, is that you don't need the #15 running between MNRR Katonah & MNRR Peekskill, and a service with only 2 AM & 2 PM trips running from Cortlandt Town Center to Yorktown Hgts. Town Hall, "bee-lining" (pun intended ) it to Croton-Harmon, en route to the RR station...... What I'm saying is, the final proposed #15 more or less nullifies the (main) purpose of the BL-10.... The current BL-15 doesn't serve MNRR Peekskill, while this final proposed #15 will.... The main (almost sole) purpose of the BL-10 is to connect patrons up there in that part of the county with the RR....

If Putnam county wants to wholly fund/provide a service to White Plains, they can have at it... But I would restructure the BL-77 to be the quote-unquote direct Northern Westchester - White Plains route... You can set it up to where one branch/service does a [Cortlandt Town Center - Yorktown Hgts. leg] & another branch/service does a [Somers Commons - Yorktown Heights leg] via the Taconic State.... Or just dedicate all service to either branch & rely on a (reversion of) the BL-16 to fill the void up along rt.6.... Either way, as was conveyed (by @JAzumah), they'd need to cut the cord with merely targeting rush hour commuters (specifically, mainly, park & riders) with that route (77)... But yeah, those were just 2 examples; there are a couple ways one can go about accomplishing an express route connecting Northern Westchester to White Plains... Regardless, you wouldn't need the BL-17 to run over to Cortlandt Town Center....

TL;DR version:  I personally would opt to bring back & restructure the BL-77, and bid the BL-10 adieu.....

[40 to 241st]

8 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Nobody's debating that there aren't huge service losses in Northern Westchester.

The point of contention here as I see it, is that you're trying to convey that the loss of the BL-10 is more detrimental to the network than the diminution of the catchment area of the BL-15 (as in, south of Yorktown Heights).... I can't concur with such a sentiment (if that is in fact the case here).... Where I have to concur with Bee-Line in this case, is that you don't need the #15 running between MNRR Katonah & MNRR Peekskill, and a service with only 2 AM & 2 PM trips running from Cortlandt Town Center to Yorktown Hgts. Town Hall, "bee-lining" (pun intended ) it to Croton-Harmon, en route to the RR station...... What I'm saying is, the final proposed #15 more or less nullifies the (main) purpose of the BL-10.... The current BL-15 doesn't serve MNRR Peekskill, while this final proposed #15 will.... The main (almost sole) purpose of the BL-10 is to connect patrons up there in that part of the county with the RR....

If Putnam county wants to wholly fund/provide a service to White Plains, they can have at it... But I would restructure the BL-77 to be the quote-unquote direct Northern Westchester - White Plains route... You can set it up to where one branch/service does a [Cortlandt Town Center - Yorktown Hgts. leg] & another branch/service does a [Somers Commons - Yorktown Heights leg] via the Taconic State.... Or just dedicate all service to either branch & rely on a (reversion of) the BL-16 to fill the void up along rt.6.... Either way, as was conveyed (by @JAzumah), they'd need to cut the cord with merely targeting rush hour commuters (specifically, mainly, park & riders) with that route (77)... But yeah, those were just 2 examples; there are a couple ways one can go about accomplishing an express route connecting Northern Westchester to White Plains... Regardless, you wouldn't need the BL-17 to run over to Cortlandt Town Center....

TL;DR version:  I personally would opt to bring back & restructure the BL-77, and bid the BL-10 adieu.....

When you think about it the current way to go from Katonah to Peeskskill is to take the 19 to the 14 so imagine  going all the way down to Ossining just to take a bus back up to the other side of Northern Westchester that's just bull shit when you can use the 15 from one side to the other which is simple and faster. The 10 can serve Northern Westchester as a Local. If Putnam County wants to fund a service to White Plains  they better make it more frequent than the 77 and give better service.