2023 Revamped Bee-Line Redesign Draft Plan

[JAzumah]

The 77 is funded by NYSDOT, so they are driving the current configuration of the route.

[B35 via Church]

14 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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.    

I'm not sure what your point is with this particular post... Of course nobody's going to go down to Ossining from Katonah to catch a bus to get to Peekskill.... The real question is, who, or how many Katonah patrons are even trying to get to Peekskill (or vice versa).... Come whenever they implement this new network, we'll find out....

We're just going to have to disagree with the justification of the BL-10.

[40 to 241st]

5 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not sure what your point is with this particular post... Of course nobody's going to go down to Ossining from Katonah to catch a bus to get to Peekskill.... The real question is, who, or how many Katonah patrons are even trying to get to Peekskill (or vice versa).... Come whenever they implement this new network, we'll find out....

We're just going to have to disagree with the justification of the BL-10.

I guess so, but hey you do have some good ideas for the system

[Lawrence St]

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

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

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....

I’m choosing to take that as a joke.

I drive these buses everyday, I know what the ridership is.

The issue I’m having is with these metrics they are going off of to use as justification for eliminating / combining routes. A lot of these changes will now require transferring 3 times (some even 4) to go to where people need to go.

Here is my feedback:

1/C/T/W/X: I’m trying to understand where they got that the 1T is more heavily utilized than the 1W. The 1T is EMPTY going to Tarrytown because everyone is opting to take the 1W. The only reason why the 1T even has ridership is if a 1W comes before it. The 1C being eliminated im fine with in exchange for more 1X service. All 1 service should be ending at the city line, I don’t know what the fascination is with JFK marina.

2: I’m on the fence with this one. I understand getting rid of Executive Park because of low ridership, but you also cut off access for the elderly/ADA/employees going to St. John’s Hospital. I don’t know what the frequency of the new 9 will be, but I don’t think it will suffice.

4: Should’ve been done a long time ago.

5: I said this before and I’ll say it again, instead of ending the thing in WCC, extend it to White Plains via Hillside Ave to preserve that connection and preserve resources.

6: I would much rather prefer my version of the 15 (skipping Millwood via Taconic) serving the northern portion of the 6 then the 19.

7. They are finally getting rid of that useless downtown loop.

8. Needs an express variant that skips Elm St.

9. Not a fan of where they have it ending in front of the public works building. At that point just run it to the square in a style similar to the Bx18A/B.

10/11: Meh.

12: so they still didn’t listen to all the feedback asking for the route to stay and be extended back to Mount Kisco. Aye aye aye…

13: Thank god.

14: nope, go back to the original route. All they did was move the problem from one end to the other.

15: I am HIGHLY against this change. The 15 carries a LOT between Peekskill & White Plains. I can agree with discontinuing service in the middle with Millwood and all that, but to cut it off from the south? Absolutely not. It should become the new Taconic Express and run via the 6 b/w Pleasntville & White Plains.

16: I don’t agree with this either, but I agree with discounting service between Cortlandt Center/Hudson Valley Hospital and Mahopac.

17: are they kidding? They are making the 14 longer and taking away the 15, and want to take away the 17 as well? The 17 is a high ridership route!

18/31: good riddance.

19: I don’t even know what to do with this route. Ridership is all over the place during each day of the week.

20: stop with this gun hill road nonsense. Instead have the 24 run via Midland Ave to Gun Hill Road.

24: I’m glad they’re bringing it back, but do what I said above.

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Regarding a Northern Westchester - White Plains link, what I had in mind was to have a proposed 15 be the bus that consolidates parts of the existing 10, 15, 17, and 77 together. 

The route would begin at Peekskill RR Station, then operate along the existing 17 to Cortlandt Town Center, then follow the 15 to Underhill Ave & Saw Mill River Road (NYS 118), then take Underhill to the Taconic State Parkway. From there it would run express via the Taconic to WMC, then serve WCC, and from there maybe take the existing 15 route to/from White Plains. Or it can do an express version of the proposed 104 in the first draft, basically to Valhalla RR Station, then express via the Bronx River Parkway to White Plains (if permissible). 

I think a runtime for such a route can be done in less than 90 minutes, so it can run hourly during off peak hours with a cycle time of 3 hours. During rush hours it would run every 30 minutes. I would run it daily. 

Based on the original plan, I would use whatever resources they're spending on the 104 to run the combined route (I would call that the 15, because it resembles the 15 the most). I don't remember how many buses they needed for the 104 but it definitely was more than three. 

Such a route would cover most existing 17 riders, 15 riders up in Northern Westchester, and the 77 as well. Also FWIW, for route 10 riders White Plains might be a more convenient connection (and might save them both time and money). In the process, also being much more frequent than any of them. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[40 to 241st]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

I’m choosing to take that as a joke.

I drive these buses everyday, I know what the ridership is.

The issue I’m having is with these metrics they are going off of to use as justification for eliminating / combining routes. A lot of these changes will now require transferring 3 times (some even 4) to go to where people need to go.

 

 

As someone who lives in Westchester and reads the map properly if you read properly I think  you might be able to realize that you can think of the 101 as an extended 42 and a rerouted version of the 4 to NewRochelle via the Bronx  that being said it make sense to delete the 42 and if we want to get there the 4 w/ consideration but then how will people get to the  the 42 okay I might have taught that the 10 and 11 could combine. But everyone here knows that the 42 could be deleted or even rerouted the 40,41,43,101 can provide more transfers than the 42 and the 107 can replace it too like we said getting mad at new change for even better upgraded service just shows there ignorance. 

[40 to 241st]

If you didn't know on the original redesign chat I posted proposal on what I'd do I want to hear your comments and thoughts.

[B35 via Church]

4 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Regarding a Northern Westchester - White Plains link, what I had in mind was to have a proposed 15 be the bus that consolidates parts of the existing 10, 15, 17, and 77 together. 

The route would begin at Peekskill RR Station, then operate along the existing 17 to Cortlandt Town Center, then follow the 15 to Underhill Ave & Saw Mill River Road (NYS 118), then take Underhill to the Taconic State Parkway. From there it would run express via the Taconic to WMC, then serve WCC, and from there maybe take the existing 15 route to/from White Plains. Or it can do an express version of the proposed 104 in the first draft, basically to Valhalla RR Station, then express via the Bronx River Parkway to White Plains (if permissible). 

I think a runtime for such a route can be done in less than 90 minutes, so it can run hourly during off peak hours with a cycle time of 3 hours. During rush hours it would run every 30 minutes. I would run it daily. 

Based on the original plan, I would use whatever resources they're spending on the 104 to run the combined route (I would call that the 15, because it resembles the 15 the most). I don't remember how many buses they needed for the 104 but it definitely was more than three. 

Such a route would cover most existing 17 riders, 15 riders up in Northern Westchester, and the 77 as well. Also FWIW, for route 10 riders White Plains might be a more convenient connection (and might save them both time and money). In the process, also being much more frequent than any of them. 

The BL-15 to Underhill to the Taconic is exactly what I thought up about a year or so ago on here... Only difference is that you'd have it serve MNRR Peekskill.

Being that this new network eradicates the BL-17, it's put the battery in my back (so to speak) to come up with ways to make it even more useful.... Instead of panning the BL-17 eastward towards Cortlandt Town Center, I'd have it run up towards the northern part of Peekskill (BL-16 territory)... If it could use the lot for that shopping plaza up by the Peekskill border to turnaround or whatever, that'd be ideal... So as far as the service area goes...

...well, I'll just draw a map: >>See Here<<

So I'd have a route of sorts (that "express 15" ) work concurrently with that modified BL-17....

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

The BL-15 to Underhill to the Taconic is exactly what I thought up about a year or so ago on here... Only difference is that you'd have it serve MNRR Peekskill.

Being that this new network eradicates the BL-17, it's put the battery in my back (so to speak) to come up with ways to make it even more useful.... Instead of panning the BL-17 eastward towards Cortlandt Town Center, I'd have it run up towards the northern part of Peekskill (BL-16 territory)... If it could use the lot for that shopping plaza up by the Peekskill border to turnaround or whatever, that'd be ideal... So as far as the service area goes...

...well, I'll just draw a map: >>See Here<<

So I'd have a route of sorts (that "express 15" ) work concurrently with that modified BL-17....

So what would serve Yorktown Heights?

[40 to 241st]

Here how I'll handle each and every route -  Half of these routes is to make sure there less Micro Trans b/c no one likes it but there will some zones 

1. Dobbs Ferry - 231st 

2. Executive Bvld- 231st 

3. WC Airport - 242st  via center at purchase 

4. Yonkers RR - Fordham Plaza

5 Keep as proposed

6 Extended to WC Airport to replace the 12 

7 New Rochelle- 263st (Mt Saint Vincent)

8 Proposed Service extended to 231st 

9 proposed service combined w/ 101 (42 deleted) via Tibbets Brook Park 

10 Keep the same w/ more stops

11 Keep the same

12 Portchester- Mt Kisco via WC Air

13 Tarrytown - Portchester 

14 White Plains - WCC via Hillside Av

15 Proposed service extended to Mt Kisco via Hudson Valley Hosp 

16 Extended to Croton falls 

17 Keep the same 

19 Proposed Service extended to Mt Kisco

20 White Plains - Bedford PK  via Cross County 

21 White Plains - Bedford PK 

25 keep as proposed 

26 Tukahoe RR - Gun Hill Rd  via Central Av/ Bronx RiverRd/ White Plains Rd

30 Keep as Proposed

32 Keep the same 

34 extended to Tarry Town via Hartsdale Rd 

35 Hartsdale - Ridge Hill via Central Av/ Fort Hill Rd 

36 Hartsdale- Easchester Sq via Mamaroneck Rd/ Palmer Av/ Wilmot Rd/ Mill Rd

38 keep the same 

39 extended to Dobbs Ferry via Dobbs Ferry Hospital

More to Come   

[40 to 241st]

Part 2 of what to do 

40: White Plains - Norwood 205st via Mclean Av/ WoodLawn 

41: White Plains - Norwood 205st  Limited Stops

43: Westchester Med Ctr- 241st  Express

45: Keep as proposed 

50 Portchester - Gun Hill Rd  via Boston Post rd from Portchester to Dyre Av/ 233st/ Laconia Av 

51: Portchester - Gun Hill Rd  Limited Stops  

52: Stays the same 

53 Original proposed as a loop

60 Keep as proposed

61 Keep as proposed 

62 White Plains - Fordham Express 

64 Extended to NewRochelle to replace 45q

65 Stay the same 

66 keep as proposed 

75/91 the same

76: will return to original service 

77: keep the same 

78 keep as proposed

80 Portchester- Mt Kisco via W Putnam Av/ Riversille Rd/ Weaver St/ Brant Lake Rd

81 Mt Kisco- Westchester Med Ctr via Rt 133/ Seven Bridges Rd/ Quaker Rd/ Chappaqua RR/  King st / Rt 22/ Virginia Rd/ Grasslands.

87 Ridge Hill- White Plains via Stew Leonards I-87/I-287 Express  

[40 to 241st]

Part 3 of what to do

101 Getty SQ - Washinton Hts via Tibbets Brook Park/I-87/ Inwood 207st 

103 Keep as Proposed via Benedict Av

105 keep as proposed 

106 keep as proposed

107 deleted

108 keep as proposed

109 Combined w/ 111 and extended south to 263st 

110 keep as proposed

112 keep as proposed

117 Eastchester- Washington Hts via Eastchester Rd/ 5th Av/ Rt 7 until Central Av/ Inwood 207st 

Westchester Manhattan Express: 

Price $4.50

WM1 :Getty SQ - South Ferry via Mclean Av/ I-87/ RF Kennedy Bride/  2nd & 3rd Av/ Worth St/ Broadway

WM2: WCC - 125st via Sprain Brook Pkwy/ Central Av/ I-87/ Washington Hts

WM3: Tarrytown- Port Bus Authority via I-87/ RF Kennedy Bride/  2nd & 3rd Av/ 42st

WM4: White Plains Transit Center - 23st replaces Bxm4c

Micro Transit Zone

Mt Kisco/ S Bedford (Rt 172) Rd to Katonah

Verplank and Montrose  

 Don't Forget to give feedback

   

[40 to 241st]

Last additions 

19 will stay proposed from Mt.Kisco will stay on broadway 

24 limited service for BL-14

119 Limited Service for 109 

[checkmatechamp13]

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

I drive these buses everyday, I know what the ridership is.

Don't you work for NJT?

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

The issue I’m having is with these metrics they are going off of to use as justification for eliminating / combining routes. A lot of these changes will now require transferring 3 times (some even 4) to go to where people need to go.

And this is why I made the comment that I did. You said:

Quote

Even though the farebox recovery ratio is extremely low, it’s utilized ALOT.

Meanwhile, the farebox recovery ratio is listed as 41%, as per page 110/185 of the Route Profiles. You didn't just say it was low...you said it was extremely low...meanwhile, it's higher than that of the 20, which is a well-known busy route.

And you mention "a lot of these changes will now require transferring 3 times (some even 4) to go to where people need to go"....so you're implying there's tons of people who have to take 4-5 separate vehicles to get where they need to go, but yet you don't give any specific examples.

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

1/C/T/W/X: I’m trying to understand where they got that the 1T is more heavily utilized than the 1W. The 1T is EMPTY going to Tarrytown because everyone is opting to take the 1W. The only reason why the 1T even has ridership is if a 1W comes before it. The 1C being eliminated im fine with in exchange for more 1X service. All 1 service should be ending at the city line, I don’t know what the fascination is with JFK marina.

If the 1W comes (shortly) before the 1T, then that would mean less ridership for the 1T, not more.

In any case, their logic is that the 1T is shorter, and they want to use the resources the 1W uses to run along NY-119 to boost BL-13 service. I agree with your comment about having all BL-1 service end at the Yonkers City Line.

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

2: I’m on the fence with this one. I understand getting rid of Executive Park because of low ridership, but you also cut off access for the elderly/ADA/employees going to St. John’s Hospital. I don’t know what the frequency of the new 9 will be, but I don’t think it will suffice.

Page 12/172 of the Summary of Plan Recommendations shows the categories of routes. The BL-9 is listed as a Category 5 route, which will operate approximately every 45 minutes during rush hours and 60 minutes during middays.

Given that the BL-6 and BL-2 run through areas of similar topographical elevation, and the BL-9 covers part of the BL-2 route (and the hospital is only about 1/2 mile from Tudor Woods to begin with) I don't think it will be much of an issue.

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

5: I said this before and I’ll say it again, instead of ending the thing in WCC, extend it to White Plains via Hillside Ave to preserve that connection and preserve resources.

If it gets extended to White Plains, that would use additional resources, not preserve them.

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

9. Not a fan of where they have it ending in front of the public works building. At that point just run it to the square in a style similar to the Bx18A/B.

I can agree with this.

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

12: so they still didn’t listen to all the feedback asking for the route to stay and be extended back to Mount Kisco. Aye aye aye…

For what it's worth, the microtransit route provides service from Armonk to Mount Kisco. If Bee Line wants to preserve the connection from the airport to points north, they can add the airport to that service area.

On 5/14/2023 at 1:47 PM, Lawrence St said:

20: stop with this gun hill road nonsense. Instead have the 24 run via Midland Ave to Gun Hill Road.

I agree with your comment on the 20, but I don't see any 24 route. Are you referring to the BL-101?

On 5/14/2023 at 3:02 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Regarding a Northern Westchester - White Plains link, what I had in mind was to have a proposed 15 be the bus that consolidates parts of the existing 10, 15, 17, and 77 together. 

The route would begin at Peekskill RR Station, then operate along the existing 17 to Cortlandt Town Center, then follow the 15 to Underhill Ave & Saw Mill River Road (NYS 118), then take Underhill to the Taconic State Parkway. From there it would run express via the Taconic to WMC, then serve WCC, and from there maybe take the existing 15 route to/from White Plains. Or it can do an express version of the proposed 104 in the first draft, basically to Valhalla RR Station, then express via the Bronx River Parkway to White Plains (if permissible). 

I think a runtime for such a route can be done in less than 90 minutes, so it can run hourly during off peak hours with a cycle time of 3 hours. During rush hours it would run every 30 minutes. I would run it daily. 

Based on the original plan, I would use whatever resources they're spending on the 104 to run the combined route (I would call that the 15, because it resembles the 15 the most). I don't remember how many buses they needed for the 104 but it definitely was more than three. 

Such a route would cover most existing 17 riders, 15 riders up in Northern Westchester, and the 77 as well. Also FWIW, for route 10 riders White Plains might be a more convenient connection (and might save them both time and money). In the process, also being much more frequent than any of them. 

I'm not opposed to this, but at the same time, I like the east-west connectivity the proposed BL-15 provides (though I would prefer it serve Mount Kisco rather than Katonah). I'm not sure if there's enough ridership to sustain both. 

On 5/15/2023 at 6:53 PM, 40 to 241st said:

16 Extended to Croton falls 

This might actually work. This allows the BL-16 to serve the actual Mahopac Village Center (rather than just the little shopping mall) and gives it a railroad connection on both ends. But it would likely need funding from PART for it to actually occur.

On 5/15/2023 at 9:18 PM, 40 to 241st said:

Westchester Manhattan Express: 

Price $4.50

WM1 :Getty SQ - South Ferry via Mclean Av/ I-87/ RF Kennedy Bride/  2nd & 3rd Av/ Worth St/ Broadway

WM2: WCC - 125st via Sprain Brook Pkwy/ Central Av/ I-87/ Washington Hts

WM3: Tarrytown- Port Bus Authority via I-87/ RF Kennedy Bride/  2nd & 3rd Av/ 42st

WM4: White Plains Transit Center - 23st replaces Bxm4c

Definitely not happening...they're not going to be running express buses from Manhattan to Westchester at a lower fare than NYCT/MTA Bus express routes...heck under this proposal, they want to eliminate the BxM4C.

On 5/16/2023 at 7:17 PM, 40 to 241st said:

24 limited service for BL-14

119 Limited Service for 109 

I don't think those routes are frequent enough to warrant limited-stop service. If there is demand for more service, it should be added directly to the local variant.

On 5/13/2023 at 11:25 PM, 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.

Ah I see...it was the California Road portion that the first draft and the new proposal had in common, but other than that they're completely different from each other. Thanks for the clarification.

On 5/13/2023 at 11:25 PM, B35 via Church said:

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.

If you're going to have buses from Southside Mount Vernon serve Bronx River Road, I think it would be better to have those buses continue up Bronx River Road to Cross County Mall, rather than backtrack to Petrillo Plaza. There's a lot of apartment buildings along Bronx River Road, and a lot of hills heading over towards Kimball Avenue.

I think Bee Line's proposed BL-107 does a pretty good job of covering that section of Mount Vernon, but it just occurred to me...if the BL-53 were rerouted to the Wakefield  station rather than up to Petrillo Plaza, that would pretty much cover any gaps left by the BL-107 in terms of access to the  . I know that the BL-53 is pretty much a Mount Vernon/Pelham shuttle/circulator, but given that all the connections available at Petrillo Plaza are also available at other points on the route, how outlandish would it be to reroute it to Wakefield rather than Petrillo Plaza?

On 5/13/2023 at 11:25 PM, B35 via Church said:

- 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....

Yikes! Good catch...yeah, that's around 29 trips each way...it sounds like it'll be running something like every 30 minutes peak, 60 minutes off-peak or something along those lines...yeah they definitely need to redistribute more service from the BL-4 and BL-42 onto the BL-101.

[Lawrence St]

7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Don't you work for NJT?

I left because of reasons. It's way better here anyway.

And this is why I made the comment that I did. You said:

Meanwhile, the farebox recovery ratio is listed as 41%, as per page 110/185 of the Route Profiles. You didn't just say it was low...you said it was extremely low...meanwhile, it's higher than that of the 20, which is a well-known busy route.

Woops, I misunderstood what we were talking about.

And you mention "a lot of these changes will now require transferring 3 times (some even 4) to go to where people need to go"....so you're implying there's tons of people who have to take 4-5 separate vehicles to get where they need to go, but yet you don't give any specific examples.

Some examples include: anyone east of White Plains looking to get to Cortlandt Town Center, 242nd St to Ossining, Getty Square to North White Plains, etc.

If the 1W comes (shortly) before the 1T, then that would mean less ridership for the 1T, not more.

In any case, their logic is that the 1T is shorter, and they want to use the resources the 1W uses to run along NY-119 to boost BL-13 service. I agree with your comment about having all BL-1 service end at the Yonkers City Line.

Page 12/172 of the Summary of Plan Recommendations shows the categories of routes. The BL-9 is listed as a Category 5 route, which will operate approximately every 45 minutes during rush hours and 60 minutes during middays.

Given that the BL-6 and BL-2 run through areas of similar topographical elevation, and the BL-9 covers part of the BL-2 route (and the hospital is only about 1/2 mile from Tudor Woods to begin with) I don't think it will be much of an issue.

True, but the 9 uses the short buses and if it's suppose to be an alternative to the 2, it won't help.

If it gets extended to White Plains, that would use additional resources, not preserve them.

Not in this case, as you would cut the 19 and 103 from Hillside Ave and instead leave the 5 there. The 19 would go back to the first plans routing and the 14 would stay on 9A.

I can agree with this.

For what it's worth, the microtransit route provides service from Armonk to Mount Kisco. If Bee Line wants to preserve the connection from the airport to points north, they can add the airport to that service area.

I agree with your comment on the 20, but I don't see any 24 route. Are you referring to the BL-101?

Yes, the previous iteration was the BL-24 that ran across McLean Ave. I am not at all happy with it going to New Rochelle as New Rochelle is prone to heavy traffic delays and the 4 is already a poor-time performer during rush hour due to traffic.

Replies in bold.

Continuing where I left off:

25: I don't think people will be happy that they are getting forced to take the  instead of the  and have a longer trip on top of it. The 25 is the way it is for a reason.

26: I drove this route a few times, I can justify eliminating it.

27: Ridership is "fairly low"?? The 27 is one of the highest used commuter routes in that part of Westchester, sometimes its so packed you have a standing load!

28: I completely disagree with cutting the 4C. It is still holding on to ridership, but service north of Fort Hill Road needs to be cut, and the last stop needs to be switched from 5th Ave & 23rd St to 23rd St & Madison Ave.

30: Good changes here, that routing in New Rochelle was completely un-needed.

32: I am highly against this. The 32 serves hilly areas that one can not walk up every day coming back from work. While I agree the Nodine Hill segment is hard to navigate, instead the 32 should become bi-directional, the clockwise 32 should continue up Elm St, make a right on Van Cort Park Ave, resume normal route, and end at Ludlow Station. The counter-clockwise 32 would operate in reverse, instead operating along Park Hill Avenue back to the Square. If not that, then reroute the current 32 along Riverdale Ave since the Buena Vista Ave portion has no bus stops.

40: Ehhh, I'm kinda on the fence about discontinuing the 40 south of Mount Vernon as the ridership needs it and overloads the 42.

42: THANK GOD, I hated driving between 241st St & 238th St. Between all the double parked cars, someone always parked in the layover, and other things, I never understood why they kept the thing running south of 241st St to begin with, the  is there for a reason!!

 

 

[40 to 241st]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Replies in bold.

Continuing where I left off:

25: I don't think people will be happy that they are getting forced to take the  instead of the  and have a longer trip on top of it. The 25 is the way it is for a reason.

26: I drove this route a few times, I can justify eliminating it.

27: Ridership is "fairly low"?? The 27 is one of the highest used commuter routes in that part of Westchester, sometimes its so packed you have a standing load!

28: I completely disagree with cutting the 4C. It is still holding on to ridership, but service north of Fort Hill Road needs to be cut, and the last stop needs to be switched from 5th Ave & 23rd St to 23rd St & Madison Ave.

30: Good changes here, that routing in New Rochelle was completely un-needed.

32: I am highly against this. The 32 serves hilly areas that one can not walk up every day coming back from work. While I agree the Nodine Hill segment is hard to navigate, instead the 32 should become bi-directional, the clockwise 32 should continue up Elm St, make a right on Van Cort Park Ave, resume normal route, and end at Ludlow Station. The counter-clockwise 32 would operate in reverse, instead operating along Park Hill Avenue back to the Square. If not that, then reroute the current 32 along Riverdale Ave since the Buena Vista Ave portion has no bus stops.

40: Ehhh, I'm kinda on the fence about discontinuing the 40 south of Mount Vernon as the ridership needs it and overloads the 42.

42: THANK GOD, I hated driving between 241st St & 238th St. Between all the double parked cars, someone always parked in the layover, and other things, I never understood why they kept the thing running south of 241st St to begin with, the  is there for a reason!!

 

 

101 can be used instead of the 25 

We could try and make some edits to the 26

The 27 is only packed b/c of the lack of service it gets that still means it has low ridership

I agree w/ bxm4c  that rpute needs better treatment

I'd just keep the 32 the way it is right now 

The 40 I Think it should serve the bronx  I agree w/ you it's not always useful at 241st as at the minimum 7 people get off there but I'm sure more people would use it there if It was there as an all time service people use other ways instead of the 40 b/c of the lack of service there if they provided more service there it would encourage more people to go there on the 40

The 42 I know we disagree w/ weather it should still be deleted or not w/ 101 and the fact that the 40 could replace it at 241st. But the 42 isn't useless south of 241st you could even say that the its more useful there than the 4 and 20 Bedford Park it like puting those buses at Woodlawn I don't think it would be easy to find a layover at Woodlawn though but the 42 is half crowded south of 241st. 

 

[40 to 241st]

15 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

 

I agree with your comment on the 20, but I don't see any 24 route. Are you referring to the BL-101?

Definitely not happening...they're not going to be running express buses from Manhattan to Westchester at a lower fare than NYCT/MTA Bus express routes...heck under this proposal, they want to eliminate the BxM4C.

 

I think we all agree that the 20 shouldn't go there the 105 is good enough there imagine they want the 20 at the  but the 40 to end in Mount Vernon f**k this I saw some reviews on what people said while showing feedback one person said they feel like leaving westchester due to bullshit service and they made it worse for people that aren't in southern westchester I think I have to live in Yonkers or New Rochelle  when I get older thats were service looks the best and most improved 

I know that they'd never bring express buses like I'd propose but still being honest if we make the Manhattan Express bus price lower then Mta's it will increase ridership even Mta's express buses are over priced Express bus prices like $6.50/$7.50 is too much these Nigga's ( I'm african don't worry) think this is Coach USA the fact that Hudson Link is 2.75 and then you see prices of Bee-Line and Mta Manhattan Express buses and then people are upset when subways are packed. A good price for routes like my proposed Westchester - Manhatan Express would sound good as it's not over priced and Seniors get a discount to if they wan't more than 4.50 and don't want lower than Mta they might as well make it 6.50 b/c the f**ked up service on the Bxm4c dosen't deserve 7.50 and I would make these express buses better than the Bxm4c service.

 

[Lawrence St]

Now I would have this new BL-9 run down Yonkers Ave/Midland Ave and across McLean Ave to Nereid Ave instead of the mess they have going on downthere. 

[B35 via Church]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

If the 1W comes (shortly) before the 1T, then that would mean less ridership for the 1T, not more.

In any case, their logic is that the 1T is shorter, and they want to use the resources the 1W uses to run along NY-119 to boost BL-13 service. I agree with your comment about having all BL-1 service end at the Yonkers City Line.

AFAIC, nothing should be ending in the middle of that corridor up there (Warburton).... They're really only proposing ending buses at the park (JFK Marina/Park) because you can't feasibly have buses ending at Yonkers City Line on any full time basis.... I get that they want to do away with the current BL-1 branches (which that, by itself, I agree with), but taking [the current BL-1 short turns & running them to the park] & [cutting the BL-1T back to Yonkers] to me, is a rather questionable use of resources... They're essentially giving the new #1 (to JFK Marina, from 242nd ) and the #2 (still, to Tudor Woods, from 242nd ) the same amt. of service, which to me is ludicrous......

From 242nd , instead of having both local routes ending in Yonkers (along with the two express routes; to WCC & the other to White Plains) from 242nd , I'd have one short haul local route running to Yonkers (the #2), and a long(er) haul local route running to White Plains (the #6, extended to the subway)... North of Getty Sq, more ppl. are simply on BL-2's.... Regardless of that, I don't necessarily concur with having the White Plains service from Yonkers only being that of express service.... Between the current BL-1W, the BL-5, and the BL-6 between Yonkers & White Plains, I'd say patronage between the latter two are more or less the same, while that of the BL-1W is in stark contrast (to those two routes).... Being that they have the #5 continue up towards WCC via WMC & the #6 being cut back to White Plains, IMO, it was a missed opportunity for the redesign to have the #6 run to The Bronx... With such a change, I wouldn't has *as* many #3's running during the off-peak hours (still don't care for the routing within Yonkers they have that route doing though)....

Cutting the BL-1T back to Yonkers & cutting the BL-13 back to Tarrytown (from points east), of course, exists to provide basic coverage.... Even though the resultant route would mirror the MNRR Hudson line, I would still combine the proposed/final #109 & #111, instead of having both of those routes running back & forth b/w their respective terminals... Increasing #13 service b/w Tarrytown & Port Chester is definitely warranted, but running buses (roughly) every 20 mins on that #109 & (roughly) every 40-45 mins on that #111, I wouldn't necessarily bother with... I'd just run service basically every hour between Dobbs Ferry & Ossining, and every 30 mins or so between Getty Sq. & Dobbs Ferry on weekdays... In other words, every other bus from Yonkers would run past Dobbs Ferry, to Ossining (similar to how the current BL-13 operates, with every other bus (for the most part) running north of Tarrytown to Ossining).... All in all, I've been saying for years now that they are running way too much service along the Warburton corridor (thanks to the different BL-1 branches) & I'm glad they're taking those resources & divvying them up into other routes (although I still think they're running too much service on the #1, by essentially having it have the same amt. of service as the #2)....

On 5/18/2023 at 11:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

If you're going to have buses from Southside Mount Vernon serve Bronx River Road, I think it would be better to have those buses continue up Bronx River Road to Cross County Mall, rather than backtrack to Petrillo Plaza. There's a lot of apartment buildings along Bronx River Road, and a lot of hills heading over towards Kimball Avenue.

I think Bee Line's proposed BL-107 does a pretty good job of covering that section of Mount Vernon, but it just occurred to me...if the BL-53 were rerouted to the Wakefield  station rather than up to Petrillo Plaza, that would pretty much cover any gaps left by the BL-107 in terms of access to the  . I know that the BL-53 is pretty much a Mount Vernon/Pelham shuttle/circulator, but given that all the connections available at Petrillo Plaza are also available at other points on the route, how outlandish would it be to reroute it to Wakefield rather than Petrillo Plaza?

Well there's a string of apartments along Bronx River rd. north, and south of Yonkers av.... Perhaps what you're saying about running buses along Bronx River rd. (north of Yonkers av.) can be addressed with another route, but I wouldn't have a route doing the eastern half of the loop I'm suggesting, to run it west of WPR to Bronx River rd., to then run it up to Cross County.... The whole point of the suggested looping of the #107 is to promote having #40's run to 241st ... The only real reason I'd even route buses west of WPR up along Bronx River rd. is to not have the altered #107's run with the (suggested, extended) #40 b/w 241st & Petrillo Plaza via WPR & via W. 1st st..... Although it would end up doing so, the focus per se, wasn't specifically to connect Mt. Vernon to Bronx River rd....

As for the #53, I wouldn't bother turning it towards The Bronx.... I will say though that I've always thought the potential was there to make more out of that route - specifically b/w Lincoln av. & Petrillo Plaza.... Rather than turn the route down towards The Bronx, I'd have that aforementioned portion of the route serviced by a branch of the #7..... Given your inquiry though, instead of leaving the #42 as is/proposed, I suppose it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to say, have a route run b/w New Roc' & 241st via [the pocket of New Roc' that the BL-30 serves] & [the BL-53 between Lincoln av & W. 1st st].... So while I wouldn't personally run #53's to The Bronx, I still wouldn't say it's outlandish to turn it away from Petrillo Plaza....

On 5/18/2023 at 11:50 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Yikes! Good catch...yeah, that's around 29 trips each way...it sounds like it'll be running something like every 30 minutes peak, 60 minutes off-peak or something along those lines...yeah they definitely need to redistribute more service from the BL-4 and BL-42 onto the BL-101.

Yeah, they're seriously underestimating the potential for that #101.... As far as reallocating resources, this is basically splitting hairs, but while I don't entirely disagree with taking some service away from the #4 - I would look to do so from the #1 (for reasons mentioned earlier in this post) before I would do so from the #4 (even though the #4 & the #101 parallel each other b/w MNRR Yonkers & Central Park av)... While the #101 will end up taking some people away from the #4, I don't see it taking away near as much as some people believe it will (apparently, with the proposed service levels for the #101, neither does Bee Line)....

As an aside, I'll say that neither one of those routes (4/101) should be running to MNRR Yonkers... They're going way too far with sending all these routes to that station in general.... The space doesn't exist for it (the post office being over there, definitely doesn't help matters).....

[B35 via Church]

On 5/15/2023 at 6:53 PM, 40 to 241st said:

Here how I'll handle each and every route -  Half of these routes is to make sure there less Micro Trans b/c no one likes it but there will some zones

6 Extended to WC Airport to replace the 12
7 New Rochelle- 263st (Mt Saint Vincent)
8 Proposed Service extended to 231st
9 proposed service combined w/ 101 (42 deleted) via Tibbets Brook Park
10 Keep the same w/ more stops
12 Portchester- Mt Kisco via WC Airport
14 White Plains - WCC via Hillside Av
16 Extended to Croton falls
19 Proposed Service extended to Mt Kisco
25 keep as proposed
26 Tuckahoe RR - Gun Hill Rd via Central Av/ Bronx RiverRd/ White Plains Rd
34 extended to Tarry Town via Hartsdale Rd
35 Hartsdale - Ridge Hill via Central Av/ Fort Hill Rd
36 Hartsdale- Easchester Sq via Mamaroneck Rd/ Palmer Av/ Wilmot Rd/ Mill Rd
39 extended to Dobbs Ferry via Dobbs Ferry Hospital

#6 - I'd rather eliminate the #1 to send it to 242nd instead... You'd have the #6 & the #12 serving the airport, which to me is excessive.... The extra mileage IMO would be far more appreciated by sending #6's to The Bronx over that of HPN (the airport)....

#7 & #8 - There's simply no need to run #7's down to Mt. St. Vincent; it's unwarranted.... Ideally I'd like to have the #8 connect to the , but it'd have to meander/crawl through too much of Riverdale in order to do so (so realistically, I wouldn't do it).... Having both #7's & #8's run b/w Mt. St. Vincent & Getty Sq, overserves the hell out of that corridor (Riverdale av)

#9 - The #101 is solid....... It would have no business being combined with a route like the #9... What is your rationale for this??

#10 - I get that you'd keep the route the same, but where exactly are you adding more stops along this route at?

#12 - Port Chester & Mt. Kisco via HPN? Who, or what is your expected target riderbase with something like this? I see something like that carrying a hell of a lot of air.... They simply need to have the current BL-12 run b/w White Plains transcenter & HPN....

#14 - I could understand running buses b/w White Plains & WMC (via WCC), but running buses back & forth b/c White Plains & WCC all day is an absolute waste...

#16 - AFAIC, that's just too much nothing between Mahopac & Croton Falls for potentially little to no one to access that MNRR station... The running through too much nothing is likely the reason they severely cut the #15 south of Yorktown Hgts.... I'd much rather leave it (the #16) at the Village Center.

#19 - I say they should've left the proposed #19 from the previous draft proposal alone...

#25 - Looks like we're in a minority with with this, but yeah, agreed....

#26 - The whole route needs to go... The Kimball av. folks simply utilize buses more than the Bronx River rd. folks.... I agree with Bee Line here.

#"34", "35", 38, and #39 - I don't at all get the sense that Hartsdale patrons value public bus service to get around Westchester, outside of those that even bother to take the current RR commuters to MNRR Hartsdale.... Basically I see all of these suggestions as futile.

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

 

The multi quote feature f**ked up on me.... I was almost done with part 2, but I hit the backspace button (in an attempt to format the post better) & everything I had replied to for your part 2 just deleted... Tried undo-ing the change, had no effect.... So I'm not re-typing all of that again; I'll have to get to your part 2 & part 3 some other time...

[40 to 241st]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

#6 - I'd rather eliminate the #1 to send it to 242nd instead... You'd have the #6 & the #12 serving the airport, which to me is excessive.... The extra mileage IMO would be far more appreciated by sending #6's to The Bronx over that of HPN (the airport)....

#7 & #8 - There's simply no need to run #7's down to Mt. St. Vincent; it's unwarranted.... Ideally I'd like to have the #8 connect to the , but it'd have to meander/crawl through too much of Riverdale in order to do so (so realistically, I wouldn't do it).... Having both #7's & #8's run b/w Mt. St. Vincent & Getty Sq, overserves the hell out of that corridor (Riverdale av)

#9 - The #101 is solid....... It would have no business being combined with a route like the #9... What is your rationale for this??

#10 - I get that you'd keep the route the same, but where exactly are you adding more stops along this route at?

#12 - Port Chester & Mt. Kisco via HPN? Who, or what is your expected target riderbase with something like this? I see something like that carrying a hell of a lot of air.... They simply need to have the current BL-12 run b/w White Plains transcenter & HPN....

#14 - I could understand running buses b/w White Plains & WMC (via WCC), but running buses back & forth b/c White Plains & WCC all day is an absolute waste...

#16 - AFAIC, that's just too much nothing between Mahopac & Croton Falls for potentially little to no one to access that MNRR station... The running through too much nothing is likely the reason they severely cut the #15 south of Yorktown Hgts.... I'd much rather leave it (the #16) at the Village Center.

#19 - I say they should've left the proposed #19 from the previous draft proposal alone...

#25 - Looks like we're in a minority with with this, but yeah, agreed....

#26 - The whole route needs to go... The Kimball av. folks simply utilize buses more than the Bronx River rd. folks.... I agree with Bee Line here.

#"34", "35", 38, and #39 - I don't at all get the sense that Hartsdale patrons value public bus service to get around Westchester, outside of those that even bother to take the current RR commuters to MNRR Hartsdale.... Basically I see all of these suggestions as futile.

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

 

The multi quote feature f**ked up on me.... I was almost done with part 2, but I hit the backspace button (in an attempt to format the post better) & everything I had replied to for your part 2 just deleted... Tried undo-ing the change, had no effect.... So I'm not re-typing all of that again; I'll have to get to your part 2 & part 3 some other time...

I'd don't get the point of using the 6 to delete route 1 I've hardly seen people transfer between the 6 and 1 or even complain about it in the bronx it's like putting the 78 at 242ndst to delete route 2 most of the 1's riders take it to the bronx and the 6 at the airport is to have lower westcheter people a better access to the airport the 5 sound better for 242ndst as it would really replace the 1C

For route 8 there many ways it could meet the  riverdale is just one of them  it could go on 246st to 242nd and the 7 I see good connections with it and the 8 not like the 6 and the 1 a high ridership route like the 7 would do good in the bronx but I agree it's a little redundant. The 8 can get so crowded that they need to put 3 40-ft buses on one trip the 7 can reduce crowd and could bring riders to the bronx considering it's ridership 

The 9 and the 101 combined would improve nyc subway connections and reduce crowd on the 2 

10 any important road intersections will have a stop 

The 12 instead of Portcheter people taking two buses to the Airport they get one and if you read the top this is to get rid of micro transit zones some places will have them but this is to get rid of the least nessecary ones. That's my point for the Hartsdale routes. I don't think the 12 will be useless maybe a little less rider but I think it would do good as it use to go above Armonk and people want that back I want to make the Airport more popular and accessible that was my point for the 6     

The 16 could replace the Croton falls shuttle as there's bad service on the Croton falls shuttle this allows the 16 to serve the vilage ctr better this improves east-west connections 

The 25 i'm glad were on the same page people can easilly transfer between the and  lines and  

The 26 would decrease ridership from the 20 and would have an increase of ridership instead of the Bronx River Rd people going to kimball to take the106

I explained that the Hartsdale routes is to get rid of Micro Transit but the 35 is for better Ridge hill service and for less 20 crowding

I don't see most of these proposals as futile but would increase service and encourage more riders on the bus system Northern Westchester is serviced w/ bullshit and could be served better and before you say why didn't I use the 31 instead of MicroTransit the 31 has 4 average riders a day I don't think that any of my proposed routes are going to have that bad ridership low yes definitely but not under 30-45 average riders. And if we want less Micro Trans zones like everyone here has been complaining about then we might as well use fixed routes on some of them but leave some of the necessary ones     

Edited May 20, 2023 by 40 to 241st

[40 to 241st]

On 5/15/2023 at 6:53 PM, 40 to 241st said:

 

14 White Plains - WCC via Hillside Av

 

I meant keep as Proposed via Hillside Av 

[40 to 241st]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Now I would have this new BL-9 run down Yonkers Ave/Midland Ave and across McLean Ave to Nereid Ave instead of the mess they have going on downthere. 

I love that idea alot but I'd have it do the whole 101 corridor to Newrochelle and yes it serves tibbets brook park

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by 40 to 241st

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

I'd don't get the point of using the 6 to delete route 1 I've hardly seen people transfer between the 6 and 1 or even complain about it in the bronx it's like putting the 78 at 242ndst to delete route 2 most of the 1's riders take it to the bronx and the 6 at the airport is to have lower westcheter people a better access to the airport the 5 sound better for 242ndst as it would really replace the 1C

Lol..... I barely see anyone xferring b/w the BL-40 & the BL-42 in Mt. Vernon either, but that doesn't mean the BL-40 shouldn't go to 241st now does it?

The point is that it's a more efficient use of resources... Most of the BL-1's ridership is at & south of Getty Square... Same with the BL-2 (meaning, at & south of Getty Sq. they have a 100% mutual riderbase).... You do not need the same high amounts of service they're suggesting for both the #1 & the #2....  On top of that, the BL-1W between Yonkers & White Plains does not carry more than the BL-6.... Your analogy with the BL-2 & the BL-78 doesn't fly, because ridership north of Getty Sq. on the BL-2 isn't a problem...

The same point you're making about running the proposed #5 to 242nd being tantamount to replacing BL-1C's is the same point I'm making about having BL-6's run to 242nd being tantamount to replacing BL-1W's.... You can disagree (in order to support your BL-6 to HPN suggestion), but running BL-6's to 242nd is more plausible than running it to the airport... How much latent demand is there really for direct Lower Westchester access to HPN? You can't logically pose that same question to me about direct Lower Westchester access to White Plains, because current service in the network across multiple routes already exists to address it....

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

For route 8 there many ways it could meet the  riverdale is just one of them  it could go on 246st to 242nd and the 7 I see good connections with it and the 8 not like the 6 and the 1 a high ridership route like the 7 would do good in the bronx but I agree it's a little redundant. The 8 can get so crowded that they need to put 3 40-ft buses on one trip the 7 can reduce crowd and could bring riders to the bronx considering it's ridership 

There are not many ways; you're not directly getting from Mt St. Vincent to the train without cutting through the neighborhood of Riverdale (was the point).... The private enclave of Fieldston would shoot down having Bee-Line buses cut across their roads to get from Riverdale av to Broadway in a NY minute.... So you may as well forget about 246th, or really, having it travel laterally within Riverdale, period....

As far as having #7's run to Mt. St Vincent, just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it necessarily should.... The #7 is an important easterly-westerly mode of travel in the entire county, let alone in Lower Westchester.... I honestly don't know why you or anyone else would support tarnishing that....

I will agree though that the #8 needs more service (but I would not use a route like the #7 to act as a band-aid solution for the #8 between Getty Sq. & Mt. St. Vincent)...

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 9 and the 101 combined would improve nyc subway connections and reduce crowd on the 2 

So would the combination of any route that doesn't serve the subway with one that does serve the subway... lol...

I find it funny that you tried to convey to me that there's no cohesion b/w the BL-6 & the BL-1, yet you support combining these 2 routes..... Strange, but anyway, the #9 is rather meandrous & the #101 will actually take some strain off the #7, as far as being as important an option for east-west travel in Lower Westchester.... For the sake of the network, those two routes have no business being combined.... The #101 should remain as a standalone route....

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

10 any important road intersections will have a stop 

What important road intersection{s} are there on the current BL-10 that's not currently being served by the BL-10?

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 12 instead of Portcheter people taking two buses to the Airport they get one and if you read the top this is to get rid of micro transit zones some places will have them but this is to get rid of the least nessecary ones. That's my point for the Hartsdale routes. I don't think the 12 will be useless maybe a little less rider but I think it would do good as it use to go above Armonk and people want that back I want to make the Airport more popular and accessible that was my point for the 6     

Not sure if you understand this, but coming up with any ole idea for a public bus route to do away with microtransit, strengthens the case for microtransit....

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 16 could replace the Croton falls shuttle as there's bad service on the Croton falls shuttle this allows the 16 to serve the vilage ctr better this improves east-west connections 

Sure, it could..... But AFAIC, whatever's going on with that Croton Falls shuttle is a Putnam county problem... Bee Line is (foolishly) getting rid of the BL-16 in its entirety.... Extending it to MNRR Croton Falls to possibly supplant the Croton Falls shuttle, adding more dead mileage to the thing, isn't exactly a case for bolstering the route.... Croton Falls simply isn't remotely an in demand area for folks in northern Westchester....

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 25 i'm glad were on the same page people can easily transfer between the and  lines and  

The 26 would decrease ridership from the 20 and would have an increase of ridership instead of the Bronx River Rd people going to kimball to take the 106

I favor the proposed #25, but not for that reason..... For those that are defending the current BL-25, I get it - But at the same time, with the #101 filling the void b/w the northern part of The Bronx & SW Yonkers, there's less of a need for those trying to get b/w SW Yonkers & the northern part of The Bronx (for whatever reason) to have to rely on a bus that takes on the current BL-25 course.... Also, quite frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with running a route like the #106 back & forth b/w Wakefield (Nereid av subway) & Cross County via Kimball all day (I wouldn't have the #106 running to Bronxville).... Turnover on the current BL-25 at Cross County is quite high; I'd say around 50%... That tells me that it practically makes no difference if the current BL-25 or the proposed #25 runs the Downtown Yonkers - Cross County leg/segment.... Both segments of the current BL-25 are solid, which segues me to saying....

....as far as the eastern portion of the proposed final #25 (which is the current BL-55) is concerned, simply put, the BL-55, while decent (I'd go as far as to say its underrated), could still use the ridership west of Cross County towards Yonkers more than the current BL-25.... FWIW, I believe the whole vs. the argument when it comes to the current BL-25 vs. the proposed #25 is fake outrage, but whatever.... Folks just don't care for the current BL-55 because, well, whatever....

But like you said, yeah, we're on the same page with the proposed #25.....

2 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

I explained that the Hartsdale routes is to get rid of Micro Transit but the 35 is for better Ridge hill service and for less 20 crowding

I don't see most of these proposals as futile but would increase service and encourage more riders on the bus system Northern Westchester is serviced w/ bullshit and could be served better and before you say why didn't I use the 31 instead of MicroTransit the 31 has 4 average riders a day I don't think that any of my proposed routes are going to have that bad ridership low yes definitely but not under 30-45 average riders. And if we want less Micro Trans zones like everyone here has been complaining about then we might as well use fixed routes on some of them but leave some of the necessary ones     

See here....

While I don't support using microtransit to supplant poorly performing public bus routes, my focus isn't to simply get rid of microtransit..... In saying that, I don't have a problem with admitting, or otherwise coming to grips that there's simply no hope for a certain public bus route{s}.... What I'm personally not going to do, is wantonly/randomly send some severely underperforming bus route *somewhere*, just to keep it around - Which is exactly how I view all four of those Hartsdale suggestions of yours....

Furthermore, I don't have to comparatively mention, or otherwise bring up a completely antiquated route like the BL-31 to make the point that bus routes funneling in & out of Hartsdale to various parts of the county would perform poorly.... IDK what is having you believe otherwise..... For instance, your "#35", at best, would serve as an unnecessary extra layer of service along Central Park av - even if it were to run up to Ridge Hill after the fact....

[40 to 241st]

19 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol..... I barely see anyone xferring b/w the BL-40 & the BL-42 in Mt. Vernon either, but that doesn't mean the BL-40 shouldn't go to 241st now does it?

The point is that it's a more efficient use of resources... Most of the BL-1's ridership is at & south of Getty Square... Same with the BL-2 (meaning, at & south of Getty Sq. they have a 100% mutual riderbase).... You do not need the same high amounts of service they're suggesting for both the #1 & the #2....  On top of that, the BL-1W between Yonkers & White Plains does not carry more than the BL-6.... Your analogy with the BL-2 & the BL-78 doesn't fly, because ridership north of Getty Sq. on the BL-2 isn't a problem...

The same point you're making about running the proposed #5 to 242nd being tantamount to replacing BL-1C's is the same point I'm making about having BL-6's run to 242nd being tantamount to replacing BL-1W's.... You can disagree (in order to support your BL-6 to HPN suggestion), but running BL-6's to 242nd is more plausible than running it to the airport... How much latent demand is there really for direct Lower Westchester access to HPN? You can't logically pose that same question to me about direct Lower Westchester access to White Plains, because current service in the network across multiple routes already exists to address it....

There are not many ways; you're not directly getting from Mt St. Vincent to the train without cutting through the neighborhood of Riverdale (was the point).... The private enclave of Fieldston would shoot down having Bee-Line buses cut across their roads to get from Riverdale av to Broadway in a NY minute.... So you may as well forget about 246th, or really, having it travel laterally within Riverdale, period....

As far as having #7's run to Mt. St Vincent, just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it necessarily should.... The #7 is an important easterly-westerly mode of travel in the entire county, let alone in Lower Westchester.... I honestly don't know why you or anyone else would support tarnishing that....

I will agree though that the #8 needs more service (but I would not use a route like the #7 to act as a band-aid solution for the #8 between Getty Sq. & Mt. St. Vincent)...

So would the combination of any route that doesn't serve the subway with one that does serve the subway... lol...

I find it funny that you tried to convey to me that there's no cohesion b/w the BL-6 & the BL-1, yet you support combining these 2 routes..... Strange, but anyway, the #9 is rather meandrous & the #101 will actually take some strain off the #7, as far as being as important an option for east-west travel in Lower Westchester.... For the sake of the network, those two routes have no business being combined.... The #101 should remain as a standalone route....

What important road intersection{s} are there on the current BL-10 that's not currently being served by the BL-10?

Not sure if you understand this, but coming up with any ole idea for a public bus route to do away with microtransit, strengthens the case for microtransit....

Sure, it could..... But AFAIC, whatever's going on with that Croton Falls shuttle is a Putnam county problem... Bee Line is (foolishly) getting rid of the BL-16 in its entirety.... Extending it to MNRR Croton Falls to possibly supplant the Croton Falls shuttle, adding more dead mileage to the thing, isn't exactly a case for bolstering the route.... Croton Falls simply isn't remotely an in demand area for folks in northern Westchester....

I favor the proposed #25, but not for that reason..... For those that are defending the current BL-25, I get it - But at the same time, with the #101 filling the void b/w the northern part of The Bronx & SW Yonkers, there's less of a need for those trying to get b/w SW Yonkers & the northern part of The Bronx (for whatever reason) to have to rely on a bus that takes on the current BL-25 course.... Also, quite frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with running a route like the #106 back & forth b/w Wakefield (Nereid av subway) & Cross County via Kimball all day (I wouldn't have the #106 running to Bronxville).... Turnover on the current BL-25 at Cross County is quite high; I'd say around 50%... That tells me that it practically makes no difference if the current BL-25 or the proposed #25 runs the Downtown Yonkers - Cross County leg/segment.... Both segments of the current BL-25 are solid, which segues me to saying....

....as far as the eastern portion of the proposed final #25 (which is the current BL-55) is concerned, simply put, the BL-55, while decent (I'd go as far as to say its underrated), could still use the ridership west of Cross County towards Yonkers more than the current BL-25.... FWIW, I believe the whole vs. the argument when it comes to the current BL-25 vs. the proposed #25 is fake outrage, but whatever.... Folks just don't care for the current BL-55 because, well, whatever....

But like you said, yeah, we're on the same page with the proposed #25.....

See here....

While I don't support using microtransit to supplant poorly performing public bus routes, my focus isn't to simply get rid of microtransit..... In saying that, I don't have a problem with admitting, or otherwise coming to grips that there's simply no hope for a certain public bus route{s}.... What I'm personally not going to do, is wantonly/randomly send some severely underperforming bus route *somewhere*, just to keep it around - Which is exactly how I view all four of those Hartsdale suggestions of yours....

Furthermore, I don't have to comparatively mention, or otherwise bring up a completely antiquated route like the BL-31 to make the point that bus routes funneling in & out of Hartsdale to various parts of the county would perform poorly.... IDK what is having you believe otherwise..... For instance, your "#35", at best, would serve as an unnecessary extra layer of service along Central Park av - even if it were to run up to Ridge Hill after the fact....

The 40 is a good point but people transfer w/ other bronx routes too not just the 42 but mostly the 20, and others 41, 55, 60 and many more bronx routes.

So your gonna make Warburton ave people pissed it's like that time someone proposed for the 60 and 61 to end at Dyre Av . The 5 replacing the 1C is comparable to the 6 replacing 1W at the Bronx but the 5 has lower ridership. But if we had one of them at 242nd at I wouldn't delete the 1 but extend it north to Dobbs Ferry. The 2 and 78 is from where I read someone saying the 78 should replace the 2 south of Getty SQ.  Just one question how much want the 6 at 242ndst. I've heard on this site about people saying they want the 6 at the Airport before and it's not bad. We all know how stressful an Airport can be so just tranfering between buses is just terrible and like I said I want to encourage people to use the Airport more on the buses and w/ me putting the 12 at portchester we might as well extend the 6 there too. Imagine portcester is close to the Airport (HPN) so Imagine taking 2 buses there ( the 13 to the 12). and the 12 can just go straight on king street there too then Mt.Kisco there's no way that's performing poorly at all when people demanded it at Mt.Kisco especially.  

The 8 wouldn't do too much Riverdale Rd even if it continued there to 231st its like how the 1/2/3/112 do alot of broadway to 242st the last time I checked. The 7 would not just bring alot to the bronx but I see good connection w/ the 7 and other bee-line bronx routes more than the 6 but now there's different approaches to this as I also proposed for the 109 down there too.   

The proposed 9 is a clone the 2 in some way a route like that will still have low ridership would it  combing it w/ the 101 would do better than the 6 and 1 for that reason they have high ridership the way it is and like I said reduce route 2 crowding as it give more ways to the subway. 

The 10 if I'd just add more stops period then. 

So now your calling Croton falls a Putnam problem when Bee-line's former 33 did it. I guess we will have to disagree w/ the 16. I don't hate you at all I kind of even look up to you in some way but that's making me laugh a little.

 My 35 would have around 700-900 riders which is moderate for a bee-line route and could be edited in other ways. As we know how used the 20 is and I see good connection w/ it and the 78. W/ Micro transit having none of it and serving no service is going to rage people especailly the Northern Westchester people the 38 and be relaced w/ Micro Transit there's no hope for it existing in our system but if we extended the 39 then atleast I know w/ it's 96 riders that's having an increase over 100 riders for sure. The 34 extending it could maybe work too.  But yes Hartsdale people don't need that good bus service but I would like to give the 20 some assistance to lower the conjestion. And maybe we could use dolla vans for some of those areas as I feel bad for those in transit desserts micro Transit is more necessary than we think but this is to see what it's like w/ less Micro Transit Zone I can do reproposal w/ more of them