2023 Revamped Bee-Line Redesign Draft Plan

[B35 via Church]

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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.

I'm not sure what you're on about with this here, but try to stay focused..... You're counterarguing that you don't see the point of running #6's to 242nd because not too many xfer between it & the BL-1.... And I'm countering that by saying, if it's okay to run #40's to 241st in lieu of phasing out the #42 - which you agree with (even though not many people xfer b/w the BL-40 & the BL-42), then it's okay to run #6's to 242nd (even though not many people xfer b/w the BL-6 & the BL-1).... The fact of the matter is that latent demand isn't wholly/solely measured and/or determined by how many folks aren't xferring b/w bus routes....

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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....

By that logic, since the current BL-1W has lower ridership than the current BL-5 & BL-6 b/w White Plains & Yonkers, they may as well have kept the BL-1W around.... The Warburton av. folks wouldn't have to be made "pissed" in my scenario of suggestions if more of them utilized any of the BL-1 branches (including the Yonkers City Line short turns) towards 242nd ...

The reason they're having the proposed #1 & the proposed #2 have essentially the same amt. of service is to 1] not overserve the BL-2 north of Getty Sq & 2] promote (the use of) that #109 more by not having that extra layer of service run as far north to Dobbs Ferry via the Warburton corridor.... Proposed service levels for the #2 I'd say is more or less warranted... For the proposed #1 OTOH, the shit is overkill AFAIC.... They wouldn't have to overserve the #1 by giving it near equal service to that of the BL-2 if they redistributed those resources elsewhere in the network.... In my scenario, yes, I'd happen to use the #6 as the Bronx - White Plains local (as part of that reallocation process) & the #3 as the Bronx - White Plains express.... I simply do not agree with having all service to White Plains from 242nd being express service.... Speaking of Dobbs Ferry, you know what else serves Dobbs Ferry? Yep, the #6 - which is actually another reason I'm suggesting running #6's to supplant the #1 b/w Getty Sq. & 242nd ...

You ask how many people want the #6 at 242nd .... I'm unhesitatingly of the belief that it's significantly more than folks in Lower Westchester wanting direct access to HPN, I'll say that much.... North of Getty Sq, more people use the BL-6.... South of Getty Sq. towards 242nd, ridership is interchangeable - it does not matter if you run the #1, the #2, the #6, the whatever, between those two points....

Given all that I've stated about this #1 vs #6 bit, I see no reason to maintain status quo by having the #1 remain running to 242nd , since the BL-1 already does.... This is going to have to be chalked up to a disagreement.

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

....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.  

My position isn't that there shouldn't be anything running to the airport, in terms of public bus service (like Bee Line is proposing)... My position is that, since HPN is a small-ish airport, it would be wasteful to have buses running willy-nilly to/from it... It needs to be done effectively.... I don't operate from the notion of "might as well" to justify what I'm in support of; it reeks of a certain hesitancy.... Bee Line's problem in regards to serving HPN is that, ever since they cut the BL-12 from JVM to Armonk & ever since that AIRLink was an abject failure, they've been on a bit of a mission to slowly do away with the BL-12.....

I don't see what Port Chester has to do with anything, in regards to HPN, regardless of its proximity..... It's more of a PITA for most folks in the county to get to Port Chester than it is to get to White Plains..... Even your #6 idea to HPN makes more sense than running buses from Port Chester to HPN.... Bee Line simply needed to have ran better service on the BL-12 to/from HPN.... They resorted to the very antithesis of that.

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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.   

I honestly don't get how you're even trying to counterargue this whole, having to go through Riverdale ordeal... Your bringing up of the #6 here is not relevant to your suggestions of running #7's to Mt. St. Vincent & #8's to 231st ... Even if I were to ignore the issue of meandering through Riverdale (the neighborhood) for a second, the immediate area around 231st is a madhouse, so where you plan on efficiently & effectively terminating & operating buses anywhere around there, is an absolute mystery...

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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 #101 by itself has the potential to do better than that #6 idea of mine (that you've been continually stuck on) b/w 242st subway & White Plains....

All combining it with the #9 would accomplish is the decreasing of the quality of it.... You appear to have this mindset that any route can be combined with any route & the resultant route would still loom successful....

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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.

Yes, since that rendition of the BL-33 has been dead for almost 20 years now.... But somehow it's a novel idea to append the BL-16 to it almost 20 years later in some attempt to spare (and apparently bolster) the BL-16? I don't buy it, so yeah, this'll also have to be chalked up to a disagreement.

...and what is this about not hating somebody? I'm sitting here actually having a bit of fun with this discussion with talking bus routes..... IDK (or honestly care) if that was some sort of Freudian slip, but let's keep this civil right here & don't turn this into something it aint gotta be.

56 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

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

I'm not supporting the way they're using microtransit with this network redesign, so you're preaching to the choir with this AFAIC.....

I'm all for dollar vans, but let's keep it a stack.... Dollar vans in the suburbs (especially as a flourishing service)? Lol, good luck with that.... Some uptight asshats residing somewhere within the county will contact their local elected officials to ultimately have them shut down faster than either of us can bat an eye....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

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

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. 

Yeah, another Peekskill route through Yorktown Heights would be excessive. Worst case scenario, I would go with having the proposed 19 (from the first draft) branch off to have a Yorktown Heights branch. The 19 Yorktown Heights branch would also hit the intermediate points riders using the 15 generally get off (north of the Grasslands Area & White Plains). Plus it would restore the connection between Yorktown Heights and Mount Kisco eliminated with the 12. It would make the 19 more useful than what they did to it in this new proposal (SMH at the truncation to Chappaqua). 

On 5/14/2023 at 9:02 PM, 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....

I generally thought there should be some Northern Westchester - White Plains link, and I've had several concepts for them but never really definitively thought of one.

I have it going to Peekskill RR since the runtime wouldn't require any additional resources, and in the process getting whatever amount of riders from Metro North trains. So on top of being a White Plains area express/commuter route, it would also be a Metro-North feeder route at no added cost.  Using the existing route 15 timetable and estimating runtimes via the Taconic based on google maps estimate (+some extra cushion), having buses express between WMC and Yorktown Heights would save at the very least 20 minutes, in most cases around 25 minutes. The new runtime between White Plains and Peekskill would still be 90 minutes or greater, meaning the three hour cycle previously alluded to cannot be done. Four buses would be needed, and the Peekskill RR extension would add some runtime but still allow enough recovery time. 

As far as your proposed 17, would this route run similar in service levels to today's 17? Also given this proposal I would presume you would have the 14 running via Verplanck? For the latter I can agree with that (while also getting rid of that Verplanck Microtransit zone).  Verplanck is walkable by suburban standards, you can usually make your way to the 14 in that area fairly easily, even if the bus doesn't run directly on your street. That microtransit zone is one of the several pointless ones in this plan. 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:26 PM, Lawrence St said:

So what would serve Yorktown Heights?

The 15 would. Headed north it gets off the Taconic at Underhill to then go into the commercial part of Yorktown Heights, and headed south it would take Underhill from commerical Yorktown Heights to the Taconic. 

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

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?

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.

 

18 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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....

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)....

With respect to the 101, on top of what is being mentioned, what also irks me is the 101/107 overlap, and on top of that the decision to serve different subway stations (107 to 233rd Street, 101 to Nereid Avenue). This makes it annoying for riders coming off trains to the bus. I personally don't see the need for two buses to the  on White Plains Road from points along Sandford Boulevard, especially the way they have it there.

Given that the 53 was brought up, I'm wondering if there is some way to restructure the 53 where you can gut both the 42 and the 107. That way the resources on those routes can be divided up between the 53 and 101, with a greater share on weekdays going to the 101 (and more to the 53 on weekends). So basically an iteration of the route which goes to Mount Vernon and covers where most of the existing 42 demand would come from, to/from Mount Vernon in particular (to/from its current south). 

Edited May 21, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[40 to 241st]

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not sure what you're on about with this here, but try to stay focused..... You're counterarguing that you don't see the point of running #6's to 242nd because not too many xfer between it & the BL-1.... And I'm countering that by saying, if it's okay to run #40's to 241st in lieu of phasing out the #42 - which you agree with (even though not many people xfer b/w the BL-40 & the BL-42), then it's okay to run #6's to 242nd (even though not many people xfer b/w the BL-6 & the BL-1).... The fact of the matter is that latent demand isn't wholly/solely measured and/or determined by how many folks aren't xferring b/w bus routes....

By that logic, since the current BL-1W has lower ridership than the current BL-5 & BL-6 b/w White Plains & Yonkers, they may as well have kept the BL-1W around.... The Warburton av. folks wouldn't have to be made "pissed" in my scenario of suggestions if more of them utilized any of the BL-1 branches (including the Yonkers City Line short turns) towards 242nd ...

The reason they're having the proposed #1 & the proposed #2 have essentially the same amt. of service is to 1] not overserve the BL-2 north of Getty Sq & 2] promote (the use of) that #109 more by not having that extra layer of service run as far north to Dobbs Ferry via the Warburton corridor.... Proposed service levels for the #2 I'd say is more or less warranted... For the proposed #1 OTOH, the shit is overkill AFAIC.... They wouldn't have to overserve the #1 by giving it near equal service to that of the BL-2 if they redistributed those resources elsewhere in the network.... In my scenario, yes, I'd happen to use the #6 as the Bronx - White Plains local (as part of that reallocation process) & the #3 as the Bronx - White Plains express.... I simply do not agree with having all service to White Plains from 242nd being express service.... Speaking of Dobbs Ferry, you know what else serves Dobbs Ferry? Yep, the #6 - which is actually another reason I'm suggesting running #6's to supplant the #1 b/w Getty Sq. & 242nd ...

You ask how many people want the #6 at 242nd .... I'm unhesitatingly of the belief that it's significantly more than folks in Lower Westchester wanting direct access to HPN, I'll say that much.... North of Getty Sq, more people use the BL-6.... South of Getty Sq. towards 242nd, ridership is interchangeable - it does not matter if you run the #1, the #2, the #6, the whatever, between those two points....

Given all that I've stated about this #1 vs #6 bit, I see no reason to maintain status quo by having the #1 remain running to 242nd , since the BL-1 already does.... This is going to have to be chalked up to a disagreement.

My position isn't that there shouldn't be anything running to the airport, in terms of public bus service (like Bee Line is proposing)... My position is that, since HPN is a small-ish airport, it would be wasteful to have buses running willy-nilly to/from it... It needs to be done effectively.... I don't operate from the notion of "might as well" to justify what I'm in support of; it reeks of a certain hesitancy.... Bee Line's problem in regards to serving HPN is that, ever since they cut the BL-12 from JVM to Armonk & ever since that AIRLink was an abject failure, they've been on a bit of a mission to slowly do away with the BL-12.....

I don't see what Port Chester has to do with anything, in regards to HPN, regardless of its proximity..... It's more of a PITA for most folks in the county to get to Port Chester than it is to get to White Plains..... Even your #6 idea to HPN makes more sense than running buses from Port Chester to HPN.... Bee Line simply needed to have ran better service on the BL-12 to/from HPN.... They resorted to the very antithesis of that.

I honestly don't get how you're even trying to counterargue this whole, having to go through Riverdale ordeal... Your bringing up of the #6 here is not relevant to your suggestions of running #7's to Mt. St. Vincent & #8's to 231st ... Even if I were to ignore the issue of meandering through Riverdale (the neighborhood) for a second, the immediate area around 231st is a madhouse, so where you plan on efficiently & effectively terminating & operating buses anywhere around there, is an absolute mystery...

The #101 by itself has the potential to do better than that #6 idea of mine (that you've been continually stuck on) b/w 242st subway & White Plains....

All combining it with the #9 would accomplish is the decreasing of the quality of it.... You appear to have this mindset that any route can be combined with any route & the resultant route would still loom successful....

Yes, since that rendition of the BL-33 has been dead for almost 20 years now.... But somehow it's a novel idea to append the BL-16 to it almost 20 years later in some attempt to spare (and apparently bolster) the BL-16? I don't buy it, so yeah, this'll also have to be chalked up to a disagreement.

...and what is this about not hating somebody? I'm sitting here actually having a bit of fun with this discussion with talking bus routes..... IDK (or honestly care) if that was some sort of Freudian slip, but let's keep this civil right here & don't turn this into something it aint gotta be.

I'm not supporting the way they're using microtransit with this network redesign, so you're preaching to the choir with this AFAIC.....

I'm all for dollar vans, but let's keep it a stack.... Dollar vans in the suburbs (especially as a flourishing service)? Lol, good luck with that.... Some uptight asshats residing somewhere within the county will contact their local elected officials to ultimately have them shut down faster than either of us can bat an eye....

Here's the difference b/w the 40/42 and the 1/6 the 42 has the 101 do around 90% of it's route maybe which makes it's elimination more fair than the 1 unless you have the 109 go to 231st  then I can support the 6 at 242st then the deletion of the 1 Warburton Ave people won't get pissed at all that way.

I was saying I see the 7 xfering w/ other bee-line bronx routes than the 6. But still the 6 at the bronx doesn't sound that bad I just want to make the Airport Service less stress that's all  

The mindset I have is to lower conjestion of heavy used routes the 9/101 combined would lower crowd for the 2 as it would serve the subway. But yes and not just that but if we kept the 9 the same it's having low ridership and I though you don't like low ridership route and yes that might reduce the 101's quality and some (if not most) would have to short-term at Getty Sq. 

And what Freudian Slip I'm just trying to be nice I don't want to sound mean if I just said this is making me laugh a little I feel like saying that might be disrespectful but lets leave those emotions alone. 

And yes dolla vans lets just hope they don't end up like those in Brooklyn. 

Edited May 21, 2023 by 40 to 241st

[B35 via Church]

13 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

Here's the difference b/w the 40/42 and the 1/6 the 42 has the 101 do around 90% of it's route maybe which makes it's elimination more fair than the 1 unless you have the 109 go to 231st  then I can support the 6 at 242st then the deletion of the 1 Warburton Ave people won't get pissed at all that way.

I'm not worried about you supporting it or not, but your counterarguments are lacking substance here.... You're continuing to defend the Warburton folks for whatever the reason.... You have yet to convey/explain why the Warburton folks should have as much service to 242nd as the (more) folks that utilize the #2 north of Getty Sq with this redesigned network.... Telling me that they're going to be pissed, is a lazy & unconvincing argument.... You're never going to satisfy everybody with a public transit system..... In turn, public transit is supposed to exist for the masses - the more demand that's clearly being shown (as in, a route's utilization) by a given bus route, the more frequency it is given (or at the very least, supposed to be given) to adequately address that demand... I don't want to hear about fair, when a certain sect of riders are being given more service to an area than they deserve.

231st has nothing to do with anything here.... Running a route like the #6 between 242nd & White Plains wouldn't be more plausible if the #109 ran down to 231st subway... That's just creating redundancy for the simple sake of it...

13 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

The mindset I have is to lower conjestion of heavy used routes the 9/101 combined would lower crowd for the 2 as it would serve the subway. But yes and not just that but if we kept the 9 the same it's having low ridership and I though you don't like low ridership route and yes that might reduce the 101's quality and some (if not most) would have to short-term at Getty Sq. 

You appear to have a problem with limitations.... Every route in a network has a certain role in that network... Every route can't be a highly utilized route... Trying to eliminate xfers by combining lower utilized routes with higher utilized routes, mars the quality of that network....1-seat rides are great, but it's impossible for everyone to have them... Regarding route combinations - In order for the resultant route to be effective, combinations should be done with respect to the quality of both routes (or portions of routes) that are attempting to be combined, to make the resultant route seamless, solid, synergized, whatever synonym/adjective you want to use....

13 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

I was saying I see the 7 xfering w/ other bee-line bronx routes than the 6.

But still the 6 at the bronx doesn't sound that bad I just want to make the Airport Service less stress that's all  

I get your rationale for running #6's to the airport, I simply don't concur with the route choice (I still think it should be with the BL-12, since White Plains is the proximate major hub, not to mention that I'm not convinced that Lower Westchester patrons are really seeking access to the airport like that, but whatever).... Not once have I said that the idea was a bad one... It's merely a matter of preference... Hell, some think that the #3 should run to the airport - I don't concur with running an express from [The Bronx & Yonkers] to [White Plains & HPN] either....

Whatever you're trying to say with the #7 is still unclear to me... There are already a bunch of Bee Line routes that can be xferred to in Downtown Yonkers off the BL-7... Running it down to Mt. St. Vincent doesn't would only open the door (pun unintended) to connections to MTA routes....

13 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

And what Freudian Slip I'm just trying to be nice I don't want to sound mean if I just said this is making me laugh a little I feel like saying that might be disrespectful but lets leave those emotions alone. 

Yeah.... Just know that it comes off very backhanded.

The thing is, you didn't even have to disclose that emotion to begin with... Let's just have the discussion about the routes & opine on how to make the network better.

13 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

And yes dolla vans lets just hope they don't end up like those in Brooklyn. 

The service still exists here... They just don't use physical vans anymore, they use minibuses (on Flatbush & on Utica)... More potential to make more money per trip.

[40 to 241st]

37 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not worried about you supporting it or not, but your counterarguments are lacking substance here.... You're continuing to defend the Warburton folks for whatever the reason.... You have yet to convey/explain why the Warburton folks should have as much service to 242nd as the (more) folks that utilize the #2 north of Getty Sq with this redesigned network.... Telling me that they're going to be pissed, is a lazy & unconvincing argument.... You're never going to satisfy everybody with a public transit system..... In turn, public transit is supposed to exist for the masses - the more demand that's clearly being shown (as in, a route's utilization) by a given bus route, the more frequency it is given (or at the very least, supposed to be given) to adequately address that demand... I don't want to hear about fair, when a certain sect of riders are being given more service to an area than they deserve.

231st has nothing to do with anything here.... Running a route like the #6 between 242nd & White Plains wouldn't be more plausible if the #109 ran down to 231st subway... That's just creating redundancy for the simple sake of it...

You appear to have a problem with limitations.... Every route in a network has a certain role in that network... Every route can't be a highly utilized route... Trying to eliminate xfers by combining lower utilized routes with higher utilized routes, mars the quality of that network....1-seat rides are great, but it's impossible for everyone to have them... Regarding route combinations - In order for the resultant route to be effective, combinations should be done with respect to the quality of both routes (or portions of routes) that are attempting to be combined, to make the resultant route seamless, solid, synergized, whatever synonym/adjective you want to use....

I get your rationale for running #6's to the airport, I simply don't concur with the route choice (I still think it should be with the BL-12, since White Plains is the proximate major hub, not to mention that I'm not convinced that Lower Westchester patrons are really seeking access to the airport like that, but whatever).... Not once have I said that the idea was a bad one... It's merely a matter of preference... Hell, some think that the #3 should run to the airport - I don't concur with running an express from [The Bronx & Yonkers] to [White Plains & HPN] either....

Whatever you're trying to say with the #7 is still unclear to me... There are already a bunch of Bee Line routes that can be xferred to in Downtown Yonkers off the BL-7... Running it down to Mt. St. Vincent doesn't would only open the door (pun unintended) to connections to MTA routes....

Yeah.... Just know that it comes off very backhanded.

The thing is, you didn't even have to disclose that emotion to begin with... Let's just have the discussion about the routes & opine on how to make the network better.

The service still exists here... They just don't use physical vans anymore, they use minibuses (on Flatbush & on Utica)... More potential to make more money per trip.

Okay first of all what the hell does the 2 have to do w/ 1 or 6 at 242ndst you keep mentioning the 2 north of Getty sq this is a disscussion about the 1 and 6 not the 2 the 2 is fine the way it is 

Warburton folks mainly use the 1 to go south of Getty Sq  mostly 242ndst that why I said the 109 could run to 231st   it's not redundant when the Warburton people get to go the  The 6 would get Warburton people from Dobbs Ferry to Hastings then go the Subway when most people use the 1 north of Getty Sq to stop around JFK Marina which isn't served by the 6 that's why the 1 got truncated there, I don't really like the sound of that either 

So i don't think you understand that the 9 clones the 2 if you made it a loop that's fine then turn the 101 into a stand alone route that's also good but making the 9 look like an extended 2 from Getty Sq to Odell Av I don't think that sounds good I never said every route has to be high utilized otherwise I wouldn't propose routes to lower crowds on the 2,4,7,20,60, and  more so I'm saying I don't get your point w/ the 9 staying as proposed but the 101 is fine as it is it should be rerouted on Tibbets Brook Park and keep the 9 proposed and end it at tibbets brook park. 

I never said you hate the idea of the 6 at the Airport I don't hate the 6 at 242ndst either I don't have an issue w/ it there the 3 I don't mind having it at the Airport I even proposed for it there just like the others.  

I said the 7 isn't the only way to we could put buses at 263st as I said I just saw how busy the 8 is and they can't put 60footers on the line b/c of the tight turns on the route they had to put 3 40footers like I mentioned before during morning rush hour all on the same trip. 

 

 

 

 

 

[B35 via Church]

15 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

Okay first of all what the hell does the 2 have to do w/ 1 or 6 at 242ndst you keep mentioning the 2 north of Getty sq this is a disscussion about the 1 and 6 not the 2 the 2 is fine the way it is 

Warburton folks mainly use the 1 to go south of Getty Sq  mostly 242ndst that why I said the 109 could run to 231st   it's not redundant when the Warburton people get to go the  The 6 would get Warburton people from Dobbs Ferry to Hastings then go the Subway when most people use the 1 north of Getty Sq to stop around JFK Marina which isn't served by the 6 that's why the 1 got truncated there, I don't really like the sound of that either 

I don't get what it is you don't get about Bee Line proposing similar service levels for the #1 & the #2, when they BOTH run the same course between 242nd & Getty Sq.... That shit cancels each other out; anyone traveling between those two destinations can take either route.... All you're then left with is the separate routings of the #1 north of Getty Sq. & the #2 north of Getty Sq.... So yes, along with the #6's portion north of Getty Sq within Yonkers, I'm going to factor in & compare the respective sections of all three of those routes north of Getty Sq....

Furthermore, nobody said anything about the BL-2 not being fine the way it is - but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to mention the route, like honestly now.... Let's not sit here & act like the BL-1 & the BL-2 in their totalities have absolutely nothing to do with each other, when it is Bee Line themselves that's made logistical changes throughout the course of time that has had the BL-2 clearly be the more prevalent route over the BL-1 (Yonkers City Line short turn) from 242nd.... Disagree if you want, but if you honestly don't understand what's being conveyed here after this, IDK what else to tell you....

You're telling me what's not redundant, while conveying redundancy... If you're having #1's run to 242nd, having the #109 run past 242nd to get to 231st (that you're so fixated on for whatever reason) is not only redundant by adding an unnecessary layer of bus service along the same corridor (Warburton), it's also redundant as it pertains to connecting to the ... OTP would be down the toilet if buses were to run to down 231st; the turnaround & layover scenario would loom more detrimental around 231st than around 242nd....

Sure, there are Warburton folks that use it to get to the ... And my point is that there aren't enough of them, compared to the #2 within Yonkers & the #6 within Yonkers.... Since you want to act like the #2 has no bearing in any of this, yes, I would phase out that #1 to support running #6's to 242nd.... Anyone along Warburton seeking points south of Getty Sq. would have to xfer (just like anyone coming off the #109 would).....

As far as #1's (or anything else) ending at JFK Marina/Park, yeah I don't concur with ending buses there either....

15 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

So i don't think you understand that the 9 clones the 2 if you made it a loop that's fine then turn the 101 into a stand alone route that's also good but making the 9 look like an extended 2 from Getty Sq to Odell Av I don't think that sounds good I never said every route has to be high utilized otherwise I wouldn't propose routes to lower crowds on the 2,4,7,20,60, and  more so I'm saying I don't get your point w/ the 9 staying as proposed but the 101 is fine as it is it should be rerouted on Tibbets Brook Park and keep the 9 proposed and end it at tibbets brook park. 

I'm purposely ignoring your point of the #9 quote-unquote cloning the #2, because it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the #9 should be combined with a route like the #101....

Furthermore, I never said the #9 should stay as proposed, I said the #9 & the #101 shouldn't be combined.... Let's not obfuscate & misconstrue things here.

15 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

I said the 7 isn't the only way to we could put buses at 263st as I said I just saw how busy the 8 is and they can't put 60footers on the line b/c of the tight turns on the route they had to put 3 40footers like I mentioned before during morning rush hour all on the same trip.

Yeah, so again, they should throw more service on the #8... IDRC if they use 40 or 60 footers - If Bee Line (seemingly) has little rhyme to reason as to what routes they throw 60 footers on, then I'm not going to get waste much energy as to musing about what fleet should go towards what route......

So would you run #7's to Mt St. Vincent, or are you rescinding that suggestion of yours?

[40 to 241st]

4 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I don't get what it is you don't get about Bee Line proposing similar service levels for the #1 & the #2, when they BOTH run the same course between 242nd & Getty Sq.... That shit cancels each other out; anyone traveling between those two destinations can take either route.... All you're then left with is the separate routings of the #1 north of Getty Sq. & the #2 north of Getty Sq.... So yes, along with the #6's portion north of Getty Sq within Yonkers, I'm going to factor in & compare the respective sections of all three of those routes north of Getty Sq....

You're telling me what's not redundant, while conveying redundancy... If you're having #1's run to 242nd, having the #109 run past 242nd to get to 231st (that you're so fixated on for whatever reason) is not only redundant by adding an unnecessary layer of bus service along the same corridor (Warburton), it's also redundant as it pertains to connecting to the ... OTP would be down the toilet if buses were to run to down 231st; the turnaround & layover scenario would loom more detrimental around 231st than around 242nd....

Sure, there are Warburton folks that use it to get to the ... And my point is that there aren't enough of them, compared to the #2 within Yonkers & the #6 within Yonkers.... Since you want to act like the #2 has no bearing in any of this, yes, I would phase out that #1 to support running #6's to 242nd.... Anyone along Warburton seeking points south of Getty Sq. would have to xfer (just like anyone coming off the #109 would).....

As far as #1's (or anything else) ending at JFK Marina/Park, yeah I don't concur with ending buses there either....

I'm purposely ignoring your point of the #9 quote-unquote cloning the #2, because it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the #9 should be combined with a route like the #101....

Yeah, so again, they should throw more service on the #8... IDRC if they use 40 or 60 footers - If Bee Line (seemingly) has little rhyme to reason as to what routes they throw 60 footers on, then I'm not going to get waste much energy as to musing about what fleet should go towards what route......

So would you run #7's to Mt St. Vincent, or are you rescinding that suggestion of yours?

I never said anything about the 2 before you kept bringing it up I said the 109 can run to 231st via riverdale if there's no 1 route when did I say the 109 was passing 242ndst that's just a bigger argument on deleting route 1. Your supposed to tell me how the 6 is supposed to replace the 1. I already understand the 2 part. 

How do you compare the 1 to the 6 when the 6 stops at Tudor Woods and Executive Bvld so it's like a rerouted 2 to w/ an extension to White Plains so thanks for finding way to piss off the Warburton folks. Your giving the 2 riders extra service and the 1 people an xfer well xfer my ass. 

This is why the 1 should be at Dobbs Ferry and not the park but should be deleted if I had the 109 serve the subway.

The 9 cloning the 2 is an argument to combine it w/ the 101 so you just complained that the 109 would be an unecessary layer if it went to 231st and crossed 242st w/ the 1 around the 9 splits off from the 2 at some places but I said people can use this reduce the crowd on the 2.  

I have to do some thinking for the 7

 

[B35 via Church]

12 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

I never said anything about the 2 before you kept bringing it up I said the 109 can run to 231st via riverdale if there's no 1 route when did I say the 109 was passing 242ndst that's just a bigger argument on deleting route 1. Your supposed to tell me how the 6 is supposed to replace the 1. I already understand the 2 part. 

Alright, now you're just being disingenuous here... I broke it down in more than one post in this discussion to you.... I've repeated myself in this thread long enough.

12 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

How do you compare the 1 to the 6 when the 6 stops at Tudor Woods and Executive Bvld so it's like a rerouted 2 to w/ an extension to White Plains so thanks for finding way to piss off the Warburton folks. Your giving the 2 riders extra service and the 1 people an xfer well xfer my ass. 

This is why the 1 should be at Dobbs Ferry and not the park but should be deleted if I had the 109 serve the subway.

I'm not interested in your ass, nor whatever Warburton folks you want to defend that would be "pissed" off in my scenario, because they don't use the buses in potent enough numbers....

Furthermore, routes don't have to run the same course to be compared to each other (and yes, you are implicating that).... Are you seriously even posing that question....

12 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 9 cloning the 2 is an argument to combine it w/ the 101 so you just complained that the 109 would be an unecessary layer if it went to 231st and crossed 242st

w/ the 1 around the 9 splits off from the 2 at some places but I said people can use this reduce the crowd on the 2.  

So instead of the #9, you'd have the #101 clone the #2 up there... Big deal... Something would still be cloning the #2 up there in that scenario....

You've been making this sticking point about cloning, as if something should be done to do away with it.

[40 to 241st]

4 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

 

So instead of the #9, you'd have the #101 clone the #2 up there... Big deal... Something would still be cloning the #2 up there in that scenario....

You've been making this sticking point about cloning, as if something should be done to do away with it.

The 101 would at least serve the Subway  and not end at the Yonkers RR like the 9 I don't have to get more into detail I'm not repeat my self again the 9 is like an extension of from Tudor Woods to Odell Av and then end at Yonkers RR a walking distance from the 2 and like I said there's other ways to handle the 9 I don't want that route looking like a laughing stock no route should.   

[B35 via Church]

14 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

The 101 would at least serve the Subway  and not end at the Yonkers RR like the 9 I don't have to get more into detail I'm not repeat my self again the 9 is like an extension of from Tudor Woods to Odell Av and then end at Yonkers RR a walking distance from the 2 and like I said there's other ways to handle the 9 I don't want that route looking like a laughing stock no route should.   

Nobody's asking you to go into more detail.... I know what the #9 is & does & I get your rationale for your combination... I just don't agree with it... With what you've been conveying thus far, you are only looking at it from the aspect of how it benefits #9 riders & not how a combination would weaken/worsen/wane the purpose of the #101 in the network

I've never disclosed in this discussion what I would do with the #9 singularly, but of course it was easier for you to assume that I would leave it as proposed (which I wouldn't, so your point about it resembling a laughing stock, is another instance of preaching to the choir)....

Edited May 21, 2023 by B35 via Church

[40 to 241st]

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

Nobody's asking you to go into more detail.... I know what the #9 is & does & I get your rationale for your combination... I just don't agree with it... With what you've been conveying thus far, you are only looking at it from the aspect of how it benefits #9 riders & not how a combination would weaken/worsen/wane the purpose of the #101 in the network

I've never disclosed what I would do with the #9 singularly, but of course it was easier for you to assume that I would leave it as proposed (which I wouldn't, so your point about it resembling a laughing stock, is another instance of preaching to the choir)....

So what would you do w/ the 9 and the 101 riders wouldn't have it any worse b/c some of the trips are going to short-term at Getty Sq that's one who said you don't know the 9. No one is stopping you from giving your 9 proposal give it. I said the 9 can also end at tibbets brook park where in my last comment did I say that your keeping it as proposed all I said is that I don't like it as proposed 

[B35 via Church]

39 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

So what would you do w/ the 9 and the 101 riders wouldn't have it any worse b/c some of the trips are going to short-term at Getty Sq that's one who said you don't know the 9. No one is stopping you from giving your 9 proposal give it. I said the 9 can also end at tibbets brook park

I thought you said you weren't going to repeat yourself, but here you are parroting the #9 serving that park.... lol.

I already stated that I would leave the #101 as a standalone route.... As for the #9, outside of what I said in an older post in another thread, I'll give it some more thought some other time...

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

 

39 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

where in my last comment did I say that your keeping it as proposed all I said is that I don't like it as proposed 

It wasn't your last comment (nor did it have to be), but in a previous reply of yours, you said:

3 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

So i don't think you understand that the 9 clones the 2 if you made it a loop that's fine then turn the 101 into a stand alone route that's also good but making the 9 look like an extended 2 from Getty Sq to Odell Av I don't think that sounds good I never said every route has to be high utilized otherwise I wouldn't propose routes to lower crowds on the 2,4,7,20,60, and  more so I'm saying I don't get your point w/ the 9 staying as proposed but the 101 is fine as it is it should be rerouted on Tibbets Brook Park and keep the 9 proposed and end it at tibbets brook park.

Edited May 21, 2023 by B35 via Church

[40 to 241st]

7 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I thought you said you weren't going to repeat yourself, but here you are parroting the #9 serving that park.... lol.

I already stated that I would leave the #101 as a standalone route.... As for the #9, outside of what I said in an older post in another thread, I'll give it some more thought some other time...

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

 

It wasn't your last comment (nor did it have to be), but in a previous reply of yours, you said:

Didn't we handle me saying you would keep it as proposed already so what's the point in repeating your self that's why I said what I said. 

[B35 via Church]

7 minutes ago, 40 to 241st said:

Didn't we handle me saying you would keep it as proposed already so what's the point in repeating your self that's why I said what I said. 

No, we didn't, because you just sat up there & asked me where did you say that I said I would keep the #9 as proposed... I don't give a damn if it wasn't in a penultimate post, you said what you said..... Now that the evidence has been presented, you're acting funny style with this, what's the point in repeating myself.... The point is to prove that you said what you said, in relation to what you just asked me, that's what....

Go argue with the 4 walls, because I'm not playing this game with you.

[40 to 241st]

Just now, B35 via Church said:

No, we didn't, because you just sat up there & asked me where did you say that I said I would keep the #9 as proposed... I don't give a damn if it wasn't in a penultimate post, you said what you said..... Now that the evidence has been presented, you're acting funny style with this, what's the point in repeating myself.... The point is to prove that you said what you said, in relation to what you just asked me, that's what....

Go argue with the 4 walls, because I'm not playing this game with you.

What game you told me you didn't want to keep this as proposed before saying this again 

 

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

 

Furthermore, I never said the #9 should stay as proposed, I said the #9 & the #101 shouldn't be combined.... Let's not obfuscate & misconstrue things here.

 

 

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

 

I've never disclosed in this discussion what I would do with the #9 singularly, but of course it was easier for you to assume that I would leave it as proposed (which I wouldn't, so your point about it resembling a laughing stock, is another instance of preaching to the choir)....

So see here's my evidence that you repeated your self don't tell me what's a game, so I asked you for what you'd do w/ the 9 for that reason this is not an argument on what was said. I said something once you corrected me on it that's handled. Then you repeat yourself again like I said it again. This is supposed to be where we disscuss on what to do w/ each route not what somebody said vs didn't say.  

[checkmatechamp13]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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

In this proposal, would the BL-9 run across Executive Blvd from Broadway to Nepperhan, or would it loop around Enterprise Blvd and head back? I think it's important to maintain access from Nepperhan & Odell as well, given the steep hill in that area.

Perhaps the BL-1 (or some variant of it) can head up Odell to terminate at the Executive Park, and provide a connection between the areas down the hill on Warburton and the hospital and office park at the top of the hill.

I just realized, what is the current turnaround scenario for the BL-1 at the Yonkers City Line? Do they use that parking lot over there, or something else?

Edited May 21, 2023 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I generally thought there should be some Northern Westchester - White Plains link, and I've had several concepts for them but never really definitively thought of one.

I have it going to Peekskill RR since the runtime wouldn't require any additional resources, and in the process getting whatever amount of riders from Metro North trains. So on top of being a White Plains area express/commuter route, it would also be a Metro-North feeder route at no added cost.  Using the existing route 15 timetable and estimating runtimes via the Taconic based on google maps estimate (+some extra cushion), having buses express between WMC and Yorktown Heights would save at the very least 20 minutes, in most cases around 25 minutes. The new runtime between White Plains and Peekskill would still be 90 minutes or greater, meaning the three hour cycle previously alluded to cannot be done. Four buses would be needed, and the Peekskill RR extension would add some runtime but still allow enough recovery time. 

As far as your proposed 17, would this route run similar in service levels to today's 17? Also given this proposal I would presume you would have the 14 running via Verplanck? For the latter I can agree with that (while also getting rid of that Verplanck Microtransit zone).  Verplanck is walkable by suburban standards, you can usually make your way to the 14 in that area fairly easily, even if the bus doesn't run directly on your street. That microtransit zone is one of the several pointless ones in this plan. 

For context, I would split the proposed final #14 (with modifications to each split),.... With that said, scheduling & frequency-wise, yeah, I'd more or less run a 17 of sorts, similar to the current BL-17... IIRC, it's similar to the BL-43 in that it only has 3 trips in each direction... I would add another trip in each direction & divvy up their departure times during the PM rush better, instead of having 2 consecutive BL-17's sandwiched between two BL-14's...

As far as Verplanck goes, I absolutely would have (a northern split of) their #14 directly serving it.... Of the times I've rode the #14 on weekdays towards Peekskill, it seems like most its (Verplanck's) patrons disembark at that first stop after it crosses the lake....

13 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

With respect to the 101, on top of what is being mentioned, what also irks me is the 101/107 overlap, and on top of that the decision to serve different subway stations (107 to 233rd Street, 101 to Nereid Avenue). This makes it annoying for riders coming off trains to the bus. I personally don't see the need for two buses to the  on White Plains Road from points along Sandford Boulevard, especially the way they have it there.

Given that the 53 was brought up, I'm wondering if there is some way to restructure the 53 where you can gut both the 42 and the 107. That way the resources on those routes can be divided up between the 53 and 101, with a greater share on weekdays going to the 101 (and more to the 53 on weekends). So basically an iteration of the route which goes to Mount Vernon and covers where most of the existing 42 demand would come from, to/from Mount Vernon in particular (to/from its current south). 

The #107 is supposed to be the "answer" to the backtracking of the Bronx bound BL-42 (where it serves Downtown Mt. Vernon before reaching the subway).... Part of the problem is that it (107) does a bit of backtracking itself -although not near as stark as the BL-42... Having worked in that general area around the BL-42/54/55, I can definitely see folks utilizing the #107 or the #101 over the #42... I'm of the belief that they have the #107 ending at 233rd b/c coming from the east, it's more infeasible turning buses around Nereid... Coming from the west (of Nereid) like the current BL-25/26 does, it's a little more feasible... It's one reason why I'd have the #107 run w/ the #101 to Bronx River rd (via Nereid ), etc. to try to make more use of it.... Basically, I don't mind the overlap of the two routes, but having the #101 & the #107 serve 2 different WPR stations I'm not too high on either....

As far as your #53 inquiry, two questions (well, three):

1] Would the bias, or gravitation of more service be towards the #53 (over the #101) on weekends, due to the #7 covering Mt. Vernon - New Roc?

2a] IDK what you mean at the very end there when you say "(to/from its current south)"... Do you mean from its current southern terminal?

2b] In your inquiry regarding phasing out the #42 & #107. I'm trying to figure out where you'd have a route like the #53 ultimately run between (in terms of end terminals).... I'm not certain if you'd want to have a 53 of sorts serving the subway (e/g, via the current BL-42 west of S. 5th st), or if your aim is to have a 53 serve as an intra Mt. Vernon route (kind of like the current BL-54's role in the network), as a sort of gap filler b/w Petrillo Plaza & Sandford (to have the #101 handle matters along Sandford towards Nereid )...

If it helps, what I can tell you is that most of the existing demand on the #42 within Mt. Vernon is b/w [W. 1st/S. 5th] & [the Target along E. Sandford]...

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

In this proposal, would the BL-9 run across Executive Blvd from Broadway to Nepperhan, or would it loop around Enterprise Blvd and head back? I think it's important to maintain access from Nepperhan & Odell as well, given the steep hill in that area.

Perhaps the BL-1 (or some variant of it) can head up Odell to terminate at the Executive Park, and provide a connection between the areas down the hill on Warburton and the hospital and office park at the top of the hill.

I definitely had the latter in mind (loop around Enterprise & head back down to serve the Hospital, etc).... With the way the current BL-9 is structured, you can't even board along Neps to access the executive park (and all the eateries up there now).... The BL-9 only runs in the clockwise direction (as in, up Palisade, etc, to eventually head back towards Downtown Yonkers via Neps).... I honestly don't know if there's enough demand from along/around Neps' to perhaps running a couple short turn BL-5's up to that whole complex....

The proposed final #9 attempts to address it somewhat, by having it terminate by the Public Works Facility along Nepperhan, just south of Odell, after turning down Executive blvd.... I don't believe that part of the proposal will even fall through, because as stated in the PDF for the official summary of these proposals:

"This alignment for Route 9 assumes permission is granted to use the Yonkers Public Works facility as a turnaround."

Never mind how tacky I think that is to have buses doing that, I'd say the city of Yonkers would reject that out of GP...

Edited May 21, 2023 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I just realized, what is the current turnaround scenario for the BL-1 at the Yonkers City Line? Do they use that parking lot over there, or something else?

I just realized you edited your post to inquire this... When your post popped up as a new post, I was still replying to BM5's post.

Anyway, nah, it runs north of that parking lot to turnaround... There's a niche that's carved out along Warburton about mid-way between the City Line stop & the next NB stop for the letter branches.

Right overrr.... Here

Edited May 21, 2023 by B35 via Church

[Lawrence St]

16 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

"This alignment for Route 9 assumes permission is granted to use the Yonkers Public Works facility as a turnaround."

Never mind how tacky I think that is to have buses doing that, I'd say the city of Yonkers would reject that out of GP...

This is exactly why I said to leave it running to Getty Square at that point.

I'd much rather extend it to end at 475 Garage right where that 78 bus stop is.

[40 to 241st]

46 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

This is exactly why I said to leave it running to Getty Square at that point.

I'd much rather extend it to end at 475 Garage right where that 78 bus stop is.

were is the 475 garage

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 5/21/2023 at 6:01 PM, B35 via Church said:

The #107 is supposed to be the "answer" to the backtracking of the Bronx bound BL-42 (where it serves Downtown Mt. Vernon before reaching the subway).... Part of the problem is that it (107) does a bit of backtracking itself -although not near as stark as the BL-42... Having worked in that general area around the BL-42/54/55, I can definitely see folks utilizing the #107 or the #101 over the #42... I'm of the belief that they have the #107 ending at 233rd b/c coming from the east, it's more infeasible turning buses around Nereid... Coming from the west (of Nereid) like the current BL-25/26 does, it's a little more feasible... It's one reason why I'd have the #107 run w/ the #101 to Bronx River rd (via Nereid ), etc. to try to make more use of it.... Basically, I don't mind the overlap of the two routes, but having the #101 & the #107 serve 2 different WPR stations I'm not too high on either....

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case with the turnaround scenario for the 107 (and I can kinda see why), altogether yeah they need to rethink that setup.

I guess the general consensus here is that having the 42/101/107 routed as is, is excessive. I guess where the difference lies is on how to deal with that. Personally I think the southern Mount Vernon to Bronx demand (and vice versa) should be dealt with one route, which I would do so with the 101. Understandably some sections further north from Sandford may not be walkable to/from the 101, which is where I could see the 107 come in. Ridership within Mount Vernon I see the 42 doing a better job of handling, and that's without considering the contrast of service levels between the two routes. Overall, while I get what you're saying with the 107 my concern is that it becomes a route suitable for select bases which may not be sufficient enough. It also does not seem like they want to dedicate too many resources on the thing, with it not even running on Sundays. 

On 5/21/2023 at 6:01 PM, B35 via Church said:

As far as your #53 inquiry, two questions (well, three):

1] Would the bias, or gravitation of more service be towards the #53 (over the #101) on weekends, due to the #7 covering Mt. Vernon - New Roc?

2a] IDK what you mean at the very end there when you say "(to/from its current south)"... Do you mean from its current southern terminal?

2b] In your inquiry regarding phasing out the #42 & #107. I'm trying to figure out where you'd have a route like the #53 ultimately run between (in terms of end terminals).... I'm not certain if you'd want to have a 53 of sorts serving the subway (e/g, via the current BL-42 west of S. 5th st), or if your aim is to have a 53 serve as an intra Mt. Vernon route (kind of like the current BL-54's role in the network), as a sort of gap filler b/w Petrillo Plaza & Sandford (to have the #101 handle matters along Sandford towards Nereid )...

If it helps, what I can tell you is that most of the existing demand on the #42 within Mt. Vernon is b/w [W. 1st/S. 5th] & [the Target along E. Sandford]...

To answer the questions:

1] It was really more because there's no proposed 53 service in this plan on weekends. So naturally to have headways which are somewhat reasonable to deal with, it would need a bigger share of the distribution of resources. I consider 30 minute headways to be the limit of what's considered "somewhat reasonable". I don't see the 53 needing more than that on weekends, no matter how it would be changed. 

2a] I was referring to ridership on the 42 south/east of Mount Vernon. Not necessarily from New Rochelle, but predominantly from within Mount Vernon (after the proposed 42 and 101 split ways). 

2b] I would probably consider either or, but from what it looks like, from it being a realistic option, it cannot be both. To make it a little more clear, I was thinking of having something that covers subway riders along 3rd Street and South Fulton Ave, while covering the demand to/from Downtown Mount Vernon. Giving it some thought, I've thought of doing the following:

Option 1: 

53: Wakefield - 241st Street station to Parkway Plaza in Chester Heights or North & 5th Aves in New Rochelle. 

- Operates via 3rd Street, Fifth Avenue, and Pelhamdale Ave/New Rochelle Road (to Parkway Plaza) or Mayflower Ave (to New Rochelle)

- Between Fulton and Columbus Aves, buses would operate via 4th/5th Streets

42: Petrillo Plaza to Sandford & Columbus (with potential extension to Pelham Manor Shopping Center via Columbus Ave and Pelham Parkway). 

Option 2: 

53: Petrillo Plaza to Parkway Plaza, via existing route 42 down to Colonial Ave & Wolfs Lane, then up Wolfs Lane / Fifth Ave / Pelhamdale Ave/ New Rochelle Road (to Parkway Plaza):

51: Wakefield - 241st Street station to Pelham MNRR Station

- Operates via 3rd Street & Fifth Avenue 

- Between Fulton and Columbus Aves, buses would operate via 4th/5th Streets

Edited May 23, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lawrence St]

NYCDOT and WDOT need to come together on a compromise with Boston Road. People continually will board the 60/61 with the Bx30’s running nearly empty and delaying most passengers who are trying to get to New Rochelle and White Plains.

For one, the Bx30 needs short turns to that shopping complex near Ropes Ave in Pelham, and the 60/61 need to be closed door in the Bronx. The Bx30 should also run to Fordham or Univ Heights Station to supplement the Bx12 Local.

[40 to 241st]

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

NYCDOT and WDOT need to come together on a compromise with Boston Road. People continually will board the 60/61 with the Bx30’s running nearly empty and delaying most passengers who are trying to get to New Rochelle and White Plains.

For one, the Bx30 needs short turns to that shopping complex near Ropes Ave in Pelham, and the 60/61 need to be closed door in the Bronx. The Bx30 should also run to Fordham or Univ Heights Station to supplement the Bx12 Local.

I'd keep the 60/61 open door in the Bronx but the Bx30 dosen't carry air as it makes the Boston Road Corridor more frequent at the maximum it caries 42 passengers. 

[Lawrence St]

4 hours ago, 40 to 241st said:

I'd keep the 60/61 open door in the Bronx but the Bx30 dosen't carry air as it makes the Boston Road Corridor more frequent at the maximum it caries 42 passengers. 

I feel like all you've done is rant in this thread with no data to back it up and consistently argue back and forth with the rest of us. That's fine & dandy that it carries a max of 42 passengers, as does every other LFS in NYC.

[40 to 241st]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I feel like all you've done is rant in this thread with no data to back it up and consistently argue back and forth with the rest of us. That's fine & dandy that it carries a max of 42 passengers, as does every other LFS in NYC.

I do have data, I try my best to get the research I can get. The Bx30 of course wouldn't have that much riders b/c of it's frequency. I ride most of these routes on a daily basis some Mta but most Bee-line. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but the 60/61 it's one thing to have it closed door southbound but northbound closed door in the bronx now your pissing people off and of course you will say I lack data b/c your mad that everyone here is on my side w/ the 42.