|
|
| NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line (265316) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (265316) | |
NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by SJP7121 on Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2012 The 62 is getting a new major overhall.
|
|
|
| (265324) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Fri Aug 17 23:32:01 2012, in response to NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by SJP7121 on Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2012. As long as the new route has two branches, each branch should have gotten its own number - and both 47 and 49 are available. |
|
|
| (265327) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sat Aug 18 03:36:07 2012, in response to NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by SJP7121 on Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2012. Of course, a typographical error on the new 48 timetable:"The new 48 Line operates between Elizabeth (Broad and Jersey Streets) and all Southern destinations formally served by the 62 Line, including Perth Amboy, Woodbridge Center Mall, Metropark and Rahway." What is not clear is whether there is a continuing trip privilege available, or if through passengers going past Elizabeth will effectively have a fare increase. |
|
|
| (265331) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 18 19:54:38 2012, in response to NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by SJP7121 on Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2012. Man, they really screwed this one up. Should have operated the 62 through to Rahway at least. Now St. Georges Avenue is cut off from any direct service north of Elizabeth into the airport. And the two branches should have had separate numbers. |
|
|
| (265332) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 18 19:57:14 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Fri Aug 17 23:32:01 2012. Why did they even pick 48? Usually any bus starting in Union County is 5X, at least under the numbering scheme NJT invented. But as far as those numbers go, NJT doesn't have 45, 46 or 47.49 would have led to confusion since the 59 used to be the 49 not very long ago. |
|
|
| (265336) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by kknj on Sat Aug 18 22:25:08 2012, in response to NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by SJP7121 on Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2012. I agree with the above responses. I thought that the service plan published last year called for the split to be at Rahway, not Elizabeth. Rahway would have allowed them to also split the two branches into separate numbers, thus a 3-way split at that point and of course, good feeder service from 3 different directions to the rail lines in Rahway. And I thought the southern branches would have been in the 800's series.I think that whatever numbering scheme was put into place when NJ Transit rationalized its bus system after inheriting Public Service and taking over so many private companies, no longer is observed, probably a new generation of planners who make those decisions. The #177 line for example serves Port Authority Terminal even though it is in the 170-189 range which was conceived for George Washington Bridge Bus Terminal routes. The #2, #6, and #10, while taken over from private companies in Hudson County, defy the 80's numbering range that originally was assigned to that area (though admittedly they ran out of numbers). |
|
|
| (265345) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 19 12:06:25 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by kknj on Sat Aug 18 22:25:08 2012. The #2, #6, and #10, while taken over from private companies in Hudson County, defy the 80s numbering range that originally was assigned to that area (though admittedly they ran out of numbers)That they did, and they should have reserved some other set of numbers for Hudson County. Of course, if they had exchanged their database for alphanumeric instead of numeric (they still use the obsolete software from the 80s), then they could have invented new alpha prefixes, thereby keeping the original route numbers, and preserved the prefixes from Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth and Middlesex counties. However, it looks like NJT prefers superfluous spending instead of taking care of the real nuts and bolts. (It's still a good idea that they no longer have two different buses with route number 1 leaving from Journal Square, though; but with alpha prefixes, at least you'd be able to distinguish as well as having two separate route numbers.) I don't see the new route 48 doing well as planned here. The St. Georges Avenue corridor should have a direct ride to the airport at least. |
|
|
| (265346) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Dr. Casca on Sun Aug 19 13:08:16 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 19 12:06:25 2012. Agreed. They should have at least overlapped the two routes, extending the 62 to at least Rahway and the 48 to Newark Airport. Run all 48s on 1&9, and all 62s via IKEA. |
|
|
| (265349) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 19 14:03:43 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Dr. Casca on Sun Aug 19 13:08:16 2012. There's still that Middlesex County problem. There's no demand for direct bus service between Elizabeth/Linden and Perth Amboy that I can see, and it's still confusing between the Colonia and Carteret branches of the route (whether present 62 or future 48).And that reminds me: When they were breaking the route 39 in two (hence the newer route 30 to North Arlington Loop), why didn't they consider bringing back the route number 48 for at least one of the two segments? Either that or—remember the 39/48?—I don't remember its predecessor insofar as which ran through Kearny and/or Irvington, but resurrecting route 14 for Newark-Chancellor Avenue (via Clinton Place) and whatever route number ran to/from Harrison/Kearny/North Arlington Loop as well as whatever route ran to Valley Fair, restore those numbers too. (Funny how we march forward to the past.) |
|
|
| (265356) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Flxible4life on Sun Aug 19 16:16:18 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 19 12:06:25 2012. We'll have to wait until the next service changes in January of 2013 to get a good idea of both routes: 48 & 62. Remember, NJT is still doing the scorecard and people can voice there case. It's on the website now until late August. Ofcourse, people can vent to customer service. |
|
|
| (265357) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by SJP7121 on Sun Aug 19 17:52:26 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Flxible4life on Sun Aug 19 16:16:18 2012. Yep. If the service that they offer is REALLY bad, NJT can just do a audible and make a immediate schedule and route change BEFORE the January Pick. |
|
|
| (265368) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 02:04:39 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by BusMgr on Sat Aug 18 03:36:07 2012. Well, at least they didn't do this breakup when it was still the 62 Newark-Perth Amboy/New Brunswick line. |
|
|
| (265372) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by JohnnyMints on Mon Aug 20 13:18:28 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 02:04:39 2012. I thought the 134 was the Newark-New Brunswick route?I have an EARLY (from 1981) schedule that's a combined 62/134 timetable. The 62 is shown as running between Newark and Perth Amboy/Woodbridge (with WAY less service than is provided today, but with an express service along the NJ Turnpike to Carteret). The 134 is shown as running between Woodbridge and New Brunswick, presumably that morphed into the M10/810. |
|
|
| (265377) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 20 15:50:05 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by JohnnyMints on Mon Aug 20 13:18:28 2012. Which route is the old PS trolley that ran from Newark to Trenton and Camden ? |
|
|
| (265380) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by JohnnyMints on Mon Aug 20 19:40:35 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 20 15:50:05 2012. I think the 62 and 810 roughly follow the route of the "Trenton Fast Line" South of New Brunswick I'm not too sure... I would guess Suburban Transit's New York-Princeton line and the 600 or 605. |
|
|
| (265382) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:50:27 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by JohnnyMints on Mon Aug 20 13:18:28 2012. Wouldn't mind seeing a scan of that timetable.The 62's express service to Carteret via the NJTP lasted into the very early 90s, IIRC. The "baby express" via Edgar Road and West Grand Avenue (Rahway), some while later than that, but with the service via Frelinghuysen Avenue absent. The oddball Sunday service to/from Port Newark via the Airport, not sure either. |
|
|
| (265383) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:50:34 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by JohnnyMints on Mon Aug 20 19:40:35 2012. AFAICR, the Newark-Trenton Fast Line's right of way south of New Brunswick is occupied by high-tension power lines. The old line is still visible through Dayton. As for north of New Brunswick, not very sure about North Edison and the northern part of Colonia that borders Clark . . . |
|
|
| (265384) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:52:08 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:50:27 2012. PS. Although I never saw a timetable, I have an old Essex County bus map that refers to route 62 as "62 Newark – Perth Amboy – New Brunswick". |
|
|
| (265402) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by JohnnyMints on Tue Aug 21 13:03:11 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:50:34 2012. Right I forgot... many power line ROW's owned by PS were once trolley/interurban ROW's. |
|
|
| (265422) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Aug 21 19:30:19 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by JohnnyMints on Mon Aug 20 19:40:35 2012. I was thinking 600 & 409.Suburban was a separate franchise. |
|
|
| (265423) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Aug 21 19:32:40 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:52:08 2012. In New Brunswick in the 1960's, Suburban had a bunch of Orange, Old-Look GM, gasoline Toro-Flows or Hydromatics. What were those routes ? |
|
|
| (265442) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by kknj on Wed Aug 22 02:01:32 2012, in response to NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by SJP7121 on Fri Aug 17 20:21:32 2012. I've said before that the current 62 should be cut up into smaller pieces to act as feeders to the rail lines. SIX NJT rail stations are served by this line, and much of it with half hourly or better service on weekdays. The 62 serves Newark-Penn, Elizabeth-Broad Street, Rahway, Metropark, Woodbridge, and Perth Amboy.Under this new split creating the 48 and shorter 62, the 62 will still serve 2 rail stations, and the 48 will serve FIVE (all but Newark-Penn). When the Newark Airport station was built, the intention was to put more passengers onto the rail system and have them use the AirTrain between there and the airline terminals. The 48 will still feed into rail stations where passengers can access the airport via the Northeast Corridor and North Jersey Coast Lines. And the train will be much faster than the bus ride, which will now also include a bus-to-bus transfer in Elizabeth, where again near the same corner one can also take a train. |
|
|
| (265450) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by JohnnyMints on Wed Aug 22 10:38:13 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 20 23:50:27 2012. Here you go.I bought it along with a bunch of others at one of the model railroad/trolley meets in New Brunswick. By reviewing some of my other material, I've surmised that at one time, the full 134 basically followed the 62 route from Newark to where it split in Rahway and then ran to Woodbridge and New Brunswick; basically became the Woodbridge branch of the 62. This timetable shows the 134 after it was cut up, as a Woodbridge-New Brunswick route, which eventually became the 810. So basically, after 1 September, the 134 will continue to live on as the 62/48/810 combination. |
|
|
| (265457) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 22 13:45:07 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by kknj on Wed Aug 22 02:01:32 2012. The thing is that unless you ride frequently enough to get a monthly pass, getting to the airport station is expensive. (They charge $5.50 for the AirTrain) |
|
|
| (265463) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Aug 22 16:54:44 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by kknj on Wed Aug 22 02:01:32 2012. NJR rail service doesn't run at rapid transit intervals, weekend trains are clustered, the 62 runs more often, and the monorail is a rip-off since NJT decided to be bagman for the Port Authority and charge over and above $5. The fare got caught up with one fare increase, and only recently has the NY surcharge been cut to $7.50. |
|
|
| (265523) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 23 13:14:29 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Joe V on Wed Aug 22 16:54:44 2012. Places like Carteret haven't seen rail service since the 60s, too (on the Elizabethport & Perth Amboy branch of the CNJ, and the Sound Shore to a lesser degree). |
|
|
| (265525) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 23 13:16:27 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 22 13:45:07 2012. Forget about riding from stations south of EWR. That's why the 62 was the way to go even after EWR opened. |
|
|
| (265882) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by kknj on Thu Aug 30 13:47:05 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by BusMgr on Sat Aug 18 03:36:07 2012. Here is the latest NJT announcement regarding the 48 and 62, which addresses the continuing trip issue:A continuing trip ticket privilege has been created for customers interchanging at Broad and Jersey streets in Elizabeth between the No. 48 and No. 62 lines in order to allow travel between zones 1 & 2 on the No. 62 line and zones 2-5 on the No. 48 line at no additional fare. |
|
|
| (265885) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Thu Aug 30 14:02:59 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by kknj on Thu Aug 30 13:47:05 2012. That's good for route 62 passengers. But I've never understood a rationale for imposing a extra fee for a standard transfer in the first place. The passenger who does not have the benefit of a single route connecting origin and destination, and who must transfer to complete such travel, does not receive a benefit. Transfers are an inconvenience, and to impose an additional charge on top simply does not make good policy sense.There is a case for a nominal transfer fee--perhaps 5 or 10 cents, but certainly no more than 25 cents--to discourage the taking of unnecessary transfers for resale to others . . . but even that is unnecessary when transfers are encoded onto retained fare media cards (such as MetroCard) . . . yet Chicago Transit Authority does so. |
|
|
| (265889) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Aug 30 17:36:04 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by BusMgr on Thu Aug 30 14:02:59 2012. NJT is an anachronism to Public Service (and the Penn Central), so high-floor buses, cash, zone fares, and transfers are all still here.About 7 years ago, on a trip back from Chicago, it was like back to the future when arriving Trenton. In Chicago: Chicagocard, low floor New Flyer bus (RTS & Flxible buses were on the way out). Off train 40 in Trenton onto route 600: jingle for change, get another wad ready for the next zone on the next bus, lug my suitcase up the steps to the beaten up Flxible bus that CTA was phasing out. |
|
|
| (265894) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Flxible4life on Thu Aug 30 19:37:57 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Joe V on Thu Aug 30 17:36:04 2012. Beaten... yes, but durable...no questions ask. |
|
|
| (265896) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Thu Aug 30 19:59:27 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Joe V on Thu Aug 30 17:36:04 2012. Frankly, NJT can't afford to change the zone system, nor should they. Explain it as clearly as possible and hope for the best. Someday, I imagine that they will be able to tap smartcards on the bus that would be told where they are by the farebox. |
|
|
| (265898) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Flxible4life on Thu Aug 30 20:18:13 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by JAzumah on Thu Aug 30 19:59:27 2012. NJ Transit being the 2nd or 3rd largest transit agency in North America is lagging behind on smart card readers and tap cards. There's no excuse for them not to implement a better and or expansion of their fare structure. I'm tired of people digging for loose change and paper bills when boarding on the bus. |
|
|
| (265920) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 31 02:11:58 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by JAzumah on Thu Aug 30 19:59:27 2012. I think NJT probably could afford to eliminate the zone system on local bus routes within New Jersey. To do so the base fare would like have to be a bit higher that a 1-zone fare now. I suspect that the real money issue is on the routes to and from New York City and Philadelphia, and some of the longer routes within New Jersey (e.g. route 67).Many years ago AC Transit had zone fares on all their routes throughout the East Bay. Later, AC eliminated zone charges on local routes, keeping them only for transbay and the handful of express routes into downtown Oakland. While the motivation for the change was to cut back on drivers being beaten up at zone boundaries, I suspect that there was not that much of a revenue impact since not that many passengers ride for a long distance on local bus routes (the trip takes too long). While there may be some people making a 5-zone trip on NJT's route 62 (soon to be 62 + 48), overall, that's not so many people that the elimination of zones on that route would be noticed on a system-wide basis. Nor can I see many people changing from riding the 116 for a quick trip now for a cheaper (and much more tedious) journey on the 62 + PATH. |
|
|
| (265937) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by kknj on Fri Aug 31 13:16:52 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 31 02:11:58 2012. You mean 48 + 62 + PATH. Or 48 + 59 + Newark LRT + PATH (which might be more direct than going via all the Airport terminals. |
|
|
| (265947) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 31 15:02:22 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 31 02:11:58 2012. All the routes in Nassau & Suffolk County were once all zones. Pubic ownership meant flat fare. Non-cash fares also means no transfer charges It does make the S92 a bargain, but hardly anyone goes end to end anyway. |
|
|
| (265949) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Aug 31 15:26:50 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 31 15:02:22 2012. Freudian slip? :) |
|
|
| (265953) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 31 18:14:09 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 31 15:02:22 2012. Yep. Took me a while to catch that. |
|
|
| (265991) | |
Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Sep 1 08:56:03 2012, in response to Re: NJT's New 62 line with the new 48 line, posted by kknj on Fri Aug 31 13:16:52 2012. They have the 24A & 24B run by Coach USA that bypass Newark Airport. |
|
|