Interested Rider

The reason that many riders prefer taking two buses instead of a bus and a train as if there is no elevator at the station, then climbing the stairs is tough especially if you have packages and cannot walk that well. As our population ages, climbing stairs becomes more difficult so the alternative of two buses especially now with all local buses low floor very soon becomes an attractive alternative to a bus/train routing. Do a search of previous threads involving access to subway stations and right there is the best argument for keeping parallel bus service to subway lines. In the era of providing better access for all riders, it is incumbent that if it means that parallel routes to subways be kept, then so be it. My advice to those that are thinking about it to think twice as while you are able to walk steps with no problem right now, think of yourself when you become a senior and are the position of a person who has to travel for medical appointments or shopping. Right then and there, unless the person making the decision is without a heart, they would keep the parallel bus routes.

Kingsborough has had over 50 years to resolve this problem and they did nothing. I attended KCC from 1966 - 1968 and in the 1967 - 1968 year, I was at the Manhattan Beach Campus (the year before the college had a branch at the Manhattan Beach Jewish Center where I attended classes) and the same problems involving the students were around at that time with the difference being the two routes that served Mackenzie Street (the old, old B/1 with 20 minute headways and the B/21). Since that time they have built this beautiful campus but yet KCC did nothing for those students that were taking the bus to school such as incorporating a bus loop which would have alleviated many of the problems. As posted here, other colleges have helped their students by providing either substitute bus service or by working with the MTA in terms of providing a place for the MTA to have its buses stop close to the campus. This is another case where another unit has pushed its problems on the back on the MTA and is forcing the MTA to resolve a problem that they did not create. It is about time that the MTA pushed the problem back to where it belongs onto Kingsborough and get them to resolve a problem that is of their own making and make it abundantly clear that it is their problem to solve and not the MTA. After all, Kingsborough has had over 50 years to resolve the problem so KCC cannot tell the MTA that they will continue to do nothing.

Nothing new on NYCHA as the top position still has not been filled by the Mayor's office. My opinion is that all of the hot air produced by the city, its officials and media was to get more federal funds to bail out the authority. HUD and the president did not bite as it is a city problem and why help New York City (and New York State) when the top elected officials and those in the legislature are only interested in going after the president for his tax returns or for this and that thing that happened before he took office. The president knows that no matter what he will do to placate these individuals they will still vote against him in the presidential election, so the odds of winning the state are slim and none. What disturbs me more than anything else is that the individuals who talk about the federal government helping NYCHA are the same ones that are responsible for the problem in the first place and should be held accountable. They were in charge of HUD and this area under Clinton where there was talk of selling the apartments to the tenants in many of the developments. Just think if this had happened in the trendy neighborhoods of the five boroughs where the tenants who now were owners could have sold their apartments for a nice profit which unfortunately will never happen as the two of them (Cuomo and deBlasio) did not want to do as it would not help fund their useless campaigns for office (or for that matter, higher office). The end result is nothing will be done as the media is not interested as neither is the political establishment as to them it is a non-story. A couple of months from now, we will read a one column item in one of the local papers that will be forgotten about the next day.

Let me update as construction has started on the south parking lane of Avenue Z just east of the bus stop on the east side of East 15th Street. There is no parking on the north side of Avenue Z at that location and all eastbound traffic on Avenue Z is diverted into the westbound lane at that point. The eastbound bus stop at East 15th Street remains in use at that point.

I agree with you as for the eastbound/northbound routing but then what happens when the entire street is closed off at that point? When Sheepshead Bay Road Road was two way from East 17th Street to East 15th Street then there was no problem as the buses could be rerouted. That does not exist now as it is one way from East 14th Street to East 17th Street and the portion from East 14th Street to the Station has become a taxicab parking lot. This is why I posted what I did with the hope that someone in the MTA will look at the post and try to figure out a solution that would be implemented before it becomes one big headache,

I remember when Metrocard was rolled out and the first place was Staten Island. I was working on Staten Island at that time and opted for the unlimited card as soon as it went systemwide along with the tax benefits. It must be about 20 years..

I tried to find the appropriate thread for this change which is coming and thanks to the post that the people who are in charge are reading our post, I hope that someone will see this post. Today when I was at East 15th Street and Avenue Z, I noticed pipe and the the big concrete thing that is associated with sewer construction on the south side of Avenue Z near East 16th Street. When I see these things, I get worried as the B/36, B/4 and B/49 operate on that street and there are no real alternative streets if construction will be done.

That is what will get rid of them even faster.

Agreed as this gives the TA time to make the schedule changes for Flatbush and Ulmer Park routes in the event that the buses that are supposed to arrive do not arrive on time As I will say time and time again, this "journalist" had only one thing on his mind when he wrote the article and that it was to have some politician(s) read it and run with it without checking the accuracy of the story. He achieved his goal as the Borough President held a press conference the next day and the story developed legs. Once it got legs with exception of Mr. Byford and Mr. Irick telling the truth (which was ignored for the most part), it was accepted as fact. Someone above Mr. Byford and Mr. Irick decided to put pressure on the agency to speed up the deadline and again did not bother checking whether the article was correct. Mr. Byford had the same problem in Toronto with buses that were way past their prime and still on the road, so this is nothing new with one exception as the person there was Ford and here it is Cuomo. I remember reading the Toronto Star on the net (at that time it was free) and how he had to jump hoops just trying to get money for replacement buses. For further information see Transittoronto.com as it is an excellent source of bus histories in Toronto complete with numbers and dates of retirement. The problem is that there are too many people in all forms of media "masquerading as "journalists" who do not belong in the field. In reality they are "shills" who claim that they are something that they are not (journalists) but persons expressing their opinions and using the title to promote their views. In most cases they have an agenda which is to promote a particular viewpoint and use their position not to give the facts but to have us believe what they are advocating. I would be a lot happier if these shills would admit that they are expressing an opinion and then let us take it from there.

This is the way research should be done but unfortunately when a "journalist" starts off with a conclusion and then presents "facts" that support his conclusion then this is not journalism but is an opinion and the journalist should have stated it in this hit piece. I know I am repeating myself as I posted it in another post but it is important that I post it again. When I prepare a document that is being sent to a company complaining about something or I speak before a governmental agency, I follow the format that is posted here. This individual did not follow this procedure and what makes this even worse is that he is using a "bully pulpit" to write an article that should have never been written. Everyone agrees that the RTS had to go and I am concur with the this statement as going up those steps with packages, it has become nothing but hell but the way the article was written, it was designed to target the East New York garage. Ironically if the so called "journalist" would have taken the time to search the internet and looked at this website, he would have not written the article in the first place as East New York was getting rid of its RTS. Based on the numbers here, the buses would have been gone by the end of April. Again, since this did not fit his conclusion. it is my opinion that he wrote the article anyway as he knew that by writing a "hit piece", it would gain the attention for what the writer wanted it to do in the first place. What this so called "Journalist" did was the two garages that have the remainder of RTS will have to pray that the bus division will provide them with approximately 50 buses each for Flatbush and Ulmer Park because management has a deadline. In the interim in the rush to scrap RTS's which would have been done by the end of December as new buses were coming in to replace them, runs that have to be filled will not be filled. Will the riders of Ulmer Park and Flatbush have to suffer because he wrote an article that has hurt us not the targeted communities? I went through this when I worked over the years and it is not pretty when you do not know whether the bus will arrive. Staten Island was the worst and I could go back years as it was a regular thing with them out there before and after the Marchi bill which required that 15% of all new buses be sent to Staten Island. The local services suffered as they took the local buses that were supposed to provide that service and used them in express service as they had a shortage of express buses. My late nephew was a reporter in a small town and in my conversations with him, he would never write something without following the five steps Westfarms posted here as if he did, he would have been run out of town. Yet, here a hit piece like this gets prominence in the media which indicates to me that they do not check their articles either. This is a tragedy as instead of honest reporting, we are being fed this garbage. As far as the pollution problem, my windows are wide open as even though I live on a major bus street, our management insists on keeping heat on morning, noon and night so all that junk is getting into my lungs.

Why does this not surprise me? He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it and this mayor has done the same thing that John Lindsay did and look what happened after he left the office. The big difference is at that time we had leadership in Albany and in our representatives in Congress something that is missing today. This time when (and if) bankruptcy will occur, the city and state will both go down and the only ones that they can blame is themselves.

I think that you are right about the "caution; bus is turning" but I think that there is another reason that is overlooked from a legal perspective. When a motorist comes out from the driver's seat at the same time a bus is coming out of the stop or making a turn, the driver's side door would get damaged. I have seen this happen and even though it was quite a few years ago, once the police are called then the possibility of a law suit comes into play. By announcing that the bus is turning and the driver still opens the door, then the motorist has the problem.

The announcements are designed as VIP said to cut the lawsuits as the information has been posted for the person to read. Whether he or she reads and chooses not to follow it is their business but now the TA can state for the record that the person had been warned prior to not following the posted rule. It is the same thing with the "Caution; Bus is turning" as it gives a warning to pedestrians and motorists that either the bus is turning from one street to another or is pulling out of the bus stop. This is another one of those ideas that came out of the failure of either a motorist or most likely a pedestrian to look and wait for the bus to do what it is supposed to do and is an outcome of our litigious society.

I just reviewed both posts and as well as the weather underground 10 day chart and both Accuweather and Weatherunderground have it changing to rain but after a prolonged period of snow changing to ice and then rain. The temperature forecasts for the day indicate that it will be very close to 32 degrees or at the freezing level. This winter, the weather systems have been coming from west to east which precludes large amounts of snow. If this was a normal winter then it would follow the usual pattern of storms coming from the south to north, then the snow amounts will be much higher. Past forecasts do not indicate that the same pattern will be followed on Tuesday and compare it to the November storm forecast and how it changed in a couple of hours. When I read many of the posts on this forum, there are a lot of posts that are pure speculation of what will occur when for example new buses and trains will be going when they arrive, that is basically a management decision that involves specific garages and yards and is done over a long period of time. A snow event such as this is totally different as it change in a matter of minutes. After the November storm, the MTA does not want to hear from every politician and every so called journalist who knows nothing about transit coming out of the woodwork to blame the MTA, forgetting the fact that weather is an inexact science and therefore can change in a New York minute. it is my opinion that the MTA will err on the side of caution and will put chains on bus tires and will replace the artics with the 40 foot buses on Tuesday.

Has anyone checked the weather for this Tuesday? It seems that both of the weather sites that I check on a regular basis are predicting snow with Weather Underground (3-5 inches) and Accuweather (1-3 inches). It maybe a good time for our fellow posters in Manhattan and the Bronx to be on the look out over the next day to see if the 40 foot buses from other garages make an appearance.

Thank you BM5 via Woodhaven for posting the official NYCT statement. When I saw the NYCT statement which was posted upstairs on the southbound Avenue M platform I noted was not posted on the street level. I could not figure that one out. You are not the only one who thought the same thing. I read the statement out loud and my reaction was "Huh!". When i was at the station at 1:54 PM southbound Q trains were running express from Prospect Park to Kings Highway and normal service northbound. The reason that I elected to take the B/9 and B/44 routing as it enabled me to avoid going up and down the stairs at Avenue M, Newkirk Plaza and Sheepshead Bay. Agreed but the way that the NYCT post reads it said "animal", it should have said "injured animal". If I had seen that on the posting my reaction would have more sympathetic as compared with my initial reaction which did not state that it was an injured goose.

Did anyone pick up on the reason that the southbound Q trains running express from Prospect Park to Kings Highway since about 130 PM?? The posted something that service had resumed at about 3:10 PM with delays as there was an animal on the tracks. It seems that when I was at Avenue M station southbound side about 150 PM , it seems that southbound platform sign said at the bottom stated there was police activity at Parkside Avenue and said the reason was "a goose". I am not kidding! I took the B/9 to the B/44 rather than wait.

It turns out that the R/42 was testing the timers on the express track. When I read that 4806 was part of the consist, I remembered that particular number was part of unit.

This again! Nothing will change on the B. The B will remain as is with the equipment it presently has now.

It has been like that for as long as I can remember and I go back to the middle of the 1970's and back then it was the air-conditioning during the summer and the heat during the winter. It was though we had air conditioned buses assigned to the island where the air conditioning never worked on the locals . As far as maintenance was concerned, if it was either January or June on the calendar, rest assured that a considerable portion of the local fleet was out of service, It should be noted that they had to borrow local buses from the rest of the city for many years from the late 1960's through 2008. For many years, it was not uncommon to have local buses used on the express routes. The garages were finally built and the water problem at Castleton was finally fixed up after almost a half a century but the maintenance problems are still there, new buses, old buses, it is the same problem that has been going on for fifty years and continue to go until someone will finally do something about it.

Thank you for your comments and I await comments from others on this subject. Your response to item # 1 concerning the B/9 is related to my question concerning how the MTA makes its decisions concerning the number of buses needed for the route. Your response was the reason that I asked question # 4 as to how they get the statistics for each route? Since the route has been carrying 10k per day for at least a decade then why has the route not been allocated more runs and buses as the justification is there? Were the statistics used taken on days when the ridership was much lower such as non-school days or religious holidays? My response as to why I would not extend the B/2 period is that I believe in short routes. Too many routes are far too long and when there are traffic problems, it makes a bad situation far worse. It is for the same reason that I am in total opposition to the drivers driving the first half of the route on one route and the second half on a different route as it insures that if there is a delay on the first route that it will impact on the second route. I remember the days when drivers spent both halves on the same route and the service was far better than it is now as if there was a delay in service, it could be minimized just to that one route. It is also the reason that I believe those in Transit making these decisions should get out from in front of their computers and out of their offices and let them try driving a bus where they have to work a split on two different routes. In my opinion it is far more costly as it does not save money at all but results in a much larger decrease in revenue and a big reason that bus service has gotten so bad. As far as your responses to questions 2 and 3, I will wait for more responses to appear before i will write a response.

i have read the responses to my suggestions and comments and I appreciate the points that the posters have raised whether I agree or disagree with them. There are some questions and comments that I would like to raise in reference to some of the responses: 1) The B/9 has been impacted by the N Line partial shutdown of stations. Could this be the reason that the number of riders has increased as many of the riders would rather take the B/9 to and from 4th Avenue heading east as compared with the N Line and thus have decided to take the B/9 on a permanent basis? Could this be the problem with the failure to put more buses on the B/9 during the work? 2) Since the B/64 is quite crowded (and I am referring to the portion between 13th Avenue and the expressway only) then why have the riders not shifted to the B/4 on Bay Ridge Parkway? The portion west of 4th Avenue is too far from the B/64 at that point. If you look at the schedules of the B/4 over many years on the Bay Ridge Parkway portion, it has remained virtually static for many years but the B/34,1, 64 has been cut over the same time period. 3) A s I stated before I remain opposed to the extension of the B/2, However, I would be interested in reading the comments as to changing the route from 65th Street to Bay Ridge Parkway from Bay Parkway west. (Avenue R, Ocean Parkway, Kings Highway, Stillwell Avenue) (Eastbound via Kings Highway to East 16th Street). The reason that I am asking about the change is that the ridership on that portion may already exist and yet is untapped. 4) How does the TA collect statistics for each and every bus route. The bus drivers used to fill in a form that listed the farebox statistics and .then it was the twice a year persons checking the line. How do they do it now and is there a more efficient way to do it today. I will be posting additional questions and comments on other points that were raised here in the future..

I do not like posting the comments listed below but sometimes it is necessary to remind a fellow member of what the purpose of the forum is to all of us who are interested in the subject The purpose of this forum is for the exchange of ideas and views on various subjects. When I disagree with a person, I will use respectful terms such as "I disagree for the following reasons" or "this is my opinion" and leave it at that. I do not believe in bringing up past history or past battles that have been fought as all it does is create more problems and detracts from the original purpose of this forum. This is why when I post anything here or when I respond to anything on the internet, I watch what I write as the use of the wrong words can quickly escalate into something that becomes a flame war. This is the way I was taught when I started working with the internet many years ago. That said, i have read the last couple of posts concerning my comments on this thread and it seems the Brooklyn Bus is at it again trying to ignite a flame war like he had with me a couple of months ago. Let me state quite emphatically, I have no plans to get involved in a flame war again with him as it detracts from the original purpose of this forum. This is not the proper place for such a battle as it defeats the purpose of this forum which is the exchange of different views on various topics. I welcome the views of members who disagree with me and I look forward to having a meaningful discussion provided that we are respectful of one another's views.

I stand by my statements that I posted here.

When I look at changing any bus route, I not only look at streets, I look at communities where the change is to take place. The argument that 65th Street should have a bus is based on the theory that there is a big gap between the bus routes between the B/9 and the B/64. As I stated above, I look at communities and the communities include Borough Park and Sunset Park and Dyker Heights. The distance between the B/35 and the B/11 on 50th Street is 11 short blocks. The distance between the B/11 and the B/9 is 11 short blocks from 49th Street. The B/9 and B/11 are heavily used in Borough Park and into Midwood as the communities have a lot in common that have riders in these communities riding the buses. The distance south of 60th Street is different as there is bus service on Bay Ridge Avenue (69th Street) to 13th Avenue, then 6 short blocks to Bay Ridge Parkway (75th Street) and finally 11 short blocks to 86th Street. For all intensive purposes 60th Street is the line of demarcation between Dyker Heights and Borough Park. This can be seen in the ridership levels and headways both north and south of 60th Street. For what purpose will an extension to Bay Ridge serve the riders of the B/2 or B/31. Putting a bus on 65th Street serves no purpose as the ridership from Borough Park or from the B/9 will not ride as it does not serve their institutions in Midwood as they live north of 60th Street. People living south of 60th Street are part of a totally different community that do not have that institutional connection that Borough Park has with Midwood. Both Bay Ridge Avenue and Bay Ridge Parkway buses have served communities that are south of west of Stillwell Avenue as that is where the interests were for many years. While the communities have changed, the institutions are not there that would justify the extension of either the B/2 or B/31. My point about communities also involves the change to the B/9 to replace the B/41 to Bergen Beach. The B/9 needs the connection to Kings Plaza where riders transfer to the Q/35 as again it is the institutions in Belle Harbor and Neponsit. This does not exist in Bergen Beach as the community needs the connection to the Flatbush/Nostrand Station and the B/9 does absolutely nothing for them. Eliminating the B/41 Bergen Beach branch does nothing except to help the dollar vans. Drawing straight lines and making them into bus routes does not work and has not worked for as long as can remember and I am going back close to 45 years. Buses work best when the routes connect the institutions and places where the people need and offer quality, dependable service which encourages ridership. Sometimes the best thing for those who make the decisions is to get out of their offices where they can enjoy their view of New York Harbor and ride the buses, speak to the workers and the passengers. Until the rest of the MTA follows Mr. Byford's example, the system will not change.