Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

EastFlatbushLarry

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

EastFlatbushLarry last won the day on March 14

EastFlatbushLarry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

420 Excellent

1 Follower

About EastFlatbushLarry

  • Rank
    Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    East Flatbush

Recent Profile Visitors

1,062 profile views
  1. i actually agree with this except I'd rather not send 101's to 96 street. I'd prefer for the 101 to terminate near 126 street depot (seeing as the layover space will be allegedly vacated by the m100 due to the redesigned network)
  2. my understanding has been that there is a major concern regarding layovers on DeKalb Avenue. however, as it's been stated, DOT would have to allocate the proper space to accommodate artics... same thing if 46sbs's were to be sent to Woodhull. the artic issue regarding DeKalb has never been about the turnaround, even the left back onto malcolm x blvd. i cannot stress this enough, if bx9 (Kingsbridge) operators can seamlessly make u-turns in Riverdale with artics, then Flatbush will have no problems on Broadway & DeKalb with artics... same training. brush your teeth (stay in your mirrors) 3-5mph thru each turn and line up your turns... piece of cake.
  3. casey stengel also has a 42xx NG with a orion V run box... can't remember the unit number off hand.
  4. you mean in the same way NICE gives a damn about how their buses look & run post MTA? doing cosmetic work on buses, painting, wraps & dents are overtime assignments, based on a depots budget. all the depots mentioned usually won't budget overtime for vanity. if a gang of buses need tranny work, shocks, struts, etc that will be accounted for. and, transit just said they'll be painting buses less frequently. so even transit doesn't give AF how they look, as long as they run. also, state legislation would have to dissolve the 2002 TA/OA consolidation and attempt to contract out MaBSTOA for what? when they've spent the better part of the past decade attempting to assimilate Bus Company to TA/OA standards. that's not even a viable threat or reality at this point in time. there's not a private company around with the resources or manpower to "reasonably" manage the DOB. and NYC itself truly wants no part of this. the unions & the state know this. By the way, MaBSTOA, although not civil service, has civil service protection under the law and union contract, hence why ALL MaBSTOA employees that were laid off were brought back. no civil service protection = all would've been terminated. the union included this stipulation after the formation of MaBSTOA to prevent exactly what you just insinuated... back in the 60's. again, state legislation would have to revoke civil service protection for all MaBSTOA employees for any dissolution of MaBSTOA to occur, which would certainly lead to lawsuits, state & federal. and if I'm not mistaken, there's a part of the union contract that prevents privatization, something that TWU local 252 didn't have with Long Island Bus.
  5. most of MaBSOTA has NEVER given a damn about the cosmetic appearance of their buses, going back to the old Coliseum, Amsterdam & walnut days. LG, JFK/FR, ENY, JA, CS & UP all subscribe to the MaBSTOA philosophy... if the b***h can run, who cares how she looks? i intentionally left JG, GA, QV, BP, SC, YO & EC off that list. also, KB & WF are very wishy-washy when it comes to cosmetic dressing of buses. ultimately, it depends on who the GS is. Gun Hill (100 Street/MV) never gave a damn. and somehow, historically they always seem to hand their garbage (once they've turned units into garbage) off to Brooklyn, KB or 100 street
  6. now we're doing a blasted slowdown... anything they can do to slander us, they'll do. how ironic is it that only during contract time are we painted as villains. this isn't out of the norm for management or the union to do, especially at MJQ or ENY (letalone ANY division hq, such as WF, etc... there are always a multitude of managerial eyes around Quill, WF, ENY during am and midday pullouts... nothing new) there's been alot of mileage swaps and other moving parts at all 3 yards, so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for the union to take interest in ensuring that the units received from MaBSTOA or Staten Island are road ready. and by the way, on pull outs, we're supposed to conduct full inspections anyway... hazard lights, wheelchair ramps, engine door security, etc. such a non story.
  7. removal of the unauthorized vans will marginally help... traffic as a whole will still partially impede 41's in totality
  8. I'm making this list based strictly on my personal opinion, not on union or managerial logic... B3 - split with FB B4 - Flatbush (would share same deadhead to/from knapp street as B44) B7 - either FB or EN B8 - either EN or UP B9 - Flatbush B13 - split between Spring Creek & FP B14 - Spring Creek B15 - split JFK Depot & EN (elderts Lane short signs out of Spring Creek) B17 - Spring Creek B20 - FP... am rush split with Spring Creek. pm rush split with EN B43 - Grand Avenue B47 - Flatbush B48 - Grand Avenue B60 - EN B84 - Spring Creek B100 - Flatbush Q3 - JFK Q8 - Spring Creek Q11 - JFK Q18 - Grand Avenue Q20 - CP Q23 - LG Q29 - FP Q31 - JA Q32 - LG Q35 - Flatbush Q38 - FP Q39 - FP Q44 - split WF & JA Q52 - Far Rock Q58 - Fresh Pond Q64 - Jamaica Q110 - Queens Village Q112 - Jamaica M2 - Hale M35 - 100 Street M60 - split LG & MCH M79 - 100 Street M86 - 100 Street M96/106 - 100 Street M102 - MCH M116 - 100 Street Bx4 - WF Bx5 - WF Bx8 - GH Bx9 - WF Bx12 Lcl - KB Bx15 - KB Bx16 - Eastchester Bx19 - MCH Bx22 - WF Bx30 - Eastchester Bx31 - Eastchester Bx32 - MCH Bx33 - MCH Bx34 - Eastchester Bx39 - West Farms Bx40/42 - West Farms Bx41 - KB
  9. because they'd be dipping into their standard 40 foot spare factor by putting all 40 footers on the road until they get all the artics they need for full artic conversion on the 38. if (and when) a bus breaks down on any grand avenue line, and the only buses in the yard are artics, you've just shown as a general superintendent that you have no idea what you are doing.
  10. any of those 47xx's are definitely receiving light to moderate body work... i would assume some form of chassis as well
  11. on top of that, this may be a way for JG mechanics & maintainers to obtain overtime/extra work considering their fleet is relatively brand new. Zerega, ENY & Grand Avenue must have their hands full, so the next logical choice is to seek assistance from yards that may have not hit a overtime threshold as yet
  12. firstly, there are 2 types of interlines... terminal interline & relief aka swing interline. the q12 has straight runs, meaning runs that don't interline at all (designated run 0xx). those runs won't be affected. matter of fact, the miscellaneous runs (interlined runs) out of casey stengel (designated as 7xx or 8xx) won't be affected either. what will happen is that the q12 will be pull in/pull out or relief (swing) interline with the other casey stengel flushing routes (q13/15/16/20a/b/26/28/48) the q12 won't terminal interline (meaning come down the road as a q12 and leave out as say a q15) once artics come into play. by the way, terminal interlines are what you may see at 165 terminal with the JFK routes.
  13. to decease bus operator's dwell times in stops systemwide and keep runs flowing as rapid as possible... that's the point of the system being redesigned boro by boro and eliminating what they determine as unnecessary bus stops (example: stop eliminations on the q22 & q35)
  14. 😂 wow, roy rogers.. that's classic kp s***... even now during the summer, you'll still see at least 4 sbs buses on layover with no locals in sight, and any sbs pullouts from FB have to wedge themselves in there until someone departs, all while trying not to intentionally trap a helpless B9 in that God awful ass end of the terminal. look, they (DOT or whomever) had a chance to redesign that terminal properly, and they totally botched it capacity-wise. it's not out of the realm of possibility that shoving artics in there may present a daunting task to say the least, especially if the plan is to marginally maintain current headways (which i highly doubt)
  15. it was rumored as a potential discussion, nothing on an official level ever occured, if my memory serves me correctly

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.