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

    595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

EastFlatbushLarry last won the day on April 7

EastFlatbushLarry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

663 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    East Flatbush

Recent Profile Visitors

1,437 profile views
  1. i love these individuals... "messed up transfers"... according to WHO... person(s) who have NO CLUE about the mileage accumulated by any of these unit numbers while UP or any other yard... what percentage of wear/tear/damage has been accumulated while at whatever yard, which would potentially determine if the bus should/would be eligible for transfer from one yard to another (yes, depots won't accept or release buses with a certain amount of wear or tear, believe it or not) small minded thinking, folks. gotta grow outta that shit.
  2. OCD kiddies chatting about keeping bus numbers fluid/"in order"... then claim to be "fans" of the system. if ⅔'s of these ocd kiddies were really fans, they'd overstand this point, and wouldn't need to be "reminded" over, and over and OVER again. they don't even park buses in numerical order, so... yo, nevermind.
  3. the reason why they didn't do a pick to basically make the overnight service a temporary fixture is the same reason why they fail to increase service in general before covid-19... they have no desire to. their desire is to reallocate service that is currently being provided, meaning... like the Seinfeld episode about re-gifting? yeah... THAT is their philosophy. there's no urgency to provide this overnight service, aside from the fact that the workforce isn't fully 100% yet (which baffles me as to why people think that it is... as a country, we're not even close to being out of the woods, so to speak) someone asked why other Local 100 yards can't cover SC overtime runs the same way they've done for Yonkers... to my knowledge (and if I'm incorrect, i appreciate any legit corrections) SC has stipulations in their contract that their work/overtime cannot be outsourced... meaning, the same way only ATU726/1056/1179 can only cover their own work is the same rule that applies to Spring Creek, even with the flip from ATU1181 to TWU. So, basically, for 9 days, they've offered overtime in-house and no one's biting. I'm honestly not surprised.
  4. the bus operator absolutely did the right thing. not just from a morality standpoint, or for some political message. the comandeering of city buses to perform any law enforcement activities is an outdated process, and should be permanently dismantled. and i'm personally thankful that (to my understanding) TWU stands behind the B/O for not operating that bus. there's no way the operator should face any form of disciplinary retaliation
  5. yeah, because a bus operator REALLY wants to ruin his/her livelihood/career by committing multiple counts of vehicular manslaughter... caught on camera. aside from ever operating a commercial vehi... never mind. whatever. 😒🙄
  6. lol i swear before God & man that this was going to be my next sentence, but decided against it in the interest of not having my post be too long. it was in those days that i was growing into the belief that transit/DOB/Brooklyn Division depots absolutely prioritized certain lines over others. East NY in those days was overcrowded & stretched thin (B8, B78, splitting the 20 & 82, B60, etc.) and got by by the skin of their teeth... found a way & made a way. not to say the 14's & 25's of the world saw outstanding service in those times, but FB never loved the 7 & 78... going back to the mid-70's (from tales i was told) and the B8 was that for UP. one thing i can say for a fact is that the reason why we all notice how bad the Grand Avenue B47 is, is because some of us remember the brief moment when Flatbush had the 47 after the merger, and due to the use of the Rutland Rd short-sign (outside of just school-trippers & rush hours) service was fantastic south of east 98 street. to this day, no one can explain why when GA took over, they ended the Rutland shorties (and the am Mill Avenue/Avenue U shorts) it had to be a run pay scenario, but I've never been proven correct or incorrect.
  7. if I'm not mistaken, the B7, B8 & B78 all went to East NY in January 1998. i know this because service on the 78 got exponentially better with this shift from FB. plus, the 78 was my line for getting to Roy Mann JHS. by 2000, the 78 went back to flatbush before the merge with the B40 (and actually was better served the second time around... again, before being merged) service still sucked on the 7. i can't speak on how well or bad the 8 was at East NY. to someone's point saying that the B7 was/is the step child of Brooklyn Division... well, i know for many years both the B7 & B78 (then later on, the B47) all were the step children of Flatbush Depot at least. Flatbush had no choice but to consider the B7/78/47 last. you have to remember... service priority was to the B41 B44 & B46 over anything. all those lines pushed out over 100 runs in Flatbush's heyday. not to mention that the B2, B31 & B49 were rush-hour heavy hitters as well.
  8. a few quick observations: i agree wholeheartedly with the Q22 & QM17 decisions. the Q22 should be a overnight fixture in my personal opinion. the HHA's & nurses who work at the numerous institutions in the rockaways needed this (even if temporarily. tbh i was amazed at how many nursing homes & rehabilitation centers are located out there). i also agree with the QM17 serving Woodhaven (absent the QM15). Lindenwood wasn't gonna see overnight service... goes without saying. beautiful to see the Bx39 running end to end overnight and the B11 getting the nod. so... no QM2, 3 or 20 in lieu of the ? also, I'm happy that people have mentioned the lack of Bx7 south of Isham, and the lack of Q112 & Q8 in general. I'm certain that people will find other holes in this overnight plan that i failed to mention. have fun. P.S. i can't forget to mention the B82. i can almost guarantee that the 82 won't go to C.I. overnights from here on out. they've known for years that the 82 carries air from Stillwell to Ulmer Park Depot during hawk run hours.
  9. to my knowledge, what it is with some of the older (OG/NG hybrid) buses (some RTS's/D60HF's suffered from the same affliction when the older they got) is that the PUSH-TAPE OVERRIDE isn't working. the push-tape override is a switch which allows the B/O to automatically control the rear door identical to the front. it may be the electrical wiring that operates the doors has given out... which wouldn't be a surprise to me, to be honest. the OG's & NG's electrical wiring are known to short out (headlights, running/clearance lights, run boxes, taillights)
  10. my understanding is that any depot that agreed to cover Bronx runs agreed not to take full runs (meaning full-time terminal to full-time terminal) or full run pay away from the lines intended depot... which guarantees that KB, GH & WF B/O's won't lose money on runs being assigned to the Quill's/Yukon's/Hale's of the world.
  11. there aren't any TWU or ATU "traditional" territories anymore. shuttle work is assigned by availability. meaning, if/when shuttle work is available in queens division, ATU 1056 gets priority. however if the 3 TA yards can't cover, then the Queens Local 100 (bus company) yards are called. then, JFK/Far Rock (ATU 1179) then, Spring Creek. then, Brooklyn/MaBSTOA. then Staten Island. in this scenario, seeing as most (if not all) surface transit branches are experiencing low manpower numbers, i don't expect there to be a general pecking order. it'll be strictly about coverage.
  12. wow. how does something like this even happen by accident... letalone, make it to a website or revenue vehicle for public consumption? no system of checks & balances? then again, look at the "organization" in question smhh
  13. thank you for that. outstanding point made. at 2:33am, it's not out of the realm of possibility that that run could be a pull in trip. more than likely, it was. and the way the system currently is, what with everything being out of wack (normal service currently NOT being provided) this shouldn't even be a surprise.
  14. having had this happen, the operator may have taken a personal (or more than one) and was never adjusted... and console wouldn't adjust the operator. the trip needed to be completed, especially at the time it was scheduled, not to mention ESPECIALLY now, seeing as all service provided is considered essential, so abandoning the run was never an option. that's the dumbest thing an operator could do in this climate... not complete scheduled trips. and it wouldn't enter the mind of the operator. more than likely, that's an operator that has under 5 years on the job
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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