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.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BrooklynBus

  1. I would replace the northern end of the B67 with a rerouted B69 that served its original route so that B67 service could be returned to the frequencies it once had. The MTA really destroyed that route.
  2. I was the one who wrote the linked article he cited. I wrote it back in 2013 when much more land was available near Atlantic Terminal. Today, I do not know if a bus terminal like the one I envisioned would even be possible. I also once mapped out which routes I would terminate there and it would have included all bus routes traveling the length of the Fulton Mall and Livingston Street and no others. It would not include routes like the B54, B57, B61, B62, B63, and B103. It was to be an enclosed terminal with heating and A/C with a short walk between buses and a three car light rail vehicle that would be free and run via the Fulton Street Mall cutting through Borough Hall to Cadman Plaza with some vehicles continuing to Brooklyn Bridge Park or south toward Red Hook. The headways would be every two or three minutes most of the day. There would always be one waiting. Late night, buses could run on their present routes. Just as people do not mind across the platform subway transfers if there is no extra wait, I believe this transfer would be just as acceptable. It would also greatly increase reliability of any bus route terminating at the terminal since the routes would be shorter and not have to deal with Downtown traffic congestion. The light rail would have its own right of way and also would be reliable.
  3. It seems like they are just not capable of telling the truth. I was on a bus the other day with one of those digital screens. There was a trivia question which asked when was the first air conditioned bus first placed into regular service. The choices were 1956, 1966, 1976, or 1986. Knowing the way they think, I chose 1956 knowing it was not the correct choice and I chose correctly. Then the explanation appeared that in that year they had the first two experimental air conditioned buses purchased by Fifth Avenue a Coach. Only ten other buses followed in 1960, after the first two were removed from service and it wasn't until the 1970s that buses became air conditioned. However, they were not maintained and by 1978, over 90 percent of the air conditioned buses were inoperable. It wasn't until the Blitz contract in the mid 80s, that they started to repair them. It wasn't until the 1990s, that you had a decent chance of boarding a bus that was air-conditioned, about 40 years after the first experimental air conditioned buses. The MTA was not created until 1968, so there is no reason to give the impression that New Yorkers began to experience air conditioned buses in 1956, with the implication that all buses were air conditioned not too long thereafter. No one would claim regular airline service began in 1903 just because that was when the Wright Brothers first flew out of Kitty Hawk for like 56 seconds. Yet the MTA considers the first experimental air conditioned bus which wasn't even a success, because none followed, the beginning of air conditioning for the bus system in New York. So how can we believe anything they tell us when they distort the truth about something so simple?
  4. I rarely see anyone on the shoulder. It's not like a bus lane on the street.
  5. Since it was rebuilt, there is now a full shoulder which could double as a bus lane.
  6. Round tripping is what the MTA is scared stiff. God forbid someone makes around trip for one fare. That’s why they haven’t done it. The world would end. As if there were no way to do this now. Even before MetroCard some round tripping was possible. Since MetroCard it’s easier. What they don’t consider is now many new trips would be generated by the ability to run several quick errands for one fare.
  7. The goal should not be to give everyone a one-seat ride but to turn three bus trips in tom two bus trips. Most will resist having to take three buses. The need for an extra fare for those without unlimiteds is just a further deterrent. You are correct about revamping the the transfer system, but increasing the limit to three hours is not necessary since there is no record of getting off the last bus or train. If as many transfers as needed can be made within two hours of the first fare being paid, trips taking as long as three hours will still be possible with one fare. That also means the fare should not be raised to $5 to pay for this. I explained how such a system would work two years ago and also submitted it to the MTA as testimony for the last fare increase. https://www.rockawave.com/articles/a-fare-discussion/
  8. Couldn't agree more. And yes. Service issues are the most important. In the study I referred to that I did 44 years ago, bunching, reliability and crowding, topped the complaint list by far. They accounted for over 50 percent of the complaints, maybe 70 percent. So what else us new? The only thing that has changed I believe is that bus driver complaints went down. That was the second most popular complaint back then. Bus drivers who refused to kneel buses and who didn't pull up to the curb. The kneeling feature was much less reliable back then, and often the bus wouldn't "stand up" again after it kneeled which explained the drivers refusal. I also believe more drivers pull up to the curb today when they are able. Third most popular complaint which I also believe has declined were bus issues: no A/C, roaches, dirty seats, etc. And as I said routing was dead last.
  9. I attended meetings of the Northeast Bronx study back in the 90s. The MTA made a bunch of recommendations. The community responded with we like some of them and others we want to change and recommended their own changes. The MTA’s response was either accept al, our proposals exactly as we suggested or you don’t get any changes at all. The community refused and no changes resulted as a result of that study. The MTA ‘s conclusion was that large studies just do not work and started studying only one or two routes at a time. That didn’t change until they gave into politicians requests to study Northeast Queens several years ago before Byford.
  10. When I surveyed 8,000 bus riders in 1975, I don’t think more than three or four people recommended a route change in the comments section. If you look at thee d of the Bronx Existing Conditions Report, it says they received a few requests for new routes or extensions. No one suggested any route restructuring. Be funny if the final report doesn’t include any route restructuring because no one recommended any.
  11. You are probably right. Weinstein fought for the Avenue L B44 SBS Stop. She wrote one letter. I am not aware of anything else any of them has done transportation wise. Correct. That’s because riders accept existing routes as a given. That doesn’t mean changes are not warranted.
  12. There may be something to trains shaking foundations. I remember when they started running R44s on the Brighton line, there were complaints of cracks in the foundations. Don’t remember how it was resolved. Maybe the trains were removed. They never complained about any other car class. Not really true. Deutsch fought for five years to get a B44 SBS stop at Avenue R. I give him credit because he didn’t give up or forget about it.
  13. It still gets many users from the B41 and B41 and I assume the B47 around the corner which I really don’t see much. Forget about any of the other bus routes serving it. Not nearly as in the old days.
  14. But, God forbid if they need to go somewhere else in Brooklyn and there is no car available, most trips are three buses and two fares. Agree. It’s really ironic what happened with Kings Plaza. Before 1971, the place to shop in. Brooklyn was Downtown Brooklyn where all the fine stores were. Then Kings Plaza came and it became the in place to shop, single handedly killing Downtown Brooklyn which turned into shlock stores. Then Kings Plaza started to decline and Downtown Brooklyn began a resurgence starting with MetroTech. Now Kings Plaza is viewed as a slum.
  15. Your last sentence is very true. Yes this area is car centric but I think of all those without access to cars specially the kids who can hardly afford an Uber. As far as NIMBYs, I have no use for them unless their objections are based on sound reasoning. Gerritsen Beach is another story. They resent outsiders and don’t want easy access to their community, but would like better connections for themselves. Especially since the theaters at Kings Plaza closed.
  16. Funny how no one mentions the UA multiplex theater, the only movie theater left in southern Brooklyn, or the three nursing homes as draws.
  17. All the ferries require heavy subsidies and I don’t think Breezy Point would want it. I have come up with a better route to Rockaway using the Belt Parkway now that it has been reconstructed. I renumbered it to Q45 from Q51. I would have another route on Knapp St.
  18. Extending the B36 to Kings Plaza was one of my proposals back in 1978, but the local merchants killed it. They claimed if we make it easier for anyone to get to Kings Plaza it will mean less business for us. So let's not give people more choice so they will be forced to shop in our stores. I hate that type of thinking and the fact they were able to get their way so we never made that proposal to the MTA. Anyway, back then it are some sense because everyone wanted to go to Kings Plaza. Today, many locals avoid Kings Plaza, so I don't think the same demand exists today for that extension. The B4 is too long as it is. And yes there should be a direct bus route from Sheepshead Bay to the Rockaways. Until the early 1960s there was a ferry from the foot of Ocean Avenue to Breezy Point for 25 cents each way. It had lasted many years without any subsidy. So obviously there was demand.
  19. Okay, there was no commentary under the second post of yours, only the first post. Still, the question was not directed at you. But for you to insist it was an intentional deception is also wrong. I have been looking quite bad on these forums as of late is your opinion. You conveniently left out the part of the quote comparing me with Wallyhorse that it may pay off. “Think different” didn’t work out too bad for Steve Jobs.
  20. Correct. And the “right” people, meaning those in charge, have no interest in reducing passenger trip times. That’s why these studies will fail to increase ridership.
  21. Twist things as much as you like. No, I did not quote both of you and then make my reply. I quoted you and then replied and then I quoted Future ENY Bus Operator and replied to him. Previously, when I made two separate posts right after each other, I was told by the webmaster to combine them in one post so that’s what I try to do most times. And as far as asking a question that you deemed sarcastic, it wasn’t to discredit anyone and the person who I asked wasn’t even offended, but you were although I didn’t ask you that question.
  22. They changed the title. My title was - Will the Redesign Result in Improvements. "Speed things up" is ambiguous. Is one mile per hour in average bus speeds considered as "speed things up?" Is one mph faster for buses and two mph slower for all other traffic "speed things up? It is ridiculous to have bus lanes in effect when there are no buses operating on the street as is the case for several blocks on Kings Highway. As I stated in the article what needs to be measured is reductions in passenger trip times not reductions in bus bus speeds.
  23. I have had enough of this. You always have to be right, don't you? My comment asking the last time Future ENY Operator was in the Rockaways clearly came in the paragraph after where I quoted him. If I was asking you, that statement would have appeared in the paragraph above after the quote from you. It was perfectly clear, but you misread it in your haste to constantly criticize me.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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