GreatOne2k Posted June 12, 2010 Share #76 Posted June 12, 2010 There could also be a chance that MTA runs the Bx23 24/7 and cuts the Bx28 out of sections 1-4 completely. From MTA's standpoint that would make sense and save money even giving section 5 another 24/7 bus (23 and 28). The Q50 will be running LIMITED in Co Op City, the Bx23 and Q50 can easily get service increases if Co Op City needs more service, the blank check is the issue. between 9pm and midnight most nights the QBx1 (Bx23, Q50) will the only service some parts of Co Op City has. This is one way MTA makes sure they are getting funding from NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoodciti Posted June 13, 2010 Share #77 Posted June 13, 2010 Bx38 is supposed to operate between Bay Plaza and 205 Street-Norwood, similar to a Bx28 short run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 13, 2010 Share #78 Posted June 13, 2010 Bx38 is supposed to operate between Bay Plaza and 205 Street-Norwood, similar to a Bx28 short run. That's pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJC Posted June 13, 2010 Share #79 Posted June 13, 2010 1) highly doubt it... you don't drastically alter a heavily used route (the 28 is the more prevalent/important in co-op) simply for the likes of high school kids from one school.... While I agree with the notion that all the routes didn't have to circumnavigate co-op, they didn't have to tamper with every single one of them either (including their service spans).... all they had to do was increase the # of bx28 runs that terminated @ Norwood-205th... while still keeping it's current routing in co-op intact.... with this supposed "bx23" that Roku brought to our attention a couple days ago (a route that's said to serve all of co-op, to/from PBP), this bx38 screams elimination all over it... damn shame how the MTA sets up future cuts, from initial ones..... it's like they're playing the game of chess, BACKWARDS ! 2) I didn't even bother mentioning it (that's exactly why I said *smfh*) to that part of dude's post... disgusting to see some routes completely destroyed, that didn't have to be... meanwhile, the 20 still remains.... but yeh, agreed man.... one of the main problem with the 28,the bus get delay by the hospital with all the wheelchair people.the bus get loaded and the bus have to stop at every stop after that...that the reason why I take the 26 over the 28 anyday of the week,because of the fact 28 just doesn't go no where. Now to the Bx 20,I need to ride it during rush hour to see what kind of ridership this bus have...If the people from Spuyten Duyvil want to go to Manhatten they need to take the Bx-10 to the Bx-7,It's not that hard.There's route that are getting cut and the MTA is telling people walk to next nearest bus stop or take the train. Ok,regarded the B 60 comment,I figure they might shorten this route since this what the MTA is doing to some route even though it wasn't plan. That's pointless. It look totally pointless on map,but I'll give it a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousNYLover Posted June 13, 2010 Share #80 Posted June 13, 2010 Here is scan for M1 Typo. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 13, 2010 Share #81 Posted June 13, 2010 Yes, the maps are less cluttered... but at what cost? At what cost?:cry: Of all routes to replace the B75 in Caroll Gardens... why the B57? It looks good on paper, but I just hope it's not too long. Crazy idea, but I'd rather extend the B45 or B62. Also, headaways on the M1 shuttle have drastically been inflated. Which I think is the reason why the M1 was made into a shuttle instead of the longer M3. At least M1 riders have the M102 as another alternative, if they're willing to walk a little out of their way. I'm suprised the is not touching the B25 at all. Considering that they wanted to cut the entire route previously, I thought they'd at least cut Overnight service, plus the fact it doesn't even run once an hour at night. But hey, the less cuts the better. Just look at all the Brooklyn routes losing overnight service! [7 routes, or 11 if you include routes eliminated completely, but I guess that doesn't count] I am, however, interested to see what comes of the B69 reroute. Would people really take it, since it doesn't even serve the heart of Downtown Brooklyn? A lot of the B69's AM rush ridership comes from school kids anyway, so I guess this is to increase ridership? I hope it works, because B67 weekday service is getting hacked and slashed because of this... :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 13, 2010 Share #82 Posted June 13, 2010 Yes, the maps are less cluttered... but at what cost? At what cost?:cry: Of all routes to replace the B75 in Caroll Gardens... why the B57? It looks good on paper, but I just hope it's not too long. Crazy idea, but I'd rather extend the B45 or B62. Also, headaways on the M1 shuttle have drastically been inflated. Which I think is the reason why the M1 was made into a shuttle instead of the longer M3. At least M1 riders have the M102 as another alternative, if they're willing to walk a little out of their way. I'm suprised the is not touching the B25 at all. Considering that they wanted to cut the entire route previously, I thought they'd at least cut Overnight service, plus the fact it doesn't even run once an hour at night. But hey, the less cuts the better. Just look at all the Brooklyn routes losing overnight service! [7 routes, or 11 if you include routes eliminated completely, but I guess that doesn't count] I am, however, interested to see what comes of the B69 reroute. Would people really take it, since it doesn't even serve the heart of Downtown Brooklyn? A lot of the B69's AM rush ridership comes from school kids anyway, so I guess this is to increase ridership? I hope it works, because B67 weekday service is getting hacked and slashed because of this... :eek: Good post.... I'll add on, bro..... * extending the B62 to smith & 9th would've defeated the purpose of splitting the *old* B61... that move would've made the mta look all the more hypocritical, to say the least... * I don't even think that 57 extension looks good on paper.... Anyway, Carroll gdns. residents would've started an uproar if the 45 was sent down there... y'know, given the "notoriously bad" areas it serves (how those people generally/collectively think)... but I'm with you, the 45 would've made more sense than the 57.... but as we know, logic plays no part.... * The reason why the B25 wasn't cut: http://gothamist.com/2010/01/11/mta_might_cut_the_only_bus_to_brook.php http://mcbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2010/01/brooklyns-b25-bus-restored-rest-should.html * b/w Kensington & [7th av/Flatbush av], B67 usage will end up declining, while B69 usage will increase... North of 7th av, usage would probably remain the same on those 2 routes.... sure, Park Slope riders love that , but they want (well, need) that B67 in their proverbial back pocket also, to get to downtown.... The B69 itself, I think should stop dead in Ft. Greene (the neighborhood): - continuing north on Vanderbilt, left turn on Myrtle, right turn on North Portland, right turn on Park av {layover on Park b/w Adelphi & Carlton}, then continue down park & make a right to Vanderbilt, where it would retain the current B69 route.... Instead of making that useless trek down Flushing and Sands to get to Sands/Jay..... People on other forums are mentioning that it (the B69) should go to Williamsburg... with the B62 serving that same area (even serving WBP now), I don't think that's all too necessary.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 13, 2010 Share #83 Posted June 13, 2010 As far as the Brooklyn Bridge Park goes, couldn't the B41 be extended to Brooklyn Bridge Park to replace the B25? I saw on a map (I'm pretty sure it was from 1993) that the B41 used to go there. As far as Fulton Street is concerned, it would have the same effect as the elimination of the B39, since there aren't many acessable stations along Fulton Street, which would hurt the elderly/disabled population. And regarding the B69, since the B67 would be reduced, it would be obvious that some ridership would shift to the B69. The reason for the reroute was to bring people to the 7th Avenue station on the (, since the MTA figured that that was where most of the riders on both the B67/B69 were headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 13, 2010 Share #84 Posted June 13, 2010 Replies in Dark Green. As far as the Brooklyn Bridge Park goes, couldn't the B41 be extended to Brooklyn Bridge Park to replace the B25? I saw on a map (I'm pretty sure it was from 1993) that the B41 used to go there. As far as Fulton Street is concerned, it would have the same effect as the elimination of the B39, since there aren't many acessable stations along Fulton Street, which would hurt the elderly/disabled population. And regarding the B69, since the B67 would be reduced, it would be obvious that some ridership would shift to the B69. The reason for the reroute was to bring people to the 7th Avenue station on the (, since the MTA figured that that was where most of the riders on both the B67/B69 were headed. About the B67 and B69... that makes sense. The B69 didn't even have a connection before, and it still retains its connection, so all's well that ends well I guess. Worst-case scenario if the B25 were eliminated I'd extend the B26 North to the B25's old terminal. I don't think the B26 is, or would be as delay-prone as the B41. Also it parallels the B25 more than any other route. Good post.... I'll add on, bro..... * extending the B62 to smith & 9th would've defeated the purpose of splitting the *old* B61... that move would've made the mta look all the more hypocritical, to say the least... Touche. I was thinking that, but when life gives you lemons... * I don't even think that 57 extension looks good on paper.... Perhaps. It's not exactly the ideal alternative, now is it? Anyway, Carroll gdns. residents would've started an uproar if the 45 was sent down there... y'know, given the "notoriously bad" areas it serves (how those people generally/collectively think)... but I'm with you, the 45 would've made more sense than the 57.... but as we know, logic plays no part.... EPIC FAIL at its best. No... just... no. * The reason why the B25 wasn't cut: http://gothamist.com/2010/01/11/mta_might_cut_the_only_bus_to_brook.php http://mcbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2010/01/brooklyns-b25-bus-restored-rest-should.html Nice save by the little people, but again I'm suprised the didn't at least cut Overnight service. * b/w Kensington & [7th av/Flatbush av], B67 usage will end up declining, while B69 usage will increase... North of 7th av, usage would probably remain the same on those 2 routes.... sure, Park Slope riders love that , but they want (well, need) that B67 in their proverbial back pocket also, to get to downtown.... The B69 itself, I think should stop dead in Ft. Greene (the neighborhood): - continuing north on Vanderbilt, left turn on Myrtle, right turn on North Portland, right turn on Park av {layover on Park b/w Adelphi & Carlton}, then continue down park & make a right to Vanderbilt, where it would retain the current B69 route.... Instead of making that useless trek down Flushing and Sands to get to Sands/Jay.... Intriguing idea, but I've no clue what to do with that route that might garner more ridership. I was thinking 'Why not extend the B69 South down Jay St and terminate it with the B45 or something?' but that would parallel the B62.... *sigh* People on other forums are mentioning that it (the B69) should go to Williamsburg... with the B62 serving that same area (even serving WBP now), I don't think that's all too necessary.... Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 17, 2010 Share #85 Posted June 17, 2010 About the new Manhattan Bus Map.... is it just me or wasn't the M3 supposed to be extended to the M5's old terminal? Another extension swept under the rug, I guess? Also, why bother still calling the M9 the M9? Considering it only partially resembles its old route [First Battery Park City to Union Square, Now City Hall to Stuyvesant Town] They should have just renumbered the route. M12 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted June 17, 2010 Share #86 Posted June 17, 2010 About the new Manhattan Bus Map.... is it just me or wasn't the M3 supposed to be extended to the M5's old terminal? Another extension swept under the rug, I guess? Also, why bother still calling the M9 the M9? Considering it only partially resembles its old route [First Battery Park City to Union Square, Now City Hall to Stuyvesant Town] They should have just renumbered the route. M12 anyone? Quite frankly though, the Avenue C section does parallel the old route from Houston and 14th and the M9 did run through Park Row at a certain time. So, I'll keep the designation. Don't see any other justification for changing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 21, 2010 Share #87 Posted June 21, 2010 I found an inconsistency in the Brooklyn Bus Map. When I was walking in Bay Ridge/Fort Hamiliton today (To get my token B37 ride, why else?) I noticed the new B70 had bus stops placed on Marine Av between 3 and 4 Avenues when the map shows it traveling on Shore Rd [three short blocks South] instead. I guess the DOT didn't want to take up space on Shore Rd for buses laying over or wanted to shave a minute or two off the trip time. Or something. Perhaps they just made a mistake P.S. - I think some of the colors of routes on the present Brooklyn map... ugh. I prefer most of the colors from maps past. Though I think the only route color changed from the Jan' 10 map was the B48, from yellow-greenish/light green to golden yellowish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 23, 2010 Share #88 Posted June 23, 2010 About the new Manhattan Bus Map.... is it just me or wasn't the M3 supposed to be extended to the M5's old terminal? Another extension swept under the rug, I guess? Also, why bother still calling the M9 the M9? Considering it only partially resembles its old route [First Battery Park City to Union Square, Now City Hall to Stuyvesant Town] They should have just renumbered the route. M12 anyone? The M3 was never supposed to be extended to Houston Street. Whoever thought that it was obviously didn't fully read the proposal. Here is the page of the booklet that talked about the M5 extension: http://mta.info/nyct/service/ServiceReduction/part5.htm , and here is the page that talked about the restructuring: http://mta.info/nyct/service/RouteChanges/mn.htm. I don't see any route replacing the M5 on Houston Street. (Except for the M21, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak7 Posted June 23, 2010 Share #89 Posted June 23, 2010 Another typo: The back of the Bronx map says the new BxM4 runs every 120 minutes on weekends. That was the old BxM4A/B schedule, not the new hourly schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 23, 2010 Share #90 Posted June 23, 2010 The M3 was never supposed to be extended to Houston Street. Whoever thought that it was obviously didn't fully read the proposal. Here is the page of the booklet that talked about the M5 extension: http://mta.info/nyct/service/ServiceReduction/part5.htm , and here is the page that talked about the restructuring: http://mta.info/nyct/service/RouteChanges/mn.htm. I don't see any route replacing the M5 on Houston Street. (Except for the M21, of course) My bad. I thought it was intially supposed to happen for real but maybe it was just a proposal from someone on here. But considering how long the M3 is, an extension like this might not be a good idea anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJC Posted June 28, 2010 Share #91 Posted June 28, 2010 Anyone here think it will be a good idea for the B 68 merge with the B 75? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak7 Posted June 28, 2010 Share #92 Posted June 28, 2010 The B75 is gone. It's replacement, the B57, is already too long and can't be extended anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 28, 2010 Share #93 Posted June 28, 2010 I think he meant with the B61. I usually support combinations of routes. I don't think the traffic in Red Hook/Park Slope is too bad. However, one of the problems with the B61 before it was split was its length, and therefore, its suseptibility to delays, so I'm not sure about this. I would probably tend to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 28, 2010 Share #94 Posted June 28, 2010 Anyone here think it will be a good idea for the B 68 merge with the B 75? yeah, there's no more 75, but I know what you mean. I don't think it would be a good idea.... My take on the matter is as follows: B68 is good right where it is... - for starters, can't make for a better turnaround situation than a roundabout (bartel pritchard sq.) right by a subway station... - two, people that disembark @ pritchard sq were either riders seeking/taking the , or prospect park goers... whatever park slope residents there were that came off the 68, took the [over the B69 & the old B75] anyway.... now that the 61 also serves bartel pritchard sq, there is zero need to extend the B68 northward.... - three, you don't need buses terminating anywhere in the middle of park slope (part of why they bothered merging the 77 w/ the 61)... for some time now, people have suggested that should happen w/ the 68; to bring in an influx of riders for the 68 or w/e.... IMO, I can't picture anymore (or a significant amount) of riders opting to take the 68, if it were extended "deeper" into park slope, over the current usage it currently gets w/ passengers waiting @ pritchard sq... ...and of course, definitely no need to send B68's downtown.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterjames124 Posted June 28, 2010 Share #95 Posted June 28, 2010 Has anyone ridden the newly renumbered College Point busses? I keep checking the MTA site, but the QM5/6/7/8 schedules keep redirecting back to the old QM1/QM1A site. Also the QM6 is labelled as 'Glendale/Midtown' instead of 'Lake Success/Midtown' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 28, 2010 Share #96 Posted June 28, 2010 On the MTA site, the PDF maps are still old! http://www.mta.info/maps/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 28, 2010 Share #97 Posted June 28, 2010 They still have the new maps at: http://mta.info/nyct/service/RouteChanges/index.html , but I agree that they should've taken the old ones down. By the way, some of the new timetables aren't even up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 28, 2010 Share #98 Posted June 28, 2010 They still have the new maps at: http://mta.info/nyct/service/RouteChanges/index.html , but I agree that they should've taken the old ones down. By the way, some of the new timetables aren't even up yet. They all are: http://mta.info/nyct/service/schemain.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 28, 2010 Share #99 Posted June 28, 2010 Those are the subway schedules, though. I was talking about the bus schedules (unless they don't plan on changing all of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted June 30, 2010 Share #100 Posted June 30, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.