Jump to content

After Doomsday: Brooklyn Bus service 1 month later


Shortline Bus

Recommended Posts

I never did answer this...

 

Replies in green

 

- B70 comes much more frequent... problem is, people still aint riding it..

Lol.... I didn't see a need to increase service at all. Except maybe for the porion of B8 route that the B70 is replacing service.

- B64 riders are xfer-ing at 86th st, coming from either direction..

I think 86th St/4th Av branch is just more popular than the Bay Ridge Av branch.

- B4 ridership, from what I depict, has decreased... B36's still business as usual (I thought this route would be crushed to the gills as a result of the B4 change)

Kind of odd.

- B12, no see-able change in ridership habits whatsoever

Well, considering that most ridership is West of Broadway Junction anyway, I didn't see things could change, either way you're stil riding to BJ.

- B61's aren't as crowded as I thought they would be, but there's still a fair amt. of passengers on it...

Hmmm...

- B57, people disembarking the B61 actually xfer to these, heading downtown....

Three reasons I can think of: - Believes B57 is faster.

- Not going Downtown at all [i.e., just heading to Court or Smith Sts somewhere.]

- Going to Jay St and can't be bothered to walk from the B61.

- the new B48 reminds me of the old B40... like it's a route on it's last legs.... the impact on this cut is the most drastic out of the Brooklyn route alterations of the routes I've taken so far....

Seriously. The one good thing I can see from this is people riding the B43 going from Prospect Park to Williamsburg and Greepoint. And even that's kind of iffy.

As Q43LTD said, the Bx55 to Yankee Stadium was a branch. I have a 1993 Bronx Bus Map that says it ran all times, not just rush hours. However, it received less frequent service than the 149th Street branch (approximately 10 minutes rush hour, 20 minutes off-peak/weekends, and 40 minutes late nights (combined with the 149th Street branch, that gave 3rd Avenue and Webster Avenue 20 minute Bx55 service north of 161st Street)). The main branch ran every 3 minutes rush hours, 5-8 minutes off-peak and 40 minutes late nights.

 

~ Wow! That's some level of service. 3rd Ave riders have been hit hard!!!!!!

The M18 was originally a branch of the M3. I don't know if any additional service was added to the M3. I would doubt it because the M1, M2, M3 and M4 all ran south of 110th Street, so the corridor lost less than 20% of its service.

Its a shame what they are doing with the M98. I suggested that it run to at least 59th Street to connect with the (N)/(Q)/® trains at 59th Street and the (F) train at 63rd, as well as the Q32 to Queens. It misses Midtown completely when it terminates at 68th Street.

The B48, like you said passes the threshold for late night service by 13 riders. Whether or not cutting it back to Fulton Street would cut the number of riders down below 45 is dificult to say (there are still 45 minutes headways, not 60 as shown in the service reductions booklet).

Combining the B48 and B49 wouldn't be the worst idea. The route would be 14-15 miles long, which considering that the M5 in Manhattan is 13 miles long, doesn't seem so bad.

I guess. At least it'd probably have less traffic delays then the (M5). The (MTA) could also cut late night service [on the (B48) portion] at the same time.

 

I don't think the B64 needs to be that infrequent. With 40 minute Sunday service, that would drop ridership low enough that the MTA could discontinue Sunday service altogether. Even 24 minutes on Saturday is a bit much. I think 20 minutes on weekends is fair.

As far as the B48 goes, where would you reroute it to?

Do you think that this sounds like something the MTA might do?:

Discontinue the B48 and reroute the B43 up Nassau Avenue, or discontinue the B48 and reroute the B62 up Nassau Avenue while having the B43 cover the northern portion of the B62 (extending it into Queens).

I agree that the MTA needs to consider 35-foot buses on low-ridership routes. I don't know if the TWU would agree to privatize these routes, though.

 

40 minutes is a pratically a death call. Outside of the express buses, the B100 is the sole route I can think of with such high headaways during the day. Most routes never exceed 30 minutes. Discontinuing the B48 would make travel harder, because now one would have to take the B44 to the B43. Or take a crosstown route to the B43. I wonder what will happen to the B48 next...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

Q67 runs once an hour.

 

Actually, on weekends, the Q67 is less than hourly (at every 70 minutes). I do believe that some routes on weekends or Saturdays only could survive at hourly; the MTA needs to change its thinking.

 

The Q67 on weekends is needed for access to work sites in Maspeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, on weekends, the Q67 is less than hourly (at every 70 minutes). I do believe that some routes on weekends or Saturdays only could survive at hourly; the MTA needs to change its thinking.

 

The Q67 on weekends is needed for access to work sites in Maspeth.

 

It is once an hour

 

http://www.mta.info/busco/schedules/q067cur.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Outside of the express buses, the B100 is the sole route I can think of with such high headaways during the day. Most routes never exceed 30 minutes. QUOTE]

 

Q67 runs once an hour.

 

Oh. The (B67)... The (B100) just stuck out to me. I know the Q21 and Q89 had high headaways. But neither route is the case anymore. The Q21 was extended and had drastically-increased service and the Q89 was finally eliminated. So the point is, almost no routes have such high headaways forever...

 

And to go full circle, the (B64) having 40 minute headaways would almost certainly be grounds to cut more service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Borough Park last week and saw B23 signs still intact. All it says on the information board is that this "bus stop" is no longer a stop.

 

The B4 signs on Neptune Avenue were removed. Except for one stop, parking is now allowed in the bus stops. Interestingly enough at one of the stops with a bus shelter, no one is parking there although it is allowed. People see the shelter and the bus pad and think you can't part there and don't bother looking at the signs. All the signs should be removed in three months according to DOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not suprised many of the bus stop signs in Brooklyn are not updated. At a guide ride stop somewhere in the Brighton beach I saw signs for the old "B21" at location now served by the B1 for nearly 20 years until the Late 1990's before being updated.:eek:

 

I know exactly the sign you are speaking of. It is near Ocean Parkway. There is also an "Old B1" sign at 25th Avenue and 86th Street when that was the first stop of the route. These are not Guide-a-Ride signs, because they didn't exist then. This was DOT's attempt of the 1970s to display route information at bus stops since back then there was no indication at any bus stop as to the route that stopped there. The signs only said "No Standing-Bus Stop."

 

The B21 ceased operation on November 11, 1978. That means the sign has been wrong for 32 years. Since its not at the head of the bus stop, no one sees it anyway and it does no harm. It also just says "21" not B21, since they didn't bother with route prefixes then. I think it should be made a landmark since it was my idea to abolish the B21.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for steering this thread back to talking about Brooklyn buses....

 

The latter post there was informative, but you just had to throw this little snippet in there didn't ya....

 

I think it should be made a landmark since it was my idea to abolish the B21.

 

a landmark.... good lord.....

talk about tooting your own horn...

 

Why do you come on this board to brag about what you've done, or was responsible for, in the past?

You say it's not intentional, but you keep resorting to it.... That's my only gripe with you...

 

You're a good source of info.... so stick to your guns.. w/o the extra stuff...

the ish' gets annoying after a while, I gotta tell ya....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly the sign you are speaking of. It is near Ocean Parkway. There is also an "Old B1" sign at 25th Avenue and 86th Street when that was the first stop of the route. These are not Guide-a-Ride signs, because they didn't exist then. This was DOT's attempt of the 1970s to display route information at bus stops since back then there was no indication at any bus stop as to the route that stopped there. The signs only said "No Standing-Bus Stop."

 

The B21 ceased operation on November 11, 1978. That means the sign has been wrong for 32 years. Since its not at the head of the bus stop, no one sees it anyway and it does no harm. It also just says "21" not B21, since they didn't bother with route prefixes then. I think it should be made a landmark since it was my idea to abolish the B21.

 

And the current B1 was too---even if it took only 32 years to implement ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the current B1 was too---even if it took only 32 years to implement :P

 

Thanks for bringing that up. Sorry B35 via Church, some people feel the past is important. What do they say about the past? If you forget it, you make the same mistakes all over again, or something to that effect.

 

However my idea was for a true 86th Street route with alternate buses beginning at Shore Road and 101st Street via Shore Road and others beginning 4th Avenue with the B16 cut back to 4th Avenue. I also would have been okay for it to begin at Shore Road and 86th Street. But I was always against a B64 flip flop.

 

Also when I proposed the B49 alteration in 1975, I proposed the current route northbound but the TA insisted on Sheepshead Bay Road North. After it was done in 1978, I was glad they didn't listen to me. So about five years ago they change it to what I proposed 30 years earlier. When I proposed it, there was much less traffic on Voorhjes and E 14th St. Today it is more congested than Sheepshead Bay Road. They just should have left it as it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes BrooklynBus and B35. The "Mike and the Mad Dog' of NYC bus chats LOL.:tup:

as far as how I express myself (on & offline), I'm like a hybrid of the two...

 

nonetheless, good comparison....

 

 

 

Sorry B35 via Church, some people feel the past is important. What do they say about the past? If you forget it, you make the same mistakes all over again, or something to that effect.

 

Strawman arguments won't work with me.... good try though....

 

Of course history is important; it's not about simply bringing up the past...

 

...as much as it is you constantly, constantly bringing up what YOU proposed back then.... the accomplishments as a result of YOUR proposals... I mean, you're doing the very thing, in that last post of yours... Dude, it's one thing to share knowledge with others based on your experiences, it is quite another to put yourself in front of the limelight, while sharing the same knowledge....

 

let you tell it, and you'll have people here believing that the Brooklyn Bus network (between the mid 70's & 6/26/10) is, the way it is, all as a direct result of your proposals in the past... How you somehow equate that to me not thinking the past isn't important, who knows.....

 

funny how you come on here to brag, and you express yourself on subchat very differently.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

let you tell it, and you'll have people here believing that the Brooklyn Bus network (between the mid 70's & 6/26/10) is, the way it is, all as a direct result of your proposals in the past... funny how you come on here to brag, and you express yourself on subchat very differently.....

 

I certainly don't come here to brag. I only bring up something when it's pertinent and I express myself the same way on all forums and blogs. I have much knowledge that I like to share, just as you do. I never meant to imply or stated that the Brooklyn Bus Network is the way it is as a direct result of my proposals in the past. How I wish that were true. They have only listened to a very small portion of my ideas, and some of what I proposed in my master's thesis (and I'm sure others have proposed as well, because they were so obvious) were only implemented by coincidence, not because I had anything to do with it.

 

How you somehow equate that to me not thinking the past isn't important, who knows.....

 

 

 

Because you frequently criticize me when I cite history with a response like. We have to live in today. You keep bringing up things that happened years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't come here to brag. I only bring up something when it's pertinent and I express myself the same way on all forums and blogs.

That may be your intent...

 

however, the one thing that an individual cannot do, is accurately judge how they come off at others... of course you're not gonna see it as bragging... and you definitely don't portray yourself on SC different than what you do here...

 

 

 

Because you frequently criticize me when I cite history with a response like. We have to live in today. You keep bringing up things that happened years ago.

 

I don't frequently criticize you when you bring up the past....

you continually act as if I despise almost everything historical that you may mention.... matter fact, I didn't even criticize you for it in this thread.... so where this nice little remark came from out of you:

 

Sorry B35 via Church, some people feel the past is important.

 

..is beyond me.

 

Now...

What I do have a gripe with, is the frequency of how much you bring up the past, when you do post here.... tied into the fact that this is almost always followed by some mention of some proposal you made in the 70's... that to me is bragging....

 

Not that you should care (or is relevant, but I'll say it anyway), but there's a poster I believe by the name of Michael (Mike Gerald) that posts on subchat; another person that makes posts regarding historical aspects of NYC's buses/trains... Difference is, the composition of his posts doesn't show any signs of "look what happened... look at what resulted because of me"...

 

I can't say that for you... but I actually do wish was the case, b/c you are quite the source of information when it comes to... well, Brooklyn.... too bad you choose to relay information in the manner in which you do....

 

whether you realize it or not....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be your intent...

 

you definitely don't portray yourself on SC different than what you do here...

 

First you say I portray myself differently here and now you say I don't, so I don't know what you are trying to say.

 

 

I don't frequently criticize you when you bring up the past....

 

Now...

What I do have a gripe with, is the frequency of how much you bring up the past, when you do post here...

 

Again you say something and then disagree with your own statement. If you don't frequently criticize me, how do I know it bothers you so much? I am not a mind reader.

 

there's a poster I believe by the name of Michael (Mike Gerald) that posts on subchat; another person that makes posts regarding historical aspects of NYC's buses/trains... Difference is, the composition of his posts doesn't show any signs of "look what happened... look at what resulted because of me"...

 

Well maybe that's because he can't make the claims that I can. Call it bragging if you like. The facts are that my claims are true and you are the only one who seems to be bothered with them. Sorry, but I'm not going to change just to please you. You can ignore my posts for all I care, if they bother you that much.

 

Sorry, that the rest of you have to put up with this, but I wasn't the one who started it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- first quote was a typo...

 

- second quote is sayin two different things... some things aren't as obvious to others, I suppose...

 

- your response to the third quote....

no need for an apology... I urge you NOT to change just for me.

 

 

But know that I will continue to call you out on your inherent bragging as I see fit... I'm not ignoring anyone for whatever underlying selfish reasons they may have for wanting me to do so.... Besides, it makes for good discussion (and a couple chuckles out of me, as well... hah)....

 

Look, champ...

You continue to talk about the past & the present. (the majority of your posts on here)

I'll continue to talk about the present & the future. (the majority of my posts on here)

 

If that's still a problem for ya, then w/e....

Do what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- All of a sudden, I find myself wanting to take the B70 (instead of bothering with the (R), whenever I'm comin back to Brooklyn, coming from SI.... iono, seems like b/o's on the new 70 don't crawl the route; those bad boys actually move up 3rd av.... I get to 39th/8th fairly quickly....

 

majority of the riders are still on 8th av, though.... starts to pick up @ the bay ridge av station....

 

 

- I've taken the (new) B48 twice.... that ride is too quick... it still gets its riders, though.... but what I don't notice, is an influx of passengers taking the Franklin av (S)... wonder how those former riders are getting around....

someone mentioned merging the 48/49... can't see that happening, for the simple fact that the B44 runs as close as it does to the B49, in Bed-Stuy....

 

...and with the supposed B44 BRT reroute of NB buses panning up Rogers (ugh)

 

- I took the B3 over to Veterans av.... some lady on the bus was pleading that the b/o travel "2 more blocks".. I shook my head, and got off to catch the B41...

 

- The 69 really needs to cease service over there on Jay/Sands... cutting B4's @ CI & having 69's serve that area (virtually NO ONE takes the 69, over there by the navy yard [farragut houses]) really makes the MTA look like hypocrites....

 

- I hate to say this, but the B12 has too much service... I'm starting to see more & more buses run 1/2 full-to-near empty now (at certain points where buses were almost always packed)... the runs that were running to Sheridan av, obviously all end at Alabama... 2-3 buses all arriving @ Alabama @ the same time, is excessive (and problematic, if you ever been over there where the 12 drops ppl off at)... it's not like we're talking Q4/Q5 crowds on the B12 here....

 

- IMO, the new BM5 sucks.... the fact that b/o's have to consider stopping along Woodhaven, slows that route down... and as a passenger, it is noticable... the brightside (if you want to call it that), is, I notice more people are starting to use the darned thing.....

 

- I'm surprised at the number of people that opt to take a VA Hosp bound B70, to xfer to the B8... to be honest, I expected a drastic drop in the number of, well, Brooklyn riders (lol) on that side of 92nd street (people waiting over there for a VA Hosp. bound 70, to xfer to the 8)....

 

 

all of a sudden, I feel like going back to what I used to do, years ago - asking passengers survey questions about "their" route....

in any event, maybe this saturday, and some day during the week, next week, I'll take the full 57 route....

 

stay tuned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will like this post.

 

You certainly do get around. I don't know what you do for a living, but if you enjoy buses this much you really should consider trying to get a job at Operations Planning. I bet that you know more than all of them over there.

 

About the specifics. Just a few remarks:

 

The B70 reroute was one of the few intelligent changes they made if you buy into the B37 not having enough ridership to continue. (And it wasn't one of the changes that I had also thought of.)

 

Agreed B48/49 merger would be a poor idea.

 

Saw the new B4 for the first time on a weekend. The new terminus is Shore Parkway service road and Ocean Parkway. Guess that's why they created a new bus stop. Thought it was supposed to be at Coney Island Avenue. So I guess those transferring from the B68 have to sit through the layover. Also destination sign is misleading for those who don't know because if you are coming from Bay Ridge, destination sign make it appear that there is no transfer to the B68 and the hospital is as far as you could go. As NX Express suggested, a terminus at the Q train would have made a lot more sense, and I don't think it would have even costed extra, since buses would not have had to loop down to the Belt Parkway in one direction at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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