LRG Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share #51 Posted January 26, 2011 Back when the Coney island station was being rehabbed and the was cut back to Brighton Beach, the B68 was extended to Coney Island - Stillwell Avenue. And guess what...the service stayed even after the station work was completed. If you want to extend bus service, just extend the B61. The B61 runs alongside the and the so why run redundant service? But then again, I do see SOME logic with extending the B68 to Fourth Avenue and Ninth Street, because chances are, riders who need Manhattan COULD take the to Manhattan, or if they need Sixth Avenue, they could take the to DeKalb and take the across the platform. I'm kinda torn right in the middle over this, in the case of what should be extended. But I do believe there should be some for of bustitution while the work is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #52 Posted January 26, 2011 But wouldn't the shuttle bus have the same problems finding space to layover? A shuttle bus would terminate at the current (B61) terminal at 20th ST/PPW so it should be no problems to find a spot. And at Smith-9th St it could 'lay over' on Smith between Hamilton Ave and 9th St. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #53 Posted January 26, 2011 Back when the Coney island station was being rehabbed and the was cut back to Brighton Beach, the B68 was extended to Coney Island - Stillwell Avenue. And guess what...the service stayed even after the station work was completed. If you want to extend bus service, just extend the B61. The B61 runs alongside the and the so why run redundant service? But then again, I do see SOME logic with extending the B68 to Fourth Avenue and Ninth Street, because chances are, riders who need Manhattan COULD take the to Manhattan, or if they need Sixth Avenue, they could take the to DeKalb and take the across the platform. I'm kinda torn right in the middle over this, in the case of what should be extended. But I do believe there should be some for of bustitution while the work is going on. Another reason why the (B68) extension to Stillwell became permament was these 2 reasons. 1)Residents in the Trump Housing Projects wanted a bus line in area around Neptune between Brighton and Stillwell. 2)Also those from the rest of Coney Island wanting access to the Walgreen's shopping center across from the Neptune Ave station as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted January 26, 2011 Share #54 Posted January 26, 2011 Trump Towers isn't a housing project, it is just a group of regular apartment buildings. In any case, that does make sense that they would want to keep a bus on Neptune Avenue. If you think about it, there is no really easy way to get to the train. The B36 is slow, and you have to go all the way to Sheepshead Bay. If you want to take the , you have to climb up to the platform, wait for the train, take it for only one stop, and then go all the way down and all the way back up to get to the Manhattan-bound . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #55 Posted January 26, 2011 Trump Towers isn't a housing project, it is just a group of regular apartment buildings. In any case, that does make sense that they would want to keep a bus on Neptune Avenue. If you think about it, there is no really easy way to get to the train. The B36 is slow, and you have to go all the way to Sheepshead Bay. If you want to take the , you have to climb up to the platform, wait for the train, take it for only one stop, and then go all the way down and all the way back up to get to the Manhattan-bound . Very true. With a large # of ppl. living in Trump Village (not the one in Manhattan that 'Trump Towers')being seniors, that was a reason the (B68) extension stayed for good. Not to mention the (B68) also provides a bus to the Coney Island DMV(Motor Vechiles)as well. And access to the west end and sea beach lines as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 26, 2011 Share #56 Posted January 26, 2011 But wouldn't the shuttle bus have the same problems finding space to layover? The routing itself isn't hard, though. You can just extend the B68 to 9th Street/7th Avenue (via the B61 route) and then go 9th Street->6th Avenue (layover)->8th Street->7th Avenue->9th Street. 6th av is where you park along in park slope, if you can't find any parking spots on the cross street you live on... anyway, ending B68's @ 9th/7th is *ideal*, but it aint feasible, bro.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #57 Posted January 26, 2011 6th av is where you park along in park slope, if you can't find any parking spots on the cross street you live on... anyway, ending B68's @ 9th/7th is *ideal*, but it aint feasible, bro.... Great point. As someone who lived about a year (with roommates of course)in the Park Slope/Windsor Terrace before I left Brooklyn, I know that area well. My take is that I don't think alot of people in Park Slope would be happy to lose the very hard parking spots mainly car owners. 6th Ave is indeed where many residents 'park their car' and will walk up to 10 blocks to do. So our buddy (B35) is correct in that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share #58 Posted January 26, 2011 You know, you sure used to live in many parts of Brooklyn...kinda like, nomadic status right there lol...just saying of course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #59 Posted January 26, 2011 You know, you sure used to live in many parts of Brooklyn...kinda like, nomadic status right there lol...just saying of course.... LRG I only lived in Park Slope and Sea Gate/Coney Island area. Not to get off topic for second. After my parents left NY I stayed with roommates from LIU-Brooklyn (where I attended for my Master's degree) from 2004-05. I also stayed briefly in Bushwick but moved to Park Slope after the location I lived a loft off the Morgan Ave train was a like a 'wild' college dorm filled with weed, drinks and sex. Need my sleep.B) I left Brooklyn in 2006, when I got a full job at a public school here in Ducthess County. So hope it clears it up LRG. Back to topic. The B68 just does not need to go to the 7th Ave station for the reasons listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #60 Posted January 26, 2011 The question is: Is it really that terrible if the B68 has to maintain the service to 7th Avenue? It is only a 3 minute extension, and it would connect with the B67, as well as serve Methodist Hospital. So what it all comes down to is: Is the ridership of this extension going to be enough to be worth keeping, or not? If it isn't, then, yes, shuttle buses should be used. A shuttle is not the same. You have to remember that on June 27th, the B68/69 connection was severed. An extension of the B68 would at least make up for that instead of former riders now having to take three buses and pay two fares. Another reason why the (B68) extension to Stillwell became permament was these 2 reasons. 1)Residents in the Trump Housing Projects wanted a bus line in area around Neptune between Brighton and Stillwell. 2)Also those from the rest of Coney Island wanting access to the Walgreen's shopping center across from the Neptune Ave station as well. I first proposed that extension back in 1975 along with an extension of the B5 (now B82) to Coney Island. Both ideas were then rejected by the MTA because they would "cost too much." Now they are both realities. In 1975, the MTA insisted that the B68 extension to Coney Island would cost $250,000 a year extra to operate. What is faulty with that analysis and all others is that no assumption was made for increased revenue. $250,000 a year was less than $1,000 a day. When you divide that by the number of B68 trips made daily, you only need several extra new fares per trip, (between 2 and 6) to make up for the increased cost. These fares may not appear on Day 1, but will appear over time. Before 1978, no one was riding from Brighton Beach Avenue to 86th Street, and now the buses are jammed. Good article. What is the big deal with extending the B68 if it becomes popular anyway? I mean are we really talking about a huge expense for the MTA? You know I really don't get them. Here we are in NYC where we should be encouraging people not to use their cars and it seems like the MTA is doing their best to force people to use them or buy one in a city already congested with too much traffic. B) Between the service cuts and endless fare raises that's exactly what's going to happen. Exactly. The additional expense would be small and probably would be made up with additional revenue, but the MTA will not take the risk. They never estimate any additional revenue when costing out route extensions. That is the true problem why the bus routing system is not improved. There is no point in extending a route that the subway will cover when service is restored. Shuttle buses would do just fine. Besides that, I dont see an extension being that popular at all. You are incorrect. A shuttle is not the same. Read my other replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'89 Liberty MCI Posted January 26, 2011 Share #61 Posted January 26, 2011 I agree with what you said about them not foreseeing increased revenues for service extensions. But recently they put together a report in which they said they're going to extend the QM16 in the Rockaways to Beach 169 Street, and they said that they expect an increase in ridership/revenue to compensate for the operating costs. Although it's not a philosophy they are known for following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share #62 Posted January 26, 2011 Exactly. The additional expense would be small and probably would be made up with additional revenue, but the MTA will not take the risk. They never estimate any additional revenue when costing out route extensions. That is the true problem why the bus routing system is not improved. The last time that the MTA really went all out with extending a bus route was with the S55 back in September 2007. Other than that, the MTA really hasn't done anything to improve routes. The cuts do not count because the MTA's main goal was saving money...however, some of them faired out for the better, such as the B61 to Park Slope: it does the same thing the B77 did...and even going the further mile covering the portion of the B75's route south of Smith - Ninth Streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted January 26, 2011 Share #63 Posted January 26, 2011 You are incorrect. A shuttle is not the same. Read my other replies. I'm confused as to exactly what I am incorrect about. I read your other replies. The TA does not want to invest money into extending a line because of a 4 month G.O. Obviously a shuttle is not the same, but its much better than an extension that may not ever be cost effective anyway. True the 68 has a nice high ridership number, but planning and research would be needed to justify an extension. I do however think it would be great to extend the terminal to Smith/9th streets permanently. But if anything is going to be done right now, it should be shuttle buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted January 26, 2011 Share #64 Posted January 26, 2011 I'm confused as to exactly what I am incorrect about. I read your other replies. The TA does not want to invest money into extending a line because of a 4 month G.O. Obviously a shuttle is not the same, but its much better than an extension that may not ever be cost effective anyway. True the 68 has a nice high ridership number, but planning and research would be needed to justify an extension. I do however think it would be great to extend the terminal to Smith/9th streets permanently. But if anything is going to be done right now, it should be shuttle buses. If you read the article I linked in Sheepsheadbites, (which I also wrote), I don't believe that the extra cost for a 4-month G.O. is why the MTA does not want to extend the B68, but rather a fear in that the extension will become permanent and a long time cost. (Also, I was only thinking of a B68 extension to 7 Avenue, not to Smith 9th.) I think an extension to 7Av would be very popular, not sure how popular one to Smith 9th would be, however. The reason I said you were wrong was because of your statements that "Shuttle buses would do just fine." and "I dont see an extension being that popular at all." Let's say someone lives around 11 Avenue. Before the closing of 15th Street, they would walk at least two long blocks to the Subway. Now they have to do that and ride to Church Avenue before getting the Manhattan-bound train. With a shuttle they still have the two-block walk to the subway, then they take the shuttle to 7th Avenue where they board the train. Either way, at least ten minutes is added to the trip. With a B68 extension, they save the two avenue block walk to the subway, partially making up some of their lost time because of no Manhattan-bound service at 15 St. A B68 extension would not cost more than a shuttle and the inconvenience would be reduced. (If there is a cost difference, every other B68 could be extended instead.) Shouldn't the MTA be trying to make the reconstruction as painless as possible? Of course there needs to be planning and research and perhaps it would reveal that there is not enough demand to justify an extension. That would be fine. But the MTA isn't even willing to do such a study. They just make an untrue statement that they don't provide shuttle buses for one-way station closings. Also, a simple study like this need not take three years, which seems to be par for them. They have known about the reconstruction for years and there was plenty of time for them to conduct a study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted January 27, 2011 Share #65 Posted January 27, 2011 ^ Ok, now I see where you are coming from. I looked at the routes, and I just read the article. I could definitely see an extension to 7av being justifiable. It wouldn't cost that much at all IMO either. I do however think it's more to it than the TA not wanting to have the extension end up permanent. I do agree that something should be done though. As far as the B3k...... No comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted January 27, 2011 Share #66 Posted January 27, 2011 You know, you sure used to live in many parts of Brooklyn...kinda like, nomadic status right there lol...just saying of course.... peeped the subliminal.... The last time that the MTA really went all out with extending a bus route was with the S55 back in September 2007. dude, you read my mind.... props on postin this.... If it weren't for this construction on the F/G, we wouldn't be talking seriously about a B68 extension to no park slope.... ^ Ok, now I see where you are coming from. I looked at the routes, and I just read the article. I could definitely see an extension to 7av being justifiable. It wouldn't cost that much at all IMO either. I do however think it's more to it than the TA not wanting to have the extension end up permanent. I do agreene that something should be done though. As far as the B3k...... No comment. A "B3K" like service from smith-9th to church av would be sufficient enough... then when construction is finished, they can dispose of the route accordingly, just like what was done w/ the actual B3k... you save yourself the headache of having to bother with (considering) putting the B68 (if that were be extended) back to pritchard sq... everyone can't have a 1 seat ride everywhere.... IMO, this is a plea/ploy to push the 68 to serving park slope full time, even after the construction... figuring that the MTA would be less reluctant to changing its terminal back to "the way it was".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.