Manhattan Beach Group asks for more summer beach service

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The (B37) while it nice to restore is not the top of list IMO for service returning from last June Doomsday Cuts.

 

They include the following IMO in no order. Weekday B39(Essex is not ADA acessible) 7-day B24 service at least along Greenpoint Ave, Q79(weekday only)B51(rush hour only) B64 to Stillwell and B4 to Sheapshead Bay being the top ones.

 

And even if the (B37) did return it should be a weekday only. The was correct in ending overnight/weekend service.

 

Yet Garibaldi 8 will likely still call for the return of 24/7 B37 when on weekends especially Sunday evenings and overnights there was *zero* riders the entire trip. There is a world outside of SI and Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst and SW Brooklyn.:eek:

 

 

Oh please... I want most if not all of the service cuts REVERSED, and especially in the more suburban areas which already suffer from a lack of service as it is. I have also called for the restoration of bus lines in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens and the Bronx, so spare me with your Staten Island, South Brooklyn nonsense.

 

First I only cared about express bus service. Now I only care about Staten Island and South Brooklyn. B)

 

The B37 should have full service restored. I guess people only have things to do during the week at the times that you propose. B)

 

 

Furthermore, for someone complaining about what service should and shouldn't be restored, I don't see you doing anything but yapping and criticizing.

[Shortline Bus]

The B37 should full service restored. I guess people only have things to do during the week at the times that your propose. B)

 

You mean 24/7 service on (B37) for full service restored? That why many of the guys on here disagree with you because you would want every line to run 24/7 service if you could from way it sounds? Even when B35 via Church tries to explain things you refuse to listen.

 

I maybe a Metro North rider but I have a right to my view as well since all of our fares go to the same kitty.

I do agree that the could do more for funding and cut excessive salaries/uneeded jobs. Services should be based on rider needs/passenger usage. That why for instance I oppose running the X27/28 on Sundays. Not fair to run service when another area of the city needs more service.

 

I place most of the recent cuts on mostly NYC, Albany and Washington. Also even a few at the upper management of the unions as well for not coming to a compromise with say some station agents at low usage subway stations should be cut.

 

The B37 was a ghost town especially at night. Yet when someone challenges you to facts Garbaldi you stubborn and rarely admit you wrong or change your mind. And if you read carefully I have offered some solutions.

 

Again I always taken very that the B37 should be a weekday only bus to take off load from the train and (B63).

Souther part of 3rd Ave now has the (B70). Just my takes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You mean 24/7 service on (B37) for full service restored? That why many of the guys on here disagree with you because you would want every line to run 24/7 service if you could? Even when B35 via Church tries to explain things you refuse to listen.

 

I maybe a Metro North rider but I have a right to my view as well since all of our fares go to the same kitty. I do agree that the could do more for funding and cut excessive salaries/uneeded jobs. I place most of the recent cuts on mostly NYC, Albany and Washington. Also even a few at the upper management of the unions as well for not coming to a compromise with say some station agents at low usage subway stations should be cut.

 

The B37 was a ghost town especially at night. Yet when someone challenges you to facts Garbaldi you stubborn and rarely admit you wrong or change your mind.

 

Again I always taken very that the B37 should be a weekday only bus.

 

First off, when has B35 tried to explain anything to me?? He and I have often times agreed on certain proposals, so I don't know what you're talking about or why you're bringing him into this conversation anyway.

 

Second, instead of proposing cuts on the backs of riders, the needs to get its own fiscal house in order. That's where the problem is. It's not the service and they admitted that they made cuts that were painful to make and devastating for communities around NYC. Just stop already with the flipflopping and the I'm so bias nonsense. It's beyond ridiculous already. Like I said, I don't see you doing anything to improve the situation but complaining. Yet according to you, you use the services down here. Sure as hell could've fooled me. :confused:

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Reminds me of old SI Transit Maps showing the 103, the 78's former name & identity, serving Great Kills Park in the Summertime:cool:

 

DID the 78 ever cover Great Kills Park in the Summertime?

 

It's a groovy request on the part of the Manhattan Beach Group:tup:

[checkmatechamp13]

That's because people are lazy, but it certainly could help. I used to walk quite a bit from my old junior high school there on Emmons and Shore Blvd down to Manhattan Beach. The walk is nothing quite frankly.

 

That's my point. The vast majority of the people would let a B4 pass and wait for the B49, since it runs fairly frequently.

 

I never understood the congress/state legislatures lines across NYC anyhow. Finally I think Gov. Cuomo and the gang in Albany will try to at least try to create districts based more on actually common sense and not based on politics.

 

Back to topic. Good point Alan. Golden seems only intrestred in the Manhattan based express buses commuters and not the other regular riders.

 

The point kind of is to base it on politics, with the idea that an area with similar characteristics and similar political beliefs should be grouped together.

 

Again, not necessary. Why should the people getting on before Hastings have to miss a bus? They are also coming from the beach area.

It is not even a good idea at KCC dismissal times, because only about 20 people get on in about a half hour after the first stop and half the buses unload at the subway in a few minutes, so the buses are crowded only for a short while. What the dispatchers have been trying to do is have the buses leave KCC not quite full so that others can get on. That makes sense. The problem is that drivers have not been stopping even when half empty.

 

I wonder how many people living in western Manhattan Beach walk to the subway station (or back to KCC) in hopes of catching a bus over there.

 

Oh please... I want most if not all of the service cuts REVERSED, and especially in the more suburban areas which already suffer from a lack of service as it is. I have also called for the restoration of bus lines in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens and the Bronx, so spare me with your Staten Island, South Brooklyn nonsense.

First I only cared about express bus service. Now I only care about Staten Island and South Brooklyn. B)

The B37 should have full service restored. I guess people only have things to do during the week at the times that you propose. B)

 

Furthermore, for someone complaining about what service should and shouldn't be restored, I don't see you doing anything but yapping and criticizing.

 

No, but you don't want to acknowledge the fact that mass transit should be about serving the masses, and especially in these times of budget crisis, shouldn't be about serving the few people that need to travel on the weekends on a lightly used line (unless it is absolutely the only service in the area, which isn't the case here).

 

And you have to consider that there is always somebody traveling at a time when mass transit is inconvenient to use. Should the B37 run at 24/7 because people have to do things during other times of the week? How about the S54 or S57?

 

You mean 24/7 service on (B37) for full service restored? That why many of the guys on here disagree with you because you would want every line to run 24/7 service if you could from way it sounds? Even when B35 via Church tries to explain things you refuse to listen.

I maybe a Metro North rider but I have a right to my view as well since all of our fares go to the same kitty.

I do agree that the could do more for funding and cut excessive salaries/uneeded jobs. Services should be based on rider needs/passenger usage. That why for instance I oppose running the X27/28 on Sundays. Not fair to run service when another area of the city needs more service.

I place most of the recent cuts on mostly NYC, Albany and Washington. Also even a few at the upper management of the unions as well for not coming to a compromise with say some station agents at low usage subway stations should be cut.

The B37 was a ghost town especially at night. Yet when someone challenges you to facts Garbaldi you stubborn and rarely admit you wrong or change your mind. And if you read carefully I have offered some solutions.

Again I always taken very that the B37 should be a weekday only bus to take off load from the train and (B63).

Souther part of 3rd Ave now has the (B70). Just my takes.

 

Agreed completely, especially with the bolded part.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No, but you don't want to acknowledge the fact that mass transit should be about serving the masses, and especially in these times of budget crisis, shouldn't be about serving the few people that need to travel on the weekends on a lightly used line (unless it is absolutely the only service in the area, which isn't the case here).

 

And you have to consider that there is always somebody traveling at a time when mass transit is inconvenient to use. Should the B37 run at 24/7 because people have to do things during other times of the week? How about the S54 or S57?

 

That's because there are people that aren't necessarily part of the "masses" like the elderly that depend on these services and having them slashed means that they're stranded. Let's remember that the slashes Access-A-Ride and told these people to use mass transit, and then they go and slash that too, so what alternative are they supposed to have?? You, Shortline and the just look at numbers and a map and go, oh this isn't needed and that isn't needed. Me on the other hand I live in the real world where people depend on the so called "Not needed lines". Now Shortline would rather keep the B51 which was a very short and underutilized line, but he'd cut the B37, which I'm sure had far more ridership, albeit lots of elderly folks. I don't get the logic at all. Services cannot always be provided based on dollars and cents and you and Amtrak are obsessed with numbers and figures instead of looking at the big picture overall.

 

The small businesses along 3rd Avenue in Bay Ridge depended on the folks shopping along there and the B37 helped many folks along 3rd Avenue get around, and a lot of those folks were seniors. If it was up to you, we'd have transportation services like they do in 3rd world countries where people are shoved into the subways like animals. Lack of or elimination of transportation services destroys vibrant neighbourhoods, whether you want to realize that or not. Look at all of the stores along 2nd Avenue in Manhattan that closed down because of the lack of access due to the Second Avenue subway drama and the traffic and such. The M15 was severly affected by it too.

[checkmatechamp13]

That's because there are people that aren't necessarily part of the "masses" like the elderly that depend on these services and having them slashed means that they're stranded. Let's remember that the slashes Access-A-Ride and told these people to use mass transit, and then they go and slash that too, so what alternative are they supposed to have?? You, Shortline and the just look at numbers and a map and go, oh this isn't needed and that isn't needed. Me on the other hand I live in the real world where people depend on the so called "Not needed lines". Now Shortline would rather keep the B51 which was a very short and underutilized line, but he'd cut the B37, which I'm sure had far more ridership, albeit lots of elderly folks. I don't get the logic at all. Services cannot always be provided based on dollars and cents and you and Amtrak are obsessed with numbers and figures instead of looking at the big picture overall.

 

That's why I said "Unless it is absolutely the only service in the area, which isn't the case here".

 

My grandmother is one of those people who has to walk a long distance to the bus stop (7-8 blocks). She complains about it (actually, she complains more about waiting for the bus than about the walk to the bus stop), but accepts that she committed herself to that when she moved to SI (that is why having things within walking distance was a priority when we moved here)

 

Here, those seniors you speak of are already in a better position than my grandmother: They are within walking distance of a bus. Sure, they have to transfer to the B63 if they want to travel north-south, but the point is that they have access to a bus: Even an elderly person is capable of transferring (I'm not saying it is an ideal situation, but it is possible)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's why I said "Unless it is absolutely the only service in the area, which isn't the case here".

 

My grandmother is one of those people who has to walk a long distance to the bus stop (7-8 blocks). She complains about it (actually, she complains more about waiting for the bus than about the walk to the bus stop), but accepts that she committed herself to that when she moved to SI (that is why having things within walking distance was a priority when we moved here)

 

Here, those seniors you speak of are already in a better position than my grandmother: They are within walking distance of a bus. Sure, they have to transfer to the B63 if they want to travel north-south, but the point is that they have access to a bus: Even an elderly person is capable of transferring (I'm not saying it is an ideal situation, but it is possible)

 

 

We are talking about two very different situations here. You can't justify cutting service just because there is "an alternative" in the area. That has nothing to do with it at all. Quite frankly it is ridiculous to have no S54 or S66 weekend service when you have no North-South service after Broadway and Forest until you reach Decker and Forest.

 

In the case of Bay Ridge, they moved to an area with decent transit along certain parts of Bay Ridge and they have every right to fight to keep it because they relied on that line for 50+ years.

 

 

Here, those seniors you speak of are already in a better position than my grandmother: They are within walking distance of a bus. Sure, they have to transfer to the B63 if they want to travel north-south, but the point is that they have access to a bus: Even an elderly person is capable of transferring (I'm not saying it is an ideal situation, but it is possible)

 

 

And that's the point that you're missing. Transportation is supposed to be CONVENIENT, not an obstacle course. You don't encourage people to use transportation by making it more difficult for them to get around.

[qjtransitmaster]

First off, when has B35 tried to explain anything to me?? He and I have often times agreed on certain proposals, so I don't know what you're talking about or why you're bringing him into this conversation anyway.

 

Second, instead of proposing cuts on the backs of riders, the needs to get its own fiscal house in order. That's where the problem is. It's not the service and they admitted that they made cuts that were painful to make and devastating for communities around NYC. Just stop already with the flipflopping and the I'm so bias nonsense. It's beyond ridiculous already. Like I said, I don't see you doing anything to improve the situation but complaining. Yet according to you, you use the services down here. Sure as hell could've fooled me. :confused:

 

I would listen to shortline bus if I were you.!!!!! It's not about cuts on the backs of riders if you cut a bus that no one uses then whose backs are actually getting hurt my point exactly. Before you talk you really need to look at it on a route by route basis and look at the routing structure and take a look at how the buses run and the unique aspects of the line. If a rte has no unique aspects then it should be eliminated period!!!!! If a bus is a copycat of another more frequent route like Q74 was it should have been cut years ago. Especially Q75 however the unique aspect of the line could have been merged with Q88 to literally eliminate the negative impact that the elimination had. Combining routes dont qualify as cuts. MTA as financially irrisponsible as they are running buses no one uses is equally as irresponsible.

[qjtransitmaster]

We are talking about two very different situations here. You can't justify cutting service just because there is "an alternative" in the area. That has nothing to do with it at all. Quite frankly it is ridiculous to have no S54 or S66 weekend service when you have no North-South service after Broadway and Forest until you reach Decker and Forest.

 

In the case of Bay Ridge, they moved to an area with decent transit along certain parts of Bay Ridge and they have every right to fight to keep it because they relied on that line for 50+ years.

 

 

 

 

 

And that's the point that you're missing. Transportation is supposed to be CONVENIENT, not an obstacle course. You don't encourage people to use transportation by making it more difficult for them to get around.

 

err B37 was cut for a reason. If I had my way I would have rerouted some B63 trips over 3rd ave cause those lines are a disgrace. I waited 20 mins for a B63 to show up then walked from 59th to 86th still no bus seriously if you have to go somewhere ur better off with the subway. The stair argument is invalid for one reason SEVERAL elderly ppl are already able to use the subway anyway. Not ideal but doable as long as transit service exists and it gets you from point a to b without taking forever then that is good enough. Along with a good frequency. Clearly by reading your posts I can tell that you do not understand how transit works nor how to run efficient bus service. Let alone bus lines and their routing pattern clearly you have no clue period. If an alternative is available then the ridership potential is lower unless that alternative is extremely slow.

[cotb16]

The point kind of is to base it on politics, with the idea that an area with similar characteristics and similar political beliefs should be grouped together.

 

 

Which is why Martin Golden ended up in the State Senate in the first place. Before 2002, Marine Park, Mill Basin, Sheepshead Bay, Midwood, and Brighton Beach were in the old 21st District, under Carl Kruger. The old 22nd District was a mostly Jewish, Democratic district covering Coney Island, Windsor Terrace, Kensington, Gravesend, and Bath Beach under Seymour Lachman. As for Bay Ridge, they were in the old 23rd District with Vincent Gentile which covered Bay Ridge and Staten Island's East Shore.

 

But in the 2002 redrawing of districts, the Senate Republicans (who had majority) pulled out an old 1894 edict (which was written to curb the influence of rising Irish democrats) declaring that a Republican district had to be created in Brooklyn. Thus, the new 22nd covered Gravesend, Bay Ridge, Marine Park, Gerritsen Beach, Dyker heights, and Bensonhurst, under Martin Golden, was born.

 

I have a feeling that the Republicans might want to punish Carl Kruger even further by placing some of his areas under Golden or even Kevin Parker (whose district includes areas like Flatlands and East Flatbush) or even splitting his district amongst Golden's, Parker's, or even John Sampson's.

[B35 via Church]

The problem w/ the (lack of usage on the) B37 was the area along 3rd av b/w Bay Ridge & Downtown Brooklyn (Boerum Hill if you wanna get technical).... I understand, and agree with the MTA's decision to get rid of that route; one of the very few I felt was justified... 3rd av b/w those two aforementioned areas lost importance overall (much like the old B19 & the B33).... and overall ridership on the B37 suffered b/c of it....

 

Riders were not taking the B37 from Downtown to Bay Ridge like that, and they really (Bay Ridge folk) don't take the B63 either that far north (part of which b/c it travels along Atlantic, instead of Livingston)... w/e riders that embarked on those buses north of 65th (where it parallels the gowanus) & south of those projects over there in Boerum hill, were negligible, I gotta say... and those weren't the older crowds either... the stint I'm referring to, was too much of a chunk of the B37 where riders weren't utilizing it, to keep running buses....

 

^^ The riders in Bay ridge along 3rd av (which if you ask me, was low in its own right) was a victim of that very circumstance.... Whereas, in the case of the B63, the population/number of riders using buses along Atlantic av (west of flatbush av), boomed....

(and this happened long before they propped up Brooklyn Bridge park, so that's not a factor here....)

 

3rd av south of bay ridge av though.... only thing moving the B70 along that portion did, was guarantee *some* type of bus service... What I will say is, said riders are not seeking 8th av at all... and the current ridership habits on the B70 after 5th av clearly shows that.....

 

 

It wasn't like so much more B63's arrived over the B37 (I'd say there were 2 B63's to 1 B37, on average)... the residents that lived along/around the old route themselves knew what was up w/ the 37.... The MTA didn't (and really couldn't IMO) make that route any more conducive to riders, riding it... meaning, taking 'x' amount of people off 63's & possibly onto 37's.... Even if the MTA were to decrease headways to say, buses every 10 minutes.... for the life of me, I don't see where the boost in ridership would happen....

 

Something very drastic is gonna have to happen along 3rd av (positively), the B63 along 5th (negatively), and the subway along 4th av (negatively) for me to say & believe that the B37 should be brought back....

 

Unless anyone have any ideas (w/o cutting/altering any other routes to justify bringing the 37 back).... because I can't think of any....

 

Simply bringing service back along the length of 3rd av isn't gonna cut it... It'll be deja vu all over again....

[checkmatechamp13]

By the way, in his post I read that they eliminated the bus stop at Oriental Blvd/Ocean Avenue. It's a shame that happened. Back when I lived in Brighton Beach, we would sometimes use that stop to come home from the church or the playground in that area.

 

We are talking about two very different situations here. You can't justify cutting service just because there is "an alternative" in the area. That has nothing to do with it at all. Quite frankly it is ridiculous to have no S54 or S66 weekend service when you have no North-South service after Broadway and Forest until you reach Decker and Forest.

 

In the case of Bay Ridge, they moved to an area with decent transit along certain parts of Bay Ridge and they have every right to fight to keep it because they relied on that line for 50+ years.

 

 

 

 

 

And that's the point that you're missing. Transportation is supposed to be CONVENIENT, not an obstacle course. You don't encourage people to use transportation by making it more difficult for them to get around.

 

I don't see what you're talking about. That has everything to do with it (the bolded part). If people have an alternative, that means they can still get around.

 

As far as the B37 goes, everybody has the right to fight for their bus lines, but the question becomes, is it worth it for the rest of us taxpayers to subsidize a line with low ridership?

 

As far as the S54 and S66 go, those routes really didn't have alternatives (you might be able to use the S57 or S53 for trips between specific areas, but that's about it)

 

For the second part of your post, my response is: At what cost? My family pays taxes as well, and we think that it would be a waste to waste our tax dollars on bringing a bus closer to us if there isn't the ridership to back it up.

 

The problem w/ the (lack of usage on the) B37 was the area along 3rd av b/w Bay Ridge & Downtown Brooklyn (Boerum Hill if you wanna get technical).... I understand, and agree with the MTA's decision to get rid of that route; one of the very few I felt was justified... 3rd av b/w those two aforementioned areas lost importance overall (much like the old B19 & the B33).... and overall ridership on the B37 suffered b/c of it....

 

Riders were not taking the B37 from Downtown to Bay Ridge like that, and they really (Bay Ridge folk) don't take the B63 either that far north (part of which b/c it travels along Atlantic, instead of Livingston)... w/e riders that embarked on those buses north of 65th (where it parallels the gowanus) & south of those projects over there in Boerum hill, were negligible, I gotta say... and those weren't the older crowds either... the stint I'm referring to, was too much of a chunk of the B37 where riders weren't utilizing it, to keep running buses....

 

^^ The riders in Bay ridge along 3rd av (which if you ask me, was low in its own right) was a victim of that very circumstance.... Whereas, in the case of the B63, the population/number of riders using buses along Atlantic av (west of flatbush av), boomed....

(and this happened long before they propped up Brooklyn Bridge park, so that's not a factor here....)

 

3rd av south of bay ridge av though.... only thing moving the B70 along that portion did, was guarantee *some* type of bus service... What I will say is, said riders are not seeking 8th av at all... and the current ridership habits on the B70 after 5th av clearly shows that.....

 

 

It wasn't like so much more B63's arrived over the B37 (I'd say there were 2 B63's to 1 B37, on average)... the residents that lived along/around the old route themselves knew what was up w/ the 37.... The MTA didn't (and really couldn't IMO) make that route any more conducive to riders, riding it... meaning, taking 'x' amount of people off 63's & possibly onto 37's.... Even if the MTA were to decrease headways to say, buses every 10 minutes.... for the life of me, I don't see where the boost in ridership would happen....

 

Something very drastic is gonna have to happen along 3rd av (positively), the B63 along 5th (negatively), and the subway along 4th av (negatively) for me to say & believe that the B37 should be brought back....

 

Unless anyone have any ideas (w/o cutting/altering any other routes to justify bringing the 37 back).... because I can't think of any....

 

Simply bringing service back along the length of 3rd av isn't gonna cut it... It'll be deja vu all over again....

 

I would expect ridership to be low under the BQE simply because there isn't much in that area: Only things like car shops and other industrial stuff (though there are some buildings between 65th Street and 39th Street).

 

So what were/are the ridership habits of the B37/B70? Are most of the riders embarking along 3rd Avenue staying along 3rd Avenue within Bay Ridge?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

err B37 was cut for a reason. If I had my way I would have rerouted some B63 trips over 3rd ave cause those lines are a disgrace. I waited 20 mins for a B63 to show up then walked from 59th to 86th still no bus seriously if you have to go somewhere ur better off with the subway. The stair argument is invalid for one reason SEVERAL elderly ppl are already able to use the subway anyway. Not ideal but doable as long as transit service exists and it gets you from point a to b without taking forever then that is good enough. Along with a good frequency. Clearly by reading your posts I can tell that you do not understand how transit works nor how to run efficient bus service. Let alone bus lines and their routing pattern clearly you have no clue period. If an alternative is available then the ridership potential is lower unless that alternative is extremely slow.

 

Oh and you know so well how to run efficient bus service?? On one hand you would re-route some B63s down 3rd Avenue, but then you say that the B63 is a disgrace, so how exactly would re-routing some of them down 3rd Avenue make it more efficient?? Second off, if it was up to you, people who could not use the subway would basically be f*cked because they would have no bus service. Now everyone is soooo wild about the f*cking subway and there isn't a week that goes by where there isn't some problem with the subway. Let's cram everyone on the subway in a system that is falling apart and then when there's a problem like there was years ago where there was no subway service on certain lines because of a simple rain storm, you had folks cramming on to those same buses that you want get rid of. You and checkmate are the ones that make no sense because you can't push everyone to a system that clearly is unstable just because it moves more people and try to slash every damn bus in the system.

 

All of your posts that I've read have basically dealt with slashing buses, as has checkmates, but checkmate's agenda is to slash all the service with the thought that transportation will be very cheap or free. LOL

 

Anyone with half a brain knows that buses are vital part of the system. They're seen as slow because the has been neglecting ways to make buses quicker and has not been innovative overall with making buses quicker. Now with Jay Walder at the helm, they're finally waking up.

 

Now as far as the B37 goes, I do agree that service needs lacked overall going past Bay Ridge, but the problem now is that the B63 has to pick up all of the slack for the B37. Somehow someway, the B37 should be restored, with the Northern portion restructed to make it work better.

 

 

By the way, in his post I read that they eliminated the bus stop at Oriental Blvd/Ocean Avenue. It's a shame that happened. Back when I lived in Brighton Beach, we would sometimes use that stop to come home from the church or the playground in that area.

 

 

 

I don't see what you're talking about. That has everything to do with it (the bolded part). If people have an alternative, that means they can still get around.

 

As far as the B37 goes, everybody has the right to fight for their bus lines, but the question becomes, is it worth it for the rest of us taxpayers to subsidize a line with low ridership?

 

As far as the S54 and S66 go, those routes really didn't have alternatives (you might be able to use the S57 or S53 for trips between specific areas, but that's about it)

 

For the second part of your post, my response is: At what cost? My family pays taxes as well, and we think that it would be a waste to waste our tax dollars on bringing a bus closer to us if there isn't the ridership to back it up.

 

 

 

I would expect ridership to be low under the BQE simply because there isn't much in that area: Only things like car shops and other industrial stuff (though there are some buildings between 65th Street and 39th Street).

 

So what were/are the ridership habits of the B37/B70? Are most of the riders embarking along 3rd Avenue staying along 3rd Avenue within Bay Ridge?

 

If you're really so concerned about tax payer dollars and waste then where is your outrage at the waste outside of the services that the provides? Also, if everyone was gung hoe about these cuts previously, where was the outrage before the cuts? It's all BS. Let's just slash everything and leave all the neighbourhoods without service but say nothing about how the wastes in other areas. If you're going to cry about waste, then do it across the board and not just zero in constantly on services.

 

You're perfect fine with others not paying their fare and other tax payers paying for it when that money could be used to improve service for everyone, but that's okay though because transit should be free right??

[checkmatechamp13]

Oh and you know so well how to run efficient bus service?? On one hand you would re-route some B63s down 3rd Avenue, but then you say that the B63 is a disgrace, so how exactly would re-routing some of them down 3rd Avenue make it more efficient?? Second off, if it was up to you, people who could not use the subway would basically be f*cked because they would have no bus service. Now everyone is soooo wild about the f*cking subway and there isn't a week that goes by where there isn't some problem with the subway. Let's cram everyone on the subway in a system that is falling apart and then when there's a problem like there was years ago where there was no subway service on certain lines because of a simple rain storm, you had folks cramming on to those same buses that you want get rid of. You and checkmate are the ones that make no sense because you can't push everyone to a system that clearly is unstable just because it moves more people and try to slash every damn bus in the system.

 

All of your posts that I've read have basically dealt with slashing buses, as has checkmates, but checkmate's agenda is to slash all the service with the thought that transportation will be very cheap or free. LOL

 

Anyone with half a brain knows that buses are vital part of the system. They're seen as slow because the has been neglecting ways to make buses quicker and has not been innovative overall with making buses quicker. Now with Jay Walder at the helm, they're finally waking up.

 

Now as far as the B37 goes, I do agree that service needs lacked overall going past Bay Ridge, but the problem now is that the B63 has to pick up all of the slack for the B37. Somehow someway, the B37 should be restored, with the Northern portion restructed to make it work better.

 

Neither of us would plan to eliminate all of the routes that duplicate the subway. There are a whole bunch of those routes in Manhattan (come to think about it, you could say that about all of the boroughs), and neither of us has suggested eliminating them.

 

And all of my posts haven't dealt with slashing buses: I've advocated for increases in service on lines that warranted them. And I know that there aren't enough low-ridership routes in the system that can be eliminated in order to get enough savings to make transit free: The funding would have to come from another source, so stop twisting my words around.

 

As far as the comment about being slow, that has nothing to do with this discussion. You can give the buses comparable speed to the subway, but you can't give them the capacity of the subway (and you're acting like we're retarded and don't know that buses are important)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Neither of us would plan to eliminate all of the routes that duplicate the subway. There are a whole bunch of those routes in Manhattan, and neither of us has suggested eliminating them.

 

Why not?? If the bus is so slow and the subway moves more people which is constantly your and qj's argument why not just get rid of all of them? This way we can cram everyone onto the subway and everyone would get to their destination so much quicker because our subway system is so efficient you know. It's in pristine condition so we don't need buses.

 

You and qj are totally anti-bus, so any sort of restoration to bus service is a no-no to you guys.

[checkmatechamp13]

Why not?? If the bus is so slow and the subway moves more people which is constantly your and qj's argument why not just get rid of all of them? This way we can cram everyone onto the subway and everyone would get to their destination so much quicker because our subway system is so efficient you know. It's in pristine condition so we don't need buses.

 

You and qj are totally anti-bus, so any sort of restoration to bus service is a no-no to you guys.

 

First of all, that argument was only made for a handful of routes and you know that.

 

Second of all, have you not seen the list of service reductions I said should be restored? Didn't I show you that video of me speaking to the MTA board?

 

Third of all, you know the subway only covers about 57% of the city's residents, and even within that percentage, there are a significant number of people whose trip is much easier by bus? How is it even possible to have those people take the subway?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

First of all, that argument was only made for a handful of routes and you know that.

 

Second of all, have you not seen the list of service reductions I said should be restored? Didn't I show you that video of me speaking to the MTA board?

 

Third of all, you know the subway only covers about 57% of the city's residents, and even within that percentage, there are a significant number of people whose trip is much easier by bus? How is it even possible to have those people take the subway?

 

You tell me. You've been the one arguing that lost buses lines could be compensated with those folks simply taking the subway, but now you're saying that some folks commute is easier by bus??? Qj was sitting here talking about how seniors can take the subway. I mean if that isn't a ridiculous idea then I don't know what is. Even if they can take the subway, they are an easy target to get robbed moreso on the subway.

 

And yeah I remember your proposals. You rattled on about combining line after line after line. Did you consider at all how unreliable lines could become by trying to constantly combine and re-route them?? Combining lines helps to do one thing, which is kill off ridership in most cases. I know I can certainly name a few routes that I don't use because of this. Not only that but now I don't go to certain areas anymore because it is too inconvenient to get to them with some of the service cuts especially in the city, which means that businesses are often times hurt also.

 

Folks don't think about these things though. Service cuts should ALWAYS be a last resort and not just thrown around as if it doesn't affect anyone because it does one way or another. I hear plenty of folks still complaining about some of the service cuts in the city and how they're forced to take "X" route because "Y" route no longer exists. Cutting service in other parts of the country could be feasible but it should be the last thing done in a place like NYC where many folks don't drive and rely upon transportation (NOT just the subway either) to get around. You yourself said that folks are less likely to use service that isn't convenient and cutting service discourages folks from using it or if they do, they don't go to as many places as they probably would've meaning they spend less money and ride less.

[checkmatechamp13]

You tell me. You've been the one arguing that lost buses lines could be compensated with those folks simply taking the subway, but now you're saying that some folks commute is easier by bus??? Qj was sitting here talking about how seniors can take the subway. I mean if that isn't a ridiculous idea then I don't know what is. Even if they can take the subway, they are an easy target to get robbed moreso on the subway.

 

And yeah I remember your proposals. You rattled on about combining line after line after line. Did you consider at all how unreliable lines could become by trying to constantly combine and re-route them?? Combining lines helps to do one thing, which is kill off ridership in most cases. I know I can certainly name a few routes that I don't use because of this. Not only that but now I don't go to certain areas anymore because it is too inconvenient to get to them with some of the service cuts especially in the city, which means that businesses are often times hurt also.

 

Folks don't think about these things though. Service cuts should ALWAYS be a last resort and not just thrown around as if it doesn't affect anyone because it does one way or another. I hear plenty of folks still complaining about some of the service cuts in the city and how they're forced to take "X" route because "Y" route no longer exists. Cutting service in other parts of the country could be feasible but it should be the last thing done in a place like NYC where many folks don't drive and rely upon transportation (NOT just the subway either) to get around. You yourself said that folks are less likely to use service that isn't convenient and cutting service discourages folks from using it or if they do, they don't go to as many places as they probably would've meaning they spend less money and ride less.

 

Can you give me some instances where I said that? I said it would be nice if they could all take the subway, but I was one of the (many) people advocating for the restoration of the B25, M10, Bx4, and Q56, which, as you remember were proposed for elimination back in 2009 because they paralleled the subway.

 

I thought you said you agreed with a lot of my proposals. The limited-stop proposals would improve reliability by reducing the amount of time the buses take to complete their runs, which would make them more reliable.

 

As far as making routes longer, I'll see if I can find the copy of my proposals to see how many of the proposals would've had a significant impact on reliability.

 

As far as making travel convenient, the thing is that they know that they are losing money on the routes that they eliminated, and since the city and state don't want to give them more money (because they don't see the importance of public transportation), their priority is reducing costs, not trying to help businesses.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Can you give me some instances where I said that? I said it would be nice if they could all take the subway, but I was one of the (many) people advocating for the restoration of the B25, M10, Bx4, and Q56, which, as you remember were proposed for elimination back in 2009 because they paralleled the subway.

 

I thought you said you agreed with a lot of my proposals. The limited-stop proposals would improve reliability by reducing the amount of time the buses take to complete their runs, which would make them more reliable.

 

As far as making routes longer, I'll see if I can find the copy of my proposals to see how many of the proposals would've had a significant impact on reliability.

 

As far as making travel convenient, the thing is that they know that they are losing money on the routes that they eliminated, and since the city and state don't want to give them more money (because they don't see the importance of public transportation), their priority is reducing costs, not trying to help businesses.

 

 

Only because they have to reduce their costs by law in order to have a balanced budget. This isn't about helping businesses. The "helping businesses" part is reciprocal because if you have folks shopping and going places and they aren't driving then that means they're using public transportation and overall here in NYC folks shopping and going around benefits the because that means more folks are using the system, so it works both ways. You also have to remember that the owns a lot of property too and they rent to folks running businesses. Less traffic in those stores means that those businesses have to shut down, which means again less revenue for the .

[checkmatechamp13]

Only because they have to reduce their costs by law in order to have a balanced budget. This isn't about helping businesses. The "helping businesses" part is reciprocal because if you have folks shopping and going places and they aren't driving then that means they're using public transportation and overall here in NYC folks shopping and going around benefits the because that means more folks are using the system, so it works both ways. You also have to remember that the owns a lot of property too and they rent to folks running businesses. Less traffic in those stores means that those businesses have to shut down, which means again less revenue for the .

 

But I don't think eliminating a bus route is all of a sudden going to cause a bunch of traffic near those stores (unless they did something stupid and eliminated a high-ridership route)

 

Like I said, if they were breaking even on these routes, they wouldn't have decided to eliminated them in the first place, so by keeping these routes around, the MTA itself isn't benefitting.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But I don't think eliminating a bus route is all of a sudden going to cause a bunch of traffic near those stores (unless they did something stupid and eliminated a high-ridership route)

 

Like I said, if they were breaking even on these routes, they wouldn't have decided to eliminated them in the first place, so by keeping these routes around, the MTA itself isn't benefitting.

 

Yeah and neither is anyone else, which is the problem. Not all of the lines eliminated or cut back should've been and like I said it is never a good thing if you have folks traveling less and avoid certain parts of the city because of the poor transit options.

[BrooklynBus]

\

 

Like I said, if they were breaking even on these routes, they wouldn't have decided to eliminated them in the first place, so by keeping these routes around, the MTA itself isn't benefitting.

 

I remember when they used to make money on only about the top five routes in a borough. Now they lose money on all routes. So does that mean we should eliminate all bus service? Of course not. We should be restructuring the ones that are most inefficient and if that doesn't make them more efficient, then they should be eliminated if there are other alternative services around.

 

But when you decide to eliminate weekday B4 service although the buses were carrying 25 people in one direction and 35 in the other, something is either wrong with your counts or how you are calculating efficiency. Those statistics are what saved the weekday B4 service in Sheepshead Bay. I can only wonder how many other mistakes the MTA made in their calculations which led to some of the other route discontinuations.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I remember when they used to make money on only about the top five routes in a borough. Now they lose money on all routes. So does that mean we should eliminate all bus service? Of course not. We should be restructuring the ones that are most inefficient and if that doesn't make them more efficient, then they should be eliminated if there are other alternative services around.

 

But when you decide to eliminate weekday B4 service although the buses were carrying 25 people in one direction and 35 in the other, something is either wrong with your counts or how you are calculating efficiency. Those statistics are what saved the weekday B4 service in Sheepshead Bay. I can only wonder how many other mistakes the MTA made in their calculations which led to some of the other route discontinuations.

 

The thing is checkmate swears by the stats. Who says it isn't possible for them to fudge the numbers so that they can cut certain lines? That's also another problem. Granted some lines don't carry well, but the also does try to kill some lines as well by providing sh*tty service and inaccurate stats on the actual number of passengers on some lines. Truth be told from my own personal observations, service along that portion of the B4 was increasing, certainly wayyy more than it was back in the 90s. Think about all of the new stores and restaurants that have opened up of late along Emmons Avenue and I'd be very surprised if no one was using the B4 to go to these places, especially with the population in Sheepshead Bay, not to mention the Marinas and such during the warmer months.

[BrooklynBus]

The thing is checkmate swears by the stats. Who says it isn't possible for them to fudge the numbers so that they can cut certain lines? That's also another problem. Granted some lines don't carry well, but the also does try to kill some lines as well by providing sh*tty service and inaccurate stats on the actual number of passengers on some lines.

 

I wouldn't put fudging numbers beyond them, but I think a more likely explanation could just be sloppiness or arithmetic errors. After all who checks their work? I might have mentioned this before but I once caught errors in their statistics when they proposed turning the B40/78 into the B47 and told them about it, but they just ignored me. In one table, they counted a "customer" as someone who made a round trip, and in the other table, they counted "passengers" which was someone making a one-way trip. Then they compared the tables and used the terms interchangeably, calling everyone customers. Of course, their conclusions were off-base.