BrooklynBus Posted July 13, 2011 Share #1 Posted July 13, 2011 http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2011/07/the-mta’s-sinister-plot-to-destroy-the-b64/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #2 Posted July 13, 2011 Interesting article. You know it's interesting. I have basically just stopped using the local bus now and have been using car service to get to the express bus. Much more convenient. I really do feel for those who rely on some of the "underperforming" local buses though because they service is really getting worse overall. The only lines I really use now are the Madison/5th Avenue lines and those run well of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman1455 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #3 Posted July 13, 2011 They won't cut it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted July 13, 2011 Share #4 Posted July 13, 2011 This seems to be the trend for every bus that meets its demise, reducing frequency, cutting the schedule, and then ending bus routes all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #5 Posted July 13, 2011 This seems to be the trend for every bus that meets its demise, reducing frequency, cutting the schedule, and then ending bus routes all together. I agree. I used to use the B64 and they way in which the dissected that line is ridiculous. Cut off entire communities to any access to the Coney Island Station. :mad: What they fail to realize is that folks used to use that bus to get from Western Brooklyn over to Eastern Brooklyn. I would use the B64 and then jump on the to get over to Sheepshead Bay. They won't cut it... And why are you so sure about that?? They already cut the line back with the cuts, so they clearly are cutting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted July 13, 2011 Share #6 Posted July 13, 2011 They better not even think about eliminating the B2, thats one of the best ways to avoid the hell that is endured on the B41 route in combination of the & . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #7 Posted July 13, 2011 They better not even think about eliminating the B2, thats one of the best ways to avoid the hell that is endured on the B41 route in combination of the & . I could certainly see that happening. That's why I also wrote to Senator Golden about the B2 as well. Think about it. They have pretty much axed all of the short lines throughout the city (B39, B51, etc.) They seem to want to get rid of all of the short lines with the excuse that they perform so poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 13, 2011 Share #8 Posted July 13, 2011 They better not even think about eliminating the B2, thats one of the best ways to avoid the hell that is endured on the B41 route in combination of the & . They have to me on drugs to even entertain that idea!!!!! The B2 has long lines from ppl getting off the subway!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 13, 2011 Share #9 Posted July 13, 2011 You (BrooklynBus) already know how I feel about that.... Good article... Yup, step #1 already happened.... step #2 happened (somewhat) also, since there are no more hawks on the route (think the last bus out of either terminal is what, around 12/1am now)..... I'll say though, that item #2 (which I think the span will be even further reduced, I agree w/ that) & #3 on your list, I think that's gonna come in one shot... The route won't die (as) slow a death as other routes they plan on killin off... It's clear that they want the B1 to be the "main" bus route in the area.... But yes, you laid out the perfect blueprint regarding their M.O. They won't cut it... wishful thinking bro... the signs are already there.... the swapping of the B64 & the B1 western terminals, and truncating the 64 to ulmer park depot on the eastern end, is enough proof for me as to what they want to do to that route.... you don't drastically make alterations to a route like that & expect it to flourish..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 13, 2011 Share #10 Posted July 13, 2011 They better not even think about eliminating the B2, thats one of the best ways to avoid the hell that is endured on the B41 route in combination of the & . ...which goes to show that the MTA simply does not care (enough) about buses, and the riders of them.... It's ok to have alternatives if you're taking the subway, but as for the bus, I mean it's like they're goin out their way to make bus commuters lives, hell... lemme put it another way: Everyone's primary and secondary alternative cannot be the subway... that's just not realistic iono man, seems to me like they wanna get rid of the idea of the 2 bus commute.... everyone don't wanna take the bus to the subway (although ideally that's how a transportation system is supposed to operate)... sometimes the bus to the bus serves commuters, better...... I could certainly see that happening. That's why I also wrote to Senator Golden about the B2 as well. Think about it. They have pretty much axed all of the short lines throughout the city (B39, B51, etc.) They seem to want to get rid of all of the short lines with the excuse that they perform so poorly. So could I.... like I said in another thread a couple days ago... a lot of these routes that have had its weekend service revoked, I'd keep my eye on them.... I would not put it past the MTA to eventually discontinue them.... the question is more a "when" than an "if".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 13, 2011 Share #11 Posted July 13, 2011 Since this is politically can't someone get a pention drive to stop the so called end of the (B64)? Even just 10 people signing with a powerful SW Brooklyn political leader sent to the Gov's office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacsnyy Posted July 13, 2011 Share #12 Posted July 13, 2011 I could see them trying to cut the B69 as well. Especially since, at least right after the June cuts, the southbound B69's were scheduled to arrive one to two minutes after the B67 along 7th Avenue. So, the B67 would pick up all the pass angers and the B69 would run nearly empty. Immediately after the cuts, the B67 would be packed and the B69 would be empty a block behind it. Park Slope fought that though, and they evened out the schedule which may have just saved the B69. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 13, 2011 Share #13 Posted July 13, 2011 I could see them trying to cut the B69 as well. Especially since, at least right after the June cuts, the southbound B69's were scheduled to arrive one to two minutes after the B67 along 7th Avenue. So, the B67 would pick up all the passangers and the B69 would run nearly empty. Immediately after the cuts, the B67 would be packed and the B69 would be empty a block behind it. Park Slope fought that though, and they evened out the schedule which may have just saved the B69. That situation may have very well have been after the June 2010 cuts, but you have to look at how service on each of those routes were before the cuts as well.... The simple moving of the B69 onto 7th av. saved that route actually.... When it moved onto 7th av, the B69 got a service increase & the B67 got a service decrease.... 7th av overall got a service decrease... The MTA knew exactly what it was doing with that.... the goal was to take as many physical buses off the road as they saw fit.... Even though I think the (current) B61 route better serves the communities that it does, the combination of routes involved in its creation (B77, B75, the old B61 [from red hook to queens plz]) still meant more buses running in service..... It's easy (easier) for the MTA to rid itself of the B67 & tell downtown riders (once again) to take the subway, or take the B41..... It's no accident that B69's are actually seeing riders southbound past grand army plaza... outside of schoolkids, the old B69 saw very little use along 8th av/PPW..... The geniuses @ the MTA that bases their justifications solely by lookin @ a map, sees the B67 as nothin more than a bus that serves a community (Park Slope) b/c those particular riders dont want to take the train ... I don't expect there to be 2 bus routes runnin up & down 7th av for too long..... I could see the MTA ridding itself of the B67, and extending the B69 to the "heart" of downtown brooklyn.... that's how frugal the MTA is being.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #14 Posted July 13, 2011 That situation may have very well have been after the June 2010 cuts, but you have to look at how service on each of those routes were before the cuts as well.... The simple moving of the B69 onto 7th av. saved that route actually.... When it moved onto 7th av, the B69 got a service increase & the B67 got a service decrease.... 7th av overall got a service decrease... The MTA knew exactly what it was doing with that.... the goal was to take as many physical buses off the road as they saw fit.... Even though I think the (current) B61 route better serves the communities that it does, the combination of routes involved in its creation (B77, B75, the old B61 [from red hook to queens plz]) still meant more buses running in service..... It's easy (easier) for the MTA to rid itself of the B67 & tell downtown riders (once again) to take the subway, or take the B41..... It's no accident that B69's are actually seeing riders southbound past grand army plaza... outside of schoolkids, the old B69 saw very little use along 8th av/PPW..... The geniuses @ the MTA that bases their justifications solely by lookin @ a map, sees the B67 as nothin more than a bus that serves a community (Park Slope) b/c those particular riders dont want to take the train ... I don't expect there to be 2 bus routes runnin up & down 7th av for too long..... I could see the MTA ridding itself of the B67, and extending the B69 to the "heart" of downtown brooklyn.... that's how frugal the MTA is being.... I can certainly see that also. Both of those lines were "poor performers" in the (MTA)'s eyes. Part of the issue is no one is raising hell about the current local bus service throughout the 5 boroughs, which isn't all that great outside of a few lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman1455 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #15 Posted July 13, 2011 I could see them cutting the B16 and making it into the new B23... Ridership has gone way done and headways have gotten worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 13, 2011 Share #16 Posted July 13, 2011 I could see them cutting the B16 and making it into the new B23... Ridership has gone way done and headways have gotten worse really, ridership has gone down on the 16.... damn... I mean, it was never great north/east of 39th st; where a decent chunk of ppl xfer to the B35.... but it's now declining w/i bay ridge, dyker hgts, and borough park also? unfortunately though, I don't see them bringing back (or forming any other route from) the B23.... The Jewish folks there, if it's not about the B11 or their B110 (some coincidence right), they wont make much of a fuss about about it..... The B23 ran right in their backyard & they didn't really use the route in any significant numbers... BrooklynBus had an idea that involved service along 13th/14th avs & cortelyou rd... sounds like the perfect remedy right about now w/ the B23 gone, but of course.... if it aint about so-called cost-neutrality (quote-unquote), the MTA aint havin it... convenient excuse right? I think so..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #17 Posted July 13, 2011 They better not even think about eliminating the B2, thats one of the best ways to avoid the hell that is endured on the B41 route in combination of the & . To be fair, riders in Marine Park have the B100, and riders along Flatbush Avenue can take the B9 to access the Brighton Line. To me, it's better to have one frequent route that everybody can rely on than to have two infrequent/semi-frequent routes (in this case, the B2/B100) a block apart. I could certainly see that happening. That's why I also wrote to Senator Golden about the B2 as well. Think about it. They have pretty much axed all of the short lines throughout the city (B39, B51, etc.) They seem to want to get rid of all of the short lines with the excuse that they perform so poorly. There are a few like the B42 and B74 that perform very well, but generally, short routes tend to be more inefficient than longer routes. Of course, the MTA could find ways to extend those routes (for example, extending the B31 past the station so that it connects to additional routes and more destinations), but the MTA's mentality is that more cuts=more savings. I made a comment on BrooklynBus' blog about how the current B64 is similar to the former B34 (it was originally B35 via Church's comment). The B34 ended up being combined into the pre-June B1 to strengthen it. What the MTA did was the reverse: Isolate that section and weaken it. I can certainly see that also. Both of those lines were "poor performers" in the (MTA)'s eyes. Part of the issue is no one is raising hell about the current local bus service throughout the 5 boroughs, which isn't all that great outside of a few lines. The B69 was, but the B67 was actually pretty efficient. The cost per passenger was $1.54 on weekdays and $2.04 on the weekends, meaning it performed decently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #18 Posted July 13, 2011 To be fair, riders in Marine Park have the B100, and riders along Flatbush Avenue can take the B9 to access the Brighton Line. To me, it's better to have one frequent route that everybody can rely on than to have two infrequent/semi-frequent routes (in this case, the B2/B100) a block apart. It sounds great in theory but when that one route f*cks up you have NOTHING to rely on. It is a dangerous situation to rely on one route and you should know this better than anyone with the situation on Richmond Ave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman1455 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #19 Posted July 13, 2011 really, ridership has gone down on the 16.... damn... I mean, it was never great north/east of 39th st; where a decent chunk of ppl xfer to the B35.... but it's now declining w/i bay ridge, dyker hgts, and borough park also? unfortunately though, I don't see them bringing back (or forming any other route from) the B23.... The Jewish folks there, if it's not about the B11 or their B110 (some coincidence right), they wont make much of a fuss about about it..... The B23 ran right in their backyard & they didn't really use the route in any significant numbers... BrooklynBus had an idea that involved service along 13th/14th avs & cortelyou rd... sounds like the perfect remedy right about now w/ the B23 gone, but of course.... if it aint about so-called cost-neutrality (quote-unquote), the MTA aint havin it... convenient excuse right? I think so..... The cut the headways bad late nights it's like 40 minutes other times 20 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #20 Posted July 13, 2011 It sounds great in theory but when that one route f*cks up you have NOTHING to rely on. It is a dangerous situation to rely on one route and you should know this better than anyone with the situation on Richmond Rd. You mean Richmond Avenue, right? B) And actually, it's the reverse of what you're thinking: The two routes (S44 and S59) help out when one is delayed. In any case, the advantage of the B100 is that it's short and therefore the chance of delays are slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #21 Posted July 13, 2011 You mean Richmond Avenue, right? B) And actually, it's the reverse of what you're thinking: The two routes (S44 and S59) help out when one is delayed. In any case, the advantage of the B100 is that it's short and therefore the chance of delays are slim. Yeah, I meant Richmond Avenue... Too many damn Richmond's on Staten Island... Richmond Ave, Richmond Rd, Richmond Terrace, Richmondtown, Port Richmond, Port Richmond Avenue... As for the S44 and S59... Yeah that's two routes, not one, so yeah you benefit from not having to rely on one line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 13, 2011 Share #22 Posted July 13, 2011 via, I got this one.... To be fair, riders in Marine Park have the B100, and riders along Flatbush Avenue can take the B9 to access the Brighton Line. To me, it's better to have one frequent route that everybody can rely on than to have two infrequent/semi-frequent routes (in this case, the B2/B100) a block apart. I made a comment on BrooklynBus' blog about how the current B64 is similar to the former B34 (it was originally B35 via Church's comment). The B34 ended up being combined into the pre-June B1 to strengthen it. What the MTA did was the reverse: Isolate that section and weaken it. The B69 was, but the B67 was actually pretty efficient. The cost per passenger was $1.54 on weekdays and $2.04 on the weekends, meaning it performed decently. 1) Yeah, the "option" is there, but you do realize riders want the quickest commute possible.... hell, you'd think a route going from a major subway station to a mall would flourish.... B3's have always saw the ridership that it does get (b/w KP & the Brighton), b/c the B2 is so infrequent.... few ppl. resort to taking the B9 from Av M to Kings plz... what's even funnier about that is, I actually see ppl get off B9's for B41's.... the B100 is a route that connects Mill Basin folks to the subway... the B2 route better serves Marine Park... if you ask me, I think the B2 & the 31 should be combined to run somethin like the B42.... This way, you connect the Gerritsen folks to the subway, the Marine park folks to the subway, and w/e shoppers you have @ Kings Plaza to the subway.... hell, FWIW, I think you may get some Gerritsen folks that may ride the route end to end (kings plz) also.... and of course, weekend service would be restored.... either that, or bring back the B3K & extend it to kings plaza (rename it to w/e ya want)..... but killing off the B2 doesn't solve anything, since the B100 doesn't serve kings plz in any capacity..... 2) if you're "ajedrez", this part of your post on his blog, is exactly what came to mind, when I made that comment (on here) you're referring to of mine about the B34... The B34 failed, but was made successful through a combination with other routes, but this time, the MTA seems to be doing the reverse. ....they're doing the reverse b/c the MTA eventually ended up w/ an 86th st route (as AE Moreira over there pointed out).... thing is though, the MTA derived by such a routing for all the wrong reasons (i.e, budget cuts).... 3) That goes back to what I posted in response to jacsnyy, about B67 service before 6/2010.... B67 service was better then, than havin both the B67 & the B69 on 7th av right now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share #23 Posted July 13, 2011 I would use the B64 and then jump on the to get over to Sheepshead Bay.. So why wouldn't you take the B82 to the Q instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share #24 Posted July 13, 2011 They seem to want to get rid of all of the short lines with the excuse that they perform so poorly. With the exception of the B74 which performs well. Since this is politically can't someone get a pention drive to stop the so called end of the (B64)? Even just 10 people signing with a powerful SW Brooklyn political leader sent to the Gov's office. Contact Assemblyman Colton. He organized a protest to stop the eastern axing of the B64. That situation may have very well have been after the June 2010 cuts, but you have to look at how service on each of those routes were before the cuts as well.... The simple moving of the B69 onto 7th av. saved that route actually.... When it moved onto 7th av, the B69 got a service increase & the B67 got a service decrease.... 7th av overall got a service decrease... The MTA knew exactly what it was doing with that.... the goal was to take as many physical buses off the road as they saw fit.... Even though I think the (current) B61 route better serves the communities that it does, the combination of routes involved in its creation (B77, B75, the old B61 [from red hook to queens plz]) still meant more buses running in service..... It's easy (easier) for the MTA to rid itself of the B67 & tell downtown riders (once again) to take the subway, or take the B41..... It's no accident that B69's are actually seeing riders southbound past grand army plaza... outside of schoolkids, the old B69 saw very little use along 8th av/PPW..... The geniuses @ the MTA that bases their justifications solely by lookin @ a map, sees the B67 as nothin more than a bus that serves a community (Park Slope) b/c those particular riders dont want to take the train ... I don't expect there to be 2 bus routes runnin up & down 7th av for too long..... I could see the MTA ridding itself of the B67, and extending the B69 to the "heart" of downtown brooklyn.... that's how frugal the MTA is being.... How I wish you headed Operations Planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted July 13, 2011 Share #25 Posted July 13, 2011 Assuming this master plan by the is to true to still reduce dozens of more bus lines, than it's time IMO for the agency to get out of the bus business and let a private company take over.B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.