B1 and B64 terminus swaps

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The B1 and B64 have been discussed before, but I'm curious in understanding what the re-routing of these two routes means for the in terms of costs and also how ridership has been affected since the changes? I personally don't like the changes to either route, but I am curious as to how many people used to use the B1 up to its old terminus over on Shore Rd?

 

Aside from cost savings which I assume the would argue, I see no benefit to the riders of either of these lines. The changes result in a loss of service for riders along both lines in terms of being able to access certain areas without having to transfer. I am also curious to know if there has been any pushes to get service restored to the way the lines ran before the cuts?

[B35 via Church]

the only real benefit was to the B1 riders who had to get off @ 13th, to xfer to the B64 to get to 4th, 5th, or ft. hamilton pkwy (where the majority of riders riding west of 13th disembark at)...... that goes back to that whole B86 thing.... also goes back to what I said in a prior post about seeking to force more ppl. onto the (already) high ridership routes, and rid itself of the below avg. utilized routes in the bus system....

 

w/ the B1, they kill 2 birds w/ 1 stone b/c that route has many ridership draws, and it doesn't travel all that far, thus saving the MTA money.... the new B1 creates the absolute perfect scenario for them; high ridership route which they don't have to run on 5 min headways, that don't have B44, B47, B15, B46 like mileage....

 

What's that S on your chest stand for, sir?

- Super route.

 

In any event, B1 always had more overall ridership than the 64.... way more...

With the 64 turning up 13th, B1's got an even bigger boost in ridership, while taking away service towards 4th av on the 64 (which was the biggest "draw" the route had).... we know about about the 64 on the other end, which only made matters worse, b/c service to CI was the 2nd biggest draw..... what pissed me off w/ that is, ridership on the 64 overall was increasing before they cut the head AND the tail of that route.....

 

it's not even a comparison to have seen the # of riders (that got off B1's for B64's towards 4th/86th) & the riders [that got off B64's for B1's towards Xaverian].... so as to how ridership been affected on those 2 routes...

 

- B1's are jammed going to & leaving from 86th/4th, especially b/w 4th av & 18th av over there by the B8..... from what I've noticed, the average amt. of riders per bus on B1's @ 4th av is higher than that of the avg ppl/bus that were on B64's.... that in itself, is telling

 

- B64's now, reminds me of the old Q75, whose ridership mainly consisted of the elderly.... the route gets the most usage now b/w xaverian & ft hamilton pkwy; most take it to the comin from either direction b/w the aforementioned range I mentioned.... buses are far less used on bath av now, than they were then...

 

Whether the more able bodied riders given up on the 64 & have decided to walk up to the B1, that I don't know.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

the only real benefit was to the B1 riders who had to get off @ 13th, to xfer to the B64 to get to 4th, 5th, or ft. hamilton pkwy (where the majority of riders riding west of 13th disembark at)...... that goes back to that whole B86 thing....

 

 

 

In any event, B1 always had more overall ridership than the 64.... way more...

With the 64 turning up 13th, B1's got an even bigger boost in ridership, while taking away service towards 4th av on the 64 (which was the biggest "draw" the route had).... we know about about the 64 on the other end, which only made matters worse, b/c service to CI was the 2nd biggest draw..... what pissed me off w/ that is, ridership on the 64 overall was increasing before they cut the head AND the tail of that route.....

 

it's not even a comparison to have seen the # of riders (that got off B1's for B64's towards 4th/86th) & the riders [that got off B64's for B1's towards Xaverian].... so as to how ridership been affected on those 2 routes...

 

- B1's are jammed going to & leaving from 86th/4th, especially b/w 4th av & 18th av over there by the B8..... from what I've noticed, the average amt. of riders per bus on B1's @ 4th av is higher than that of the avg ppl/bus that were on B64's.... that in itself, is telling

 

- B64's now, reminds me of the old Q75, whose ridership mainly consisted of the elderly.... the route gets the most usage now b/w xaverian & ft hamilton pkwy; most take it to the comin from either direction b/w the aforementioned range I mentioned.... buses are far less used on bath av now, than they were then...

 

Whether the more able bodied riders given up on the 64 & have decided to walk up to the B1, that I don't know.....

 

 

Interesting... I'm also curious as to how "cost effective" this whole swap was to supposed to be?

[LRG]

Interesting that B35 brought up the B86...see the MTA has wanted to create an 86th Street through route for decades (as early as the 1970s or 80s) and the post-June 2010 B1 finally gave their dream of a through route along 86th Street to light.

[checkmatechamp13]

The B1 and B64 have been discussed before, but I'm curious in understanding what the re-routing of these two routes means for the in terms of costs and also how ridership has been affected since the changes? I personally don't like the changes to either route, but I am curious as to how many people used to use the B1 up to its old terminus over on Shore Rd?

 

Aside from cost savings which I assume the would argue, I see no benefit to the riders of either of these lines. The changes result in a loss of service for riders along both lines in terms of being able to access certain areas without having to transfer. I am also curious to know if there has been any pushes to get service restored to the way the lines ran before the cuts?

 

Basically, think of it this way:

 

Over the one mile between 4th Avenue and 13th Avenue, you have the more frequent route (the B1) running.

 

Over the 2.7 miles between Xaverian High School and 13th Avenue you have the less frequent route (the B64) running.

[Shortline Bus]

Again i am not sure of the costs of it but a thought? Could not the 'merged' the (B64) with the (B70) and ran it between Sunset Park at 1st Ave/39th (B35 terminal)and Stillwell Terminal during the June 2010 mega changes? While a 'shuttle bus' for purpose of this discussion called the "B34" ran between Bay Ridge Ave/Shore Rd and the Va Hosptial on Crospey via Bay Ridge Ave?

 

CI/Bath Ave riders would still have access to the Brooklyn VA Hosptial 86th St area and most important connections to the (S53) (S79) (S93). At same time link Sunset Park and most of Dyker Heights to CI especially when there GO/Disruptions to the Sea Beach line.

The merged *B64/B70* could have ran daily 6am-1am while the (B1) ran 24/7 like now.

 

This was too lower used routes like the (B64) and (B70) could become a stronger route. Not to mention restore full time (B8) service to/from the 95th Street station as well. Guys what you think?

[B35 via Church]

Again i am not sure of the costs of it but a thought? Could not the 'merged' the 64 with the 70 and ran it between Sunset Park at 1st Ave/39th (B35 terminal)and Stillwell Terminal during the June 2010 mega changes? While a 'shuttle bus' for purpose of this discussion called the "B34" ran between Bay Ridge Ave/Shore Rd and the Va Hosptial on Crospey via Bay Ridge Ave?

 

CI/Bath Ave riders would still have access to the Brooklyn VA Hosptial 86th St area and most important connections to the . At same time link Sunset Park and most of Dyker Heights to CI especially when there GO/Disruptions to the Sea Beach line.

The merged *B64/B70* could have ran daily 6am-1am while the ran 24/7 like now.

 

This was too lower used routes like the and could become a stronger route. Not to mention restore full time service to/from the 95th Street station as well. Guys what you think?

 

1) combining the old B64 & the old B70 would not have made it stronger, for the simple fact that it would have avoided the commercial area along 86th st.... that's a hell of a lot of people you'd be askin to walk it out (which is what the masses did on the old 70 @ ft hamilton/86th).... that walk aint all that short either....

 

- IMO, your idea would have made it worse for 64 & 70 riders...

- the current scenario, the 64 got drastically worse & the B70 got drastically better....

 

moving 70's on 3rd av & bay ridge av was the best thing that happened to that route....

 

2) yeh, I agree with havin B8's revert to 95th st ...

 

3) a route running back & forth between bay ridge & VA hospital would fail miserably... bay ridge would have had to have been real real isolated from everything for that type of a route to work out.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well I took a look at the current B64 and it only takes 30 minutes from one terminus to another and when you look at the local bus routes in general, there aren't too many routes like that unless their more or less shuttles. I still don't understand the point of cutting back the B64. Of course I understand what they may be trying to do below the surface (which is get rid of the B64 altogether), but what was their reason for cutting it back officially?? I don't see how this could make the route more cost effective, as this change automatically has to have decreased ridership on the B64. I also don't really see how this benefits B1 riders.

[aemoreira81]

Well I took a look at the current B64 and it only takes 30 minutes from one terminus to another and when you look at the local bus routes in general, there aren't too many routes like that unless their more or less shuttles. I still don't understand the point of cutting back the B64. Of course I understand what they may be trying to do below the surface (which is get rid of the B64 altogether), but what was their reason for cutting it back officially?? I don't see how this could make the route more cost effective, as this change automatically has to have decreased ridership on the B64. I also don't really see how this benefits B1 riders.

 

I see the B64 remaining long-term, but strictly as a network coverage route at 30 minute headways, and all runs being interlined with either the B6 or B3 to prevent overly long layovers.

 

That route lost all of its significant ridership outside school hours.

 

BUT, one thing that I would propose is re-routing the B64 up to Lutheran Hospital via Ridge Boulevard/Second Avenue, and then continue through the Sunset Park industrial area and terminate it at 39 Street and 1 Avenue in a terminal shared with the B35 and B70 (that area currently has no bus service). Service from Xaverian would be via school tripper service...but full-time, only the B9 would serve Xaverian. The resulting route would be at about 1 hour in length, running via Bath Avenue, 13 Avenue, Bay Ridge Avenue, and 2 Avenue. Between Bay Ridge Avenue and 60 Street, 4 Avenue would be used, with 60 Street then used to get to 2 Avenue.

 

Even though the B64's southern end is at Ulmer Park, the B64 could be moved to Gleason - which does have room (although it may be a question of finding buses) - by virtue of its northern end being only 5 minutes away from the Gleason depot.

 

How would this save money? Well, the B82 could have runs moved from East New York to Ulmer Park, eliminating a 3-mile, 20-minute deadhead. You might still have 2/3rds percent of the B82 (which has at least 60 runs) out of East New York, but you could have at least 1/3 of the route at Ulmer Park, with some runs having no deadhead.

[Shortline Bus]

Before any extension to Sunset Park Moreira, let us restore full time service to/from Coney Island ok? And after restoring service to Stillwell Terminal, on your idea i would extend it only to 1st Avenue/55th Street. (B11 terminal)

 

 

I see the B64 remaining long-term, but strictly as a network coverage route at 30 minute headways, and all runs being interlined with either the B6 or B3 to prevent overly long layovers.

 

That route lost all of its significant ridership outside school hours.

 

BUT, one thing that I would propose is re-routing the B64 up to Lutheran Hospital via Ridge Boulevard/Second Avenue, and then continue through the Sunset Park industrial area and terminate it at 39 Street and 1 Avenue in a terminal shared with the B35 and B70 (that area currently has no bus service). Service from Xaverian would be via school tripper service...but full-time, only the B9 would serve Xaverian.

 

Even though the B64's southern end is at Ulmer Park, the B64 could be moved to Gleason - which does have room (although it may be a question of finding buses) - by virtue of its northern end being only 5 minutes away from the Gleason depot.

 

How would this save money? Well, the B82 could have runs moved from East New York to Ulmer Park, eliminating a 3-mile, 20-minute deadhead. You might still have 2/3rds percent of the B82 (which has at least 60 runs) out of East New York, but you could have at least 1/3 of the route at Ulmer Park, with some runs having no deadhead.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I see the B64 remaining long-term, but strictly as a network coverage route at 30 minute headways, and all runs being interlined with either the B6 or B3 to prevent overly long layovers.

 

That route lost all of its significant ridership outside school hours.

 

BUT, one thing that I would propose is re-routing the B64 up to Lutheran Hospital via Ridge Boulevard/Second Avenue, and then continue through the Sunset Park industrial area and terminate it at 39 Street and 1 Avenue in a terminal shared with the B35 and B70 (that area currently has no bus service). Service from Xaverian would be via school tripper service...but full-time, only the B9 would serve Xaverian. The resulting route would be at about 1 hour in length, running via Bath Avenue, 13 Avenue, Bay Ridge Avenue, and 2 Avenue. Between Bay Ridge Avenue and 60 Street, 4 Avenue would be used, with 60 Street then used to get to 2 Avenue.

 

Even though the B64's southern end is at Ulmer Park, the B64 could be moved to Gleason - which does have room (although it may be a question of finding buses) - by virtue of its northern end being only 5 minutes away from the Gleason depot.

 

How would this save money? Well, the B82 could have runs moved from East New York to Ulmer Park, eliminating a 3-mile, 20-minute deadhead. You might still have 2/3rds percent of the B82 (which has at least 60 runs) out of East New York, but you could have at least 1/3 of the route at Ulmer Park, with some runs having no deadhead.

 

I see no point in extending the B64 to an industrial area just because the area doesn't have any service. If the extension isn't picking up anyone, then it would be a waste of money.

 

 

Before any extension to Sunset Park Moreira, let us restore full time service to/from Coney Island ok? And after restoring service to Stillwell Terminal, on your idea i would extend it only to 1st Avenue/55th Street. (B11 terminal)

 

 

I still don't get the logic behind ending the B64 at Ulmer Park and cutting off direct access to the Coney Island terminal. :mad:

[aemoreira81]

I see no point in extending the B64 to an industrial area just because the area doesn't have any service. If the extension isn't picking up anyone, then it would be a waste of money.

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't get the logic behind ending the B64 at Ulmer Park and cutting off direct access to the Coney Island terminal. :mad:

 

No room in the loop anymore. The B82 took its spot in the loop. But, speaking of extensions, it could terminate across the street from the loop, looping around via West 17 Street.

 

As for extending the B64 into the industry, I actually do see an untapped ridership base there. Remember, this route would be running at 30-minute headways.

 

As for why the B64 no longer goes to Coney Island, the logic behind that, BTW, was because the B64 is assigned to Ulmer Park Depot. However, my plan would move the B64 to the Gleason Depot. Its use to Coney Island was also taken away when the B1 became an 86 Street crosstown.

 

The only question now is if the route would become too long; I would have this route at about 70-80 minutes in length, which may be pushing it in terms of desired running time.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well I took a look at the current B64 and it only takes 30 minutes from one terminus to another and when you look at the local bus routes in general, there aren't too many routes like that unless their more or less shuttles. I still don't understand the point of cutting back the B64. Of course I understand what they may be trying to do below the surface (which is get rid of the B64 altogether), but what was their reason for cutting it back officially?? I don't see how this could make the route more cost effective, as this change automatically has to have decreased ridership on the B64. I also don't really see how this benefits B1 riders.

 

B1 riders get access to the shopping along 86th Street, plus the connection to the SI routes.

 

As far as the B64 goes, there was no point in cutting it back from Coney Island. They might have some people believe that everybody's willing to transfer to the B82, but everybody knows that it isn't the case (everybody would rather take the B1 to the B82 to reach Coney Island)

 

No room in the loop anymore. The B82 took its spot in the loop. But, speaking of extensions, it could terminate across the street from the loop, looping around via West 17 Street.

 

As for extending the B64 into the industry, I actually do see an untapped ridership base there. Remember, this route would be running at 30-minute headways.

 

As for why the B64 no longer goes to Coney Island, the logic behind that, BTW, was because the B64 is assigned to Ulmer Park Depot. However, my plan would move the B64 to the Gleason Depot. Its use to Coney Island was also taken away when the B1 became an 86 Street crosstown.

 

The only question now is if the route would become too long; I would have this route at about 70-80 minutes in length, which may be pushing it in terms of desired running time.

 

The B82 only took its place in the loop because it was cut back, not the other way around.

 

And yeah, you have a point about the terminal being right near Ulmer Park, but the savings in deadheading the buses would be eaten up by the decreased ridership.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

B1 riders get access to the shopping along 86th Street, plus the connection to the SI routes.

 

Yeah yeah yeah... But even so they could still run the B1 all the way to Shore Rd. Folks who used to take the B1 now have to transfer. :mad: :tdown:

 

As far as the B64 goes, there was no point in cutting it back from Coney Island. They might have some people believe that everybody's willing to transfer to the B82, but everybody knows that it isn't the case (everybody would rather take the B1 to the B82 to reach Coney Island)

 

You're telling me... I mean basically folks who want to get from the West Side of Southern Brooklyn to the East Side of Southern Brooklyn can no longer do that now that the B64 was cut back. :mad:

 

 

But still, did they save any money cutting back the B64? They didn't just cut it back just because.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah yeah yeah... But even so they could still run the B1 all the way to Shore Rd. Folks who used to take the B1 now have to transfer. :mad: :tdown:

 

 

 

You're telling me... I mean basically folks who want to get from the West Side of Southern Brooklyn to the East Side of Southern Brooklyn can no longer do that now that the B64 was cut back. :mad:

 

 

But still, did they save any money cutting back the B64? They didn't just cut it back just because.

 

Some have to transfer, but overall, B1 riders benefitted from the change. I remember when I was on the B1 a few months after the change, only a handful of riders transferred to the B64 in front of us, and most of the riders benefitted from the connection to the shopping in Bay Ridge.

 

As far as the B64 goes, they supposedly saved some money, but there is a chance that the people in Operations Planning were under pressure to find a service change that would get the required savings, so they picked the B64, probably hoping that they could get savings later by reducing the frequency and potentially eliminating it completely.

[B35 via Church]

Well I took a look at the current B64 and it only takes 30 minutes from one terminus to another and when you look at the local bus routes in general, there aren't too many routes like that unless their more or less shuttles. I still don't understand the point of cutting back the B64. Of course I understand what they may be trying to do below the surface (which is get rid of the B64 altogether), but what was their reason for cutting it back officially?? I don't see how this could make the route more cost effective, as this change automatically has to have decreased ridership on the B64. I also don't really see how this benefits B1 riders.

 

Their "official" reason for cutting the B64 back on the coney island end... well here's what it says on the (revised) PDF:

 

"Discontinue the duplicative segment of the B64 south of Cropsey Avenue/25th Avenue. B64 service on the remaining portions of the route would be unaffected"

 

I know what you're thinkin; how can you move the B64 up to xaverian, and move the B1 to 4th/86th & say that it's cost effective... it's nothin more than a wash......

 

to the MTA, "cost effective" pertains to any amount of money they don't have to spend.... they could give a damn as to how efficiently effective a route is....

 

warped logic, I know.....

 

That's why I've long come to the conclusion that it's not about makin the B64 (or any other routes) cost effective, as we know the term to mean... it's about saving money across the board; which is only half of the equation....

 

Don't try to make sense of it, or else you're gonna lose a couple brain cells....

 

 

I see no point in extending the B64 to an industrial area just because the area doesn't have any service. If the extension isn't picking up anyone, then it would be a waste of money.

 

I still don't get the logic behind ending the B64 at Ulmer Park and cutting off direct access to the Coney Island terminal. :mad:

 

- 1st part, neither do I... If those industry workers over there never bothered to take the B37, why would I believe they'd take the B64.... 2nd av doesn't exactly scream bus service either.... the B11 only uses it as a turnaround....

 

- 2nd part, ending the B64 at the depot means zero deadhead mileage... again, it's not about route efficiency, it's about money & how much more of it they can pocket....

 

...I meant... save...

[Shortline Bus]

Their "official" reason for cutting the B64 back on the coney island end... well here's what it says on the (revised) PDF:

 

"Discontinue the duplicative segment of the B64 south of Cropsey Avenue/25th Avenue. B64 service on the remaining portions of the route would be unaffected"

 

I know what you're thinkin; how can you move the B64 up to xaverian, and move the B1 to 4th/86th & say that it's cost effective... it's nothin more than a wash......

 

to the MTA, "cost effective" pertains to any amount of money they don't have to spend.... they could give a damn as to how efficiently effective a route is....

 

warped logic, I know.....

 

That's why I've long come to the conclusion that it's not about makin the B64 (or any other routes) cost effective, as we know the term to mean... it's about saving money across the board; which is only half of the equation....

 

Don't try to make sense of it, or else you're gonna lose a couple brain cells....

 

 

 

 

- 1st part, neither do I... If those industry workers over there never bothered to take the B37, why would I believe they'd take the B64.... 2nd av doesn't exactly scream bus service either.... the B11 only uses it as a turnaround....

 

- 2nd part, ending the B64 at the depot means zero deadhead mileage... again, it's not about route efficiency, it's about money & how much more of it they can pocket....

 

...I meant... save...

 

Not to mention the never wanted '2' routes between Cropsey/25th Ave and Stillwell Terminal in 1st place. They only extended the (B82) about 10 years ago to Stillwell Terminal from Canal/Cropsey because the NYC DOT elimnated the left turn signal from Eastbound Cropsey to the Pathmark shopping center. And another factor was the calls by CI residents for a direct bus to then brand new Home Depot in that same area.

 

So in sense the operations planning was looking for every chance to scale back the (B64)since that time probably. June 2010 was the perfect time to do so.

[B35 via Church]

As for why the B64 no longer goes to Coney Island, the logic behind that, BTW, was because the B64 is assigned to Ulmer Park Depot. However, my plan would move the B64 to the Gleason Depot. Its use to Coney Island was also taken away when the B1 became an 86 Street crosstown.

 

The only question now is if the route would become too long; I would have this route at about 70-80 minutes in length, which may be pushing it in terms of desired running time.

 

Nah, it's b/c they claimed the 64 duplicated the 82 (*shrugs*)....

 

cuttin it back to the depot was just an added bonus b/c of where it physically lies, proximate to the B64 route itself.... it meant zero deadhead time & mileage for a westbound bus.....

 

 

B1 riders get access to the shopping along 86th Street, plus the connection to the SI routes.

 

As far as the B64 goes, there was no point in cutting it back from Coney Island. They might have some people believe that everybody's willing to transfer to the B82, but everybody knows that it isn't the case (everybody would rather take the B1 to the B82 to reach Coney Island)

 

The B82 only took its place in the loop because it was cut back, not the other way around.

 

And yeah, you have a point about the terminal being right near Ulmer Park, but the savings in deadheading the buses would be eaten up by the decreased ridership.

IAWTP

 

The B64 route actually got longer, despite the truncation on the eastern end.... exactly right CC, operating costs would become higher due to a route that's undergoing decreased ridership, on top of more mileage being added to it.... The fact that it ends at the depot itself, saves them a little more than what they would've had to come up with, if they would've kept the route at coney..... That's not exactly the same thing as overall savings....

 

In other words, had it not been for the truncation to the depot, the B64 would've gotten an all out extension with the terminal swap of the 1 on the western end.... which of course, is not "cost neutral".... lmao.....

 

 

But still, did they save any money cutting back the B64? They didn't just cut it back just because.

I know they got rid of overnight service (which was like what, 3 or 4 trips, I'm guessing), but I'm not sure if headways during the day got any higher..... I don't see where they could've saved money overall, as it pertains to the 64, just w/ the simple swapping of the terminal, or its cut back to UP itself....

 

w/e overall savings they're claiming in regards to this route, would've had to come from elsewhere..... like, in the form of decreased service or somethin.....

[aemoreira81]

Nah, it's b/c they claimed the 64 duplicated the 82 (*shrugs*)....

 

cuttin it back to the depot was just an added bonus b/c of where it physically lies, proximate to the B64 route itself.... it meant zero deadhead time & mileage for a westbound bus.....

 

IAWTP

 

The B64 route actually got longer, despite the truncation on the eastern end.... exactly right CC, operating costs would become higher due to a route that's undergoing decreased ridership, on top of more mileage being added to it.... The fact that it ends at the depot itself, saves them a little more than what they would've had to come up with, if they would've kept the route at coney..... That's not exactly the same thing as overall savings....

 

In other words, had it not been for the truncation to the depot, the B64 would've gotten an all out extension with the terminal swap of the 1 on the western end.... which of course, is not "cost neutral".... lmao.....

 

 

 

I know they got rid of overnight service (which was like what, 3 or 4 trips, I'm guessing), but I'm not sure if headways during the day got any higher..... I don't see where they could've saved money overall, as it pertains to the 64, just w/ the simple swapping of the terminal, or its cut back to UP itself....

 

w/e overall savings they're claiming in regards to this route, would've had to come from elsewhere..... like, in the form of decreased service or somethin.....

 

 

 

In the fall, there will be significant increases in headways on the B64, to every 20 minutes. I actually believe that it should be every 30 minutes.

[checkmatechamp13]

In other words, had it not been for the truncation to the depot, the B64 would've gotten an all out extension with the terminal swap of the 1 on the western end.... which of course, is not "cost neutral".... lmao.....

 

 

In terms of their overall budget, it would've still saved money (by having the less frequent route travel the longer distance west of 13th Avenue).

 

Which is why their argument makes even less sense.

 

That's why the 2 changes (swapping the terminals and cutting it back to 25th Avenue) were listed seperately: So they could break down the savings individually.

[Q43LTD]

I'm going to say this again, I didn't mind the swapping the (B1) and (B64) WB termini. The thing that pissed me off was cutting the (B64) off at Bensonhurst. It duped the (B82)? Bullshit

[Shortline Bus]

I'm going to say this again, I didn't mind the swapping the (B1) and (B64) WB termini. The thing that pissed me off was cutting the (B64) off at Bensonhurst. It duped the (B82)? Bullshit

 

Agreed. And if the (B64)still ran to Stillwell you can at least gave an extra transfer at 14th Ave/86th St. for CI/Bath Ave going to/from 86th St 'strip' in Bay Ridge or former (B1) riders going to/from Shore Rd.

 

 

Also no one is saying run the 'new and current" (B64) to/from Shore Rd with 5 minute headways. The (B64)Bay Ridge Ave/Bath Ave line to/from Stillwell Terminal could have headways of every 12-15 minutes most of the day. Then every 20-30 minutes late eveings every days and all day Sundays. As i said before, the never ever wanted to run '2' bus lines between Cropsey/25th Aves.(Ulmer Park depot)and Stillwell Terminal. The June 2010 cuts gave them an excuse to go back to pre-2000 (before (B82) was extended to Stillwell Terminal)and have only the (B82) serve that area of SW Brooklyn.

[BrooklynBus]

The B1 and B64 have been discussed before, but I'm curious in understanding what the re-routing of these two routes means for the in terms of costs and also how ridership has been affected since the changes? I personally don't like the changes to either route, but I am curious as to how many people used to use the B1 up to its old terminus over on Shore Rd?

 

Aside from cost savings which I assume the would argue, I see no benefit to the riders of either of these lines. The changes result in a loss of service for riders along both lines in terms of being able to access certain areas without having to transfer.

 

The B1 provides more frequent service than the B64. By doing the swap, they are adding service to the short 86th Street segment from 4th to 14th Avenue while they cut service on the longer Bay Ridge Av/ 13th Avenue segment so that part alone is a net cost savings.

 

I rode the old B1 one weekday afternoon at 2PM leaving 4th Avenue to Manattan Beach and the bus was extremely crowded and slow with 5 to 10 people getting off and on at each stop, extremely high turnover. There also were no seats available until past 25th Avenue. The bus might have been late, but when another caught up with us at 25th Avenue, it had a seated load and wasn't empty. I can only wonder what effect reducing the headways had on Bay Ridge Avenue. The buses could not have gotten more crowded. It could only have caused people to switch to alternate routes.

 

 

 

Interesting that B35 brought up the B86...see the MTA has wanted to create an 86th Street through route for decades (as early as the 1970s or 80s) and the post-June 2010 B1 finally gave their dream of a through route along 86th Street to light.

 

Not exactly true.

 

The idea was first raised by the Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst communities in the 1960s. Unknowingly, I also proposed it in late 1974 and dubbed it the B86 in my study of southern Brooklyn bus routes at the Department of City Planning. After seeing the results of an O/D study I conducted of 8,000 riders on the four 86th Street routes, I dismissed the idea of merely flip flopping the B1 and B64 when I saw the high numbers of riders using the B64 riding to the 86th Street Station who would have an increased ride of 10 to 15 minutes by having to ride to Bay Ridge Avenue instead or now walk extra to 86th Street. So along with the B86, I proposed new 13th and Ft Hamilton Parkway through routes. In 1978, the MTA rejected that and only agreed to merge the B1 and B34 at 25th Avenue providing through service there and to reroute the B1 as I proposed from Sheepshead Bay Station to Brighton Beach.

 

Around 1981, they must have reconsidered it because they actually added B86 to the new digital roll signs. The idea resurfaced again in 1993 when the MTA first proposed the B1 /64 flip flop along with an F express. I opposed the bus change again but they withdrew it of their own accord because they said it would cost too much money. The MTA never conducted its own Origin Destination survey, so hey would have no idea of the numbers of people being inconvenienced by the new B64.

 

Again i am not sure of the costs of it but a thought? Could not the 'merged' the (B64) with the (B70) and ran it between Sunset Park at 1st Ave/39th (B35 terminal)and Stillwell Terminal during the June 2010 mega changes? While a 'shuttle bus' for purpose of this discussion called the "B34" ran between Bay Ridge Ave/Shore Rd and the Va Hosptial on Crospey via Bay Ridge Ave?

 

CI/Bath Ave riders would still have access to the Brooklyn VA Hosptial 86th St area and most important connections to the (S53) (S79) (S93). At same time link Sunset Park and most of Dyker Heights to CI especially when there GO/Disruptions to the Sea Beach line.

The merged *B64/B70* could have ran daily 6am-1am while the (B1) ran 24/7 like now.

 

This was too lower used routes like the (B64) and (B70) could become a stronger route. Not to mention restore full time (B8) service to/from the 95th Street station as well. Guys what you think?

 

Of course they could have but never did. I proposed that merger in 2003 but the idea never took off. I think they might have proposed it this time if they didn't get the idea of rerouting the B70 to Bay Ridge to ease protests of eliminating the B37. But that also assumes they are looking to make routes more functional which they are not. They only combine routes when there is a potential for cost savings not to help riders. A B64/70 combination may have been cost neutral. If you proposed it, they would say a route combination would make service more unreliable, but that is never the case, when they propose to combine routes. Just their hypocrisy.

 

Well I took a look at the current B64 and it only takes 30 minutes from one terminus to another and when you look at the local bus routes in general, there aren't too many routes like that unless their more or less shuttles. I still don't understand the point of cutting back the B64. Of course I understand what they may be trying to do below the surface (which is get rid of the B64 altogether), but what was their reason for cutting it back officially?? I don't see how this could make the route more cost effective, as this change automatically has to have decreased ridership on the B64. I also don't really see how this benefits B1 riders.

 

They don't need an official reason to cut it back. They can do whatever they damn please. When they combined the B13 /B18, they said it was to make it more cos efffective (save one bus), but when they had to double service on the B13 because of its extension to Gateway in Spring Creek, that route combination ended up making the route less cost effective since added buses now had to operate to Bushwick instead of Ridgewood. Again, they made a mistake but would never admit it.

 

Some have to transfer, but overall, B1 riders benefitted from the change. I remember when I was on the B1 a few months after the change, only a handful of riders transferred to the B64 in front of us, and most of the riders benefitted from the connection to the shopping in Bay Ridge.

 

You can't go by that because before the change only a handful of people transferred also. People will alter their trips according to the routes. For example, one of the reasons few people transferred at 13th Avenue before the change is that someone going from 18th Avenue and 86th Street to 95th Street and 5th Avenue would find it easier to just stay on the B1 until 5th and Bay Ridge Avenue and change to the B63 there, than to change for the B64 and again to the B63 paying a second fare although it was more direct.

 

A through 86th Street route was a good idea because it eliminated an unnecessary complexity in the routing system, making the buses more intelligible and easier to use. It also made some trips more direct such as the one I just described that now can be directly made with the B1 and B63.

 

It would even be better if an 86th Street route covered the entire 86th Street replacing the B16. But flip flopping it with the B64 was just wrong because it unnecessarily hurt people. It would have not been that bad if they left the B8 to 95th Street because B64 riders would have been given another option than walking to 86th Street or riding 10 minutes extra on the bus and perhaps losing their seat at 86th Street in the mornings.

 

As far as the B64 goes, they supposedly saved some money, but there is a chance that the people in Operations Planning were under pressure to find a service change that would get the required savings, so they picked the B64, probably hoping that they could get savings later by reducing the frequency and potentially eliminating it completely.

 

I think so, and also believe they wanted to use the savings by cutting off the Coney Island portion, so they could provide Limiteds to the B82.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The B1 provides more frequent service than the B64. By doing the swap, they are adding service to the short 86th Street segment from 4th to 14th Avenue while they cut service on the longer Bay Ridge Av/ 13th Avenue segment so that part alone is a net cost savings.

 

I rode the old B1 one weekday afternoon at 2PM leaving 4th Avenue to Manattan Beach and the bus was extremely crowded and slow with 5 to 10 people getting off and on at each stop, extremely high turnover. There also were no seats available until past 25th Avenue. The bus might have been late, but when another caught up with us at 25th Avenue, it had a seated load and wasn't empty. I can only wonder what effect reducing the headways had on Bay Ridge Avenue. The buses could not have gotten more crowded. It could only have caused people to switch to alternate routes.

 

If ridership is that high then why not provide limited stop service along the corridor? I think one reason I created this thread is because I'm trying to understand the usage of West-East bus service in Southern Brooklyn, particularly from Bay Ridge to parts of Southern Eastern Brooklyn like Sheepshead Bay, etc. It is my thinking that a quick West-East route is needed and that's one reason I am so pissed that they cut off the B64 to Coney Island. The B4 used to provide West-East bus service, but they cut off the Sheepshead Bay section. :mad: However, the B4 was also a long ride from Sheepshead Bay to Bay Ridge. Limited stop service on the B1 could be that missing link for West-East rapid service that I believe Southern Brooklyn needs.

 

They don't need an official reason to cut it back. They can do whatever they damn please.

My thing is what did they see the B64 functioning as? I mean I think that's what I'm trying to understand. As far as I'm concerned, the B64 just provides service along Bath Avenue, but with it being cut back from Coney Island, it doesn't have a big purpose anymore. Of course the route is still important, but I don't see ridership increasing from this new change.

 

You can't go by that because before the change only a handful of people transferred also. People will alter their trips according to the routes. For example, one of the reasons few people transferred at 13th Avenue before the change is that someone going from 18th Avenue and 86th Street to 95th Street and 5th Avenue would find it easier to just stay on the B1 until 5th and Bay Ridge Avenue and change to the B63 there, than to change for the B64 and again to the B63 paying a second fare although it was more direct.

 

A through 86th Street route was a good idea because it eliminated an unnecessary complexity in the routing system, making the buses more intelligible and easier to use. It also made some trips more direct such as the one I just described that now can be directly made with the B1 and B63.

 

It would even be better if an 86th Street route covered the entire 86th Street replacing the B16. But flip flopping it with the B64 was just wrong because it unnecessarily hurt people. It would have not been that bad if they left the B8 to 95th Street because B64 riders would have been given another option than walking to 86th Street or riding 10 minutes extra on the bus and perhaps losing their seat at 86th Street in the mornings.

 

My sentiments exactly. People can and WILL alter their commutes to make them as convenient as possible. I have certainly done this with some of the cuts that have taken place to cut down on having to make multiple transfer OR to keep my commute as quick as possible.

 

I also think that the B1 should've be extended down to Shore Rd and 86th st and then run up Shore Rd back to its old terminus. At that rate the bus would be a great candidate for limited stop service, which quite frankly I think it should have. :cool:

 

 

I think so, and also believe they wanted to use the savings by cutting off the Coney Island portion, so they could provide Limiteds to the B82.

They seem to be in love with the B82 and I quite frankly am not wild about the route. I preferred the B64 because it seems as if B82s are hard to come by for some reason.

[BrooklynBus]

If ridership is that high then why not provide limited stop service along the corridor? I think one reason I created this thread is because I'm trying to understand the usage of West-East bus service in Southern Brooklyn, particularly from Bay Ridge to parts of Southern Eastern Brooklyn like Sheepshead Bay, etc. It is my thinking that a quick West-East route is needed and that's one reason I am so pissed that they cut off the B64 to Coney Island. The B4 used to provide West-East bus service, but they cut off the Sheepshead Bay section. :mad: However, the B4 was also a long ride from Sheepshead Bay to Bay Ridge. Limited stop service on the B1 could be that missing link for West-East rapid service that I believe Southern Brooklyn needs.

 

I think they don't have limited stop on the B1 is because the ridership is highly variable. Usage probably triples when Kingsborough College is in session or on a nice beach day. Service can vary from every 3 minutes to every 12 minutes within about six hours. Having Limited only when school is open would be confusing. But who knows, they may do it yet now that they are siphoning B64 passengers to the B1.

 

I was never a proponent of the B4. In 1978, I actually proposed two overlapping routes a B4, Bay Ridge Parkway, Stillwell to Coney Island and a B21 from Coney Island along Neptune and Emmons. It was the MTA's idea to combine that idea into one route along the north side of Coney Island yards rather than on the south side, but I agree cutting it at CI Hospital was just plain dumb especially because the bus now sits there with a 20 minute layover.

 

 

My thing is what did they see the B64 functioning as? I mean I think that's what I'm trying to understand. As far as I'm concerned, the B64 just provides service along Bath Avenue, but with it being cut back from Coney Island, it doesn't have a big purpose anymore. Of course the route is still important, but I don't see ridership increasing from this new change.

 

As stated in another thread, they never intended ridership on the B64 to increase as a result of the change. They wanted it to decrease so they can kill it. They don't want service on 86th Street and Bath. Too close they feel (without any data to support that though.)

 

 

I also think that the B1 should've be extended down to Shore Rd and 86th st and then run up Shore Rd back to its old terminus. At that rate the bus would be a great candidate for limited stop service, which quite frankly I think it should have. :cool:(

 

I disagree with extending it up Shore Road. I would either extend it down Shore Road to replace the B16 portion or better yet extend the B9 along the length of Shore Road. Putting the B9 there lets you get to 59th Street to get an express. Extending the B1 to 69th Street only makes it easier to get to Xaverian HS, not enough of a draw.

 

 

They seem to be in love with the B82 and I quite frankly am not wild about the route. I preferred the B64 because it seems as if B82s are hard to come by for some reason.

 

The B82 is a needed and a good route, although I would rather it not have been combined from the B5/50. The B64 is not really an alternative to the B82 since they were only parallel for such a short portion.