B1 and B64 terminus swaps

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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.

 

The reason for my proposal to extend the B1 up Shore Rd is that this way folks along Shore Rd would have some sort of local bus service. There is no X27 express bus on the weekends now and this way those folks could have some sort of service. Shore Rd is isolated and the walk to 3rd or 4th Avenue isn't exactly fun. I would keep the B16 as is along Shore Rd. since it can provide service to the subway and other buses.

[checkmatechamp13]

 

1) 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.

 

2) 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.

 

3) 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.

 

1) But couldn't they just cut back some B13s to the Crescent Street station, or the Fresh Pond Road station?

 

2) Well, there aren't really any connections that are offered by swapping the B1 and B16, so I don't think it would make a difference either way.

 

3) I'll try to find the document when they proposed the B82 limited to see if it was cost-neutral or not.

 

The reason for my proposal to extend the B1 up Shore Rd is that this way folks along Shore Rd would have some sort of local bus service. There is no X27 express bus on the weekends now and this way those folks could have some sort of service. Shore Rd is isolated and the walk to 3rd or 4th Avenue isn't exactly fun. I would keep the B16 as is along Shore Rd. since it can provide service to the subway and other buses.

 

But his B9 proposal would do the same thing. Plus, it would provide Shore Road with access to the 59th Street station, rather than the 86th Street station.

 

By the way, the SI-Kings Plaza route could probably be a limited for part of the B1 route, if the MTA were willing to implement it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But his B9 proposal would do the same thing. Plus, it would provide Shore Road with access to the 59th Street station, rather than the 86th Street station.

 

By the way, the SI-Kings Plaza route could probably be a limited for part of the B1 route, if the MTA were willing to implement it.

 

Since we're playing the but game, but the B1 would give true access across 86th st instead of stopping at 86th st station. Aside from that this isn't just about access to the subway. This is about overall West-East access in Southern Brooklyn, which the B1 could provide if it were given limited stop service.

[B35 via Church]

Alas, The General speakeths again......

 

 

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.)

of course....

 

 

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.

yeah, and where would you put the B16? cut it back at 86th/4th... continue it down ft. hamilton & terminate it where it currently does? yeah right...

 

Service for NB B16's are just as sought after as service along 86th st due east (in this case, the B1).... don't underestimate ft. hamilton parkway north of 86th....

 

As far as sending B1's up shore road (or extending B9's clear down shore road, which is another related proposal some bring up), I also disagree with that... for one, those riders aren't clamoring/yearning for local service... and two, the biggest draws around/along shore road is ft hamilton HS, and as you mention, xaverian - neither of which is strong enough....

 

 

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.

The MTA knows it effed up combining the B5 & the B50.... this is another thing they do.... the B82 is being forced down riders' throats; slight service increases, implementation of a LTD, hell, somewhere down the line, I wouldn't be surprised if they put SBS on that damn route.....

 

the supposed duplication to the B82 I really do think had squat to do w/ them wanting to cutback the B64 down there - full knowin those riders along the old portion along harway & stillwell av's were not gonna trek over to cropsey av.... panning down stillwell was far more direct than how the B82 got to mermaid loop (before june 2010, when it used to take surf av.... and currently where it turns on mermaid & shoots straight into the loop like the B74 does)

 

 

1) But couldn't they just cut back some B13s to the Crescent Street station, or the Fresh Pond Road station?

 

2) Well, there aren't really any connections that are offered by swapping the B1 and B16, so I don't think it would make a difference either way.

 

3) I'll try to find the document when they proposed the B82 limited to see if it was cost-neutral or not.

1) aint terminating squat around fresh pond road , even though the depot's right there.... too commercial, too congested, & the roads are too narrow in that general area.... 'tis why buses in no way, shape, or form, no longer end on the corner of 67th/fresh pond rd (B13's or B20's).... very poor idea to have had buses lay over at that corner in the first place.....

 

cutting some B13's back to Crescent st wouldn't have solved anything.... for one, the B18 ended at Jamaica/Crescent, serving Cypress Hills .... and two, it (the 18) was a very low ridership route in & of itself.... the B13/18 merger they got right....

 

2) exactly.... I see such a move siphoning riders out the 16, and makin the B1 even more of a super route.... I know I sound like a broken record w/ that, but I'm gonna continue driving home that point....

 

 

The reason for my proposal to extend the B1 up Shore Rd is that this way folks along Shore Rd would have some sort of local bus service. There is no X27 express bus on the weekends now and this way those folks could have some sort of service. Shore Rd is isolated and the walk to 3rd or 4th Avenue isn't exactly fun. I would keep the B16 as is along Shore Rd. since it can provide service to the subway and other buses.

They don't want it, that's the thing.....

 

They are some very vocal folks down there... If enough of them spoke out that actually wanted local service, I could see MTA caving in.... and extending 64's clear down shore road - while drastically increasing headways in the process.....

 

...and I agree w/ leaving 16's right where they are.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

They don't want it, that's the thing.....

They are some very vocal folks down there... If enough of them spoke out that actually wanted local service, I could see MTA caving in.... and extending 64's clear down shore road - while drastically increasing headways in the process.....

 

...and I agree w/ leaving 16's right where they are.

 

I don't know about that. While I agree that they aren't clamoring for it per se, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be used. I don't see it being heavily used, but with the amount of seniors and apt. bldgs along Shore Rd. I can certainly see a use for a local bus covering all of Shore Rd up to Bay Ridge Ave. Hell I say if they're going to be cheap bastards and withhold the X27 on the weekends, then let them get local bus service, though I would prefer to see both along Shore Rd. :cool:

 

This reminds me that I need to check with the fine Senator Golden to see what's the latest on our push to get the X27 and X28 re-instated on the weekends. :cool:

[B35 via Church]

I don't know about that. While I agree that they aren't clamoring for it per se, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be used. I don't see it being heavily used, but with the amount of seniors and apt. bldgs along Shore Rd. I can certainly see a use for a local bus covering all of Shore Rd up to Bay Ridge Ave.

 

number 1:

My argument is not that there's no USE for it.....

you're combining two different points of view & rebutting it as one....

 

 

number 2:

.....then explain the recent enough B70 reroute along 3rd av (as a replacement for the discontinuation of the B37), and no bus service clear along Shore rd for all these years....

 

I'll wait.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

number 1:

My argument is not that there's no USE for it..... you're combining two different points of view & rebutting it as one....

 

 

number 2:

.....then explain the recent enough B70 reroute along 3rd av (as a replacement for the discontinuation of the B37), and no bus service clear along Shore rd for all these years....

 

I'll wait.....

 

Bold#1 - That seemed to be what we were in fact saying though....

 

I'm not saying that service along Shore Rd is a DIRE necessity, but that doesn't mean that it isn't needed in some capacity. It's like me for example. I would like to have the S54 running on the weekends so that I could use that instead of car service all of the time to the express bus, but I don't complain because quite frankly I prefer pampering myself with car service anyway. However there are times when the weather is nice and I'm in the mood for walking over to the S54 and would do so here and there since it is literally a 5 minute ride, which would save me $10.00 in the process.

 

I think it's the same case here. I don't think it is urgently needed along Shore Rd and I don't see it being jammed packed either of course because we both know that the X27 and X37 is the show along Shore Rd. and I've said that before and you've agreed with me. However, I think there isn't enough demand as there was along 3rd Avenue and aside from that there has never been service along Shore Rd anyway, so naturally I wouldn't see folks clamoring for local bus service there. They basically accept the situation for what it is. Over there they fight more to keep what they have moreso than to get more of what they don't have. However, I'm trying to think outside of the box and look at things that I think should be implemented.

[checkmatechamp13]

Since we're playing the but game, but the B1 would give true access across 86th st instead of stopping at 86th st station. Aside from that this isn't just about access to the subway. This is about overall West-East access in Southern Brooklyn, which the B1 could provide if it were given limited stop service.

 

True, but do you know for sure that those people west of 4th Avenue would prefer destinations along the B1, compared to destinations along the B16? If so, then yeah, do the swap.

[B35 via Church]

Bold#1 - That seemed to be what we were in fact saying though....

 

I'm not saying that service along Shore Rd is a DIRE necessity, but that doesn't mean that it isn't needed in some capacity. It's like me for example. I would like to have the S54 running on the weekends so that I could use that instead of car service all of the time to the express bus, but I don't complain because quite frankly I prefer pampering myself with car service anyway. However there are times when the weather is nice and I'm in the mood for walking over to the S54 and would do so here and there since it is literally a 5 minute ride, which would save me $10.00 in the process.

 

I think it's the same case here. I don't think it is urgently needed along Shore Rd and I don't see it being jammed packed either, of course because we both know that the X27 and X37 is the show along Shore Rd. and I've said that before and you've agreed with me. However, I think there isn't enough demand as there was along 3rd Avenue and aside from that there has never been service along Shore Rd anyway, so naturally I wouldn't see folks clamoring for local bus service there. They basically accept the situation for what it is. Over there they fight more to keep what they have moreso than to get more of what they don't have. However, I'm trying to think outside of the box and look at things that I think should be implemented.

(in bold)

You're still meshing two different points of views.... there is a difference behind sayin "don't extend buses along shore rd b/c it won't be useful" and sayin "the folks themselves don't want the buses there"....

 

I am not questioning IF they'll be useful... I'm questioning HOW useful - especially if folks down there aren't (or have never, AFAIK) pushing for it, which you conceded to earlier....

 

The x27/37.... oh, of course the express bus is king 'round there.... you'll never hear me say anything to the contrary....

 

 

As far as the other matter of discussion here....

Nah... it's more that they don't want local bus service parading up & down shore rd (quiet, residential), as opposed to 3rd av (loud, commercial).... goes back to your points in other threads about the "riff raff".... Of course they would rather fight for the express that they do have, as opposed to fighting for a shore rd. local which they don't.... I don't think it's about simply settling - if that was the case, there would be no service along 3rd.... settling is definitely not the M.O. for Bay Ridge folks.....

 

 

 

True, but do you know for sure that those people west of 4th Avenue would prefer destinations along the B1, compared to destinations along the B16? If so, then yeah, do the swap.

you should be askin Brooklyn bus that question !

 

via made a reference to the B1 up shore road.....

his last response to you was more facetious, than anything.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

True, but do you know for sure that those people west of 4th Avenue would prefer destinations along the B1, compared to destinations along the B16? If so, then yeah, do the swap.

 

What swap?? :confused: The B16 would stay as is and the B1 would simply turn up Shore Rd at 86th st and continue up to Bay Ridge Avenue. In any event, the point is that some sort of local bus service would run along Shore Rd in the area where there currently isn't any.

[checkmatechamp13]

you should be askin Brooklyn bus that question !

 

via made a reference to the B1 up shore road.....

his last response to you was more facetious, than anything.....

 

If I understood him correctly, he supported the B1/B16 swap in Bay Ridge (B1 is extended down to 101st Street/Shore Road, and the B16 is cut back to the 86th Street station).

 

He said "the B1 would give true access across 86th st instead of stopping at 86th st station", which would apply to any extension of the B1 along Shore Road. For some reason, I thought he was talking about the B1/B16 swap.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

(in bold)

You're still meshing two different points of views.... there is a difference behind sayin "don't extend buses along shore rd b/c it won't be useful" and sayin "the folks themselves don't want the buses there"....

 

I am not questioning IF they'll be useful... I'm questioning HOW useful - especially if folks down there aren't (or have never, AFAIK) pushing for it, which you conceded to earlier....

 

The x27/37.... oh, of course the express bus is king 'round there.... you'll never hear me say anything to the contrary....

 

 

As far as the other matter of discussion here....

Nah... it's more that they don't want local bus service parading up & down shore rd (quiet, residential), as opposed to 3rd av (loud, commercial).... goes back to your points in other threads about the "riff raff".... Of course they would rather fight for the express that they do have, as opposed to fighting for a shore rd. local which they don't.... I don't think it's about simply settling - if that was the case, there would be no service along 3rd.... settling is definitely not the M.O. for Bay Ridge folks.....

 

Well then if that's the case how do you explain the B16 running along that southern part of Shore Rd?? I mean hey I'm familiar with the area because I was contemplating getting an apt. at the time on 92nd and Shore Rd and quite frankly there are enough cars along that part of Shore Rd that you would never know that a local bus or even an express bus for that matter ran along there.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well then if that's the case how do you explain the B16 running along that southern part of Shore Rd?? I mean hey I'm familiar with the area because I was contemplating getting an apt. at the time on 92nd and Shore Rd and quite frankly there are enough cars along that part of Shore Rd that you would never know that a local bus or even an express bus for that matter ran along there.

 

It could've been that the B16 was routed down there many years ago (to serve the apartments over there), and the community felt that the pros of being served by a bus outweighed the cons. As for why northern Shore Road doesn't have a bus, maybe back when private companies ran trolley and bus routes, there just wasn't any demand for bus service in that area. It's more spread out (though it's a dense as a lot of other areas that have good bus service) and maybe they just didn't feel the need to send a bus down there. I mean, I don't think that they would've said "We don't want local bus service down here)

 

And you have to consider that just because there are a lot of cars doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't a lot of autoless households who could use the buses. I mean, if you have an apartment building with 200 units and you see 100 cars parked outside, that looks like a lot, but that means that there are 100 households without a car.

[B35 via Church]

Well then if that's the case how do you explain the B16 running along that southern part of Shore Rd??

 

Fort Hamilton H.S, and that other public school south of 3rd av along 86th st (w/e street that is).... and I truly do believe that too.... there's a rule about supplying bus service within a certain distance from a school....

 

....and as far as service along shore road south of that point, that's only for terminal / feasible turnaround purposes (hence why the B16, the old 37, and the 63 terminate(d) down there)... you try ending a bus around 86th/shore...

 

 

considering those 2 points, I highly doubt there would even be any local buses touching shore road otherwise.... same logic applies for Xaverian & the B9 (and the now B64)....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Fort Hamilton H.S, and that other public school south of 3rd av along 86th st (w/e street that is).... and I truly do believe that too.... there's a rule about supplying bus service within a certain distance from a school....

 

....and as far as service along shore road south of that point, that's only for terminal / feasible turnaround purposes (hence why the B16, the old 37, and the 63 terminate(d) down there)... you try ending a bus around 86th/shore...

 

 

considering those 2 points, I highly doubt there would even be any local buses touching shore road otherwise.... same logic applies for Xaverian & the B9 (and the now B64)....

 

Makes sense. I mean I always wondered why they had two local buses running over by Shore Rd and Bay Ridge Av.

[aemoreira81]

Just based on anecdotal evidence, the B82 Limited service does appear to be cost-neutral, because in the past, those were put-ins starting at Rockaway Parkway during the midday. But now, deadheads go straight down Pennsylvania Avenue and carry revenue earlier instead of going farther down to Rockaway Parkway out of service.

 

As for a B1 going all the way down Shore Road, you COULD terminate it at Fort Hamilton High School, but then you need something serving the south end of Shore Road for network coverage. The northern part of Shore Road in parts is geographically isolated...hence why the B4 goes into, and ends, right in a residential area. The same thing applied to the B3 before southern Bergen Beach lost all of its bus service in the doomsday cuts.

[BrooklynBus]

1) But couldn't they just cut back some B13s to the Crescent Street station, or the Fresh Pond Road station?

 

I was talking about when they extended the 13 to Bushwick, they provided extra service from Ridgewood to Bushwick for nothing, only because they incresed the service to Gateway. Since they have since cut it back to Dekalb, it doesn't make too much sense to have a short turn in Ridgewood.

 

2) Well, there aren't really any connections that are offered by swapping the B1 and B16, so I don't think it would make a difference either way.

 

It makes a difference because anyone transfering to the B1 who needs to go past 4th Avenue must take a third bus. If it went to Shore Road fewer three bus trips would be required. Perhaps a few more two-bus trips would be required because B16 passengers would need an extra bus, but I think its more important to reduce three bus trips to two, since people will not make three bus trips.

 

But his B9 proposal would do the same thing. Plus, it would provide Shore Road with access to the 59th Street station, rather than the 86th Street station.

 

Exactly.

 

By the way, the SI-Kings Plaza route could probably be a limited for part of the B1 route, if the MTA were willing to implement it.

 

What route are you talking about?

 

Alas, The General speakeths again......

 

of course....

yeah, and where would you put the B16? cut it back at 86th/4th... continue it down ft. hamilton & terminate it where it currently does? yeah right...

 

Service for NB B16's are just as sought after as service along 86th st due east (in this case, the B1).... don't underestimate ft. hamilton parkway north of 86th....

 

If it terminated at 86th and 4th, (or maybe even 95th Street) it could be extended at the other end, along with other needed route changes. B16 usage would even be greater if it ran past Maimonides. I've never seen many people on it along 13th Avenue. There could be another route there that ran every 20 minutes.

 

As far as sending B1's up shore road (or extending B9's clear down shore road, which is another related proposal some bring up), I also disagree with that... for one, those riders aren't clamoring/yearning for local service... and two, the biggest draws around/along shore road is ft hamilton HS, and as you mention, xaverian - neither of which is strong enough....

 

You can't always go by what riders are clamoring for. When I came up with the B1 connecting Brighton Beach with Bensonhurst and Bay Ridge, absolutely no one was asking for it, and look how successful that has been. Fifteen minute headways on the B21 on Brighton Beach Avenue now runs as often as every three minutes.

 

The High Schools may only be draws during school hours, but the 59th Street Station would be a heavy draw all the time.

 

The MTA knows it effed up combining the B5 & the B50.... this is another thing they do.... the B82 is being forced down riders' throats; slight service increases, implementation of a LTD, hell, somewhere down the line, I wouldn't be surprised if they put SBS on that damn route.....

 

They are looking at it in Phase 2 but they want it to include 86th Street under the el. How can you run SBS there? It makes no sense. It would be better to use Bath Avenue for SBS and get rid of the local which they could be thinking of also. Don't know if I like that though. I like the B82 for SBS if it terminated at Gateway. But I think the B44 SBS will be such a flop that it might jeopardize the whole program.

 

the supposed duplication to the B82 I really do think had squat to do w/ them wanting to cutback the B64 down there -

 

So what do you think their reason was?

 

(the 18) was a very low ridership route in & of itself.... the B13/18 merger they got right....

 

 

I disagree. If it was so successful, then why did they have to cutback the B18 from Bushwick to Dekalb? Now there is virtually nothing left of the old B18. Eliminating it gave its former users no other choice but to walk an extra half mile to the L train, and riders who previously boarded at the first stop at Jamaica Avenue had 15 minutes added to their trip instead of a quick ride through the cemeteries. They made the change just by looking at a map because it went through cemeteries, they believed there was no need for it. People visit and work in those cemeteries, in addition to the through riders who used the route. They could have looked to extending it southward to increase usage rather than eliminate it.

 

Also, at the public hearing, the B13/18 combination was unanimously opposed by all in attendance which included a rep from the BPs office. It had no support whatsoever. What happened to your theory about doing what riders are clamoring for?

 

 

This reminds me that I need to check with the fine Senator Golden to see what's the latest on our push to get the X27 and X28 re-instated on the weekends. :cool:

 

Don't forget to ask what he doing about reinstating the B4.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) I was talking about when they extended the 13 to Bushwick, they provided extra service from Ridgewood to Bushwick for nothing, only because they incresed the service to Gateway. Since they have since cut it back to Dekalb, it doesn't make too much sense to have a short turn in Ridgewood.

 

2) It makes a difference because anyone transfering to the B1 who needs to go past 4th Avenue must take a third bus. If it went to Shore Road fewer three bus trips would be required. Perhaps a few more two-bus trips would be required because B16 passengers would need an extra bus, but I think its more important to reduce three bus trips to two, since people will not make three bus trips.

 

3) What route are you talking about?

 

4) The High Schools may only be draws during school hours, but the 59th Street Station would be a heavy draw all the time.

 

5) So what do you think their reason was?

 

 

1) Yeah, but they could've had some short-turns before they cut it back. Now, they wouldn't be saving much by having the buses run to Ridgewood instead of DeKalb Avenue, but before they would've saved more.

 

2) Makes sense.

 

3) I proposed a route that would run from Staten Island (I'm not sure of the location yet) and Kings Plaza. B35 made a good suggestion and I believe he routed it down 86th Street->14th Avenue->Belt Parkway, and then had it serve Sheepshead Bay and continue down Knapp Street to Kings Plaza. It would be sort of a B1 limited for its stint along 86th Street.

 

Or, your B22 route could work as well, but the idea is to provide a relatively easy connection between the SI routes and eastern Brooklyn.

 

I'll see what they say about my S93 extension before suggesting anything else.

 

4) I think he was saying that it's a requirement of some sort, that students should be within walking distance of a bus.

 

5) To kill off the route. He feels that the MTA wants a bunch of super-routes with a couple of coverage routes thrown in if there is no other way to serve the neighborhood.

[aemoreira81]

On the subject of the former B18, however...I do believe that the MTA could find a use for part of its former service area---but it would require some route movements to make it work.

 

Instead of running the Q39 to Ridgewood and Cooper, why not run it to Broadway Junction? It would work via turning the Q39 off Forest at Summerfield (return via Decatur), then using Cypress Avenue, Vermont Place, and Highland Boulevard, followed by Conway Street to Broadway Junction.

 

The only issue that I can see is finding space for the route at Broadway Junction, but if that is an issue, I would shift the Q24/56 to have their last stop on Fulton Street on the far side.

 

This would be about 10 minutes extra in running time, BUT savings would be in deadhead costs, as Q39 buses would no longer need to run on and run off long distances via local streets to return to LaGuardia. A 2-minute deadhead to East New York is a lot shorter than a 20-25 minute deadhead to LaGuardia.

 

Areas that lost transit service when the B18 was eliminated would see it again, the Highland area of East New York, which is vertically isolated, would see bus service for the first time, and there would be easy access to Highland Park's Vermont Place areas. It would also provide access for East New York residents to the industrial areas and other work sites in Maspeth with just one transfer.

 

To Gateway with the Q39 is too long to me...but Broadway Junction could definitely work and also undo an unpopular service cut in the process that eliminated most of the B18.

 

Q39 customers east of the LIRR tracks could either use the B13, which would serve the east side of the LIRR tracks, or walk a short distance to reach the Q39.

[B35 via Church]

If it terminated at 86th and 4th, (or maybe even 95th Street) it could be extended at the other end, along with other needed route changes. B16 usage would even be greater if it ran past Maimonides. I've never seen many people on it along 13th Avenue. There could be another route there that ran every 20 minutes.

Yeah, B16 usage would be higher if it ran closer to the hospital.... the straightening of it along ft hamilton pkwy on that end is another issue.... I was specifically talking about the B16 on the bay ridge/ft hamilton end, but whatever....

 

You can't always go by what riders are clamoring for. When I came up with the B1 connecting Brighton Beach with Bensonhurst and Bay Ridge, absolutely no one was asking for it, and look how successful that has been. Fifteen minute headways on the B21 on Brighton Beach Avenue now runs as often as every three minutes.

.....and the odds of duplicating that same success is what exactly?

 

 

So what do you think their reason was?

....eventually wanting to get rid of the B64....

 

which of course is something they wouldn't openly admit to.

 

 

I disagree. If it was so successful, then why did they have to cutback the B18 from Bushwick to Dekalb? Now there is virtually nothing left of the old B18. Eliminating it gave its former users no other choice but to walk an extra half mile to the L train, and riders who previously boarded at the first stop at Jamaica Avenue had 15 minutes added to their trip instead of a quick ride through the cemeteries. They made the change just by looking at a map because it went through cemeteries, they believed there was no need for it. People visit and work in those cemeteries, in addition to the through riders who used the route. They could have looked to extending it southward to increase usage rather than eliminate it.

 

Also, at the public hearing, the B13/18 combination was unanimously opposed by all in attendance which included a rep from the BPs office. It had no support whatsoever. What happened to your theory about doing what riders are clamoring for?

 

Of course you disagree.... Just about nothing the MTA does is ever right to you...

 

first of all, the later cutting back of the 13 from bushwick to dekalb av, and the combination of the B13/18 had nothin to do with each other.... I said they got it right with the merger; said nothin about successful - don't put words in my mouth.... the cutting short of the 13 to Wyckoff Hosp. was yet another cost cutting measure, that IMO was dumb of them to have done that....

 

quite frankly, having the B13 serve the area the way it does at its headways, makes more sense than having had the B18 running at 1/2 hour all day with a low amt. of riders....

 

secondly, where else could you have justifiably extended the 18 southward, that wouldn't have duplicated the 13?

 

thirdly, it wasn't supported b/c they knew they were losing service on Cypress av..... that's what that was all about....

 

fourth, that last idiotic shot at me would've made more sense if they actually claimed they WANTED the merger, and never took the buses... smart ass....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well now... Somebody has all of their ducks in a row... :eek:

[BrooklynBus]

It could've been that the B16 was routed down there many years ago (to serve the apartments over there), and the community felt that the pros of being served by a bus outweighed the cons. As for why northern Shore Road doesn't have a bus, maybe back when private companies ran trolley and bus routes, there just wasn't any demand for bus service in that area. It's more spread out (though it's a dense as a lot of other areas that have good bus service) and maybe they just didn't feel the need to send a bus down there. I mean, I don't think that they would've said "We don't want local bus service down here) .

 

North of 86th Street there were a lot of mansions still remaining from the late 1800s. Slowly they were replaced with apartment buildings which may have not occurred until the 1940s after the initial bus routes were already laid out to supplement the trolleys going to Downtown Brooklyn and the 39th and 69th Street ferries. I believe the changeover south of 86th Street occurred earlier like the 1920s and 30s.

 

Yeah, B16 usage would be higher if it ran closer to the hospital.... the straightening of it along ft hamilton pkwy on that end is another issue.... I was specifically talking about the B16 on the bay ridge/ft hamilton end, but whatever....

 

 

.....and the odds of duplicating that same success is what exactly?

 

I think the odds are high if you come up with an intelligent idea that really helps people like the B1 did. I think a straightened B16 and another 13th Avenue Route would be just as successful. Good bus route connections even has the power to change the make-up of neighborhoods. Before the B11 was extended from Borough Park to Midwood, there were no Orthodox Jews living in Midwood. I strongly believe the B11 extension had a lot to do with it. A new 13th Avenue route would have similar results in Bensonhurst. I think initially you would only be able to justify 15 minute headways, but who knows what would happen in 20 years. It might be five minute headways, like what happened with the B1.

 

The problem with OP is that if they do come up with a good idea, they combine it with a bad one, and they won't listen to what the community wants. That's why the Northeast Bronx Study in 1993 resulted in nothing because they wouldn't compromise with Co-Op City. Their southern Brooklyn Study at the same time also resulted in no changes. At least another million dollars wasted on top of the 6 million wasted in the early 80s.

 

Of course you disagree.... Just about nothing the MTA does is ever right to you...

 

That is exactly correct. Because as I said, they combine good ideas with bad ideas, so the total effect is something slightly positive or just neutral. The B47/ 78 combination was a good idea, but eliminating the B40 on St Johns was dumb because now you can't take the B45 or the B65 and transfer to another bus going further east. That means you will need three buses. The least they could have done was to extend the B65 a few blocks down Ralph to East New York Avenue to connect with the B12.

 

I liked the B70 rerouting to Third Avenue to save a part of the B37. The only problem is that without them showing any numbers, I wasn't totally convinced the B37 wasn't needed.

 

first of all, the later cutting back of the 13 from bushwick to dekalb av, and the combination of the B13/18 had nothin to do with each other.... I said they got it right with the merger; said nothin about successful - don't put words in my mouth....

 

quite frankly, having the B13 serve the area the way it does at its headways, makes more sense than having had the B18 running at 1/2 hour all day with a low amt. of riders....

 

So what is the difference between getting it right and being successful? You are confusing me now.

 

There was a relationship between the B13/B18 merger and cutting the B13 from Bushwick to Dekalb. You even said that the B18 had 30 minute headways. When they combined it with the B13, service on the portion north of Dekalb also doubled to 15 minutes because they had to add service to adequately serve Gateway so the buses were even emptier (because no one north of Dekalb was going to Gateway) and there was more of a reason to discontinue service altogether. Guess they didn't want short turns.

 

secondly, where else could you have justifiably extended the 18 southward, that wouldn't have duplicated the 13?

 

What would have been wrong with duplicating the B13? i.e. keeping the B18 and B13 as they were and extending both routes to Gateway along Crescent at 30 minutes each?

 

thirdly, it wasn't supported b/c they knew they were losing service on Cypress av..... that's what that was all about....

 

Which may have not been justified because in addition to no bus alternative to Cypress Avenue, passengers boarding at Jamaica Avenue now had to take the B13 and ride 10 to 15 minutes longer all so that one bus a day could be saved. And those savings lasted only a year. After that, the route combination costed more money. When I created the longer B1, passengers actually rode from Brighton Beach to Dyker Heights and some even to Bay Ridge. When the B13 and B18 were combined there were virtually no riders from Bushwick to East New York. If there were, they wouldn't have eliminated service north of DeKalb.

 

At that time I read every word of the supporting documentation and found many errors in their work which was sloppy and compared apples and oranges. For example in one table, they counted passengers making one way trips. In another table they used the term customers which was a passenger making a two-way or round trip. Then somewhere else in their conclusions they interspersed passengers and customers, calling them all customers so they were comparing the numbers of passengers making a one-way trip with the numbers of passengers making a round trip and treating them as if they were equal. So their revenue, costs passengers per bus, etc. were all screwed up I pointed all this out to them in my written comments which probably were never even read because when I mentioned it personally to the Director of Planning several years later, he looked at me as if it were the first time he was hearing it and looked genuinely surprised.

[B35 via Church]

aye CheckmateChamp.... I could've just dismissed all this w/ a facepalm smilie..... but it's more fun this way !

 

lemme address this madness.....

 

 

I think the odds are high if you come up with an intelligent idea that really helps people like the B1 did. I think a straightened B16 and another 13th Avenue Route would be just as successful. Good bus route connections even has the power to change the make-up of neighborhoods.

 

Before the B11 was extended from Borough Park to Midwood, there were no Orthodox Jews living in Midwood. I strongly believe the B11 extension had a lot to do with it. A new 13th Avenue route would have similar results in Bensonhurst. I think initially you would only be able to justify 15 minute headways, but who knows what would happen in 20 years. It might be five minute headways, like what happened with the B1.

 

Yeah, I saw what you did there... You tell me I can't always go by what riders are clamoring for in one argument, full knowing that I implicated a B16 straightening along Ft. Hamilton (which folks have requested for btw) in another argument as being a good idea.... Then you go on to answer that question to say "I think the odds are high if you come up with an intelligent idea"...

 

man get outta here.... that's just as dumb as sayin, I think the odds of winning the lotto are high if I pick the right numbers....

 

I wanna know the odds of winning the lotto... what are the odds of picking the right numbers....

you aint slick.... you knew what I was gettin at when I posed that question separately...

 

 

That is exactly correct. Because as I said, they combine good ideas with bad ideas, so the total effect is something slightly positive or just neutral. he B47/ 78 combination was a good idea, but eliminating the B40 on St Johns was dumb because now you can't take the B45 or the B65 and transfer to another bus going further east. That means you will need three buses. The least they could have done was to extend the B65 a few blocks down Ralph to East New York Avenue to connect with the B12.

 

I liked the B70 rerouting to Third Avenue to save a part of the B37. The only problem is that without them showing any numbers, I wasn't totally convinced the B37 wasn't needed.

lol.... of course it's correct....

 

Whether you claim to care or not, you don't know how your posts come off to your readers..... comin up w/ any & every excuse in the book to not give credit where credit is due... It is clear you have a personal axe to grind, which of course is your prerogative....

 

Anyway, there are some corridors that deserve bus service moreso than others.... Like I mentioned in another post to someone else, public transportation is about the greater good.... If you have to lose 5 to gain 50 (I think it was QJT that made that point in another thread), so be it......

 

part of my gripe w/ the MTA is when they get rid of routes that were either increasing in ridership, or actually had "room for growth" so to speak.... The B40 & the B18 fell in neither category; tis why (IMO) they got it right w/ the B13 & the B47.....

 

- Even though the B13 meanders through Ridgewood, it better serves (and more of) Ridgewood.....

- The B47 made sense, in part, due to the fact that the B12 (compared to the B40) better served the area east of st johns/ENY av....

- The B70 routing along 3rd, yeah, that also made sense.... I didn't need numbers to tell me the B37 done past served its course.....

 

 

 

So what is the difference between getting it right and being successful? You are confusing me now.

 

There was a relationship between the B13/B18 merger and cutting the B13 from Bushwick to Dekalb. You even said that the B18 had 30 minute headways. When they combined it with the B13, service on the portion north of Dekalb also doubled to 15 minutes because they had to add service to adequately serve Gateway so the buses were even emptier (because no one north of Dekalb was going to Gateway) and there was more of a reason to discontinue service altogether. Guess they didn't want short turns.

What's to be confused about.... The mta makes out that SBS (to give an example) is this big success; they won't do ANYthing to alter the routings of their babies, so to speak (Bx12, M15).... Whereas myself, or anyone else (you know, the ppl. paying for, and using the bus services) saying/feeling the mta got a certain extension/truncation, etc correct, means s*** to them..... I don't believe I had to actually explain that to you.....

 

The only thing out of that paragraph I agree with, is the not wanting of short turns along the B13..... As for the rest of it, well, for starters, I'd rather have buses every 15 minutes that serves more of a community, than a bus running every 1/2 hour that only served the select few... goes way back to that point that I made to you about a turn or two along a route benefitting a community....

 

you say "also" doubled, as it pertains to the B13 north of dekalb..... I'd like to know when the B18 ever ran on 15 min headways... I always remember that route running half-hourly all day......

 

 

What would have been wrong with duplicating the B13? i.e. keeping the B18 and B13 as they were and extending both routes to Gateway along Crescent at 30 minutes each?

In other words, you couldn't have sent the B18 anywhere else - which was exactly the point..... You don't need (anymore) split service b/w Brooklyn & Ridgewood past what the current B13 & B20 already provides.... Cypress av was not THAT important......

 

 

Which may have not been justified because in addition to no bus alternative to Cypress Avenue, passengers boarding at Jamaica Avenue now had to take the B13 and ride 10 to 15 minutes longer all so that one bus a day could be saved. And those savings lasted only a year. After that, the route combination costed more money. When I created the longer B1, passengers actually rode from Brighton Beach to Dyker Heights and some even to Bay Ridge. When the B13 and B18 were combined there were virtually no riders from Bushwick to East New York. If there were, they wouldn't have eliminated service north of DeKalb.

See, this is what I'm talkin about w/ you....

 

The riding habits of passengers over a longer distance between 2 points in one area of the borough, compared to the riding habits b/w 2 points in another area, has nothin to do with either the routes themselves - and has everything to with the neighborhoods themselves... Some (neighborhoods) are more dense than others, some have more to offer than others..... quite frankly, some have more in common than others.....

 

 

At that time I read every word of the supporting documentation and found many errors in their work which was sloppy and compared apples and oranges. For example in one table, they counted passengers making one way trips. In another table they used the term customers which was a passenger making a two-way or round trip. Then somewhere else in their conclusions they interspersed passengers and customers, calling them all customers so they were comparing the numbers of passengers making a one-way trip with the numbers of passengers making a round trip and treating them as if they were equal. So their revenue, costs passengers per bus, etc. were all screwed up I pointed all this out to them in my written comments which probably were never even read because when I mentioned it personally to the Director of Planning several years later, he looked at me as if it were the first time he was hearing it and looked genuinely surprised.

lol.... yeah, their logic (or lack thereof) & the way they derive by making changes is nothin short of asinine.... I'm not claiming they're the smartest "apples" out of the bunch......

[BrooklynBus]

Yeah, I saw what you did there... You tell me I can't always go by what riders are clamoring for in one argument, full knowing that I implicated a B16 straightening along Ft. Hamilton (which folks have requested for btw) in another argument as being a good idea.... Then you go on to answer that question to say "I think the odds are high if you come up with an intelligent idea"...

 

I think you're becoming a little paranoid. You make it sound like I intentionally twist things you say to use them against you. None of what I write is planned to trap you to say I gotcha. Maybe it comes out that way but its not planned. I actually like you a lot and would be quite content if you headed Operations Planning, not merely worked there. (You can even make that your new quote if you like.) Like some who only can find ways how to expand service, you also see ways where to cut service, which is also necessary.

 

 

lol.... of course it's correct....

 

Whether you claim to care or not, you don't know how your posts come off to your readers..... comin up w/ any & every excuse in the book to not give credit where credit is due...

 

This is why I don't give them credit for much. First of all, they rarely come up with any original ideas of their own, if at all. When they propose something you like, how do you know they even thought of it? You don't. Rerouting the B31 from Avenue U to Kings Highway was actually suggested to them by a friend of mine. The B83 extension along the Belt Parkway was my idea. In fact, before I told them, I don't think they were even aware that they could get a permit from DOT to operate buses on a Parkway, because that was their reason for rejecting that idea when I initially presented it in 2003.

 

Also, they take years to study and implement obvious needed changes. Combining the B 40 / 78; the old B47 / old B62; extending the B61 to Long Island City, Extending the B38; eliminating the B75 and Extending the B57 and extending the B77; and combining the 86th Street route with the B64 at 14th Avenue; were all ideas I proposed in my 1972 Masters Thesis. Now, I'm not trying to take credit for them or even suggest they stole my ideas, because they weren't even aware of what I proposed back then. But why did it take them 10 to 20 years longer for them to see what I saw back then? It will probably take another 20 years to 40 years for them to see the wisdom of a through Ft Hamilton Parkway route. That's why I am very reluctant to give them credit for anything.

 

And when I do, like when I told the Director Operations Planning to his face that I thought the B70 rerouting was a good idea, all I received was a blank stare, not a "thank you." It's as if he were saying who cares what you think.

 

Anyway, there are some corridors that deserve bus service moreso than others.... Like I mentioned in another post to someone else, public transportation is about the greater good.... If you have to lose 5 to gain 50

 

Agree with you 100% on that one. In fact, I have been saying that one for 40 years.

 

part of my gripe w/ the MTA is when they get rid of routes that were either increasing in ridership, or actually had "room for growth" so to speak.... The B40 & the B18 fell in neither category; tis why (IMO) they got it right w/ the B13 & the B47.....

 

Correct about the 47 but severing an east-west connection on St Johns Place to make travel more difficult was wrong, but I'm not convinced about the B18.

 

-

- The B70 routing along 3rd, yeah, that also made sense.... I didn't need numbers to tell me the B37 done past served its course.....

 

Maybe you saw the need to discontinue the B37, but the MTA needs to be transparent and should have provided the numbers to justify it.

 

What's to be confused about.... The mta makes out that SBS (to give an example) is this big success; they won't do ANYthing to alter the routings of their babies, so to speak (Bx12, M15).... Whereas myself, or anyone else (you know, the ppl. paying for, and using the bus services) saying/feeling the mta got a certain extension/truncation, etc correct, means s*** to them..... I don't believe I had to actually explain that to you.....

 

 

Still confused, but let's forget it.

 

you say "also" doubled, as it pertains to the B13 north of dekalb..... I'd like to know when the B18 ever ran on 15 min headways... I always remember that route running half-hourly all day......

 

I never said it ran every 15 minutes. I said that service doubled to Bushwick to every 15 minutes when it became the B13. There was no justification to increase service along that portion of the route. Those people would not be riding to Gateway because it is so far. I said that the fact that there were twice as many buses meant they would be half as crowded, say 12 passengers per bus would now be six. More of a reason to just discontinue service all together.

 

As a footnote, I am sure that in the 1950s and 60s, the B18 ran no less frequently than every 20 minutes which was the minimum service provided back then even after midnight.

 

 

The riding habits of passengers over a longer distance between 2 points in one area of the borough, compared to the riding habits b/w 2 points in another area, has nothin to do with either the routes themselves - and has everything to with the neighborhoods themselves... Some (neighborhoods) are more dense than others, some have more to offer than others..... quite frankly, some have more in common than others.....

 

Sort of true. But it does have to do with the routes. If a trip between two points requires three or more buses and there is no subway alternative, people will not make the trip. Although the fare structure was different back in the 1970s, that was one of the things I learned from the O/D survey I conducted back then. I think something like 5% of the passengers made trips involving three buses. The only major trip pattern using three to five buses I saw in the routes I surveyed was students taking up to 5 buses each way to get from Staten Island to Kingsborough College. There were an estimated 50 students a day using 5 buses for a single trip. (They also got a break on the fare; there were several transfer points allowed just for KCC students so I think it was double fare for them. No half fares back then for college students if I recall correctly.)

[B35 via Church]

I think you're becoming a little paranoid. You make it sound like I intentionally twist things you say to use them against you. None of what I write is planned to trap you to say I gotcha. Maybe it comes out that way but its not planned. I actually like you a lot and would be quite content if you headed Operations Planning, not merely worked there. (You can even make that your new quote if you like.) Like some who only can find ways how to expand service, you also see ways where to cut service, which is also necessary.

I wouldn't have had to point out what (and how) I did there, if you would've gave me a straight-forward answer to what I was specifically asking (but of course, you can do what you want)..... that's the one thing I don't do w/ people, beat around the bush... it's a waste of time.... I'd rather not answer someone's question, than feed them *something* just to shut them up.... like, don't insult my intelligence....

 

off of that, and moving on....

 

 

This is why I don't give them credit for much. First of all, they rarely come up with any original ideas of their own, if at all. When they propose something you like, how do you know they even thought of it? You don't. Rerouting the B31 from Avenue U to Kings Highway was actually suggested to them by a friend of mine. The B83 extension along the Belt Parkway was my idea. In fact, before I told them, I don't think they were even aware that they could get a permit from DOT to operate buses on a Parkway, because that was their reason for rejecting that idea when I initially presented it in 2003.

 

Also, they take years to study and implement obvious needed changes. Combining the B 40 / 78; the old B47 / old B62; extending the B61 to Long Island City, Extending the B38; eliminating the B75 and Extending the B57 and extending the B77; and combining the 86th Street route with the B64 at 14th Avenue; were all ideas I proposed in my 1972 Masters Thesis. Now, I'm not trying to take credit for them or even suggest they stole my ideas, because they weren't even aware of what I proposed back then. But why did it take them 10 to 20 years longer for them to see what I saw back then? It will probably take another 20 years to 40 years for them to see the wisdom of a through Ft Hamilton Parkway route. That's why I am very reluctant to give them credit for anything.

 

And when I do, like when I told the Director Operations Planning to his face that I thought the B70 rerouting was a good idea, all I received was a blank stare, not a "thank you." It's as if he were saying who cares what you think.

I always wondered why they take years to take action on anything.... thought it was a stall tactic, as if to say... (gee, I hope these fools forget all about it so we won't have to waste time & money to have to delve in this crap)... Their vacations, luxuries/bonuses, etc. are more important than the true purpose & responsibility/duties behind them having the positions they have in the first place, have them tell it.... God how I despise corporate america......

 

Anyway, I'm not disputing any of what you just said.... I'm definitely not saying/implying you have no reason to feel the way you do... You may not want to give them credit for much, and again, that's your prerogative....

 

Way I see it, fair is fair.... If I feel the MTA is wrong with x, right with y, and mixed on z, I'm not gonna only bring up x.... May or may not be intentional, but you've long have a habit of doing that....

 

Far as that last part, BS like that is why I'm not suitable to be a white collar type of dude.....

 

 

Maybe you saw the need to discontinue the B37, but the MTA needs to be transparent and should have provided the numbers to justify it.

to be honest, I don't think the numbers would've mattered.... they can always make up figures... Notice when I make points about a(ny) route, I don't get caught up in exact statistics..... I don't see the riders of our bus system as numbers....

 

Apparently, the MTA does....

 

Like homer simpson said: "facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything"....

Emphasis on ANYthing.....

 

 

I never said it ran every 15 minutes. I said that service doubled to Bushwick to every 15 minutes when it became the B13. There was no justification to increase service along that portion of the route. Those people would not be riding to Gateway because it is so far. I said that the fact that there were twice as many buses meant they would be half as crowded, say 12 passengers per bus would now be six. More of a reason to just discontinue service all together.

 

As a footnote, I am sure that in the 1950s and 60s, the B18 ran no less frequently than every 20 minutes which was the minimum service provided back then even after midnight.

(part in bold) you've elaborating on, wadnt as clear the first go round...

 

Anyway, why does it have to be necessarily about riding to gateway? these were the same clowns that originally didn't want buses on their territory to begin with....

 

....and two, the way I see it, the discontinuation of the B18 would've still made sense - regardless of whether they kept service levels the same on the old 13, or doubled it.... may not have been justification for doubling service on the 13, but there was justification to gettin rid of that route (the 18) though.....

 

...and thanks for that last bit of info about the 18 way back when.

 

 

Sort of true. But it does have to do with the routes. If a trip between two points requires three or more buses and there is no subway alternative, people will not make the trip.

 

Although the fare structure was different back in the 1970s, that was one of the things I learned from the O/D survey I conducted back then. I think something like 5% of the passengers made trips involving three buses. The only major trip pattern using three to five buses I saw in the routes I surveyed was students taking up to 5 buses each way to get from Staten Island to Kingsborough College. There were an estimated 50 students a day using 5 buses for a single trip. (They also got a break on the fare; there were several transfer points allowed just for KCC students so I think it was double fare for them. No half fares back then for college students if I recall correctly.)

What you're bringing up here is totally unrelated to the original point you made to me about more people riding B1's b/w brighton bch & dyker hgts, compared to those riding B13's b/w Bushwick & ENY.....