What the MTA and DOT are not telling you about the B44 SBS

[BrooklynBus]

What is the reason for NOT re-routing the B49 along Ocean Ave and the BMT stations on the Brighton line? If they don't consider it I guess the next step (give it 3-5 years) is for the to declare the B49 north of Flatbush Ave to be redundant along Rogers Ave and eliminate that section. QUOTE]

 

The MTA has this all planned out. By using Rogers, B49 ridership will have to drop. Then when they do their routine service adjsutments in three months, they will reduce the 12 minute service (used to be 8) in the rush hours to 15. With buses coming two at a time, that will kill the route and ridership will drop further. I give it one year max before they declare the B49 north of Foster redundant and try to cut it. There is no way they are going to be willing to provide all that service along Rogers for any period of time. They have this all planned out just like their plan to kill the B64.

 

Just as B35 via Church said, all they want are a few super routes and feeders. They want to eliminate all the other bus routes to reduce ooperating costs. The fact that such a move will drastically hinder manueuverability by increasing the number of three bus trips to complete a trip is of no concern to the MTA. The feeders will provide good service during rush hours and will be dead at other times. A route that is just a feeder does not do well during the off-peak. For a route to be viable to justify good service during the non-peak, it has to serve many purposes with many different major origins and destinations along the route.

 

As for your question why they won't reroute the B49 along Ocean which would make purpose sense, is that they would rather eliminate that portion of the route. Their official reason is that the B41 already adequately serves the corridor. Forget that it is lined exclusively with 6 story apartment houses (except for a single block in Ditmas Park), or that there are four routes serving Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, you will never get consistancy from the MTA. As I've proposed before rerouting the B49 to Ocean and east along Empire would drastically improve access within the area, which is not an MTA goal. Eliminating service to reduce operating costs is their only goal. They would never be doing the B44 SBS if they didn't see it as an opportunity to reduce operating costs.

['89 Liberty MCI]

B35, I think Rogers Avenue makes more sense for SBS since it's easier to put the bus lane there and it's easier for a motor vehicle to reach Rogers than New York from the junction. I also believe in progress and that intra-borough travel and that mass transit, especially buses, needs to be improved. Everybody knows how much intra-borough travel by public transportation sucks right now. Sure, East Flatbush is densely populated and needs adequate public transportation. But there is a damn subway on Nostrand Avenue, with each station being a 3-to-5-minute walk from most B44 limited stops along New York Avenue.

 

North-south travel from points far below the junction to points north of Fulton is not easy right now. Establishing a connection here may not be a brilliant idea, but it is not a flawed or poor idea. Nobody wants to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint where there are some nice, well known restaurants, like Peter Luger's steakhouse? Nobody wants to go to Astoria (a bit of long shot as you would need the then then or , but not such a big deal since the IRT Flushing and BMT Astoria share the platform), or points along the IRT Flushing line like Shea Stadium or points along the IND Queens Blvd line like the Queens Center Mall? You don't need a car to go to all of these places if you have SBS. That last comment is for Allan.

 

My thing about the B44 SBS is that while the MTA could have chosen another corridor like the B82 or B35 (which will hopefully come in SBS phase II), they made a good choice by picking the B44 and re-routing it to Rogers Avenue. I believe this for the simple reason that the B44 is so easy to convert to SBS and already has a solid ridership base in spite of the fact that people don't ride it for distances that are as long as those on the B46 and others. A solid ridership base even with the change in route. Why is it so easy to convert? Because it travels on one-way streets and has few turns. That, and the fact that hardly any expressways, parkways, bridges, or tunnels feed into its corridor, and no long-term construction is occurring anywhere within its corridor, will make it even better than the Bx12 and M15. Also there will be the bus bulbs to prevent the buses from having to maneuver in and out of stops. I think this is a case where the service will create a more significant chunk of its demand than the Bx12 or M15 SBS did or had the ability to or have the ability to.

 

Allan, I don't disagree with you about moving the B49 to Ocean or adding more north-south service in East Flatbush. I'll give you that. I personally can't form an opinion on that issue because it's just my firm belief that the MTA is too scared/stingy/cash-strapped to really do anything to local/limited buses except cut them up like some gang member.

 

One factor, shifting the blame away from the authority for a moment, is that taxes and transit fares are much lower in this country (especially transit fares in New York City) than they are in places like Europe. Another factor is the chronic underfunding of public transportation here. Another is NIMBYism. Another is the legal system and liability garbage. That's why transit is so much more advanced in other parts of the world. That's why we can't get any God damn thing done here, like high-speed rail. That's why Amtrak trains are slower than they used to be. That's why there are SNAFUs like dirty subway stations, fewer station agents to assist passengers who are having problems, and the broken SBS ticket machines.

 

Not that I agree (for the first two I mention, I really have no opinion) with these things or think that they make sense, but they could be directly related. Also for this reason I can't really agree with you or form an opinion about the three-legged transfers.

 

And before anybody comes up in here (B35...) and talks about how the MTA has cash to burn, how money grows on trees, how the service cuts from 2010 'should have never happened' and how every MTA chairman is a f*ckup, please note that I get most of this information from my experienced father who knows city agencies very well. He worked for the city for 5-10 years back in the 1980s, mostly at Kings County, and dealt with buses while living in places like Church Avenue by Ocean Avenue, the northwest Bronx, and others. He has despised buses going back years and tells me about the nonsensical infrequency of service (15-20 mins midday) in our area the few times he has to use them, and in fact does not blame the MTA for providing such bad service since the buses are such an operational headache and everybody cries foul when they want to raise the fare. You get what you pay for.

 

Questions for you guys from an old Brooklynite. If the SBS stop n/b is at Bedford-Fulton is the pushing riders toward the IND Franklin Ave station? Unless the entrance at Bedford-Fulton is re-opened it's a slightly shorter walk to Franklin than the Nostrand express station.

 

...

 

BTW Linden Boulevard is also Route 27 and would have priority over any n/b street ie Nostrand , Rogers when it comes to signal priority normally. I 've seen it myself and heard it from Sanitation workers when it comes to snow removal. Supposedly Route 27- Linden Blvd-Conduit-Sunrise Highway is a state road maintained by NYC, Nassau and Suffolk counties and the jurisdictions it passes through from BK to Montauk so I'm not sure if those travel times on the SBS are realistic.

 

Only problem is, the train operates less frequently than the train. It's only a 4-minute walk to Nostrand vs. a 2-minute walk to Franklin. The only exits/entries to the Nostrand Av station are at Nostrand. There used to be exits/entries at Arlington Place. They are now closed. I have to say, that situation kinda sucks as well as the situation at Nostrand & Eastern Pkwy on the train. I wish they had left the exits/entries open at Fulton & Arlington on the IND and that there were exits/entries at Rogers & Eastern on the IRT. The connectivity would be so much better.

 

The best way to work that connection to the IND at Fulton is to try walking to Franklin one day, Nostrand another day, see which works best (lowest wait time and travel time) and make that the daily routine if you use the services in question (B44, ). Not perfect, but it's generally worth the change as well as in the long run. Especially for B49 passengers.

 

However, that last part you wrote is like saying that it's unrealistic for a hockey goalie to ever get a shutout when he's been giving up exactly 1 to 2 goals per game for the first few games of the season. One extra minute because Linden Blvd and/or even Atlantic Avenue get(s) priority and might be the only signal(s) disrupting a green wave along Rogers/Nostrand, is not 10 to 13 extra minutes because of whatever could possibly add this exorbitant amount of travel time. Not even a few school buses with the flashing stop signs could cause this. There aren't even that many places along Rogers, Bedford or Nostrand where school buses line up, because these roads are so busy that having school buses line up in so many places would be catastrophic. So I can't buy it or see it. That being said, we still have to wait and see what happens.

[B35 via Church]

.....And before anybody comes up in here (B35...) and talks about how the MTA has cash to burn, how money grows on trees, how the service cuts from 2010 'should have never happened' and how every MTA chairman is a f*ckup, please note that I get most of this information from my experienced father who knows city agencies very well.....

o rly... you wanna do it like this... aight....

 

first off, you aint never heard me say nothin no MTA havin cash to burn (although I DO think they have way more cash then they let off - I'm not buyin they're so damn strapped for cash... that's not sayin the same thing as havin cash to burn, quote-unquote).... and really, miss me w/ that money grows on trees BS...

 

the cuts should have never happened.... yo, who do you have me mistaken for? some type of NYC NIMBY or somethin....

I wasn't one of these ppl. on here defending every cut that happened back in June of last year.... I did (and still do) believe that some cuts were absolutely justified, and some (hell, most) were unjust.... and I still believe that the planning for the cuts took place in some type of war room w/ a bunch of suits that could give a f*** about the riding public's riding habits/commute.....

 

yeah billy, this red route overlaps that green one... don't need too many "duplicative" routes....

yeah sally, we can eradicate this purple one too.. that's not too long a walk from the nearest route...

*old man's cough* yeah herbert, this orange one can be cut here, and the other red one nearby can be sent up that path instead....

 

^^ and I think I'm givin too much credit there in even mentioning the word "route"....

 

 

Anyway, As BrooklynBus alluded to in the past, the inconsistencies (and reasonings, of some) of how they derived by the cuts.... if anyone really cared enough about public transportation & show as much interest in it as we do on the forums, how could you not call out the MTA on that???? So yeah, not every MTA chairman is a f***up - but I aint givin a pat on the back to the 1%-er w/ the smallest voice in the back row talkin bout:

 

*uh.. wel... well, wait a second... don't you think ____________....

or maybe we should reconsider ___________.....*

(with some type of actual rational statements inside those "blanks")

 

So yeah, I wasn't satisfied w/ the cuts in general.... but don't mistake that to mean me implying that none of the cuts should have happened..... They can make all the cuts in the world & still not get any "god damned thing done" here.....

 

Do you really think the MTA is in it for the people, over being in it for the money?

I sure as hell don't.... So if you wanna charge me with that, go right the hell ahead then...

 

 

iono, You make this type of a statement & mention my name the way you did, only to ultimately portray that you get your info from your father.... Ok, what's your point? The one thing I've NEVER done on these discussion forums is question where someone got their info from... and I didn't do it in this thread to you...

 

So what were you really on about; posing that point the way you did to me.....

[B35 via Church]

B35, I think Rogers Avenue makes more sense for SBS since it's easier to put the bus lane there and it's easier for a motor vehicle to reach Rogers than New York from the junction. I also believe in progress and that intra-borough travel and that mass transit, especially buses, needs to be improved. Everybody knows how much intra-borough travel by public transportation sucks right now. Sure, East Flatbush is densely populated and needs adequate public transportation. But there is a damn subway on Nostrand Avenue, with each station being a 3-to-5-minute walk from most B44 limited stops along New York Avenue.

 

North-south travel from points far below the junction to points north of Fulton is not easy right now. Establishing a connection here may not be a brilliant idea, but it is not a flawed or poor idea. Nobody wants to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint where there are some nice, well known restaurants, like Peter Luger's steakhouse? Nobody wants to go to Astoria (a bit of long shot as you would need the then then or , but not such a big deal since the IRT Flushing and BMT Astoria share the platform), or points along the IRT Flushing line like Shea Stadium or points along the IND Queens Blvd line like the Queens Center Mall? You don't need a car to go to all of these places if you have SBS. That last comment is for Allan.

 

Planning-wise, I agree that it makes sense to move it on Rogers - Being that it would make for a much straighter path b/w Sheepshead & Williamsburg..... I'm not disputing, or being unfavorable to the sensibility of the (routing) plan itself....

 

I'm disagreeing with +SBS+ on the B44 route, period - especially if it means havin to go about even makin a significant enough change to the original route in the first place......

 

You believe in progress... Nothin wrong with that.

My thing is, you don't fix what's broken.... and then turn around & attempt to apply a bunch of patches to what YOU already broke.... When it comes to bus routes in the boroughs, there's been a LOT of that goin on in NYC for a while now.... To me, that is not progress....

 

To give an analogy, that's like some of these fathers out here wantin browny points for buyin milk & diapers - for a child that came from a woman they didn't see themselves ultimately havin kids with... Hello, you're the kid's father, you're supposed to do that, dingbat... lol...

 

 

Anyway, that part of your post I bolded.... Yeah, the subway's a good 5 min walk from NY av.... and it's also the same duration of walk from Rogers also... In even sayin that, that would be an argument against throwin +SBS+ on the B44.... Hell, that would have been an argument against B44 LTD's (the notion of, the subway's right there)....

 

the question isn't so much the difference b/w Nostrand & NY av.... it's between NY & Rogers; that's where the change is takin place... like I said before, there are more residents around here that live closer to NY than they do to Rogers.... Why curtail more service to a less(er) amount of people? I'm tellin you now, cats around here aint gonna schlepp (as via G would say it) on over to Rogers for (a lil faster bus service).... they're gonna simply bombard/jam up the locals, those of which were former LTD riders aint goin be too jubilant about it either...

 

....and when that happens, I'll be over here in my lil corner (well, not so much of a corner, when I'm smack dab in the middle of the borough) with a smirk on my face & a shrug of the shoulders sayin to myself "should've saw that comin"....

 

Just to add.... No way do I see the long term plan being to keep B44 locals on NY av & on Nostrand av, and to have B44 SBS's running along Rogers & along Nostrand.... the odd man out will be (service on) NY av - I'm like, at this point, what's to stop them from (planning on) moving the B44 locals along Rogers as well ??

 

- The B49? Hardly...

- Increased traffic on Flatbush (around the junction, etc)? That one would defeat the purpose of even puttin SBS on the route.

But that's JMO of course....

 

 

The General.... over & out !!

[checkmatechamp13]

The MTA has this all planned out. By using Rogers, B49 ridership will have to drop. Then when they do their routine service adjsutments in three months, they will reduce the 12 minute service (used to be 8) in the rush hours to 15. With buses coming two at a time, that will kill the route and ridership will drop further. I give it one year max before they declare the B49 north of Foster redundant and try to cut it. There is no way they are going to be willing to provide all that service along Rogers for any period of time. They have this all planned out just like their plan to kill the B64.

 

Just as B35 via Church said, all they want are a few super routes and feeders. They want to eliminate all the other bus routes to reduce ooperating costs. The fact that such a move will drastically hinder manueuverability by increasing the number of three bus trips to complete a trip is of no concern to the MTA. The feeders will provide good service during rush hours and will be dead at other times. A route that is just a feeder does not do well during the off-peak. For a route to be viable to justify good service during the non-peak, it has to serve many purposes with many different major origins and destinations along the route.

 

 

But if they cut the B49 on Rogers, what provides the local service? I guess they'll just have to walk further to the +SBS+ stops or walk to New York Avenue.

 

As far as feeders go, I actually think that feeders should only be used when there's no realistic way to serve the area. Everything else should be consolidated into a longer route (say, have the B31 extend to Bay Ridge and restructure the services similar to your proposal, and do similar things with the other feeders).

 

And here's a crazy idea, but how's this for an idea to adequately serve NY Avenue:

 

Create a new route (number it B84 or whatever you want to call it). It would travel from Fulton Street/Nostrand Avenue to Ralph Avenue/Avenue K. It would run down NY Avenue/Nostrand Avenue to Avenue K, and then go across Avenue K. If the neighborhood wants, it can serve Bergen Avenue in Georgetown in some manner. It would be a better alternative to sending the B11 down there and potentially delaying it.

 

And if they want to make it even simpler (by keeping the local/+SBS+ together), they can run the B44 local/+SBS+ down Bedford/Rogers, and have the new B84 serve Nostrand/NY Avenue with the B49.

 

Of course, like you said, the MTA wouldn't want to do that because it costs money.

[BrooklynBus]

But if they cut the B49 on Rogers, what provides the local service? I guess they'll just have to walk further to the +SBS+ stops or walk to New York

 

They would just move the B44 local to Rogers. Actually that would be a good idea if they replaced the NY Avenue service with something along NY or Brooklyn Avenue south of Church. But as you said they have no intention of adding any mileage which is why they will never turn feeders into real multipurpose routes that can be successful outside of rush hours.

 

The reason why two routes were placed so close to each other anyway (Nostrand and Rogers) before the one-way street conversion was that two different private companies were competing for the same clientele. Rogers was operated by Nassau Electric which also operated the Church Avenue trolley and I don't know who ran Nostrand. The bus system was never planned, but was an ad hoc mess that just evolved a little at a time.

[B35 via Church]

What is the reason for NOT re-routing the B49 along Ocean Ave and the BMT stations on the Brighton line? If they don't consider it I guess the next step (give it 3-5 years) is for the to declare the B49 north of Flatbush Ave to be redundant along Rogers Ave and eliminate that section.

 

The MTA has this all planned out. By using Rogers, B49 ridership will have to drop. Then when they do their routine service adjsutments in three months, they will reduce the 12 minute service (used to be 8) in the rush hours to 15. With buses coming two at a time, that will kill the route and ridership will drop further. I give it one year max before they declare the B49 north of Foster redundant and try to cut it. There is no way they are going to be willing to provide all that service along Rogers for any period of time. They have this all planned out just like their plan to kill the B64.

 

Just as B35 via Church said, all they want are a few super routes and feeders. They want to eliminate all the other bus routes to reduce ooperating costs. The fact that such a move will drastically hinder manueuverability by increasing the number of three bus trips to complete a trip is of no concern to the MTA. The feeders will provide good service during rush hours and will be dead at other times. A route that is just a feeder does not do well during the off-peak. For a route to be viable to justify good service during the non-peak, it has to serve many purposes with many different major origins and destinations along the route.

 

As for your question why they won't reroute the B49 along Ocean which would make purpose sense, is that they would rather eliminate that portion of the route. Their official reason is that the B41 already adequately serves the corridor. Forget that it is lined exclusively with 6 story apartment houses (except for a single block in Ditmas Park), or that there are four routes serving Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, you will never get consistancy from the MTA. As I've proposed before rerouting the B49 to Ocean and east along Empire would drastically improve access within the area, which is not an MTA goal. Eliminating service to reduce operating costs is their only goal. They would never be doing the B44 SBS if they didn't see it as an opportunity to reduce operating costs.

 

I can see the B49 being a 15 min headway route all day, if they truncate it to run b/w foster/flatbush & KCC.... What I think they're gonna end up doin in the longrun is:

 

-moving the 44 locals along rogers (with reduced service, compared to current local service)

-running the 49 with worse headways than what they would run 44 locals headways at...

 

...both of which, would be to facilitate the running of the B44 SBS service.

With that said, Bedford av folks better be on the defensive also; they're gonna end up being on the same boat as NY av riders.... So what would result from all this....

 

- a weeding out of the B49 east of flatbush av

- the B44 (which would then have SBS service) takin the B49's place in that area....

- more overall +SBS+ service (compared to the current B44 LTD)... if they're gonna bring artics here to Brooklyn for the 1st time, they're gonna bring em here in full force.... We know how much +SBS+ is the MTA's baby....

- less overall local service (compared to the current B44 local)

----

 

In terms of the network.... Super routes & feeders, yup, that's it.... it's no accident that Brooklyn (in terms of quantity) was the hardest hit.... routes like the B1, 12, 35, 46 (you see how many more runs are stoppin dead at dekalb now, than before); man, those are the perfect type of routes in their eyes; If I could think of a term to define it, it would be a "compact route".... the ones that don't travel B44 & B82 distances, but still remain crushloaded dam near at & between every major stop/intersection (pretty much meaning, from end-to-end).....

 

But if they can't have all "compact" routes runnin throughout the boroughs (which is too perfect a scenario for them), they'll start offin' moderately used routes & makin "super routes" out of already established (so to speak) nearby routes.... and leavin the leftover routes/route snippets & forming feeders out of em....

 

I mean hell, for example, if it means eventually killin off a route like the B7, to force yet even more ppl. (somehow) on the B46, 47, and the 82, they'll do it.... Like you said, the B64 is eventual proof of that.....

 

The average commuter may not care about how (or to what extent) the network is worsening.... but if "their" route ends up being part of the madness, you'll hear the outcries then..... If Rider Diaries wasn't great for anything else, it was that very thing !

 

oh, and +1 to the way you answered Trainmaster's question...

[B35 via Church]

They would just move the B44 local to Rogers.....

 

scary how you say that very thing.... some coincidence.

Checkmate didn't reply yet before I started typin....

 

2 people can't be this wrong w/ the way they ultimately see things.

 

 

But if they cut the B49 on Rogers, what provides the local service?

I guess they'll just have to walk further to the +SBS+ stops or walk to New York Avenue.

 

see my post #56

 

Although I do understand why they'd want to run SBS' on rogers.... if KCH isn't important enough to have (some type of) LTD service serving it anymore, why even bother havin any service on NY AV, have the MTA have it.... Hell, EB B12's are already crushloaded time they leave flatbush... last thing any rider of that route wants to hope for, is more riders cramming on EB B12's at Rogers on top of it

(currently, there's not that much ppl xferring from 49's to 12's, if you were wondering)....

[Trainmaster5]

What is the reason for NOT re-routing the B49 along Ocean Ave and the BMT stations on the Brighton line? If they don't consider it I guess the next step (give it 3-5 years) is for the to declare the B49 north of Flatbush Ave to be redundant along Rogers Ave and eliminate that section. QUOTE]

 

The MTA has this all planned out. By using Rogers, B49 ridership will have to drop. Then when they do their routine service adjsutments in three months, they will reduce the 12 minute service (used to be 8) in the rush hours to 15. With buses coming two at a time, that will kill the route and ridership will drop further. I give it one year max before they declare the B49 north of Foster redundant and try to cut it. There is no way they are going to be willing to provide all that service along Rogers for any period of time. They have this all planned out just like their plan to kill the B64.

 

Just as B35 via Church said, all they want are a few super routes and feeders. They want to eliminate all the other bus routes to reduce ooperating costs. The fact that such a move will drastically hinder manueuverability by increasing the number of three bus trips to complete a trip is of no concern to the MTA. The feeders will provide good service during rush hours and will be dead at other times. A route that is just a feeder does not do well during the off-peak. For a route to be viable to justify good service during the non-peak, it has to serve many purposes with many different major origins and destinations along the route.

 

As for your question why they won't reroute the B49 along Ocean which would make purpose sense, is that they would rather eliminate that portion of the route. Their official reason is that the B41 already adequately serves the corridor. Forget that it is lined exclusively with 6 story apartment houses (except for a single block in Ditmas Park), or that there are four routes serving Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, you will never get consistancy from the MTA. As I've proposed before rerouting the B49 to Ocean and east along Empire would drastically improve access within the area, which is not an MTA goal. Eliminating service to reduce operating costs is their only goal. They would never be doing the B44 SBS if they didn't see it as an opportunity to reduce operating costs.

 

I happen to agree with your B49 routing proposal using Ocean Ave and Empire Blvd. As you and I know the (MTA)'s agenda is not about enhancing services but cutting existing routes to save on operating expenses. If the B41 excuse is used to deny B49 service on Ocean Ave north of Flatbush then it can also be used against B49 ridership currently operating on Bedford and Rogers Avenues. I'm specifically talking about the current B49 route between Flatbush and Empire. Although I gave the B49 3-5 years and you said less than that I really think that you, B35 via Church, and I all see the agency's endgame here. I guess I was foolish to think that the Ocean-Empire routing had the potential to increase ridership on the B49 instead of the eventual truncation of service which seems to be the agency's goal, no matter how they try to spin it. That's my opinion. Carry on.

[BrooklynBus]

B35, I think Rogers Avenue makes more sense for SBS since it's easier to put the bus lane there and it's easier for a motor vehicle to reach Rogers than New York from the junction.

 

The MTA had no choice. The artics can't make the turn onto Farragut. That's what they said last year to CB 15. They're coming back tomorrow night. I hope a lot of people show up.

 

North-south travel from points far below the junction to points north of Fulton is not easy right now. Establishing a connection here may not be a brilliant idea, but it is not a flawed or poor idea. Nobody wants to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint where there are some nice, well known restaurants, like Peter Luger's steakhouse? Nobody wants to go to Astoria (a bit of long shot as you would need the then then or , but not such a big deal since the IRT Flushing and BMT Astoria share the platform), or points along the IRT Flushing line like Shea Stadium or points along the IND Queens Blvd line like the Queens Center Mall? You don't need a car to go to all of these places if you have SBS. That last comment is for Allan.

 

Don't disagree with you. That's not what's flawed. What's flawed is 1) not replacing NY Ave service, 2) doubling service on Rogers, 3) The bus lane south of Ave X without banning left turns; 4) giving half the picture without analyzing who will be hurt; 5) doubling service south of Avenue Z with high capacity buses when you only have half a dozen riders per bus south of Avenue Z; 6) not granting an additional transfer to passengers transferring between the local and the SBS.

 

You say people want to get to Astoria, etc. To do that, someone needs that second transfer. You can't expect anyone to walk three quarters of a mile to SBS; they need to take the local to it, then transfer again.

 

Allan, I don't disagree with you about moving the B49 to Ocean or adding more north-south service in East Flatbush. I'll give you that. I personally can't form an opinion on that issue because it's just my firm belief that the MTA is too scared/stingy/cash-strapped to really do anything to local/limited buses except cut them up like some gang member.

 

Being too scared and cash strapped is only part of it. The willingness to improve the system is what's missing. I agree with B35 that they have more money than they are willing to admit. There are also more efficiencies they can make without sacrificing service. Someone recently sent me a link to a blog where a conductor was answering questions about his job. He sais he hates it on days when he only works three hours and has to sit around the rest of the day. He prefers to be working because the day goes faster. What that is saying is that work schedules need to be made more efficient. How widespread is that problem? If the MTA got rid of all those inefficiencies like track workers waiting hours for supplies to be delivered, maybe they wouldn't have to cut service at all and could afford to make some routing improvements. But they need the will to improve service and they don't have it. They just want to cut even if it makes the bus routes more inefficient. They have admitted that.

 

Also for this reason I can't really agree with you or form an opinion about the three-legged transfers.

 

 

 

Don't understand your objection.

 

Many of your other statements that I have omitted. I agree with.

 

 

Note to B35 Via Church.

 

We seem to see things in this case exactly the same way, I wish everyone else could see it as well before it is to late, so it can be stopped.

 

They probably could get rid of the lower half of the B7. It really is only needed for school specials. What they should do is invest those savings into other routes, but they will just do a straight cut, and the more fat you cut out, the more difficult it is to make future improvements as long as they insist that every extension or new route has to be accompanied by a cut.

['89 Liberty MCI]

o rly... you wanna do it like this... aight....

 

first off, you aint never heard me say nothin no MTA havin cash to burn (although I DO think they have way more cash then they let off - I'm not buyin they're so damn strapped for cash... that's not sayin the same thing as havin cash to burn, quote-unquote).... and really, miss me w/ that money grows on trees BS...

 

the cuts should have never happened.... yo, who do you have me mistaken for? some type of NYC NIMBY or somethin....

I wasn't one of these ppl. on here defending every cut that happened back in June of last year.... I did (and still do) believe that some cuts were absolutely justified, and some (hell, most) were unjust.... and I still believe that the planning for the cuts took place in some type of war room w/ a bunch of suits that could give a f*** about the riding public's riding habits/commute.....

 

yeah billy, this red route overlaps that green one... don't need too many "duplicative" routes....

yeah sally, we can eradicate this purple one too.. that's not too long a walk from the nearest route...

*old man's cough* yeah herbert, this orange one can be cut here, and the other red one nearby can be sent up that path instead....

 

^^ and I think I'm givin too much credit there in even mentioning the word "route"....

 

 

Anyway, As BrooklynBus alluded to in the past, the inconsistencies (and reasonings, of some) of how they derived by the cuts.... if anyone really cared enough about public transportation & show as much interest in it as we do on the forums, how could you not call out the MTA on that???? So yeah, not every MTA chairman is a f***up - but I aint givin a pat on the back to the 1%-er w/ the smallest voice in the back row talkin bout:

 

*uh.. wel... well, wait a second... don't you think ____________....

or maybe we should reconsider ___________.....*

(with some type of actual rational statements inside those "blanks")

 

So yeah, I wasn't satisfied w/ the cuts in general.... but don't mistake that to mean me implying that none of the cuts should have happened..... They can make all the cuts in the world & still not get any "god damned thing done" here.....

 

Do you really think the MTA is in it for the people, over being in it for the money?

I sure as hell don't.... So if you wanna charge me with that, go right the hell ahead then...

 

 

iono, You make this type of a statement & mention my name the way you did, only to ultimately portray that you get your info from your father.... Ok, what's your point? The one thing I've NEVER done on these discussion forums is question where someone got their info from... and I didn't do it in this thread to you...

 

So what were you really on about; posing that point the way you did to me.....

 

In response to the first part of your post. I mean, you go on about 'some damn Rogers Avenue' and make a lot of strongly opinionated, cynical references to a lot of things you disagree with. I reacted by saying there's a damn subway a few minutes away from New York Avenue. At the end of post #44, you made your retort directed towards those who support SBS and you've made quite a few strong contentions related to this.

 

I kinda thought you were going to respond to the comments I made about the fact that public transportation is underfunded, which is the reason why a lot of things that people want cannot happen [very easily] when it comes to public transportation. When I referred to you specifically, I was thinking about several things you've said before, but in particular I was thinking about that post in which you responded to the news about Walder's resignation by posting a video of Happy Days.

 

Because when I saw that, I was thinking to myself, huh? Why does he go so far to paint Walder as the villain? Now that's my opinion. I personally think Walder is far from the villain because he did a good job cleaning up shop by eliminating a lot of unnecessary positions. Only thing I could really rag on him about is the snowstorm. And I don't blame him for leaving because anybody, even a CEO, that has to deal with the MTA, has headaches day and night. And, MTR will pay him more. Somebody typically doesn't stay in a job when they can get another job that pays more, unless their current job is very secure or has unmatched benefits or something.

 

I referred to my father because I wanted to show that I wasn't just blowing hot air after pulling information out of thin air, I was getting it from somebody who has lived much longer than I have (he's in his 50s) and has a lot of experience in life and knows the city very well. He's lived in many parts of the four boroughs, including a neighborhood that's not too far from yours. No, he's never lived in Staten Island.

 

I've only lived in one area my entire life and don't have the same extensive knowledge that he does about the world and whatnot, so it would have been messed up if I had just said all this stuff without citing a source. I didn't have to make this public knowledge, but I'm in my early 20s, which generally makes me less experienced than most of y'all (you're 29 and Allan is retired), so I wouldn't have felt right if I hadn't cited anybody/anything. I would have been coming off as an inexperienced person who pulls stuff out of thin air.

 

I guess it was a personal thing, because as I said I didn't have to make my age public knowledge. I just think it improves my credibility. Dad reads the Wall Street Journal and New York Times an awful lot more than I do, and he has so more much experience on top of that. I was trying to defuse the idea that the MTA is not as cash-strapped as they claim. That's an argument that will probably never end though. It's not interesting enough and I don't feel strongly enough about it to go on debating it.

 

Being in something because of money is human nature. In theory, a large government agency should be better than this, but this is an imperfect world and the situation is exacerbated because of how poorly funded public transportation is in this country. And when you're running any kind of a business, you can be in it for the money as well as the people. If you implement SBS for example, you save on operating costs and people benefit from it. I still say that in the long run (if not both long and short run) more will benefit than will be hurt by the B44 SBS. I'll even bring environmental and health issues into this: SBS buses are more efficient than non-SBS buses and cause less pollution since they spend less time idling, so this lowers asthma rates and whatnot. They also put tax dollars to better use, since they're more cost-effective.

 

I'm not saying the MTA particularly cares to help the people, but the B44 SBS is not one of their ideas that's so terrible that the authority hurts more people than it helps either. Neither is it a terrible idea if they don't replace the New York Avenue service with anything. I don't think that's a great idea either, so I'm not taking sides on that issue at all.

 

B35, sorry if I responded to you too strongly. In a way it was a response to the way you respond to some things and people you disagree with. Although it may have been a knee-jerk reaction. The way I put the ellipsis after B35 should have indicated a humorous intonation, not a serious one. If it had been serious, it would have been more like "B35 (or anybody else), this means you." Although this is probably subjective and varies from person to person. And I did make the mistake of lumping you in the same category as those who thought none of the cuts should have happened. That was messed up on my part. When you wrote that you are not one of those people, it made me remember you answering a question I had about the B71, in a B44 SBS thread I started. I don't keep up with stuff like others do, as you might be able to tell by my total number of posts and average number of posts per day.

 

And no, contrary to popular belief, I do not sit on a high chair while everybody else deals with massive service cuts. They have affected me too. I have less service in my area than you would at any time of day and any day of the week if they cut the B44 limited without drastically reducing local service as well. I have to take a 15 minute walk up/down a giant, long hill in order to reach the subway. Sometimes when I don't want to walk up the hill I cannot use the bus because I either cannot fit or take chances on the posted schedule. Gotta love long walks in extreme weather conditions. That, and the fact that I've lived in the same place forever, are the reasons why I want to get the hell out.

 

If they put a new north-south bus in East Flatbush, it should probably be the B32 I've mentioned before. But I cannot be as supportive of it as B35 or Allan, because we (you guys collectively, and myself) have two different views of the MTA and I simply do not know the right answer, if there is one. "I cannot be as supportive" doesn't mean I reject the idea outright; it simply means I am neutral about the subject.

['89 Liberty MCI]

The MTA had no choice. The artics can't make the turn onto Farragut. That's what they said last year to CB 15. They're coming back tomorrow night. I hope a lot of people show up.

 

 

 

Don't disagree with you. That's not what's flawed. What's flawed is 1) not replacing NY Ave service, 2) doubling service on Rogers, 3) The bus lane south of Ave X without banning left turns; 4) giving half the picture without analyzing who will be hurt; 5) doubling service south of Avenue Z with high capacity buses when you only have half a dozen riders per bus south of Avenue Z; 6) not granting an additional transfer to passengers transferring between the local and the SBS.

 

...

 

Don't understand your objection.

 

No objection to be understood. Just neutrality since I don't know the right answer, if there is one.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate by not objecting to the fact that they're only providing half the story, because whenever the government wants funding for PT (public transportation) improvements, everybody says it's a big waste and most are naysayers. The United States continues to mostly be a car culture. I unfortunately have to throw rationality out the window on this one; I guess that would make me the last or second to last person to be nominated for any political office around here. x_X

 

If you send the SBS to the Sheepshead station, it will help those who want to reach CI or Brighton Beach. It will help those who currently use the B36 to reach the and trains, but will not give those living south of Z a better subway connection to get to Manhattan and other places, so there could be fewer prospective new passengers. Doesn't Avenue Z have traffic issues as well, especially around the station? Sending it across Z means a left turn onto Nostrand (northbound) and then having to sync up with all the lights on Nostrand, once the bus gets on Nostrand.

 

If you keep it the way it is now, there are fewer signal conflicts since both northbound and southbound buses can go on green at Shore Pkwy-Nostrand Av, with southbound buses simply having to wait for a gap in traffic to make the left on Shore Pkwy. At the same time a northbound bus has the ability to leave Emmons & Nostrand on a green and just go right on up Nostrand on a green wave*. No signal stops the southbound bus from making the left. It just has to let a gap open up. For something like Z and Nostrand, if a NB bus is on Z at Nostrand and a SB bus is on Nostrand at Z, one bus has to wait for the signal.

 

*Hey DOT, you guys better make this junk work exactly as I described it, or else! As an anonymous transit buff and SBS supporter, I am counting on you!

[BrooklynBus]

 

The United States continues to mostly be a car culture. [/Quote]

 

And that will continue because mas transit does not work well in low density areas which is most of the country. Even most urban areas are not as dense as NYC.

 

If you send the SBS to the Sheepshead station, it will help those who want to reach CI or Brighton Beach. It will help those who currently use the B36 to reach the and trains, but will not give those living south of Z a better subway connection to get to Manhattan and other places, so there could be fewer prospective new passengers. Doesn't Avenue Z have traffic issues as

well, especially around the station?

 

Even with SBS, those south of Avenue U will not have a better subway connection by going to the Junction. Sheepshead Bay Station will still be quicker. Traffic on Avenue Z is okay. No worse than the parts of Nostrand without the bus lane. Traffic on Voorhies is far worse than Avenue Z. They just have to get rid of the dozen car services that are always illegally hanging out in the No Standing Zone by the Station.

['89 Liberty MCI]

But it's easier to get them to use PT if they have something better than the B4. The B4 is only quicker if you time it precisely. If you include the typical wait times, the B44 SBS would be better. And there are the psychological factors, since SBS is more pleasant to use than a local/limited bus. Even if you assume zero wait time for either bus, there is also the time to wait for the subway.

 

If you assume no waiting time for any bus or subway, the B4 + BMT won't get you to the three squares (Times Sq/Herald Sq/Union Sq) that much faster than the B44 SBS + IRT + a 4-minute walk if going to Herald Sq. It's also easier to get them to use PT if they have options: If they happen to see a B4 and a B44 SBS at the same time, they don't gamble on the B4 [the way they would if they trusted the posted schedule] since they see it right there.

 

In response to your earlier comment about the long walks (anything longer than 6 minutes added to the time it currently takes to access the nearest B44 stop) to access SBS stops, those taking those long walks would be fewer than those who don't. Bedford Avenue has far fewer apartment buildings than Nostrand (south of Flatbush), Shore Pkwy (east of Nostrand and those buildings just to the west of Nostrand), Knapp St (south of Voorhies), or Emmons Av (east of Nostrand).

[Future ENY OP]

If you send the SBS to the Sheepshead station, it will help those who want to reach CI or Brighton Beach. It will help those who currently use the B36 to reach the and trains, but will not give those living south of Z a better subway connection to get to Manhattan and other places, so there could be fewer prospective new passengers. Doesn't Avenue Z have traffic issues as well, especially around the station? Sending it across Z means a left turn onto Nostrand (northbound) and then having to sync up with all the lights on Nostrand, once the bus gets on Nostrand.

 

If you keep it the way it is now, there are fewer signal conflicts since both northbound and southbound buses can go on green at Shore Pkwy-Nostrand Av, with southbound buses simply having to wait for a gap in traffic to make the left on Shore Pkwy. At the same time a northbound bus has the ability to leave Emmons & Nostrand on a green and just go right on up Nostrand on a green wave*. No signal stops the southbound bus from making the left. It just has to let a gap open up. For something like Z and Nostrand, if a NB bus is on Z at Nostrand and a SB bus is on Nostrand at Z, one bus has to wait for the signal.

 

*Hey DOT, you guys better make this junk work exactly as I described it, or else! As an anonymous transit buff and SBS supporter, I am counting on you!

 

I'll play the same devil's advocate and say that B44SBS needs to stay at it's course via Nostrand ONLY to Emmons/Knapp! There is no need to help out the B36. What needs to be focused around that area is giving the B36 more headways to meet the demand for the on the Brighton Line, and I'm going to say this again. There will be disagreements with this, but there should be no need to have a 44 to turn right into Z or left into nostrand to go Sheepshead Bay Station. The MTA did foul when they eliminated that portion of the area into Ave U.

 

The only way I can accept this proposal IF and only IF this was done LATE NIGHT hours only OR evening trips, NO RUSH HOUR, but again I haven't been in Sheepshead Bay in years. Only the people for that area would know best than I would.

 

At times I've taken the B44 from Willy B to the Junction and as recent as 2 weeks ago, and your most traffic comes between Crown Hgts to Junction. High congestion areas especially on Church Ave, Empire Blvd and Avenue D.

[B35 via Church]

In response to the first part of your post. I mean, you go on about 'some damn Rogers Avenue' and make a lot of strongly opinionated, cynical references to a lot of things you disagree with. I reacted by saying there's a damn subway a few minutes away from New York Avenue. At the end of post #44, you made your retort directed towards those who support SBS and you've made quite a few strong contentions related to this.

 

I kinda thought you were going to respond to the comments I made about the fact that public transportation is underfunded, which is the reason why a lot of things that people want cannot happen [very easily] when it comes to public transportation. When I referred to you specifically, I was thinking about several things you've said before, but in particular I was thinking about that post in which you responded to the news about Walder's resignation by posting a video of Happy Days.

 

With this particular (upcoming) service; the B44 SBS, I'm not arguing just to defend a group of riders that I myself aren't in direct contact w/ on a daily basis.... I live around here, and I actually take the 44 (when I don't feel like dealing w/ Utica av & the 46)... no devil's advocacy involved.....

 

So despite how vocal and opinionated and cynical you see that I am w/ a lot of the other route changes, you're gonna see that much more of those characterizations out of me & my posts when it comes to this matter.... and I will continue harping about 'some damn Rogers ave' because I implicitly said that was the main reason why I'm against the damn thing....

 

Why would I want to defiantly argue a point I don't feel 100% dedicated to; whether it be for or against something... come on now....

 

 

 

 

Because when I saw that, I was thinking to myself, huh? Why does he go so far to paint Walder as the villain? Now that's my opinion. I personally think Walder is far from the villain because he did a good job cleaning up shop by eliminating a lot of unnecessary positions. Only thing I could really rag on him about is the snowstorm. And I don't blame him for leaving because anybody, even a CEO, that has to deal with the MTA, has headaches day and night. And, MTR will pay him more. Somebody typically doesn't stay in a job when they can get another job that pays more, unless their current job is very secure or has unmatched benefits or something.

I don't think I went so far in displayin a level of disdain for Walder; by postin one vid? There were people on here that went MUCH harder in the paint about Walder than I did.... Nothin he did was right according to some - I was not on that bandwagon... But when I heard that he was in the midst of resigning or w/e, yeah I posted a medium that displays how I felt about the guy in general....

 

I will say, I don't blame him for leaving either.... In sayin that, I'm not gonna show sorrow or feel a false sense of disappointment b/c of it.... b/c it wouldn't be genuine.....

 

Jay Walder was the figurehead, so he was the easiest person to target (blame)... It's no different than a head coach of a sports team gettin fired (or quitting) b/c the team had a, or a few consecutive bad season(s).... the end result is a direct reflection of the guy directly in charge of the players......

 

 

I referred to my father because I wanted to show that I wasn't just blowing hot air after pulling information out of thin air, I was getting it from somebody who has lived much longer than I have (he's in his 50s) and has a lot of experience in life and knows the city very well. He's lived in many parts of the four boroughs, including a neighborhood that's not too far from yours. No, he's never lived in Staten Island.

 

I've only lived in one area my entire life and don't have the same extensive knowledge that he does about the world and whatnot, so it would have been messed up if I had just said all this stuff without citing a source. I didn't have to make this public knowledge, but I'm in my early 20s, which generally makes me less experienced than most of y'all (you're 29 and Allan is retired), so I wouldn't have felt right if I hadn't cited anybody/anything. I would have been coming off as an inexperienced person who pulls stuff out of thin air.

 

I guess it was a personal thing, because as I said I didn't have to make my age public knowledge. I just think it improves my credibility. Dad reads the Wall Street Journal and New York Times an awful lot more than I do, and he has so more much experience on top of that. I was trying to defuse the idea that the MTA is not as cash-strapped as they claim. That's an argument that will probably never end though. It's not interesting enough and I don't feel strongly enough about it to go on debating it.

Ok, but again, I didn't shit on your credibility... so there was no need to prove to me that you're not pulling info out of your ass to convey your sticking points on here about the B44 SBS.... I didn't have a problem w/ you (and I still don't; despite how I said what I did) before you made that post, so I'm like, where is all this comin from all of a sudden.....

 

You being in your 20's, man you shouldn't have to worry about experience & credibility on a forum (unless you KNOW you're purposefully posting BS).... when you have young men on here like a checkmatechamp, or an amtrak7, etc. that are still in their teens holding, or can hold their own in a mature conversation.... Hell, if that's the case, I would be on here feeling inferior to BrooklynBus, TrainMaster5, or any other current or former transit worker that posts on here.... That's not what it's about....

 

I know you know you your stuff, fam.....

 

 

Being in something because of money is human nature. In theory, a large government agency should be better than this, but this is an imperfect world and the situation is exacerbated because of how poorly funded public transportation is in this country. And when you're running any kind of a business, you can be in it for the money as well as the people. If you implement SBS for example, you save on operating costs and people benefit from it. I still say that in the long run (if not both long and short run) more will benefit than will be hurt by the B44 SBS. I'll even bring environmental and health issues into this: SBS buses are more efficient than non-SBS buses and cause less pollution since they spend less time idling, so this lowers asthma rates and whatnot. They also put tax dollars to better use, since they're more cost-effective.

You think it'll yield more of a benefit, fine, I won't argue that.... but AFAIC, I think in the absolute best case scenario, it'd end up a wash (meaning, there'd be zero difference b/w the running of the B44 SBS, and how the B44 is currently ran/setup..... meaning, literally every [what would be] former B44 LTD rider would trek over to Rogers & board the SBS')....

 

As far as operating costs, yeah the MTA will save money on the SBS... b/c on the grandest of schemes of things, that's what it's about..... yes a business can be for profit & can show equal, or more care to it's customers/consumers..... but I can't attritbute those qualities to the MTA.... I honestly can't....... Considering how much funds they claim to have saved, compared to the ppl. they continually screw in this city..... Even you admit that they should be better than what & how they're doing things.......

 

 

I'm not saying the MTA particularly cares to help the people, but the B44 SBS is not one of their ideas that's so terrible that the authority hurts more people than it helps either. Neither is it a terrible idea if they don't replace the New York Avenue service with anything. I don't think that's a great idea either, so I'm not taking sides on that issue at all.

By itself, it's not so terrible.... but large scale/lookin at the full picture, I think it is.... It gives an inkling as to what they're tryna to do, system-wide.... cutting costs & lookin to run as few routes as possible... There is a very slow development of that very thing takin place.... Sorry to say, but I don't see progress, especially when were talking on the surface transportation end of things.....

 

 

B35, sorry if I responded to you too strongly. In a way it was a response to the way you respond to some things and people you disagree with. Although it may have been a knee-jerk reaction. The way I put the ellipsis after B35 should have indicated a humorous intonation, not a serious one. If it had been serious, it would have been more like "B35 (or anybody else), this means you." Although this is probably subjective and varies from person to person. And I did make the mistake of lumping you in the same category as those who thought none of the cuts should have happened. When you wrote that you are not one of those people, it made me remember you answering a question I had about the B71, in a B44 SBS thread I started. I don't keep up with stuff like others do, as you might be able to tell by my total number of posts and average number of posts per day.

 

And no, contrary to popular belief, I do not sit on a high chair while everybody else deals with massive service cuts. They have affected me too. I have less service in my area than you would at any time of day and any day of the week if they cut the B44 limited without drastically reducing local service as well. I have to take a 15 minute walk up/down a giant, long hill in order to reach the subway. Sometimes when I don't want to walk up the hill I cannot use the bus because I either cannot fit or take chances on the posted schedule. Gotta love long walks in extreme weather conditions. That, and the fact that I've lived in the same place forever, are the reasons why I want to get the hell out.

 

Not strongly, but snidely.... That type of thing gets under my skin, moreso than someone coming on too strong (to tell the truth, that's why I had a problem w/ via when he first came on the forum)..... That's how I read it; {B35 - this goes out to you}..... If you'd have came on here on some ole B35, you an a**hole, you's a dumb MF'er, and this is why I disagree with you, blah blah blah.... I would have immediately disqualified anything you said & laughed at your disposition & your existence in the process.... OTOH, Someone that defiantly sticks to their guns regarding a matter w/o all the extra garbage, I can respect....

 

about the cuts in general, that's another thing I didn't understand when you threw me in to that category.... Why would you think I was a part of that camp, when you yourself have been affected by the cuts (I do remember you sayin that in the past), and I was on here like hell shootin down how unjust a lot of these cuts were... I was the most objective (and fair in those assessments, I think) here when it came to that....

 

I must sound like a broken record to BrooklynBus when I continually stated that the B37 DESERVED to get cut (he doesn't necessarily feel that say, he thinks they could've done more to save it).... I totally understand you can't save every dog in the fight, so it wasn't on no 'B35, you just don't wanna admit that you feel NONE of the cuts should've happened', tip...

 

anyway, as far as apologizing, don't worry about it, fam....

[BrooklynBus]

B35, it seems to me you've hit everything on the nose here. All I am saying is that if the MTA claims they are helping more people than they are hurting, which is what it is really all about when you come down to it, they need to show that in a conclusive manner, not by showing only one side. In their document they give the number of minute estimated to be saved by bus riders. DOT also needs to give an estimate of the minutes lost by those in cars and trucks. So far they have ignored that issue entirely and have not answered questions asked of them. South of Avenue Z and possibly Avenue X, more people will be hurt than helped. Everyone not in a bus will encounter serious traffic congestion as a result of the part time exclusive bus lane adding 5 to 10 minutes to their trip and also delaying cars on Bedford Avenue when traffic shifts over there. Where are the plans to measure that? All this so buses can save two more minutes south of Avenue X and will be zooming through What does it matter how fast those buses will be traveling when they will be carrying a maximum of 6 passengers each except during the change of shifts at the nursing homes and those people will be traveling in the off peak direction anyway when the exclusive lane won't be in effect.

 

As far as the B37 is concerned, my position has always been, perhaps it was justified to eliminate most of the route, but the MTA never provided enough numbers to justify that was the case.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Y'all are cool people. Peace.

[B35 via Church]

Y'all are cool people. Peace.

:tup:

 

 

B35, it seems to me you've hit everything on the nose here. All I am saying is that if the MTA claims they are helping more people than they are hurting, which is what it is really all about when you come down to it, they need to show that in a conclusive manner, not by showing only one side. In their document they give the number of minute estimated to be saved by bus riders. DOT also needs to give an estimate of the minutes lost by those in cars and trucks. So far they have ignored that issue entirely and have not answered questions asked of them. South of Avenue Z and possibly Avenue X, more people will be hurt than helped. Everyone not in a bus will encounter serious traffic congestion as a result of the part time exclusive bus lane adding 5 to 10 minutes to their trip and also delaying cars on Bedford Avenue when traffic shifts over there. Where are the plans to measure that? All this so buses can save two more minutes south of Avenue X and will be zooming through What does it matter how fast those buses will be traveling when they will be carrying a maximum of 6 passengers each except during the change of shifts at the nursing homes and those people will be traveling in the off peak direction anyway when the exclusive lane won't be in effect.

 

As far as the B37 is concerned, my position has always been, perhaps it was justified to eliminate most of the route, but the MTA never provided enough numbers to justify that was the case.

 

You know, you may have touched on somethin I just thought about....

 

With the Bx12 & the M15 SBS', there are good sized loads that board buses on both those routes on both ends of their respective terminals... the least of the 4 (bx12 @ bay plaza, bx12 @ 207th, M15 @ 125th, & M15 @ S. ferry) would be the Bx12 on Bway/207th - and there are way more pax that board there, than the B44 @ Knapp st... So that part of your post I bolded, that is a good point (even though I laughed at the way you put it - saving 2 mins. for 6 people... lol)....

 

Speaking about that possible B44 SBS' to sheepshead bay subway.... Instead of moving B44's down there, how about fixing the problems on the B36.... of course that type of thought process isn't on the wavelength.....

 

I mean damn, they done made the B4 worse, pretty much tellin folks to take the B36 if you want sheepshead.... now they wanna try to worsen service on the B36 (don't think for a second they'd keep service levels the same on the 36 if they move 44's down there.... lol) by tryna force ppl on B44's.....

 

then you'd have ppl. out in coney island sittin there dumbfounded, on the strength of:

"You guys is takin buses from us and givin em to "those" riders out there (talkin about sheepshead)... what about us ?!??!!"

 

MTA's response to that would be some'n along the lines of....

You should thank your lucky stars we didn't leave you with just the B74 !

[BrooklynBus]

I hope they wouldn't reduce service on the B36, but I wouldn't put it past them. I don't think anyone will leave the B36 for the B44, but if they do you will be right. There is a greater danger they will leave the B4 with a B44 coming every 3 minutes and people having to wait at least 15 to 20 minutes for the B4. After the third or fourth B44 passes by without any B4 in sight, many will just give up and say what the hell, I'm getting on the SBS. That's not how to run a bus system.