Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
B36 Via Ave U

Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Correction for you or typo. You meant turning right on 13th Avenue.

Not sure which part of my post you're referring to with this.

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

....And as far as sending the B64 to the VA hospital that was also part of my 1978 proposal that was not accepted. I proposed it to go around to Poly Place, left on 92 Street right on Fourth Avenue, right on 86 Street, terminate there, and right on 86 Street and right on Seventh Avenue back to the VA. I didn’t propose and combination with the B70. As I stated to Around the Horn, the additional traffic on 8th Avenue in the last ten or 15 years needs to be considered in determining if such a combination is still a good idea or would negatively impact too much on Bath Ave service. I also combined B8 and B64 services on Cropsey in 1978 as I did in 2003 and 2006.

Alright, screw it.... Correction then - that B66 of yours involves combining parts of the B70 with parts of the B64.

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to merge the B64 with some other route on the western end, I wouldn't mind it going around to Poly Place, left on 92nd Street, left on 4th Av, right on Shore Road and then following the B37 to NYU Langone on 58th and 1st (with the B37 being eliminated and resources diverted to increasing B63 service)

I just don't like the idea of tying it to 8th Avenue traffic, as we've discussed earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

If we're going to merge the B64 with some other route on the western end, I wouldn't mind it going around to Poly Place, left on 92nd Street, left on 4th Av, right on Shore Road and then following the B37 to NYU Langone on 58th and 1st (with the B37 being eliminated and resources diverted to increasing B63 service)....

In such a scenario, what would you do with 13th av, etc. portion of the B64?

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

In such a scenario, what would you do with 13th av service?

I guess make a new 13th Avenue route combining the B64 portion with the B16 portion on 13th and 14th (and the B16 moved over to Fort Hamilton Pkwy)...

Not quite sure what the end points of the new route would be at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have read the responses to my suggestions and comments and  I appreciate the points that the posters have raised whether I agree or disagree with them.

There are some questions and comments that I would like to raise in reference to some of the responses:

1) The B/9 has been impacted by the N Line partial shutdown of stations. Could this be the reason that the number of riders has increased as many of the riders would rather take the B/9 to  and from 4th Avenue heading east as compared with the N Line and thus have decided to take the B/9 on a permanent basis?  Could this be the problem with the failure  to put more buses on the B/9 during the work?

2) Since the B/64 is quite crowded (and I am referring to the portion between 13th Avenue and the expressway only) then why have the riders not shifted to the B/4 on Bay Ridge Parkway? The portion west of 4th Avenue is too far from the B/64 at that point. If you look at the schedules of the B/4 over many years on the Bay Ridge Parkway portion, it has remained virtually static for many years but the B/34,1, 64 has been cut over the same time period.

3) A s I stated before I remain opposed to the extension of the B/2, However, I would be interested in reading the comments as to changing the route from 65th Street to Bay Ridge Parkway from Bay Parkway west. (Avenue R, Ocean Parkway, Kings Highway, Stillwell Avenue) (Eastbound via Kings Highway to East 16th Street). The reason that I am asking about the change is that the ridership on that portion may already exist and yet is untapped. 

4) How does the TA collect statistics for each and every bus route. The bus drivers used to fill in a form that listed the farebox statistics and .then it was the twice a year persons checking the line. How do they do it now and is there a more efficient way to do it today.

I will be posting additional questions and comments on other points that were raised here in the future..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Interested Rider said:

i have read the responses to my suggestions and comments and  I appreciate the points that the posters have raised whether I agree or disagree with them.

There are some questions and comments that I would like to raise in reference to some of the responses:

1) The B/9 has been impacted by the N Line partial shutdown of stations. Could this be the reason that the number of riders has increased as many of the riders would rather take the B/9 to  and from 4th Avenue heading east as compared with the N Line and thus have decided to take the B/9 on a permanent basis?  Could this be the problem with the failure to put more buses on the B/9 during the work?

2) Since the B/64 is quite crowded (and I am referring to the portion between 13th Avenue and the expressway only) then why have the riders not shifted to the B/4 on Bay Ridge Parkway? The portion west of 4th Avenue is too far from the B/64 at that point. If you look at the schedules of the B/4 over many years on the Bay Ridge Parkway portion, it has remained virtually static for many years but the B/34,1, 64 has been cut over the same time period.

3) A s I stated before I remain opposed to the extension of the B/2, However, I would be interested in reading the comments as to changing the route from 65th Street to Bay Ridge Parkway from Bay Parkway west. (Avenue R, Ocean Parkway, Kings Highway, Stillwell Avenue) (Eastbound via Kings Highway to East 16th Street). The reason that I am asking about the change is that the ridership on that portion may already exist and yet is untapped. 

4) How does the TA collect statistics for each and every bus route. The bus drivers used to fill in a form that listed the farebox statistics and .then it was the twice a year persons checking the line. How do they do it now and is there a more efficient way to do it today.

I will be posting additional questions and comments on other points that were raised here in the future..

1) Yes, the B9 has had a recent uptick in usage due to that, but the thing has carried over 10k riders a day for at least a decade now.... Not exactly a lightly used route we're talking about here.....

2) I don't see why any significant amount of that ridership would.... To opine more on this question though, most likely because the majority of that usage on that part of the route live (or go to school) more proximate to areas north of Bay Ridge av, over that of areas south of Bay Ridge av (more proximate to Bay Ridge Pkwy).... Also, B4 service levels aren't anything to write home about, in comparison to the B64.... Poor tradeoff if you ask me.....

3) I wouldn't extend the B2, period....

But again, to opine more on this question.... While I have noticed more people xferring b/w the B82 & the B4 in recent years, I can't sit here & say that usage warrants a direct connection from Kings Hwy by the Brighton line to areas along Bay Ridge Pkwy... Nor do I believe there's existing untapped potential a direct connection of the two areas would exploit.... Besides, if there's to be any increase in BPH along Bay Ridge Pkwy, it should be with the B4 itself & not via a B2 extension.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

1) Yes, the B9 has had a recent uptick in usage due to that, but the thing has carried over 10k riders a day for at least a decade now.... Not exactly a lightly used route we're talking about here.....

2) I don't see why any significant amount of that ridership would.... To opine more on this question though, most likely because the majority of that usage on that part of the route live (or go to school) more proximate to areas north of Bay Ridge av, over that of areas south of Bay Ridge av (more proximate to Bay Ridge Pkwy).... Also, B4 service levels aren't anything to write home about, in comparison to the B64.... Poor tradeoff if you ask me.....

3) I wouldn't extend the B2, period....

But again, to opine more on this question.... While I have noticed more people xferring b/w the B82 & the B4 in recent years, I can't sit here & say that usage warrants a direct connection from Kings Hwy by the Brighton line to areas along Bay Ridge Pkwy... Nor do I believe there's existing untapped potential a direct connection of the two areas would exploit.... Besides, if there's to be any increase in BPH along Bay Ridge Pkwy, it should be with the B4 itself & not via a B2 extension.....

Thank you for your comments and I await comments from others on this subject.

Your response to item # 1 concerning the B/9 is related to my question concerning how the MTA makes its decisions concerning the number of buses needed for the route. Your response was the reason that I asked question # 4 as to how they get the statistics for each route? Since the route has been carrying 10k per day for at  least a decade then why has the route not been allocated more runs and buses as the justification is there? Were the statistics used taken on days when the ridership was much lower such as non-school days or religious holidays?

My response as to why I would not extend the B/2 period is that I believe in short routes. Too many routes are far too long and when there are traffic problems, it makes a bad situation far worse. It is for the same reason that I am in total opposition to the drivers driving the first half of the route on one route and the second half on a different route as it insures that if there is a delay on the first route that it will impact on the second route. I remember the days when drivers spent both halves on the same route and the service was far better than it is now as if there was a delay in service, it could be minimized just to that one route. It is also the reason that I believe those in Transit making these decisions should get out from  in front of their computers and out of their offices and let them try driving a bus where they have to work a split on two different routes. In my opinion  it is far more costly as it does not save money at all but results in a much larger decrease in revenue  and  a big reason that bus service has gotten so bad.

As far as your responses to questions 2 and 3, I will wait for more responses to appear before i will write a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Thank you for your comments and I await comments from others on this subject.

Your response to item # 1 concerning the B/9 is related to my question concerning how the MTA makes its decisions concerning the number of buses needed for the route. Your response was the reason that I asked question # 4 as to how they get the statistics for each route? Since the route has been carrying 10k per day for at  least a decade then why has the route not been allocated more runs and buses as the justification is there? Were the statistics used taken on days when the ridership was much lower such as non-school days or religious holidays?

My response as to why I would not extend the B/2 period is that I believe in short routes. Too many routes are far too long and when there are traffic problems, it makes a bad situation far worse. It is for the same reason that I am in total opposition to the drivers driving the first half of the route on one route and the second half on a different route as it insures that if there is a delay on the first route that it will impact on the second route. I remember the days when drivers spent both halves on the same route and the service was far better than it is now as if there was a delay in service, it could be minimized just to that one route. It is also the reason that I believe those in Transit making these decisions should get out from  in front of their computers and out of their offices and let them try driving a bus where they have to work a split on two different routes. In my opinion  it is far more costly as it does not save money at all but results in a much larger decrease in revenue  and  a big reason that bus service has gotten so bad.

As far as your responses to questions 2 and 3, I will wait for more responses to appear before i will write a response.

What I can add to what B35 stated is that the MTA is relying more and more on Metrocard data and less on traffic counters to determine bus passenger volume. The reason of course is that it is cheaper to do this. One problem with using MetroCard data is that it assumes all passengers make the same return trip and that no passengers combine two purposes in a single trip requiring three buses or using a combination of buses to save a fare. They have to make the assumptions they make since they have no way of knowing from Metrocard data where and when someone gets off a bus. This automatically leads to some inaccuracies in the data. 

I oppose short routes because although they may be more reliable, they lead to fewer trips being able to be completed using one or two buses. They also do not guarantee reliability. Last year there was a story how riders had extraordinary long waits for the short B42. 

You obtain reliability by having dispatchers who know how to do their jobs correctly. Often they make matters worse. Off course you also need better parking and road enforcement which DOT and the police are not doing. As I previously stated, the answer is long routes with many short services on those routes. That  combines the best of both worlds. 

As far as drivers on split routes, the MTA doesn't see what you see because they plan asto what looks best on paper, not what works best in the real world. They assume that all drivers return to the depots on time so there is no delay on the second half of their run. 

It is this same type of paper planning that causes them to operate all those not in revenue service trips some of which can be ten miles long. They assume partial trips from the depot are not necessary because there is enough existing service to handle the crowding. The assumption is that all buses are on time. So the result is passengers waiting 20 or 30 minutes for a bus with a ten minute headway and them being overcrowded while a not in service bus passes after ten or minutes and doesn't stop. 

It makes absolutely no sense to have not in service buses at 10 PM at night when buses people are waiting up to 30 minutes and 10 seconds may be added to a not in service trip if the bus picks up a waiting passenger that could save them 15 minutes. One driver realized that and picked me up last year although he was not in service violating the rules. Bus Operators should not have to violate rules to do the correct thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.