Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[checkmatechamp13]

True, but a bus every 5 minutes and service to points west isn't enough to get them to use it?

 

 

We're not talking about them not using the B31 (which hasn't been cut except for overnight service). We're talking about them not using the BM4 and service being cut (at least in the comment you're responding to).

 

In any case, I agree with extending the B31 further westward (though not necessarily to Coney Island). I think the extra connections and everything would boost ridership and result in better service in the Gerritsen Beach area. The thing that I disagree with is the idea that service should automatically be improved on one route because the area lost service in another area.

 

In this case, I don't think somebody should say "Oh, well they lost the BM4, so service should automatically be improved on the B31". A proposal to extend it westward would naturally lead to improved service, so this problem would automatically solve itself. But if the only reason that you're doing this is because they had the BM4 reduced, then I disagree with your reasoning.

 

My opinion is that the routes should be designed to maximize ridership and thus provide the best service possible to the neighborhoods along the route. I think this should happen naturally without somebody saying "You cut here so you have to add here". I think every so often, the system should be redone from scratch, without looking at a map of the current routes, to try and achieve this goal. Some neighborhoods will gain and some will lose, but what can you do?

[Threxx]

We're not talking about them not using the B31 (which hasn't been cut except for overnight service). We're talking about them not using the BM4 and service being cut (at least in the comment you're responding to).

 

In any case, I agree with extending the B31 further westward (though not necessarily to Coney Island). I think the extra connections and everything would boost ridership and result in better service in the Gerritsen Beach area. The thing that I disagree with is the idea that service should automatically be improved on one route because the area lost service in another area.

 

In this case, I don't think somebody should say "Oh, well they lost the BM4, so service should automatically be improved on the B31". A proposal to extend it westward would naturally lead to improved service, so this problem would automatically solve itself. But if the only reason that you're doing this is because they had the BM4 reduced, then I disagree with your reasoning.

 

My opinion is that the routes should be designed to maximize ridership and thus provide the best service possible to the neighborhoods along the route. I think this should happen naturally without somebody saying "You cut here so you have to add here". I think every so often, the system should be redone from scratch, without looking at a map of the current routes, to try and achieve this goal. Some neighborhoods will gain and some will lose, but what can you do?

 

 

It's not solely because of cuts on the BM4, I just stated that as a reason why people would now gravitate towards the improved B31. I agree with the final paragraph, and that is the point of these threads! The MTA did that in 1984 with the Bronx, why can't they do it again?

 

Anyway, I don't see what's wrong with Coney Island. It can interline with the B30, it connects to Caesar's Bay, and provides a host of other benefits! I never said that service should automatically be improved on the B31, cuts on the BM4 weren't even a major thought in my mind when I first made this proposal.

[B35 via Church]

My opinion is that the routes should be designed to maximize ridership and thus provide the best service possible to the neighborhoods along the route. I think this should happen naturally without somebody saying "You cut here so you have to add here".

 

I think every so often, the system should be redone from scratch, without looking at a map of the current routes, to try and achieve this goal. Some neighborhoods will gain and some will lose, but what can you do?

 

1st portion I side with 100%....

 

2nd portion I kinda don't..... If you're redoing the whole network from scratch every so often (well, I guess it depends how often this practice would be done), you mar the potential for maximal ridership system-wide......

[Threxx]

1st portion I side with 100%....

 

2nd portion I kinda don't..... If you're redoing the whole network from scratch every so often (well, I guess it depends how often this practice would be done), you mar the potential for maximal ridership system-wide......

 

 

Every so often would be every 10-15 years, when ridership patterns could have changed enough to warrant major changes.

 

 

Anyway, any comments on my proposal? (Page 48-50)

[checkmatechamp13]

It's not solely because of cuts on the BM4, I just stated that as a reason why people would now gravitate towards the improved B31. I agree with the final paragraph, and that is the point of these threads! The MTA did that in 1984 with the Bronx, why can't they do it again?

 

Anyway, I don't see what's wrong with Coney Island. It can interline with the B30, it connects to Caesar's Bay, and provides a host of other benefits! I never said that service should automatically be improved on the B31, cuts on the BM4 weren't even a major thought in my mind when I first made this proposal.

 

 

I'm only saying "Not necessarily to Coney Island" because I would've preferred to send it to Bay Ridge (taking a similar route as your B5 west of the Brighton Line).

 

And yeah, I agree with what you're saying. They actually did it on SI as well in the 1980s, though obviously many things have changed since then, and I think it's time for another overhaul.

 

1st portion I side with 100%....

 

2nd portion I kinda don't..... If you're redoing the whole network from scratch every so often (well, I guess it depends how often this practice would be done), you mar the potential for maximal ridership system-wide......

 

 

Well, the thing is that even if you're redoing the route from scratch, a good portion of the routes really won't change. For instance, even redoing the system from scratch, you're still going to end up with a route running down Utica Avenue/Macolm X Blvd, and it's just a matter of whether you still want to call it the B46. The same thing for a route like the B6: I don't think you'll really have a whole bunch of major changes for that route.

 

I guess as Threxx said, it would be maybe every 10-15 years. It's long enough that people will have adjusted to the routes, so you know if they serve the communities well.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

We're not talking about them not using the B31 (which hasn't been cut except for overnight service). We're talking about them not using the BM4 and service being cut (at least in the comment you're responding to).

 

In any case, I agree with extending the B31 further westward (though not necessarily to Coney Island). I think the extra connections and everything would boost ridership and result in better service in the Gerritsen Beach area. The thing that I disagree with is the idea that service should automatically be improved on one route because the area lost service in another area.

 

In this case, I don't think somebody should say "Oh, well they lost the BM4, so service should automatically be improved on the B31". A proposal to extend it westward would naturally lead to improved service, so this problem would automatically solve itself. But if the only reason that you're doing this is because they had the BM4 reduced, then I disagree with your reasoning.

 

My opinion is that the routes should be designed to maximize ridership and thus provide the best service possible to the neighborhoods along the route. I think this should happen naturally without somebody saying "You cut here so you have to add here". I think every so often, the system should be redone from scratch, without looking at a map of the current routes, to try and achieve this goal. Some neighborhoods will gain and some will lose, but what can you do?

 

 

How many times are you going to harp on the BM4?? That and the B31... I'm telling you if people knew they had someone like you trying to get their service cut you would quickly become an enemy big time and then the reasoning behind it... To keep fares low... Supposedly...

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

Well, the thing is that even if you're redoing the route from scratch, a good portion of the routes really won't change. For instance, even redoing the system from scratch, you're still going to end up with a route running down Utica Avenue/Macolm X Blvd, and it's just a matter of whether you still want to call it the B46. The same thing for a route like the B6: I don't think you'll really have a whole bunch of major changes for that route.

 

I guess as Threxx said, it would be maybe every 10-15 years. It's long enough that people will have adjusted to the routes, so you know if they serve the communities well.

 

Yeah, but you don't wanna put people, borough-wide, into having to worry about where "their" route will end up going every so often like that.... if it's anything that'd cause ppl. to lose faith in a public transportation system, it would be that......

 

Anyway, that's leads to my point.... There would really be no need to re-do the network/system from scratch every so often, since you would most likely end up with the same major/core routes anyway...... Maybe opt to change a couple underperforming routes here & there like they been doing (that's one reason I favor modified grid routes) - except with this whole rob peter to pay paul mentality the MTA possesses.....

[Threxx]

Yeah, but you don't wanna put people, borough-wide, into having to worry about where "their" route will end up going every so often like that.... if it's anything that'd cause ppl. to lose faith in a public transportation system, it would be that......

 

Anyway, that's leads to my point.... There would really be no need to re-do the network/system from scratch every so often, since you would most likely end up with the same major/core routes anyway...... Maybe opt to change a couple underperforming routes here & there like they been doing (that's one reason I favor modified grid routes) - except with this whole rob peter to pay paul mentality the MTA possesses.....

 

 

That's a good point...

 

How many times are you going to harp on the BM4?? That and the B31... I'm telling you if people knew they had someone like you trying to get their service cut you would quickly become an enemy big time and then the reasoning behind it... To keep fares low... Supposedly...

 

 

Well, I increased service on the B31. I don't have the same reasoning. Service should benefit the riders, and when it does, the profits will complement that.

[checkmatechamp13]

How many times are you going to harp on the BM4?? That and the B31... I'm telling you if people knew they had someone like you trying to get their service cut you would quickly become an enemy big time and then the reasoning behind it... To keep fares low... Supposedly...

 

 

What the hell are you talking about "harping on the B31"??? I never said that the B31 should have service reduced. In fact, I specifically said it would be great if the B31 got additional service, so you're just making up crap as usual.

 

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/35015-brooklyn-bus-proposalsideas-thread-2012/page__st__1000?do=findComment&comment=551936

 

"I think the extra connections and everything would boost ridership and result in better service in the Gerritsen Beach area." Yeah, that's really sticking it to those residents, right?

 

And here's some more: "My opinion is that the routes should be designed to maximize ridership and thus provide the best service possible to the neighborhoods along the route."

 

But yeah, keep on making up that crap of "Oh, he's all about cutting service and not improving it" if it makes you feel better. Never mind the countless of proposals I've made that would improve service, especially on Staten Island. Ooooh, I want people to actually use the buses instead of having them roll around empty. I'm such a terrible person, right?

 

Yeah, but you don't wanna put people, borough-wide, into having to worry about where "their" route will end up going every so often like that.... if it's anything that'd cause ppl. to lose faith in a public transportation system, it would be that......

 

Anyway, that's leads to my point.... There would really be no need to re-do the network/system from scratch every so often, since you would most likely end up with the same major/core routes anyway...... Maybe opt to change a couple underperforming routes here & there like they been doing (that's one reason I favor modified grid routes) - except with this whole rob peter to pay paul mentality the MTA possesses.....

 

 

Well, yeah, I guess that would work. The thing is that BrooklynBus said that they're really not good about changes involving more than 1 or 2 routes (so for instance, my plan of extending the B31 to Bay Ridge, straightening out the B16 along Fort Hamilton Parkway, creating a new 13th Avenue route, and sending the B64 back to 86th & 4th would likely prove too complicated for them).

 

The thing is that none of those routes could realistically be considered to be "underperforming" in the sense that they have ridiculously low ridership or are expensive to operate or whatever. It's just that they have more potential to create a stronger network.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be afraid to get their hands dirty as far as restructuring the routes goes (of course, make sure all that has a purpose). Sometimes they just extend one route when they'd really be better off shuffling around the routes in the area a bit, but like BrooklynBus said, they don't want to do all that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What the hell are you talking about "harping on the B31"??? I never said that the B31 should have service reduced. In fact, I specifically said it would be great if the B31 got additional service, so you're just making up crap as usual.

 

http://www.nyctransi...000#entry551936

 

"I think the extra connections and everything would boost ridership and result in better service in the Gerritsen Beach area." Yeah, that's really sticking it to those residents, right?

 

And here's some more: "My opinion is that the routes should be designed to maximize ridership and thus provide the best service possible to the neighborhoods along the route."

 

But yeah, keep on making up that crap of "Oh, he's all about cutting service and not improving it" if it makes you feel better. Never mind the countless of proposals I've made that would improve service, especially on Staten Island. Ooooh, I want people to actually use the buses instead of having them roll around empty. I'm such a terrible person, right?

 

 

 

Well, yeah, I guess that would work. The thing is that BrooklynBus said that they're really not good about changes involving more than 1 or 2 routes (so for instance, my plan of extending the B31 to Bay Ridge, straightening out the B16 along Fort Hamilton Parkway, creating a new 13th Avenue route, and sending the B64 back to 86th & 4th would likely prove too complicated for them).

 

The thing is that none of those routes could realistically be considered to be "underperforming" in the sense that they have ridiculously low ridership or are expensive to operate or whatever. It's just that they have more potential to create a stronger network.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be afraid to get their hands dirty as far as restructuring the routes goes (of course, make sure all that has a purpose). Sometimes they just extend one route when they'd really be better off shuffling around the routes in the area a bit, but like BrooklynBus said, they don't want to do all that.

 

 

I don't see how that can happen if you turn around and look to cut service... You have a hard time accepting that there will be some routes that simply won't garner the level of ridership that you think every bus should have and that's my problem with you. You'll propose having routes extended even if that extension means no additional ridership is generated in the name of "improving" service and could harm the core ridership in the process.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

Well, yeah, I guess that would work. The thing is that BrooklynBus said that they're really not good about changes involving more than 1 or 2 routes (so for instance, my plan of extending the B31 to Bay Ridge, straightening out the B16 along Fort Hamilton Parkway, creating a new 13th Avenue route, and sending the B64 back to 86th & 4th would likely prove too complicated for them).

 

The thing is that none of those routes could realistically be considered to be "underperforming" in the sense that they have ridiculously low ridership or are expensive to operate or whatever. It's just that they have more potential to create a stronger network.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be afraid to get their hands dirty as far as restructuring the routes goes (of course, make sure all that has a purpose). Sometimes they just extend one route when they'd really be better off shuffling around the routes in the area a bit, but like BrooklynBus said, they don't want to do all that.

 

As far as underperforming routes are concerned, Via beat me to it..... You're always gonna have routes w/i a system that either don't [perform like the "heavies" (as I call em; the major ridership routes)] or [perform like they quote-unquote should].... that's just a fact of life.....

 

The routes you bring up in your plan & what not.... well, a route going from Gerritsen to Bay Ridge & a 13th/14th av route is the perfect example of the above point..... The B16 straightening & the B64 reversion wouldn't qualify, as those routes get/(got, with the 64) loads from time to time.....

[checkmatechamp13]

I don't see how that can happen if you turn around and look to cut service... You have a hard time accepting that there will be some routes that simply won't garner the level of ridership that you think every bus should have and that's my problem with you. You'll propose having routes extended even if that extension means no additional ridership is generated in the name of "improving" service and could harm the core ridership in the process.

 

 

Like I said, you're acting like all I've proposed were cuts. Everybody here's proposed cuts in one form or another. Rerouting the B7 to Canarsie would leave a stretch of Kings Highway without service. For those particular riders, that's a cut, but overall it helps people overall.

 

Let's look at some of the extensions I've proposed. That S89 thing wasn't an extension because it would make the route shorter, and I know a hell of a lot more about the core ridership than you do, considering that I've actually used it to get to Bayonne a decent number of times (And I wasn't "considering" doing it the way you were doing), and I get off at the stop last stop on Staten Island on a daily basis (To quote one of the drivers "Walker Street is the next and last stop on Staten Island", because the stop after that is the train station).

 

The S93 extension was intended to serve an area that currently has no service. The MTA isn't sticking to it's own damn guidelines, which call for service within 1/4 mile, and portions of the neighborhood are close to 3/4 of a mile from a bus route. Even if it doesn't generate a whole lot of ridership, it still serves an underserved area. Aside from that, I came up with a different idea to cover that area anyway.

 

The S55 extension to Perth Amboy would provide connections to NJT bus & rail lines (and aside from that, there's very little "core" ridership anyway because it's a low-ridership route). The S98 extension to Elizabeth would also provide connections to NJT bus & rail lines (and aside from rush hours, when there would still be some buses to Arlington) there isn't even any "core" ridership being affected because the S98 doesn't run middays. And just to prove my point further, there were several other users who agreed that it would be a good idea to provide better connections like that, and I'm not afraid to go back into those threads to prove it).

 

The BxM18 would only use buses that are deadheading (and GreatOne2k and I both clarified that it wouldn't even involve shuffling any runs). Even if no ridership is generated, it wouldn't hurt any of the core riders anyway. If it gets delayed, that means that it's gaining additional ridership, which means it's doing what it's supposed to. If it doesn't get additional riders, then you're no worse off than when you started, when buses were running empty back up to the depot.

 

As far as underperforming routes are concerned, Via beat me to it..... You're always gonna have routes w/i a system that either don't [perform like the "heavies" (as I call em; the major ridership routes)] or [perform like they quote-unquote should].... that's just a fact of life.....

 

The routes you bring up in your plan & what not.... well, a route going from Gerritsen to Bay Ridge & a 13th/14th av route is the perfect example of the above point..... The B16 straightening & the B64 reversion wouldn't qualify, as those routes get/(got, with the 64) loads from time to time.....

 

 

That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about routes that could better serve people and get more ridership by having a different route. For instance, take the S54. It ends near a small townhouse development in an industrial area (with a housing project a little further down). The only people who are realistically going to ride the route to that area are people who live near there, and those people are using routes like the S40, S46, and S53 that actually take them to where they want to go. But if you extended it to St. George (either through a combination with the S42 or straight down Richmond Terrace), then you'd get people from that neighborhood who want to reach a major destination, and you'd probably get riders from the Westerleigh area as well who want to go to the ferry.

 

And on the southern end, I had it run down New Dorp Lane instead of going down Giffords Lane because New Dorp Lane is a much busier area and would likely generate higher ridership. Giffords Lane would be covered by the S79A, which would connect them to the SI Mall, ETC, and shopping in New Dorp (as well as Brooklyn). That would mean those routes better serve the needs of the areas they pass through.

 

Now, would either of those routes become a "heavy" route (even by SI standards)? Of course not. You're not going to see S54s ever get as crowded as say, S53s or S48s (not on a regular basis anyway). But they'll get higher ridership (which is what they "should" get) and better serve the passengers.

[Threxx]

Whoa, what happened to my proposal? What is this stuff 'bout SI? If you want to discuss SI, there is an SI thread, just pointing that out...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Like I said, you're acting like all I've proposed were cuts. Everybody here's proposed cuts in one form or another. Rerouting the B7 to Canarsie would leave a stretch of Kings Highway without service. For those particular riders, that's a cut, but overall it helps people overall.

 

Let's look at some of the extensions I've proposed. That S89 thing wasn't an extension because it would make the route shorter, and I know a hell of a lot more about the core ridership than you do, considering that I've actually used it to get to Bayonne a decent number of times (And I wasn't "considering" doing it the way you were doing), and I get off at the stop last stop on Staten Island on a daily basis (To quote one of the drivers "Walker Street is the next and last stop on Staten Island", because the stop after that is the train station).

 

The S93 extension was intended to serve an area that currently has no service. The MTA isn't sticking to it's own damn guidelines, which call for service within 1/4 mile, and portions of the neighborhood are close to 3/4 of a mile from a bus route. Even if it doesn't generate a whole lot of ridership, it still serves an underserved area. Aside from that, I came up with a different idea to cover that area anyway.

 

The S55 extension to Perth Amboy would provide connections to NJT bus & rail lines (and aside from that, there's very little "core" ridership anyway because it's a low-ridership route). The S98 extension to Elizabeth would also provide connections to NJT bus & rail lines (and aside from rush hours, when there would still be some buses to Arlington) there isn't even any "core" ridership being affected because the S98 doesn't run middays. And just to prove my point further, there were several other users who agreed that it would be a good idea to provide better connections like that, and I'm not afraid to go back into those threads to prove it).

 

The BxM18 would only use buses that are deadheading (and GreatOne2k and I both clarified that it wouldn't even involve shuffling any runs). Even if no ridership is generated, it wouldn't hurt any of the core riders anyway. If it gets delayed, that means that it's gaining additional ridership, which means it's doing what it's supposed to. If it doesn't get additional riders, then you're no worse off than when you started, when buses were running empty back up to the depot.

 

 

 

That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about routes that could better serve people and get more ridership by having a different route. For instance, take the S54. It ends near a small townhouse development in an industrial area (with a housing project a little further down). The only people who are realistically going to ride the route to that area are people who live near there, and those people are using routes like the S40, S46, and S53 that actually take them to where they want to go. But if you extended it to St. George (either through a combination with the S42 or straight down Richmond Terrace), then you'd get people from that neighborhood who want to reach a major destination, and you'd probably get riders from the Westerleigh area as well who want to go to the ferry.

 

And on the southern end, I had it run down New Dorp Lane instead of going down Giffords Lane because New Dorp Lane is a much busier area and would likely generate higher ridership. Giffords Lane would be covered by the S79A, which would connect them to the SI Mall, ETC, and shopping in New Dorp (as well as Brooklyn). That would mean those routes better serve the needs of the areas they pass through.

 

Now, would either of those routes become a "heavy" route (even by SI standards)? Of course not. You're not going to see S54s ever get as crowded as say, S53s or S48s (not on a regular basis anyway). But they'll get higher ridership (which is what they "should" get) and better serve the passengers.

 

 

My problem with you is that you INSIST on extending routes even when they don't need to be because you feel like the possibility of getting that "potential" ridership is so detrimental for routes. It is okay to have short routes. You're not even satisfied with routes that are already doing well. It's like when is a route "good enough" to not be ****** with for you? That's my question. There's a difference between making a route conducive and going overboard and I don't think you realize the difference between the two. You have to accept that some routes no matter how you try to extend them are just not going to have hoards of passengers.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Threxx]

Well, yeah, I guess that would work. The thing is that BrooklynBus said that they're really not good about changes involving more than 1 or 2 routes (so for instance, my plan of extending the B31 to Bay Ridge, straightening out the B16 along Fort Hamilton Parkway, creating a new 13th Avenue route, and sending the B64 back to 86th & 4th would likely prove too complicated for them).

 

The thing is that none of those routes could realistically be considered to be "underperforming" in the sense that they have ridiculously low ridership or are expensive to operate or whatever. It's just that they have more potential to create a stronger network.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be afraid to get their hands dirty as far as restructuring the routes goes (of course, make sure all that has a purpose). Sometimes they just extend one route when they'd really be better off shuffling around the routes in the area a bit, but like BrooklynBus said, they don't want to do all that.

 

 

The is afraid the media and riders will jump all over them if they make a major change like that, b/c of the rep they currently have, it will be thought of as a bad change, even though it may speed your trip. For example, Howard Beach residents complained about the Q52 change when there wan't anything to complain about. There trip was better, not worse, but the media spreads false info to keep ratings up, and that's exactly what will happen in this case. It will take serious pressure to get any of these proposals implemented.

 

As in my South Brooklyn proposals, I try to maximize the potential of every route, and if that falls short, I create new routes to bridge the gap. Combing the B2 & B100, for example, takes two redundant routes, eliminates this redundancy, and creates a route that's more convenient for all. Again, with the B4, 33, and 36. The B4 is restored to Sheepshead Bay, but the neighborhood needs more service. That's why I created the B33, and I didn't go overboard, starting it as a weekday only route. If the followed these same notions, more people would, ride, and they wouldn't be in this poor situation with their budget. They might still have a deficit, but the Doomsday cuts could have been prevented, restored, or reduced.

 

My problem with you is that you INSIST on extending routes even when they don't need to be because you feel like the possibility of getting that "potential" ridership is so detrimental for routes. It is okay to have short routes. You're not even satisfied with routes that already doing well. It's like when is a route "good enough" to not be ****** with for you? That's my question. There's a difference between making a route conducive and going overboard and I don't think you realize the difference between the two.

 

 

Going overboard would be combining the B31 with the B7 or something. What he's suggesting, extending the S54 to St. George is reasonable. Yes, there is a difference, but it is a fine line to cross...

Edited July 3, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[B35 via Church]

That's not what I was referring to.

 

I was talking about routes that could better serve people and get more ridership by having a different route. For instance, take the S54. It ends near a small townhouse development in an industrial area (with a housing project a little further down). The only people who are realistically going to ride the route to that area are people who live near there, and those people are using routes like the S40, S46, and S53 that actually take them to where they want to go. But if you extended it to St. George (either through a combination with the S42 or straight down Richmond Terrace), then you'd get people from that neighborhood who want to reach a major destination, and you'd probably get riders from the Westerleigh area as well who want to go to the ferry.

 

And on the southern end, I had it run down New Dorp Lane instead of going down Giffords Lane because New Dorp Lane is a much busier area and would likely generate higher ridership. Giffords Lane would be covered by the S79A, which would connect them to the SI Mall, ETC, and shopping in New Dorp (as well as Brooklyn). That would mean those routes better serve the needs of the areas they pass through.

 

Now, would either of those routes become a "heavy" route (even by SI standards)? Of course not. You're not going to see S54s ever get as crowded as say, S53s or S48s (not on a regular basis anyway). But they'll get higher ridership (which is what they "should" get) and better serve the passengers.

 

The point still applies.... You're just explaining the changes underperforming (u/p from now on) routes would undergo in lieu of becoming less u/p (in other words, more useful).... They would still fall in that category of "[performing like they quote-unquote should]"..... I'm not saying you can't attempt to increase ridership on an u/p route... That's the whole overall point w/ what's being talked about - optimizing routes......

 

Towards the end there, you're basically reiterating what I'm tryna lay down - No matter what changes you make, those type of routes will never become highly performing (there's a term for it, but can't think of it right now) routes..... To be honest, I wouldn't want to live in a city where every bus route in it resembles the B46 or M15 (for example) as far as usage goes......

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Going overboard would be combining the B31 with the B7 or something. What he's suggesting, extending the S54 to St. George is reasonable. Yes, there is a difference, but it is a fine line to cross...

 

 

I'm not talking about that proposal because I agreed with him extending the S54. While he's obsessed with maximizing routes you're the opposite. I think you go overboard with new routes. There needs to be a balance and we don't need routes all over the place. I mean sometimes you go crazy with the "mini" hubs all over the place. I think you need to understand the neighborhoods more before you propose some of these "new" routes. I grew up in South Brooklyn so I know the areas very well and some of these routes I have to ask myself where is the ridership going to come from because you have buses running to the same place where there is already two buses already. Are you just looking at the map and saying oh there's no service here let's stick a bus route here or what??

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Threxx]

I agree with B35. If every route was as crowded as those two, why ride and put yourself through that misery every day? Ridership would plummet.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't think checkmate gets it that public transportation is supposed to have a level of COMFORT to it. Even the local bus and subway. People are NOT attracted to crushloaded buses and subways. There's a point where you turn people off and that's another point he doesn't get. There's a point in which you go overkill with trying to "maximize" ridership.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Threxx]

I'm not talking about that proposal because I agreed with him extending the S54. While he's obsessed with maximizing routes you're the opposite. I think you go overboard with new routes. There needs to be a balance and we don't need routes all over the place. I mean sometimes you go crazy with the "mini" hubs all over the place. I think you need to understand the neighborhoods more before you propose some of these "new" routes. Like that Bergen Beach route... I mean no one would use it. Are you just looking at the map and saying oh there's no service here let's stick a bus route here or what??

 

 

Are you talking about the B49? Let me set something straight, old man.

 

1. That wasn't a new route. That was a re-route of the B49.

2. The eastern terminal had nothing to do with the route. I needed a convenient place to terminate the route. I was not aware of the fact that the neighborhood was Bergen Beach.

3. I have since moved the route.

4. I don't look at some goddamn map and just draw these routes. I actually know what I'm doing and I know my routes will get usage.

 

So before you go around flinging baseless accusations at me, checkmate or anyone, get your facts straight.

 

Edited July 3, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Are you talking about the B49? Let me set something straight, old man.

 

1. That wasn't a new route. That was a re-route of the B49.

2. The eastern terminal had nothing to do with the route. I needed a convenient place to terminate the route. I was not aware of the fact that the neighborhood was Bergen Beach.

3. I have since moved the route.

4. I don't look at some goddamn map and just draw these routes. I actually know what I'm doing and I know my routes will get usage.

 

So before you go around flinging baseless accusations at me, checkmate or anyone, get your facts straight.

 

 

 

You needed a "convenient" place to terminate the route but yet you say that your routes will get usage and you didn't even know that you were terminating the bus in Bergen Beach where ridership would be nil??? That makes a lot of sense, but I need to get my facts straight. More like I'm just telling it the way I see it.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Threxx]

You needed a "convenient" place to terminate the route but yet you say that your routes will get usage and you didn't even know that you were terminating the bus in Bergen Beach where ridership would be nil??? That makes a lot of sense, but I need to get my facts straight. More like I'm just telling it the way I see it.

 

 

Well, I'm telling you, the way you see it isn't always right...

 

You really remind me of someone who tends to frequent the subway forum, and that's not a good thing. Arrogance is a vice...

 

_____________

 

WELL! Enough about personality problems, any actual proposals or critiques left?

[B35 via Church]

You needed a "convenient" place to terminate the route but yet you say that your routes will get usage and you didn't even know that you were terminating the bus in Bergen Beach where ridership would be nil??? That makes a lot of sense, but I need to get my facts straight. More like I'm just telling it the way I see it.

 

lol..... Got a point there....

 

How would you know a new route would get ridership, if you don't know the course it's gonna take en route to a terminal you haven't thought of yet......

 

I like how BrooklynBus puts it.... you should think of fixing routes like you're putting together a jigsaw puzzle.....

Not sure about you all, but I always gun for the "edge" pieces first....

[Threxx]

Honestly, do I need to baby you guys:

 

I had everything EXCEPT the eastern terminal (Ralph Avenue, west)

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004c374c383c09e9cf02&msa=0&ll=40.62366,-73.905029&spn=0.01886,0.038581

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, I'm telling you, the way you see it isn't always right...

 

You really remind me of someone who tends to frequent the subway forum, and that's not a good thing. Arrogance is a vice...

 

_____________

 

WELL! Enough about personality problems, any actual proposals or critiques left?

 

 

You're confusing arrogance with knowing a neighborhood... Let's discuss your B33 proposal for example and discuss why I'm iffy on the route, though I feel it has potential. I don't see any ridership coming from that portion of Knapp St. Why? Because that area, the part of Knapp St. where that bus would go is mainly car folks so you'd have to have something there that would make them not want to use their car and I don't see that happening. Then we go along to Avenue X... Now there I could see some folks using it... Mainly folks who don't want to schlepp to the B36 or that don't want to wait for the unreliable/crowded B49. Once you get past the train station and continue along Ave X., then it may steal some B1 riders, but up to what point I don't know simply because I don't see that much ridership along Harway Avenue... In sum the route has a lot of residential and very little commercial to draw a sustainable amount of ridership. You also have the B64 running a block away along Bath Avenue which is certainly more commercial than Harway Avenue.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8