checkmatechamp13 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1476 Posted November 30, 2012 What built in back up? If you're merging the routes then clearly someone is going to have to walk further to get to the bus. And? It's an extra block. It's not the end of the world. If the extra block is such a big deal, why don't we implement that S44/S59 split I brought up above? Why don't we give the B3 a branch along Avenue T? After all, we have to make sure all the blocks are covered, right? Heaven forbid somebody has to walk an extra block. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1477 Posted November 30, 2012 I think I have an idea on how to restructure the depots in Brooklyn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1478 Posted November 30, 2012 I think I have an idea on how to restructure the depots in Brooklyn cool lets hear it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1479 Posted November 30, 2012 And? It's an extra block. It's not the end of the world. If the extra block is such a big deal, why don't we implement that S44/S59 split I brought up above? Why don't we give the B3 a branch along Avenue T? After all, we have to make sure all the blocks are covered, right? Heaven forbid somebody has to walk an extra block. B2 and B100 have nothing to do with Staten Island. Both routes are doing just fine and obviously if the had such an issue with them they wouldn't have agreed to restore the B2 on the weekends. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1480 Posted November 30, 2012 B2 and B100 have nothing to do with Staten Island. Both routes are doing just fine and obviously if the had such an issue with them they wouldn't have agreed to restore the B2 on the weekends. You haven't disproved the idea. The point is that instead of having one frequent route, you'll end up with two infrequent routes a block apart. And the last time I checked, the B3 wasn't on Staten Island. And there were way more worthy routes to restore than the B2. A lot of it had to do with political pressure, not based on the actual structure of the route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1481 Posted November 30, 2012 You haven't disproved the idea. The point is that instead of having one frequent route, you'll end up with two infrequent routes a block apart. And the last time I checked, the B3 wasn't on Staten Island. And there were way more worthy routes to restore than the B2. A lot of it had to do with political pressure, not based on the actual structure of the route. Oh how nice of you to steal my line.... And that's exactly why your plan won't be implemented... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1482 Posted November 30, 2012 And that's exactly why your plan won't be implemented... That's a good point I don't think I ever considered, regarding a B2/B100 merger..... I mean I don't agree it should happen anyway, but screw what I think about the actual idea - Marine Park patrons are not going to go for a combination of those two routes; I do see them putting up a formidable fight against that..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1483 Posted November 30, 2012 Oh how nice of you to steal my line.... And that's exactly why your plan won't be implemented... Yes, that was nice of me, right? And like I said, much of it has to do with the different divisions as well. There's things in the contracts saying that you can't restructure MTAB routes with NYCT routes. (Why do you think they had to branch the Q15 up to Whitestone instead of just extending the Q34?) The politicians wanted service to Kings Plaza restored, but the B100 couldn't be altered because it was an MTAB route. Therefore, the only option to get service back to Kings Plaza is to restore the B2, along the original route. But the politicians didn't have anything to do with keeping the service along the two different routings (Avenue R vs. Fillmore). They just had to do with getting service back to Kings Plaza. When MTAB & NYCT merge, they'll just restructure it to have the same route west of Flatbush Avenue, with a branch to Kings Plaza. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1484 Posted November 30, 2012 Yes, that was nice of me, right? And like I said, much of it has to do with the different divisions as well. There's things in the contracts saying that you can't restructure MTAB routes with NYCT routes. (Why do you think they had to branch the Q15 up to Whitestone instead of just extending the Q34?) The politicians wanted service to Kings Plaza restored, but the B100 couldn't be altered because it was an MTAB route. Therefore, the only option to get service back to Kings Plaza is to restore the B2, along the original route. But the politicians didn't have anything to do with keeping the service along the two different routings (Avenue R vs. Fillmore). They just had to do with getting service back to Kings Plaza. When MTAB & NYCT merge, they'll just restructure it to have the same route west of Flatbush Avenue, with a branch to Kings Plaza. Yeah okay... Anyway you know what your agenda is... Merge lines, pack the buses like sardine cans so that transportation can be free... What a fallacy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1485 Posted November 30, 2012 Yes, that was nice of me, right? And like I said, much of it has to do with the different divisions as well. There's things in the contracts saying that you can't restructure MTAB routes with NYCT routes. (Why do you think they had to branch the Q15 up to Whitestone instead of just extending the Q34?) The politicians wanted service to Kings Plaza restored, but the B100 couldn't be altered because it was an MTAB route. Therefore, the only option to get service back to Kings Plaza is to restore the B2, along the original route. But the politicians didn't have anything to do with keeping the service along the two different routings (Avenue R vs. Fillmore). They just had to do with getting service back to Kings Plaza. When MTAB & NYCT merge, they'll just restructure it to have the same route west of Flatbush Avenue, with a branch to Kings Plaza. Will you stop already lay off the B2 plz. Those people will RIOT you are not in brooklyn enough to know these lines. Those people will FIGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL!!!! They lost enough with the B64 and B4 running like shit to be honest B4 may need a LTD. Better idea send B2 to ave p then bay parkway and let the line gain ridership. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1486 Posted November 30, 2012 I love how everyone ignores my attempt to change the subject and then these two hijack another thread... smh.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1487 Posted November 30, 2012 Yeah okay... Anyway you know what your agenda is... Merge lines, pack the buses like sardine cans so that transportation can be free... What a fallacy. No, you think you know what my agenda is. Or rather, you just pull crap out of your ass as usual and just tell everybody I have an agenda. Tell me, if the headways would be the combined headways of the two routes, how would the buses be "packed like sardine cans"? Yeah, that's what I thought. And yes, I haven't mentioned free transit in over a year, and yet it's this big agenda that I'm pushing so hard for. Even when I mentioned it, the first time, I was just saying that it would be nice if it could happen. I knew it's not actually going to happen. But there's nothing wrong with wanting a more efficient system. Yes, I love it when the bus is so full that it flags you. And I love it even more when the bus you're finally able to fit on spends a bunch of time at each stop loading and unloading. And I know what your agenda is: Take service from the minority neighborhoods and give it to the "affluent, suburban" areas (even if the minority neighborhoods are also "suburban" and affluent), so you're one to throw stones at glass houses. Will you stop already lay off the B2 plz. Those people will RIOT you are not in brooklyn enough to know these lines. Those people will FIGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL!!!! They lost enough with the B64 and B4 running like shit to be honest B4 may need a LTD. Better idea send B2 to ave p then bay parkway and let the line gain ridership. The B4 runs every 20 minutes. Pigs will fly before that line gets a limited. As for the B4 & B64, them running like shit has nothing to do with the B2/B100. If they need the service improved on those lines, that's a seperate issue. I love how everyone ignores my attempt to change the subject and then these two hijack another thread... smh.... I love it when people consider a discussion between two people that's relevant to the subject "hijacking" the thread. I guess that means that you were also responsible for hijacking the thread earlier, right? SMH. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1488 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I love it when people consider a discussion between two people that's relevant to the subject "hijacking" the thread. I guess that means that you were also responsible for hijacking the thread earlier, right? SMH. I love it when those same two people ignore contributions which are also relevant to the thread... smh... what you and me had a civil discussion, it was that. You are plain insulting him. That is "hijacking". I'm going to quote my attempt to change the subject again... Anyway... I talked about the B48/B49 earlier. The point of the changes here is to remove the redundant B49 from Rogers Avenue (which would be replaced by the B44, obviously) and send it along a route which was formerly traveled and has shown to have decent ridership along it. The only uncertain thing in this plan is the extension of the B48 to Avenue H/Flatbush. Check it out. Edited November 30, 2012 by Threxx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MTA Bus Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1489 Posted November 30, 2012 Eliminate the B2 and replace it with an extension of the B31. The B31 would be extended to Kings Plaza via the B2 Route during the day. Weekdays: 5:00 AM to 12:00 A.M Saturday: 6:00 A.M to 11:00 P.M Sunday: 7:00 A.M to 10:00 P.M 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1490 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) No, you think you know what my agenda is. Or rather, you just pull crap out of your ass as usual and just tell everybody I have an agenda. Tell me, if the headways would be the combined headways of the two routes, how would the buses be "packed like sardine cans"? Yeah, that's what I thought. And yes, I haven't mentioned free transit in over a year, and yet it's this big agenda that I'm pushing so hard for. Even when I mentioned it, the first time, I was just saying that it would be nice if it could happen. I knew it's not actually going to happen. But there's nothing wrong with wanting a more efficient system. Yes, I love it when the bus is so full that it flags you. And I love it even more when the bus you're finally able to fit on spends a bunch of time at each stop loading and unloading. And I know what your agenda is: Take service from the minority neighborhoods and give it to the "affluent, suburban" areas (even if the minority neighborhoods are also "suburban" and affluent), so you're one to throw stones at glass houses. It's funny that you keep arguing that having the two routes merged when the two serve different purposes makes them more efficient, but then you would keep the two branches, so why even bother to merge them then?? As for me taking service away, I stated that I would keep the routes as is so there is nothing being taken away. If anything you would take away an option that folks have in the area by forcing them to walk further than they already do, knowing how many seniors and so rely on the buses in that neighborhood AND that the routes in question are relatively short and not that expensive to run. Also, we've seen how well branches work with the with the B41 being a perfect example. One branch gets next to no service and the waits are ridiculous. As for your policy on loading guidelines you've repeatedly talked about how you'd like buses to be a little more fuller in the past with the end hopes being that fares would be lowered, but at the price of folks being packed in on buses and subways with less service. The only reason you get annoyed about being flagged is because you can't get on, not that the buses are packed like sardine cans. I for one would like to see the loading guidelines relaxed by the so that seniors and others that need to be sitting down on buses aren't forced to stand and put themselves in dangerous situations. All it takes is a bus to stop short and I've seen folks go flying and the end result is not a pretty scene. Sure it can happen with an emptier bus but the more crowded the bus is the more difficult it can be to have enough space to stand and brace yourself. Finally I haven't advocated for taking service from minority neighborhoods. What I've advocated for is for suburban areas to get their due amount of service and where possible allow for their commutes to be sped up as they face longer and longer commutes. The urban areas tend to have far more transportation options than the suburban ones and I think it's quite fair to try to help to alleviate their commutes. I know you're going to go back to that Mariners' Harbor example , so let me just say that I still stand by my statement because they already have a Downtown bus and a Midtown bus with the X12 (Downtown) AND X42 (West Midtown), which by the way goes to the same destination as the X30 does, so why should folks that live in West Brighton, Randall Manor, etc. (who BTW LOST their Downtown service) have to continue to endure long rides on the X30? My commute was often times over an hour with the X30 with no X16 option, but they've got the shorter commute AND more express buses but they should keep all three express buses while we had just one right?? Yeah that's what I thought. I recall you talking about how if some folks have long commutes they should just move to other areas as if it's that easy. Totally insensitive to the needs of suburban communities, but I have an agenda... Looking at Brooklyn for example, Southern Brooklyn was hit the hardest in terms of service cuts, while the more urban areas were allowed to keep their service, but I guess that's okay if one part of Brooklyn gets screwed over right? If cuts have to be made, the pain should be equally shared, not with some communities being left with next to no bus service. Eliminate the B2 and replace it with an extension of the B31. The B31 would be extended to Kings Plaza via the B2 Route during the day. Weekdays: 5:00 AM to 12:00 A.M Saturday: 6:00 A.M to 11:00 P.M Sunday: 7:00 A.M to 10:00 P.M Oh really... And explain how that would work since the B31 goes to Gerritsen Beach...??? Edited November 30, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1491 Posted November 30, 2012 Eliminate the B2 and replace it with an extension of the B31. The B31 would be extended to Kings Plaza via the B2 Route during the day. Weekdays: 5:00 AM to 12:00 A.M Saturday: 6:00 A.M to 11:00 P.M Sunday: 7:00 A.M to 10:00 P.M Not going to work, especially around the train station. Did you think about how such a route would operate???? Looking at Brooklyn for example, Southern Brooklyn was hit the hardest in terms of service cuts, while the more urban areas were allowed to keep their service, but I guess that's okay if one part of Brooklyn gets screwed over right? If cuts have to be made, the pain should be equally shared, not with some communities being left with next to no bus service. You act as if South Brooklyn was the only neighborhood to get screwed... the Bronx and Queens got hit hard as well... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1492 Posted November 30, 2012 Seems to me he'd rather have more fare hikes since he's opposed to cuts of any kind... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1493 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) You act as if South Brooklyn was the only neighborhood to get screwed... the Bronx and Queens got hit hard as well... When talking about Brooklyn which is the main borough at hand, yes, South Brooklyn get hit hard in comparison to more urban areas. Seems to me he'd rather have more fare hikes since he's opposed to cuts of any kind... I don't mind fare hikes so long as service improves. If you have good service, more people will ride and use it which will increase revenues for the and overtime that will help to offset fare hikes. This is why I support Bus Time and try to encourage others to use it because I believe it will lead to more people using buses because they'll know where the bus is and they don't have to stand there wondering and waiting which means they can plan trips and probably will take trips that they didn't plan on taking since it will be less of a hassle. Edited November 30, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa Fe via Willow Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1494 Posted November 30, 2012 Alternatively, couldn't the (S93) LTD have been given a B# designation instead of S#? Be the B# instead of the (S93) LTD? Or (B#) LTD? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1495 Posted November 30, 2012 Alternatively, couldn't the (S93) LTD have been given a B# designation instead of S#? Be the B# instead of the (S93) LTD? Or (B#) LTD? For what purpose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1496 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Speaking of the B48/49, back when the B48 went to prospect park subway, a B48/B49 combination was another one of those ideas that was brought up repeatedly in the transit community... Surprised I didn't remember to list this one.... I haven't heard a sensible argument for it yet, considering how (slow) the B49 service was (and still is), and the forcing of a transfer for no real reason (for all the folks that took 48's to the B/Q/S (or to the 41)).... ....and Threxx, before you even start, the above paragraph has nothing to do with w/e idea(s) you have for the two routes separately... I haven't even checked your idea out....... Alternatively, couldn't the (S93) LTD have been given a B# designation instead of S#? Be the B# instead of the (S93) LTD? Or (B#) LTD? There's no benefit to doing that... People already know the route goes to Brooklyn, and if the thinking is having the route run out of a brooklyn based depot, it can still run out of JG or UP or something w/ an 'S__' notation....... Aside from that, think about what you're saying.... The S93 doesn't exist to primarily serve Brooklyn riders.... If that's the case, you may as well re-designate the S53 & the S79 because they all terminate in Brooklyn on one end.... Edited November 30, 2012 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1497 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Can we all stop now Via 8 we get it cuts will make stuff worse without strategic restructuring. Grand concourse ok yes we can't afford it but there has to be other ways to do it like make buses gain more revenue ect. Express lines should get overhauled more on that later after I figure out all of em but some can change. But can we please drop B2/100 debate now. Threxx and checkmate plz stop those people will not go for it even myself and others figured it out. Have you even thought of ways to increase their ridership separately? Cause I haven't seen anything creative from either of you DROP B2/100 MOVE ON!!!!!!! No, you think you know what my agenda is. Or rather, you just pull crap out of your ass as usual and just tell everybody I have an agenda. Tell me, if the headways would be the combined headways of the two routes, how would the buses be "packed like sardine cans"? Yeah, that's what I thought. And yes, I haven't mentioned free transit in over a year, and yet it's this big agenda that I'm pushing so hard for. Even when I mentioned it, the first time, I was just saying that it would be nice if it could happen. I knew it's not actually going to happen. But there's nothing wrong with wanting a more efficient system. Yes, I love it when the bus is so full that it flags you. And I love it even more when the bus you're finally able to fit on spends a bunch of time at each stop loading and unloading. And I know what your agenda is: Take service from the minority neighborhoods and give it to the "affluent, suburban" areas (even if the minority neighborhoods are also "suburban" and affluent), so you're one to throw stones at glass houses. The B4 runs every 20 minutes. Pigs will fly before that line gets a limited. As for the B4 & B64, them running like shit has nothing to do with the B2/B100. If they need the service improved on those lines, that's a seperate issue. I love it when people consider a discussion between two people that's relevant to the subject "hijacking" the thread. I guess that means that you were also responsible for hijacking the thread earlier, right? SMH. ERR OK I see so B4 needs more service what's why people said it was the worst. OK Fine I think it should get boosted to every 12 mins. Eliminate the B2 and replace it with an extension of the B31. The B31 would be extended to Kings Plaza via the B2 Route during the day. Weekdays: 5:00 AM to 12:00 A.M Saturday: 6:00 A.M to 11:00 P.M Sunday: 7:00 A.M to 10:00 P.M err hell NO Edited November 30, 2012 by qjtransitmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1498 Posted November 30, 2012 I love it when those same two people ignore contributions which are also relevant to the thread... smh... what you and me had a civil discussion, it was that. You are plain insulting him. That is "hijacking". I'm going to quote my attempt to change the subject again... Where? Where did I insult him? And we didn't respond, because I had no comment on that. Aside from that, nobody else responded. B35 didn't respond, and Grand Concourse didn't respond. It's funny that you keep arguing that having the two routes merged when the two serve different purposes makes them more efficient, but then you would keep the two branches, so why even bother to merge them then?? As for me taking service away, I stated that I would keep the routes as is so there is nothing being taken away. If anything you would take away an option that folks have in the area by forcing them to walk further than they already do, knowing how many seniors and so rely on the buses in that neighborhood AND that the routes in question are relatively short and not that expensive to run. Also, we've seen how well branches work with the with the B41 being a perfect example. One branch gets next to no service and the waits are ridiculous. .....like talking to a brick wall..... Like I said, if we want to cover every single area, let's start running branches all over the place. Let's run a B3 branch down Avenue T. Let's run a B8 branch down Claredon Road. After all, we have to do everything in our power to prevent people from having to walk one extra block, right? I never said it was an issue of boosting cost-efficiency. Show me where I said that. I said I'd rather have one frequent route on one street rather than two infrequent routes a block apart. As for your policy on loading guidelines you've repeatedly talked about how you'd like buses to be a little more fuller in the past with the end hopes being that fares would be lowered, but at the price of folks being packed in on buses and subways with less service. The only reason you get annoyed about being flagged is because you can't get on, not that the buses are packed like sardine cans. I for one would like to see the loading guidelines relaxed by the so that seniors and others that need to be sitting down on buses aren't forced to stand and put themselves in dangerous situations. All it takes is a bus to stop short and I've seen folks go flying and the end result is not a pretty scene. Sure it can happen with an emptier bus but the more crowded the bus is the more difficult it can be to have enough space to stand and brace yourself. Key word, "a little fuller". I never said I wanted them to be packed. You love twisting my words to prove a false point. I never said I wanted the buses to be "packed like sardines". Show me where I said that, because I never did (and I'm not talking in this thread. Show me any time I said it). Aside from that, when the bus is packed it spends more time at stops loading and unloading people, because people have to push past each other to get in and out of the bus. (Not to mention the B/O often has to drive slower when he's packed) Why would I be advocating for something that would likely make buses less efficient? More time at stops means a longer runtime, which means that you have to pay the B/O more, and that doesn't even account for potential decreased ridership. You keep trying to make me out to be so selfish (which like I said, is a perfect example of you projecting your feelings onto me), by making up BS that is an outright lie. I've mentioned it the past that I like seeing them be comfortable SRO, (which would allow for people to brace themselves if the B/O stops short or whatever) because it's indicative of good ridership. I never said I liked it when the buses were crushloaded. Finally I haven't advocated for taking service from minority neighborhoods. What I've advocated for is for suburban areas to get their due amount of service and where possible allow for their commutes to be sped up as they face longer and longer commutes. The urban areas tend to have far more transportation options than the suburban ones and I think it's quite fair to try to help to alleviate their commutes. I know you're going to go back to that Mariners' Harbor example , so let me just say that I still stand by my statement because they already have a Downtown bus and a Midtown bus with the X12 (Downtown) AND X42 (West Midtown), which by the way goes to the same destination as the X30 does, so why should folks that live in West Brighton, Randall Manor, etc. (who BTW LOST their Downtown service) have to continue to endure long rides on the X30? My commute was often times over an hour with the X30 with no X16 option, but they've got the shorter commute AND more express buses but they should keep all three express buses while we had just one right?? Yeah that's what I thought. Mariners' Habor isn't more urban than West Brighton (and now you're going to rant about "Oh, I'm going by the "book definition" and that crap). There are a ton of strip malls and all the stores have a bunch of parking. Compare that to West Brighton where the Forest Avenue is narrower, and the stores have less parking. See this? Those are Levittown homes if I'm not mistaken, which are typically found in suburban areas (because Levittown was the "first suburb"). And you know what's behind those houses? Big-box stores with a huge parking lot. Typically found in suburban areas. You're not going to sit there and tell me that it's "more urban" than West Brighton. Second of all, the X30 gets a significant amount of ridership from Mariners' Harbor (in fact, more riders come from Mariners' Harbor than West Brighton). There are times when I've seen the X30 bypass the stop at Broadway because nobody wanted it, and there were only a couple of riders on the bus. Meanwhile, every single time I see the X30 west of the MLK, the stops always see a decent amount of people getting on/off). So you'd screw over Mariners' Harbor riders just so you don't have to deal with the Black riders. Face it, if it weren't for Mariners' Harbor, the X30 wouldn't have levels of service it does now. And if you bring up people parking in the parking lots, that'll only prove my point about it not being urban. If the areas further east were so "suburban", there should be ample parking in those areas for them to use as a park-and-ride. (Plus, I highly doubt they're all coming from areas east of the MLK) For the X12 & X42, well, what other route do you want them to take? They're based out of Castleton, and the X10 & X14 already cover Port Richmond Avenue. They figure they might as well cover a different area. I recall you talking about how if some folks have long commutes they should just move to other areas as if it's that easy. Totally insensitive to the needs of suburban communities, but I have an agenda... Yes, you do. You've mentioned in the past how you'd want the S53 to be cut back to Forest Avenue, and the S48 to be cut back to Richmond Avenue. Hmmm, conveniently, the sections of the routes with a low percentage of White riders would lose their service, even though the buses are well-used in both areas. Looking at Brooklyn for example, Southern Brooklyn was hit the hardest in terms of service cuts, while the more urban areas were allowed to keep their service, but I guess that's okay if one part of Brooklyn gets screwed over right? If cuts have to be made, the pain should be equally shared, not with some communities being left with next to no bus service. Correction. The minority neighborhoods kept their service. You've repeatedly said how areas like Canarsie have become more urban as the Black population increased. Does this look urban? In fact, it's more suburban than a lot of South Brooklyn neighborhoods. But quick, we better stop before Mr. Mini-Mod asks us to get back on topic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1499 Posted November 30, 2012 The B2 and B31 are fine the way they are. I honestly think the B100 can be more frequent on weekends, especially Sundays. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #1500 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) ....like talking to a brick wall..... Like I said, if we want to cover every single area, let's start running branches all over the place. Let's run a B3 branch down Avenue T. Let's run a B8 branch down Claredon Road. After all, we have to do everything in our power to prevent people from having to walk one extra block, right? For the X12 & X42, well, what other route do you want them to take? They're based out of Castleton, and the X10 & X14 already cover Port Richmond Avenue. They figure they might as well cover a different area. LOL... You excuse Mariners' Harbor having three express buses that run down the same avenue because of where the buses are based out of (which BTW the X12 and X42 are out of Meredith NOT Castleton) but Marine Park can't have its two local buses because there are two routes a block apart for a small segment of the route, even though both routes serve different purposes.... What a load of BS. I never said it was an issue of boosting cost-efficiency. Show me where I said that. I said I'd rather have one frequent route on one street rather than two infrequent routes a block apart. Well then what is it then?? Everyone else seems to be fine with the two routes except for you. It seems to irk you beyond belief that Marine Park has its two local buses which are cheaper to run in comparison to Mariners' Harbor having three express buses which you're fine with, two of which go to the same destination in Midtown, but you're so concerned about efficiency... Ahem... Key word, "a little fuller". I never said I wanted them to be packed. You love twisting my words to prove a false point. I never said I wanted the buses to be "packed like sardines". Show me where I said that, because I never did (and I'm not talking in this thread. Show me any time I said it). You also never quantified what "a little fuller" meant in the past, which is typical. Your definition of "a little fuller" and my definition is quite different. A seated load is just fine to me. SRO is not a little fuller. It's crowded. Aside from that, when the bus is packed it spends more time at stops loading and unloading people, because people have to push past each other to get in and out of the bus. (Not to mention the B/O often has to drive slower when he's packed) Why would I be advocating for something that would likely make buses less efficient? More time at stops means a longer runtime, which means that you have to pay the B/O more, and that doesn't even account for potential decreased ridership. Because transportation should be free remember? If you had free transit you wouldn't care how crowded the buses were. You keep trying to make me out to be so selfish (which like I said, is a perfect example of you projecting your feelings onto me), by making up BS that is an outright lie. I've mentioned it the past that I like seeing them be comfortable SRO, (which would allow for people to brace themselves if the B/O stops short or whatever) because it's indicative of good ridership. I never said I liked it when the buses were crushloaded. There is nothing "comfortable" about SRO... Mariners' Habor isn't more urban than West Brighton (and now you're going to rant about "Oh, I'm going by the "book definition" and that crap). There are a ton of strip malls and all the stores have a bunch of parking. Compare that to West Brighton where the Forest Avenue is narrower, and the stores have less parking. See this? Those are Levittown homes if I'm not mistaken, which are typically found in suburban areas (because Levittown was the "first suburb"). And you know what's behind those houses? Big-box stores with a huge parking lot. Typically found in suburban areas. You're not going to sit there and tell me that it's "more urban" than West Brighton. Second of all, the X30 gets a significant amount of ridership from Mariners' Harbor (in fact, more riders come from Mariners' Harbor than West Brighton). There are times when I've seen the X30 bypass the stop at Broadway because nobody wanted it, and there were only a couple of riders on the bus. Meanwhile, every single time I see the X30 west of the MLK, the stops always see a decent amount of people getting on/off). So you'd screw over Mariners' Harbor riders just so you don't have to deal with the Black riders. Face it, if it weren't for Mariners' Harbor, the X30 wouldn't have levels of service it does now. Yes it is more urban because it is far more urban in feel and you also have far more people walking about and hanging out on the street because things in some parts of the area are closer together. Less so in most of West Brighton. As for the ridership the X30 gets please. You don't know where those people drive from. That parking lot across the street is used there mainly because you can get on and get a seat at that stop and have a place to park the car. That doesn't mean those people all live in Mariners' Harbor because if they did they could simply walk to the bus stop. All of the cars I see driving out of the parking lot head in the opposite direction of Mariners' Harbor on Forest Avenue. Yes, you do. You've mentioned in the past how you'd want the S53 to be cut back to Forest Avenue, and the S48 to be cut back to Richmond Avenue. Hmmm, conveniently, the sections of the routes with a low percentage of White riders would lose their service, even though the buses are well-used in both areas. Hmm.... Last I checked Forest & Broadway has plenty of minorities there waiting for the bus, in fact far more minorities are there than whites. Same thing for Richmond Avenue, so there goes that theory... Correction. The minority neighborhoods kept their service. You've repeatedly said how areas like Canarsie have become more urban as the Black population increased. Does this look urban? In fact, it's more suburban than a lot of South Brooklyn neighborhoods. But quick, we better stop before Mr. Mini-Mod asks us to get back on topic. A place can be urban in feel and that doesn't mean all of it has to be considered urban. You really need to get out more because you are stuck on what a place looks like and how dense it is as to what determines whether it is urban or suburban, but that is not the case. There is also the vibe that the area has and parts of Canarsie do have an urban feel. Edited November 30, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.