Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[checkmatechamp13]

Whatever I say, it's clear that you won't stop. There are others here that have the same feelings about me as you do and I actually don't have a problem with them because they don't sit here and beat a dead horse. You've been going on with this for months now. Quite frankly if this continues I'm going to petition for you to be banned because it's really ridiculous already.

 

Numerous members in this very thread have asked you to stop and you continue anyway, so it's clear that you don't respect anyone here.

 

 

Two members isn't numerous members. And I can respect somebody without having them boss me around.

 

As for all this, well, it started off relevant to the thread. You started this crap about me having an agenda, so I called you out on yours. And you've repeatedly said "I want better service for the more suburban areas", so that on its own is an agenda. I just clarified that when you say "suburban", you mean White. That's all. When a suburban, minority area gets good service, you complain, and that's my issue. When the B103 needs additional service due to overcrowding, it's "pampering them". When the B46 runs frequently down Utica Avenue, you complain, even though it also serves some suburban areas on the southern portion. When the X12/30/42 all serve Mariners' Harbor, it's a travesty, and the X30 should be routed away from there even though a large chunk of its ridership comes from that area (and the area by Forest Avenue would definitely qualify as "suburban" if you're sitting here trying to say that West Brighton is suburban).

 

You can complain about a route like the X16 being eliminated without complaining that Mariners' Harbor has 3 express routes. You can complain about the lack of S98 service (in the past, since now they both run until 10PM) without complaining about S96 service running later (which keep in mind that the way they set it up was actually more expensive to run 2 S48s than an S48 & S98). There's nothing wrong with simply feeling that White areas get shortchanged, but don't sit there and complain about how minority areas are being overserved and pampered. You want to talk about Brooklyn? Don't sit there saying that the B46 shouldn't have improved overnight service when it's the busiest route in the city.

 

ignore him VG8

 

 

Nobody asked you.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

As for all this, well, it started off relevant to the thread. You started this crap about me having an agenda, so I called you out on yours. And you've repeatedly said "I want better service for the more suburban areas", so that on its own is an agenda. I just clarified that when you say "suburban", you mean White. That's all. When a suburban, minority area gets good service, you complain, and that's my issue. When the B103 needs additional service due to overcrowding, it's "pampering them". When the B46 runs frequently down Utica Avenue, you complain, even though it also serves some suburban areas on the southern portion. When the X12/30/42 all serve Mariners' Harbor, it's a travesty, and the X30 should be routed away from there even though a large chunk of its ridership comes from that area (and the area by Forest Avenue would definitely qualify as "suburban" if you're sitting here trying to say that West Brighton is suburban).

I complained about the B46 because of the high level of fare beating. I have no problem with them getting more service but I don't think any neighborhood should have their service pumped up if there's a rampant farebeating problem while other communities have their service cut over night. That was the premises for my complaint and my position stands with that one because there is no way of knowing how much of that service is bloated as in actual paying customers and how much of that service may not be needed if the fare was enforced.

 

As for this whole suburban meaning white nonsense, what it comes down to is I'm from Southern Brooklyn and I've felt the effects first hand of the poor service for years in Southern Brooklyn, well before the service cuts were put into place. When I talk about the B36, I talk about the entire line which doesn't just serve white neighborhoods. Naturally being from Sheepshead Bay I can relate the closest to the surrounding areas, but let's not sit here and make this a race issue. What I will say is that there is a double standard IMO with regards to cuts to certain areas and it's my opinion that suburban and suburban like areas are taken for granted by the . The consensus or the feeling is that they don't need their service as much as the urban areas because they have "alternatives" whether that be car service, driving or what have you and we can simply fork over more money to get around. My anger about the reduction of B36 service did not just apply to "certain areas" along the line because the entire line was affected.

 

In short the pain should be evenly distributed. If folks want more B46 service fine, but B31 customers that need their overnight service shouldn't be told that they can simply "take a cab".

 

That's what I'm talking about when I say double standard and that's why I take exception to that B103 comment. Whether he meant it or not, the statement had an air of screw the B100 and B2 riders because the B103 riders need their service more, so if that means combining the routes and passengers are screwed over in the process then so be it. Whatever it takes to provide B103 riders with the service they need. That's how that post came off IMO and if that isn't what he meant then he can clarify himself accordingly since it's his statement.

 

You can complain about a route like the X16 being eliminated without complaining that Mariners' Harbor has 3 express routes. You can complain about the lack of S98 service (in the past, since now they both run until 10PM) without complaining about S96 service running later (which keep in mind that the way they set it up was actually more expensive to run 2 S48s than an S48 & S98). There's nothing wrong with simply feeling that White areas get shortchanged, but don't sit there and complain about how minority areas are being overserved and pampered. You want to talk about Brooklyn? Don't sit there saying that the B46 shouldn't have improved overnight service when it's the busiest route in the city.

 

Surely I can, but at the same time the reason I bring up the other neighborhoods is because it's political and we want our fair share of service just like the other areas. X16 riders were told that they could just take the ferry even though that would mean 2 - 3 connections (and poor ones at that) and no sort of compromise was made to assist those riders with their commutes since the X14 clearly doesn't serve the needs of all X16 riders. Many were forced to spend more money in gas and drive to the X12 over in Castleton Corners, but that's okay though because we can spend more money for our transportation needs. And no, no one said it. It was implied by the when they refused to make any sort of concessions about X16 service.

 

Furthermore, when it comes to service, I've been the first one to say that such and such suburban neighborhood doesn't need more service so fair is fair.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

View BM5 Off Peak Routing in a larger map

Well, I thought of this last night, but what if the BM5 ran to the Junction running via the BM2 routing past spring Creek. This would be off peak only, and riders using the BM2 route south of 23 street use the BM4, which will be rerouted via Nostrand to the Junction during off peak hours to service the riders on the BM2 that utilize that section. The only reason I'm proposing this is because the BM5 ridership is so dismal during the off peak period, and the BM5 can take over and have greater ridership during the off peak periods. It wont be by much, but the BM4 and BM5 will be alternatives. The BM2 will be a rush hour in the peak direction only route. One segment of the BM2 (To/from 57 street) will be called the BM2, while the Downtown segment will be called the BM6, since they are no longer in relation to each other since they have different terminals

 

PM peak service to Manhattan will be restored on the BM5

 

Here's the schedule (Doesnt show rush hour trips, those trips will remain the same as they current are)

http://scaped.net/bus/BM5

 

Here's the map

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204750700533050976010.0004cffdf739a92eb92d3&msa=0

 

Currently on the bus schedule, weekday only service is implemented. Saturday Service will be added soon onto the schedule.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Q23 Central Terminal

[checkmatechamp13]

I complained about the B46 because of the high level of fare beating. I have no problem with them getting more service but I don't think any neighborhood should have their service pumped up if there's a rampant farebeating problem while other communities have their service cut over night. That was the premises for my complaint and my position stands with that one because there is no way of knowing how much of that service is bloated as in actual paying customers and how much of that service may not be needed if the fare was enforced.

 

So overnight riders should have to suffer because of farebeating that goes on during the day?

 

And at 60 minute headways, there isn't too much "bloated" service.

 

As for this whole suburban meaning white nonsense, what it comes down to is I'm from Southern Brooklyn and I've felt the effects first hand of the poor service for years in Southern Brooklyn, well before the service cuts were put into place. When I talk about the B36, I talk about the entire line which doesn't just serve white neighborhoods. Naturally being from Sheepshead Bay I can relate the closest to the surrounding areas, but let's not sit here and make this a race issue. What I will say is that there is a double standard IMO with regards to cuts to certain areas and it's my opinion that suburban and suburban like areas are taken for granted by the . The consensus or the feeling is that they don't need their service as much as the urban areas because they have "alternatives" whether that be car service, driving or what have you and we can simply fork over more money to get around. My anger about the reduction of B36 service did not just apply to "certain areas" along the line because the entire line was affected.

 

In short the pain should be evenly distributed. If folks want more B46 service fine, but B31 customers that need their overnight service shouldn't be told that they can simply "take a cab".

 

That's what I'm talking about when I say double standard and that's why I take exception to that B103 comment. Whether he meant it or not, the statement had an air of screw the B100 and B2 riders because the B103 riders need their service more, so if that means combining the routes and passengers are screwed over in the process then so be it. Whatever it takes to provide B103 riders with the service they need. That's how that post came off IMO and if that isn't what he meant then he can clarify himself accordingly since it's his statement.

 

 

Yes, suburban does mean white to you, and I've already proved it above with the comments about the different SI areas. Aside from that, you've mentioned how the B6 gets more Black riders east of Flatbush, because the areas are "more urban", even though the walkability, density, availability of 24/7 stores, and whatever other criteria you use to determine the "urbanity" of the area is the same as the areas to the west. So no, that's not "nonsense"

 

As for the B31 comment, the line simply didn't have the ridership for overnight service. (And believe me, when I first heard about the B31 cut, I said "The overnight service has enough riders to justify it", until a few people said that those riders were all on Avenue R and not going to Gerritsen Beach). There are other areas that are like that. For instance, the western end of the S42 never had any overnight service, and it's up a steep hill (and the nearest overnight buses are on Castleton Avenue & Richmond Terrace, which are over 1/2 mile away down a pretty steep hill). It sucks for those people, but what can you do? There just aren't enough of them overnight to justify having an overnight route over there. There are some other hilly areas without overnight service, and it's basically the same situation.

 

Now, I agree that people shouldn't just say "Take a cab", but at the same time, some areas just can't get overnight service if there's no ridership to support it. Using the resources on the B46 would benefit way more people than using them on the overnight B31.

 

As for the B103 comment, he would run the same level of service on the route, and in fact, west of Flatbush Avenue, service would be increased in Marine Park (re-read the proposal). So no, it's not "Screw the B2/B100 riders". It's "Here's a way to save money on the B2/B100 that would benefit both the riders on that route, as well as B103 riders." He said it himself:

 

Savings would be in significantly reduced deadhead mileage and the ability to free up buses for the B103 which needs additional rush hour and midday service. There would also be heavy interlining between the B2 and B31 to maintain the headways. I also anticipate new ridership, especially from Mill Basin, with the addition of a one-seat ride to Kings Plaza, and Bergen Beach would not be overserved.

 

The savings would be from reducing deadhead milage, not from reducing the levels of service. Aside from that, he feels that it would attract riders from Mill Basin, which means that it would benefit riders over there. Whether it would work out in real life is debatable, but the thought process definitely wasn't "Screw the B2/B100 riders so the B103 can get more service".

 

Surely I can, but at the same time the reason I bring up the other neighborhoods is because it's political and we want our fair share of service just like the other areas. X16 riders were told that they could just take the ferry even though that would mean 2 - 3 connections (and poor ones at that) and no sort of compromise was made to assist those riders with their commutes since the X14 clearly doesn't serve the needs of all X16 riders. Many were forced to spend more money in gas and drive to the X12 over in Castleton Corners, but that's okay though because we can spend more money for our transportation needs. And no, no one said it. It was implied by the when they refused to make any sort of concessions about X16 service.

 

Furthermore, when it comes to service, I've been the first one to say that such and such suburban neighborhood doesn't need more service so fair is fair.

 

 

I love the way you brag about how "Oh, those areas are politically powerful", and then say "Oh, they cut the service because it was political".

 

In any case, there's a difference between simply bringing up other areas, and actually saying "Service should be cut from them". You've specifically mentioned having the X30 bypass the areas west of the MLK, even though that's where the majority of the ridership comes from, and you've also mentioned cutting the S48 back to Richmond Avenue.

 

Well, I thought of this last night, but what if the BM5 ran to the Junction running via the BM2 routing past spring Creek. This would be off peak only, and riders using the BM2 route south of 23 street use the BM4, which will be rerouted via Nostrand to the Junction during off peak hours to service the riders on the BM2 that utilize that section. The only reason I'm proposing this is because the BM5 ridership is so dismal during the off peak period, and the BM5 can take over and have greater ridership during the off peak periods. It wont be by much, but the BM4 and BM5 will be alternatives. The BM2 will be a rush hour in the peak direction only route. One segment of the BM2 (To/from 57 street) will be called the BM2, while the Downtown segment will be called the BM6, since they are no longer in relation to each other since they have different terminals

 

PM peak service to Manhattan will be restored on the BM5

 

 

You'd be better off just extending the BM2 to Starrett City.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

LONG POST

 

 

You'd be better off just extending the BM2 to Starrett City.

 

 

The thing is that if the BM2 is gone during off peak hours (it's more feasible to it it on Saturdays since they have a 5 minute gap from each other), the BM5 will have more ridership and can take the role of two developing routes. You cut the 5, pretty sure me and 87 other saturday customers would be pissed off to go via the long way (I live at a BM5 stop) . Canarsie wouldnt expierence any more duration of travel then it currently does now. The BM2 riders livng on the very end of the route would expierence less run time with the BM5.

[B35 via Church]

Aside from implicitly mentioning deadhead mileage, the guy proposed a "B101" running in mill basin & georgetown towards downtown via the junction.... So I didn't construe it as him having an ulterior motive to f*** over B2/B100 riders to amp up service on the B103 at all.... What I didn't understand about that part of his plan/post in question is, how he can claim savings in general when - He's proposing a new "B101"..... There's a couple other things I wanted to comment about his plan that I never did....

 

 

Well, I thought of this last night, but what if the BM5 ran to the Junction running via the BM2 routing past spring Creek. This would be off peak only, and riders using the BM2 route south of 23 street use the BM4, which will be rerouted via Nostrand to the Junction during off peak hours to service the riders on the BM2 that utilize that section. The only reason I'm proposing this is because the BM5 ridership is so dismal during the off peak period, and the BM5 can take over and have greater ridership during the off peak periods.

 

It wont be by much, but the BM4 and BM5 will be alternatives. The BM2 will be a rush hour in the peak direction only route. One segment of the BM2 (To/from 57 street) will be called the BM2, while the Downtown segment will be called the BM6, since they are no longer in relation to each other since they have different terminals

 

PM peak service to Manhattan will be restored on the BM5

 

Here's the schedule (Doesnt show rush hour trips, those trips will remain the same as they current are)

http://scaped.net/bus/BM5

 

Here's the map

https://maps.google....a92eb92d3&msa=0

 

Currently on the bus schedule, weekday only service is implemented. Saturday Service will be added soon onto the schedule.

 

There is zero need for rerouting BM4's along flatbush to the junction, to have it run along nostrand, towards gerritsen..... BM4 usage is just as low as BM5 usage during off peak times, so you're not being fair with this.... Then the bastardizing of the BM2 to a peak dir. only route for the sake of boosting usage on the BM5 all other times - Yeah, nice way to pay paul by robbing a couple peter's..... Telling me to take a rerouted BM4 to the junction doesn't do a damn thing if I'm trying to get to Utica/H - and I'm not taking no long drawn out routing through Queens (and a trek to midtown manhattan from lwr. manhattan) to get to utica from lower manhattan either.... and neither will anyone else that utilizes the current BM2 b/w the routing east of the junction itself & canarsie....

 

The junction is NOT a dividing line of ridership/usage on the BM2... I don't know why people continue to think this....

 

Why not have the BM5 itself relegated to a peak dir. only route?

Because you live near a BM5 stop... Man, miss me with this whole get up.....

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm rereading his plan, and when I saw the B101, that discussion we had a while back about bus service on East 56th Street came to mind,where we agreed that one local route in Mill Basin was enough. If the BM1 were to receive a local supplement, I definitely don't think it should run into Mill Basin. I'd probably cut it back to Ralph Avenue in Georgetown (or if there's a lot of new development over there, maybe send it further south within Georgetown). But I wouldn't send it to Mill Basin (or Bergen Beach for that matter), because I doubt those people are really looking for service to The Junction. The best way to give the service back (if it's needed) would be to restore the B3 down there.

 

I don't think there would be tons of demand, though, and so the route would probably have to run fairly infrequently (maybe every 12 minutes during rush hour and 20 minutes off-peak). So I think you'd be better leaving it at Flatbush Junction (instead of going to Downtown Brooklyn) so it doesn't get delayed.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So overnight riders should have to suffer because of farebeating that goes on during the day?

 

And at 60 minute headways, there isn't too much "bloated" service.

Who knows? Maybe that's why they get the service that they do at night, though last time I checked fare beaters weren't checking to see what time of day or night it was to fare beat. I recall a B/O talking about the amount of fare beaters on one line and how that line had several runs cut which could be attributed to the high level of fare beating. I also recall a B/O talking about there being a lot of fare beaters on the B46 at night. The paying public shouldn't be the ones to suffer, but at the same time those freeloading off the service should not have more service while some communities have NONE at night, so while 60 minute headways may not seem like bloated service it beats having nothing at all and paying for a cab.

 

 

Yes, suburban does mean white to you, and I've already proved it above with the comments about the different SI areas. Aside from that, you've mentioned how the B6 gets more Black riders east of Flatbush, because the areas are "more urban", even though the walkability, density, availability of 24/7 stores, and whatever other criteria you use to determine the "urbanity" of the area is the same as the areas to the west. So no, that's not "nonsense".

Let's just agree to disagree. I do NOT want to keep discussing SI over and over and urban vs suburban when it is clear that we have a completely different understanding of the terms.

 

As for the B31 comment, the line simply didn't have the ridership for overnight service. (And believe me, when I first heard about the B31 cut, I said "The overnight service has enough riders to justify it", until a few people said that those riders were all on Avenue R and not going to Gerritsen Beach). There are other areas that are like that. For instance, the western end of the S42 never had any overnight service, and it's up a steep hill (and the nearest overnight buses are on Castleton Avenue & Richmond Terrace, which are over 1/2 mile away down a pretty steep hill). It sucks for those people, but what can you do? There just aren't enough of them overnight to justify having an overnight route over there. There are some other hilly areas without overnight service, and it's basically the same situation.

We should stick a bunch fare beaters on the line and then that would justify the service since it seems as if those lines keep their overnight service. Before you go running with that, that was a sarcastic remark.

 

Now, I agree that people shouldn't just say "Take a cab", but at the same time, some areas just can't get overnight service if there's no ridership to support it. Using the resources on the B46 would benefit way more people than using them on the overnight B31.

Well yeah, just a question of how many actually pay for the service...

 

I love the way you brag about how "Oh, those areas are politically powerful", and then say "Oh, they cut the service because it was political".

I was talking about two different areas... One on Staten Island and one in Brooklyn... Sometimes I think you seriously pretend that you can't follow along just to create more debates. It's quite annoying to say the least.

 

In any case, there's a difference between simply bringing up other areas, and actually saying "Service should be cut from them". You've specifically mentioned having the X30 bypass the areas west of the MLK, even though that's where the majority of the ridership comes from, and you've also mentioned cutting the S48 back to Richmond Avenue.

Yeah and I also mentioned that most of the folks getting on there drive there and park, so they can simply drive over to Decker and park. That would make the X30 quicker and more reliable since it can suffer from bunching. Folks would still have access to the X12 and X42 and the X17J.

 

Same thing goes with the S48. It would make it more reliable and quicker. Folks would still have the S46 and S40.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

Who knows? Maybe that's why they get the service that they do at night, though last time I checked fare beaters weren't checking to see what time of day or night it was to fare beat. I recall a B/O talking about the amount of fare beaters on one line and how that line had several runs cut which could be attributed to the high level of fare beating. I also recall a B/O talking about there being a lot of fare beaters on the B46 at night. The paying public shouldn't be the ones to suffer, but at the same time those freeloading off the service should not have more service while some communities have NONE at night, so while 60 minute headways may not seem like bloated service it beats having nothing at all and paying for a cab.

 

 

The one where the runs was cut was in The Bronx, not Brooklyn.

 

In any case, many specifically said that the overnight runs don't have a farebeating problem. I don't recall whether a B46 operator was involved in the conversation (probably Acela Express), and yet you continued to harp on it. It was only after a bunch of people explained to you that the overnight runs didn't have a farebeating problem that you finally laid off.

 

Well yeah, just a question of how many actually pay for the service...

 

 

Which is all of them.

 

I was talking about two different areas... One on Staten Island and one in Brooklyn... Sometimes I think you seriously pretend that you can't follow along just to create more debates. It's quite annoying to say the least.

 

 

You're one to talk, Mr. Purposely-Misinterprets-People's Proposals (and I'm not just talking about mine either). I'd lay it out in the simplest terms I know how, and you'd still misinterpret it. Either you're purposely starting to argue with me for no reason, or you're just plain stupid.

 

Yeah and I also mentioned that most of the folks getting on there drive there and park, so they can simply drive over to Decker and park. That would make the X30 quicker and more reliable since it can suffer from bunching. Folks would still have access to the X12 and X42 and the X17J.

 

Same thing goes with the S48. It would make it more reliable and quicker. Folks would still have the S46 and S40.

 

 

If it were so easy to drive over to Decker and park over there, people would already be doing it, now wouldn't they? Parking is generally easier to find on the western end of Forest Avenue. The only big parking lot east of the MLK is the one by Pathmark, whereas you have the ShopRite, Western Beef, and Kohl's ones west of the MLK. Not to mention the fact that you have walk-up riders in that area as well. And yeah, bunching would be reduced (not by a whole lot, though, since you're traveling opposite the direction of rush hour traffic on Forest), but you'd end up with reduced headways east of the MLK, because of lower ridership, so everybody would be screwed.

 

Not to mention that the X42 doesn't run as long as the X30 (the last bus is around 7:30 in the morning, compared to after 8:30 for the X30). And for the X17, it already has a lot of riders from the South Shore, especially at the height of rush hour. Why not provide an alternative for those people? Especially when there's the ridership to support it?

 

And the S48 argument is just so much BS I don't even know where to begin. The S40 & S46 only help if you're by South Avenue. If you're at Western Beef with the shopping bags, tell me what route you're supposed to take? Consider that Richmond Avenue is 1/2 mile east (up a slope to boot), and South Avenue is 1/2 mile the other way. If you're in Arlington, what route connects you to shopping? The S40 is great for reaching St. George, but the reason it's so fast is because there's no shopping or anything like that on Richmond Terrace (Other than a few random delis). Plus, you'd lose the connection to Forest & Richmond (for all the riders west of Richmond) where you have the option of all the routes versus just the S59 (which also takes longer because you're going east and then back west)

 

If reliability is such an issue, add some more short-turns, but don't start BSing me (like you did before, in that whole "urban" argument) and acting like there's alternative, when that's a bold-faced lie.

[B35 via Church]

Who knows? Maybe that's why they get the service that they do at night, though last time I checked fare beaters weren't checking to see what time of day or night it was to fare beat. I recall a B/O talking about the amount of fare beaters on one line and how that line had several runs cut which could be attributed to the high level of fare beating. I also recall a B/O talking about there being a lot of fare beaters on the B46 at night. The paying public shouldn't be the ones to suffer, but at the same time those freeloading off the service should not have more service while some communities have NONE at night, so while 60 minute headways may not seem like bloated service it beats having nothing at all and paying for a cab.

 

Doesn't make sense that an agency would cut service (especially late night service) because riders are farebeating; regardless of what route it's on..... Yeah, I made that same point about farebeaters not being time conscious also, but the fact of the matter is, is that you're really not deterring or somehow punishing farebeaters by cutting service..... You would be punishing the paying public - the same ones you are saying shouldn't be the ones to suffer......

 

 

But I wouldn't send it to Mill Basin (or Bergen Beach for that matter), because I doubt those people are really looking for service to The Junction. The best way to give the service back (if it's needed) would be to restore the B3 down there.

 

His 101 route he has going through Georgetown (I know he said bergen beach, but that area north of veterans is really georgetown) & Mill Basin; one of his B2 splits he has going down to bergen beach.... But yeah, I'm not seeing what would make more riders down in bergen beach flock to his B2 bergen beach split over the old B3 when the brighton would still be served for commuters in either case... The commercial areas around kings hwy on the brighton perhaps? Still though.... Because the B3 south of av U was very weak; so much to to the point where bergen beach buses would stop dead (meaning, they would layover) where the B3 officially ends now, and for the return trip, run down to bergen beach & come back up to continue on westward to bensonhurst.....

[qjtransitmaster]

 

View BM5 Off Peak Routing in a larger map

Well, I thought of this last night, but what if the BM5 ran to the Junction running via the BM2 routing past spring Creek. This would be off peak only, and riders using the BM2 route south of 23 street use the BM4, which will be rerouted via Nostrand to the Junction during off peak hours to service the riders on the BM2 that utilize that section. The only reason I'm proposing this is because the BM5 ridership is so dismal during the off peak period, and the BM5 can take over and have greater ridership during the off peak periods. It wont be by much, but the BM4 and BM5 will be alternatives. The BM2 will be a rush hour in the peak direction only route. One segment of the BM2 (To/from 57 street) will be called the BM2, while the Downtown segment will be called the BM6, since they are no longer in relation to each other since they have different terminals

 

PM peak service to Manhattan will be restored on the BM5

 

Here's the schedule (Doesnt show rush hour trips, those trips will remain the same as they current are)

http://scaped.net/bus/BM5

 

Here's the map

https://maps.google....b92d3&msa=0

 

Currently on the bus schedule, weekday only service is implemented. Saturday Service will be added soon onto the schedule.

 

err sorry but BM5 is like bm4 weak. I doubt this is enough look at queens. WHAT? THE? I would actually like to UNSEE that extension. You can't be serious right? CMON MAN

Aside from implicitly mentioning deadhead mileage, the guy proposed a "B101" running in mill basin & georgetown towards downtown via the junction.... So I didn't construe it as him having an ulterior motive to f*** over B2/B100 riders to amp up service on the B103 at all.... What I didn't understand about that part of his plan/post in question is, how he can claim savings in general when - He's proposing a new "B101"..... There's a couple other things I wanted to comment about his plan that I never did....

 

 

 

 

There is zero need for rerouting BM4's along flatbush to the junction, to have it run along nostrand, towards gerritsen..... BM4 usage is just as low as BM5 usage during off peak times, so you're not being fair with this.... Then the bastardizing of the BM2 to a peak dir. only route for the sake of boosting usage on the BM5 all other times - Yeah, nice way to pay paul by robbing a couple peter's..... Telling me to take a rerouted BM4 to the junction doesn't do a damn thing if I'm trying to get to Utica/H - and I'm not taking no long drawn out routing through Queens (and a trek to midtown manhattan from lwr. manhattan) to get to utica from lower manhattan either.... and neither will anyone else that utilizes the current BM2 b/w the routing east of the junction itself & canarsie....

 

The junction is NOT a dividing line of ridership/usage on the BM2... I don't know why people continue to think this....

 

Why not have the BM5 itself relegated to a peak dir. only route?

Because you live near a BM5 stop... Man, miss me with this whole get up.....

 

err you do realize UNLIKE BM5 BM2 has alternatives like B103 & BM1 so there goes your argument BM5 is a special case and unlike the 4 if modded correctly it can gain its routing is unique. I do know how pitiful its ridership is. Edited December 6, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[B35 via Church]

err sorry but BM5 is like bm4 weak. I doubt this is enough look at queens.

 

err you do realize UNLIKE BM5 BM2 has alternatives like B103 & BM1 so there goes your argument BM5 is a special case and unlike the 4 if modded correctly it can gain its routing is unique. I do know how pitiful its ridership is.

 

Are you really this retarded....

 

- "err sorry but BM5 is like bm4 weak."

"err", Never doubted this.... I sat up there & said BM4 usage is just as low as BM5 usage during off peak times.... Learn how to read.

 

 

- "err you do realize UNLIKE BM5 BM2 has alternatives like B103 & BM1 so there goes your argument"

"err", I can't take the 103 directly from lower manhattan....

 

"err", for the canarsie folks, the BM1 is useless....

 

"err", using the BM1 as an alternative to get to Utica doesn't invalidate my counterargument to his idea of cutting off peak BM2's to extend BM5's to the junction & rerouting BM4's along flatbush & down nostrand in its place.... Are you kidding me... He's forcing off peak lower manhattan BM2 riders that need areas along the current BM2 east of the junction to endure a longer commute.... You must be just as crazy if you think current BM2 lwr. manhattan off peak riders will ride up to midtown to catch a BM5 to get to areas east of the junction....

 

So what are you REALLY sayin......

 

 

"BM5 is a special case and unlike the 4 if modded correctly it can gain its routing is unique. I do know how pitiful its ridership is."

"err", The BM5 being a so-called special case & having a unique routing has nothing to do with anything..... Silly argument.

It's not justification to go around prolonging express bus riders of other routes' commutes & commuting times.....

 

Yeah, I know how BM5 ridership is also; it's not some big revelation to come to the realization of it, if you see & take it enough....

You can attempt to try to boost ridership on the BM5 without f***ing over BM2 and BM4 riders - Which is exactly what Q23's plan does.

[Threxx]

Do we really need two of these in the same thread? Jesus Christ...

 

And there's no need to change the BM buses. In any way, shape, or form. They are fine.

[Grand Concourse]

Two of what? And it's a bus ideas thread. The only thing you can do is refute the ideas if it doesn't work. So what does it matter?

[B35 via Church]

Two of what? And it's a bus ideas thread. The only thing you can do is refute the ideas if it doesn't work. So what does it matter?

 

Yeah, I don't know what the hell he's talkin about with that either....

[qjtransitmaster]

Are you really this retarded....

 

- "err sorry but BM5 is like bm4 weak."

"err", Never doubted this.... I sat up there & said BM4 usage is just as low as BM5 usage during off peak times.... Learn how to read.

 

 

- "err you do realize UNLIKE BM5 BM2 has alternatives like B103 & BM1 so there goes your argument"

"err", I can't take the 103 directly from lower manhattan....

 

"err", for the canarsie folks, the BM1 is useless....

 

"err", using the BM1 as an alternative to get to Utica doesn't invalidate my counterargument to his idea of cutting off peak BM2's to extend BM5's to the junction & rerouting BM4's along flatbush & down nostrand in its place.... Are you kidding me... He's forcing off peak lower manhattan BM2 riders that need areas along the current BM2 east of the junction to endure a longer commute.... You must be just as crazy if you think current BM2 lwr. manhattan off peak riders will ride up to midtown to catch a BM5 to get to areas east of the junction.. I think you mistook his intentions I will check his map.

 

So what are you REALLY sayin......

 

 

"BM5 is a special case and unlike the 4 if modded correctly it can gain its routing is unique. I do know how pitiful its ridership is."

"err", The BM5 being a so-called special case & having a unique routing has nothing to do with anything..... Silly argument.

It's not justification to go around prolonging express bus riders of other routes' commutes & commuting times.... I doubt BM2 riders from lower manhattan will switch to BM5 I think mostly Midtown folks will use BM5 and go to canarsie area. But those to jct will either use the subway or BM1 to B103 if BM1 is powered up then the reduction is off-set. I understand your stance well though. My BM5 plan however won't do that but you have a point.

 

Yeah, I know how BM5 ridership is also; it's not some big revelation to come to the realization of it, if you see & take it enough....

You can attempt to try to boost ridership on the BM5 without f***ing over BM2 and BM4 riders - Which is exactly what Q23's plan does.

 

WOAH jct BM5 ok I agree that is just dumb!!!! I do not agree with him completely but that first post was targeted at Q23 NOT YOU B35! BM2 ridership is also dismal at offpeak So negative. I am not that dumb I don't think he intends lower manhattan BM2 folks to go to BM5 I think he intends for em to use BM1 to kensington for the B103 to get to the jct.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

View BM5 Off Peak Routing in a larger map

Well, I thought of this last night, but what if the BM5 ran to the Junction running via the BM2 routing past spring Creek. This would be off peak only, and riders using the BM2 route south of 23 street use the BM4, which will be rerouted via Nostrand to the Junction during off peak hours to service the riders on the BM2 that utilize that section. The only reason I'm proposing this is because the BM5 ridership is so dismal during the off peak period, and the BM5 can take over and have greater ridership during the off peak periods. It wont be by much, but the BM4 and BM5 will be alternatives. The BM2 will be a rush hour in the peak direction only route. One segment of the BM2 (To/from 57 street) will be called the BM2, while the Downtown segment will be called the BM6, since they are no longer in relation to each other since they have different terminals

 

PM peak service to Manhattan will be restored on the BM5

 

Here's the schedule (Doesnt show rush hour trips, those trips will remain the same as they current are)

http://scaped.net/bus/BM5

 

Here's the map

https://maps.google....a92eb92d3&msa=0

 

Currently on the bus schedule, weekday only service is implemented. Saturday Service will be added soon onto the schedule.

 

Next time I will look at the map I made a mistake not looking at your plan fully now I am like DAFAQ? Sorry but your not gonna get ANY BM2 riders IF there are any that is as few of em as they are on off-peak to use this line period. Just send BM5 to canarsie pier and let folk transfer to B42 OR skip starrett city and use the DH path BM2 uses and end at flatlands and E 105th. That's it.

Do we really need two of these in the same thread? Jesus Christ...

 

And there's no need to change the BM buses. In any way, shape, or form. They are fine.

 

In THAT SHAPE YEAH UR RIGHT. Otherwise nope. But BM1 is good but should have concentrated ridership. BM2 is really not needed off-peak. BM4 same case. But routing of 2 and 4 is good. BM3 rush is ok. But I doubt it is needed at off-peak. Better off adding sat service to X28. X28 hmm I heard from a friend talking about X28 to sheepshead bay off-peak and saturday via bay parkway to belt parkway retaining northern stops beyond bay parkway then non-stop to emmonds and BM3 stops in reverse to ave x @batchelder I think on saturdays it should head straight to midtown but ohh well. Let MTA keep up what it was doing so far. Then we shall see.

[checkmatechamp13]

NovaCSW8030 made a post in the Bus-Random Thoughts thread where he found out about the routing the MTA intends for the new Williamsburg waterfront to take.

 

Here's the Subchat post where it gives the routing.

 

In any case, I think the plan I mentioned with the B24 would be better. (Woodside or Sunnyside to Williamsburg via Greenpoint Avenue & Franklin/Kent/Wythe) But I guess since they intend to provide a second route connecting Williamsburg to LIC, maybe it could be combined with the Q103.

[B35 via Church]

WOAH jct BM5 ok I agree that is just dumb!!!! I do not agree with him completely but that first post was targeted at Q23 NOT YOU B35! BM2 ridership is also dismal at offpeak So negative. I am not that dumb I don't think he intends lower manhattan BM2 folks to go to BM5 I think he intends for em to use BM1 to kensington for the B103 to get to the jct.

I doubt BM2 riders from lower manhattan will switch to BM5 I think mostly Midtown folks will use BM5 and go to canarsie area. But those to jct will either use the subway or BM1 to B103 if BM1 is powered up then the reduction is off-set. I understand your stance well though. My BM5 plan however won't do that but you have a point.

 

Ok, but you quoted ME though.... What else was I supposed to think.... lol....

 

Anyway, yeah, off peak during the day they're weak.... but off peak after the PM rush, those BM's are not weak.... I'm on a BM1 or BM2 five-days-a-week around 8-9 pm (depending on how late I get out) now, so I know firsthand....

 

Even if that's what he was thinking, those that faithfully take the BM2 to Canarsie will not resort to taking BM1's to get to B103's.... Nor should they have to.

 

 

NovaCSW8030 made a post in the Bus-Random Thoughts thread where he found out about the routing the MTA intends for the new Williamsburg waterfront to take.

 

Here's the Subchat post where it gives the routing.

 

Well, the immediate benefit is that it bypasses the (increasingly) traffic ridden jackson av (ever since they added that divider in the middle of the road, it seems like more traffic is pouring into/along it) the 62 has to deal with....

 

Looking at that graphic..... If that's the case, they may as well run it up to QBP w/ the 62.....

Don't see the point in stopping it dead @ the side/alternate entrance of court sq.....

 

IMO, FWIW, From QBP, all it would have to do is go Jackson > 44th drive (court sq. station) > 11th st > straight into brooklyn to serve kent/wythe, en route to WBP... This way you can make the route even more conducive for a higher %-tage of riders that currently take the 62 to/from Queens......

 

All that said, they may as well remove the B62 from serving WBP....

Edited December 6, 2012 by B35 via Church

[qjtransitmaster]

Ok, but you quoted ME though.... What else was I supposed to think.... lol....

 

Anyway, yeah, off peak during the day they're weak.... but off peak after the PM rush, those BM's are not weak.... I'm on a BM1 or BM2 five-days-a-week around 8-9 pm (depending on how late I get out) now, so I know firsthand....

 

Even if that's what he was thinking, those that faithfully take the BM2 to Canarsie will not resort to taking BM1's to get to B103's.... Nor should they have to.

 

 

 

 

Well, the immediate benefit is that it bypasses the (increasingly) traffic ridden jackson av (ever since they added that divider in the middle of the road, it seems like more traffic is pouring into/along it) the 62 has to deal with....

 

Looking at that graphic..... If that's the case, they may as well run it up to QBP w/ the 62.....

Don't see the point in stopping it dead @ the side/alternate entrance of court sq.....

 

IMO, FWIW, From QBP, all it would have to do is go Jackson > 44th drive (court sq. station) > 11th st > straight into brooklyn to serve kent/wythe, en route to WBP... This way you can make the route even more conducive for a higher %-tage of riders that currently take the 62 to/from Queens......

 

All that said, they may as well remove the B62 from serving WBP....

 

I know that I did quote Q23 when I said it look carefully BUT yes BMs are strong at AM and PM rush and weekday nights outbound. I thought his proposal was to remove BM2's midday service and have last manhattan bound bus a little after rush hr and then let PM departures after 3 PM all remain. My proposal for BMs although it removes off-peak service from all BMs but the BM1 and 5 it DOES NOT touch PM night departures from manhattan. Meaning BM2,3&4 lose midday and saturday service BUT BM1 gets boosted service to every 20 mins or 23 mins off-peak then middays PM from manhattan after 3PM won't change but service to manhattan will get a boost. BM2,3 &4 will retain all PM departures from manhattan after 2 or 3 PM but ones before 2 are gone. DHs are turned into BM5 More on that later. BM1 gets most of its service restored. Times BMs are strong will retain service but during weak periods only the ones with unique routings will remain.

[Threxx]

In THAT SHAPE YEAH UR RIGHT. Otherwise nope. But BM1 is good but should have concentrated ridership. BM2 is really not needed off-peak. BM4 same case. But routing of 2 and 4 is good. BM3 rush is ok. But I doubt it is needed at off-peak. Better off adding sat service to X28. X28 hmm I heard from a friend talking about X28 to sheepshead bay off-peak and saturday via bay parkway to belt parkway retaining northern stops beyond bay parkway then non-stop to emmonds and BM3 stops in reverse to ave x @batchelder I think on saturdays it should head straight to midtown but ohh well. Let MTA keep up what it was doing so far. Then we shall see.

 

 

They are all needed off peak until ridership drops to show otherwise...

[checkmatechamp13]

They are all needed off peak until ridership drops to show otherwise...

 

 

Except that the BM4 & BM5 already have weak ridership.....

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

Except that the BM4 & BM5 already have weak ridership.....

 

BM2 AS WELL shows otherwise it is also weak off-peak. BM3 very weak but not BM4 weak.

[Threxx]

BM2 AS WELL shows otherwise it is also weak off-peak. BM3 very weak but not BM4 weak.

 

 

The BM2 has good off-peak usage. So does the BM5. Some trips may have to be cut but cutting the off-peak service all together. The BM3 isn't weak at all. I can't speak for the BM4 though...

[B35 via Church]

I know that I did quote Q23 when I said it look carefully

 

BUT yes BMs are strong at AM and PM rush and weekday nights outbound. I thought his proposal was to remove BM2's midday service and have last manhattan bound bus a little after rush hr and then let PM departures after 3 PM all remain. My proposal for BMs although it removes off-peak service from all BMs but the BM1 and 5 it DOES NOT touch PM night departures from manhattan. Meaning BM2,3&4 lose midday and saturday service BUT BM1 gets boosted service to every 20 mins or 23 mins off-peak then middays PM from manhattan after 3PM won't change but service to manhattan will get a boost. BM2,3 &4 will retain all PM departures from manhattan after 2 or 3 PM but ones before 2 are gone. DHs are turned into BM5 More on that later. BM1 gets most of its service restored. Times BMs are strong will retain service but during weak periods only the ones with unique routings will remain.

 

Dude, you quoted the both of us, point blank period.... You directing a part of your post at the wrong person is not my fault, nor my problem.... Pay more attention to what the hell you're doing next time instead of telling me to look carefully - especially after you decide to later edit that same post....

 

Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me about what you would do w/ the BM's & emphasizing what it would NOT do.... I have no interest in your specific BM plans...

 

 

Except that the BM4 & BM5 already have weak ridership.....

...which he, himself has already admitted.

 

 

BM2 is really not needed off-peak. BM4 same case.

My proposal for BMs although it removes off-peak service from all BMs but the BM1 and 5 it DOES NOT touch PM night departures from manhattan.

BM2 AS WELL shows otherwise it is also weak off-peak. BM3 very weak but not BM4 weak.

 

"err", PM night departures from manhattan is still considered off peak....

 

The time period you are referring is during the mid-day.....

What I will say though is, it's aint just you that doesn't distinguish midday service from all off peak service.....