Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
BrooklynBus

System Redundancy is a Good Thing and More

Recommended Posts

Sadly your B49 example is a poor one because the (MTA) has steadily been slashing service on that line to the point to the where the B49 runs absolutely terribly. I'd say service is almost on par with the B4 and the B49 has more passengers.  I used the B4 over the weekend to Bay Ridge and I was very impressed with the promptness of the buses.  Ever since Jackie Gleason got that line, it's run much better as opposed to when Ulmer Park had it.  I wonder if having another depot take over the B49 would help things because reliability has really hurt that line and with the (Q) being knocked out so much it really forces people that can drive to just use their car or call car service.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly your B49 example is a poor one because the (MTA) has steadily been slashing service on that line to the point to the where the B49 runs absolutely terribly. I'd say service is almost on par with the B4 and the B49 has more passengers. I used the B4 over the weekend to Bay Ridge and I was very impressed with the promptness of the buses. Ever since Jackie Gleason got that line, it's run much better as opposed to when Ulmer Park had it. I wonder if having another depot take over the B49 would help things because reliability has really hurt that line and with the (Q) being knocked out so much it really forces people that can drive to just use their car or call car service.

Not true. The problem with the B49 is not scheduled service but reliability which is awful after 2PM on weekdays. It's been that way for 20 years. There are some longstanding problems that are not addressed. One of them is that drivers are relieved at Avenue U so when the B3 is delayed for 10 minutes, the B49 must sit there with its passengers waiting for the B3 to arrive. Yes service has been cut from 8 to 10 minutes to 10 to 12 minutes, but that is nowhere as bad as the B4 which is scheduled for either 15 or 20 minute headways. The sad part is that because of the B49s unreliability, a 12 minute headway at 5 PM usually means a 30 minute wait, so it seems to have even less service than the B4 at times.

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. The problem with the B49 is not scheduled service but reliability which is awful after 2PM on weekdays. It's been that way for 20 years. There are some longstanding problems that are not addressed. One of them is that drivers are relieved at Avenue U so when the B3 is delayed for 10 minutes, the B49 must sit there with its passengers waiting for the B3 to arrive. Yes service has been cut from 8 to 10 minutes to 10 to 12 minutes, but that is nowhere as bad as the B4 which is scheduled for either 15 or 20 minute headways. The sad part is that because of the B49s unreliability, a 12 minute headway at 5 PM usually means a 30 minute wait, so it seems to have even less service than the B4 at times.

That's exactly my point... My B4 was right on time and got me to Bay Ridge under the time shown on the schedule.  That was almost impossible under Ulmer Park.  The schedule was just a suggestion and you'd wait for the bus and just hoped that you were lucky enough to get one bus to show up, let alone on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point... My B4 was right on time and got me to Bay Ridge under the time shown on the schedule.  That was almost impossible under Ulmer Park.  The schedule was just a suggestion and you'd wait for the bus and just hoped that you were lucky enough to get one bus to show up, let alone on time.

I just picked up the B49 after only waiting a few minutes. Guess I was lucky this time. Bedford Avenue traffic between Empire and Church is also pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redundancy à la the Grand Concourse and Jerome Avenue lines is real redundancy. Crappy bus service following a subway route isn't, especially when it makes 4 more stops for every 1 subway stop.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redundancy à la the Grand Concourse and Jerome Avenue lines is real redundancy. Crappy bus service following a subway route isn't, especially when it makes 4 more stops for every 1 subway stop.

If that is so, why did te MTA attempt a few years ago to eliminate the B25 claiming everyone could take the A and the C. They dropped their plan after huge public uproar. The people in Sunset Park weren't so lucky. The MTA used the R train as being only a block from the B37 as justification for eliminating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Bx1/2 & the (D) along GC & the B25 & the (A) along Fulton is a perfect example to support the point of system redundancy being a good thing....

 

Another good example was with the Bx41 along WPR north of Gun Hill rd.... Way I see it, running Bx39's down from Wakefield only made crowding on the Bx12 that much worse..... The old 41 was a 1-shot deal b/w north bronx/lower westchester & the shopping areas along Fordham rd......

 

I don't have a problem with the premise of the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is so, why did te MTA attempt a few years ago to eliminate the B25 claiming everyone could take the A and the C. They dropped their plan after huge public uproar. The people in Sunset Park weren't so lucky. The MTA used the R train as being only a block from the B37 as justification for eliminating it.

I would also consider SBS good redundancy, though my friend who takes the bus down 2 Avenue to her hospital workplace says the bus is still too slow for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also consider SBS good redundancy, though my friend who takes the bus down 2 Avenue to her hospital workplace says the bus is still too slow for her.

How is SBS redundant? Woud you call Limited redundant also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is SBS redundant? Woud you call Limited redundant also?

How is it not? if an SBS route were to track a good portion of a subway line, is it not redundancy? Actually, how about we use the words in the sense put forth by the article link to in your original post? I say "redundant" (good thing) and not "duplicative" (bad thing). I think SBS is just fast enough to provide good enough service to those who can't use the subway (possibly due to lack of accessible stations).

 

Limited bus service when compared to it's unlimited counterpart would be like having express and local service along a subway line—good redundancy on paper, but duplicative in practice since they all bunch up and waste time anyway.

 

EDIT: Actually, redundant is in my sense of the word. (We computer geeks love redundancy.) For my prior posts, simply replace "redundant" with "parallel." I guess that changes the entire meaning of my prior posts.

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it not? if an SBS route were to track a good portion of a subway line, is it not redundancy? Actually, how about we use the words in the sense put forth by the article link to in your original post? I say "redundant" (good thing) and not "duplicative" (bad thing). I think SBS is just fast enough to provide good enough service to those who can't use the subway (possibly due to lack of accessible stations).

 

Limited bus service when compared to it's unlimited counterpart would be like having express and local service along a subway line—good redundancy on paper, but duplicative in practice since they all bunch up and waste time anyway.

 

EDIT: Actually, redundant is in my sense of the word. (We computer geeks love redundancy.) For my prior posts, simply replace "redundant" with "parallel." I guess that changes the entire meaning of my prior posts.

I don't see how you can compare local (unlimited) buses with local subways and limited buses with express subways. There is no comparison.

 

Now if you compared SBS or maybe Limiteds with local subways on the same street, then I would agree that those would be redundant / parallel / duplicative. But I don't believe we have that anywhere, do we? I was not saying that every service needs to be redundant, just that some redundancy is good especially when a line is overcrowded and we should not seek to eliminate all redundancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subways and buses should not compete with each other for passenger, they should rather compliment each other's shortcomings. The subway is good for long distance travel, while buses are great at serving large areas and relatively cheap at providing that service (compared with subways). The problem lies when the balance is off-set. When the subways were built their #1 opponent were trolleys, it was meant to be that the trolley would go bankrupt since subways provided similar service, the issue with that is that the station spacing had to be minimal in order to attract people. While surely it got the customer, it also left many stations too close to each other, increasing burden on the maintenance and low average speed of operation by current standards. It is very, very expensive to build the subways, this is where the buses come in. The low price tag of operation and the biggest service limit lie in the use of public roadways. Double parking, poor driver's manners and much more lead to sometimes inadequate service, yet if you start "digging" around i.e. as in other thread the suggestions were to make elevated roadway to put b44 sbs on it, you loose that advantage of cheap operation, might as well dig a portal and put the Nostrand line there, it will run the circles around the sbs any day. I think SBS is ok where it is now, it doesn't cost and arm and a leg to get one running, any significantly bigger financial burdens should not be focused on the buses, light rail or even more cheaper subway could use the money. By cheaper I mean is that the distance between the stations be increased and stations to be simplified; get rid of the mezzanine, just have the entrances at both ends of the platform. Less stations=cheaper, also less stations would mean higher operating speeds. The buses adjacent to such line will bring the passengers to the stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subways and buses should not compete with each other for passenger, they should rather compliment each other's shortcomings.

Exactly.....

 

I don't see how you can compare local (unlimited) buses with local subways and limited buses with express subways. There is no comparison.

He's comparing local buses to LTD buses.... He's comparing a local subway line to an express subway line....

 

....if an SBS route were to track a good portion of a subway line, is it not redundancy?

That's system redundancy....

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redundancy à la the Grand Concourse and Jerome Avenue lines is real redundancy. Crappy bus service following a subway route isn't, especially when it makes 4 more stops for every 1 subway stop.

 

If that is so, why did te MTA attempt a few years ago to eliminate the B25 claiming everyone could take the A and the C. They dropped their plan after huge public uproar. The people in Sunset Park weren't so lucky. The MTA used the R train as being only a block from the B37 as justification for eliminating it.

 

Allow me to give a subjective speaking response as a Bronx resident and a former SBK resident:

 

Both posts give good points gentlemen. Indeed the CG and Jerome Ave lines and the MMRR on to of that, that's the grand example of redundancy. A long time ago the MTA did have plans to demolish the Jerome ave line of course the community stopped it. Which is a good thing, both lines are heavily used today. In fact frequently I use either lines or the MMRR depending on where I am going (driving to the city, Queens or BK to me is like driver suicide given the immense traffic and insane tolls on the bridge crossings making mass transit more convenient, you know less costly, unless I am running late for work so I take the gamble...) and need to get to the East Side or the West side of Manhattan or the outer boroughs etc etc, since my fiancee and myself share only one car. Ok enough of that, anyway.....

 

And yes no doubt no wonder the MTA dropped their plans to eliminate the B37 after a public uproar which is justified  Anyone who needs to commute via the BMT 4th Ave line would know that the elimination of the ( M ) really caused some serious problems for rush hour service to Manhattan during the rush hour commute.

 

OK to supplement my arguement lets talk BMT on a different tangent slight off topic if I may: Now in general at those who are against added coverage on the 4th Ave line, who says that the cuts in service are A OK rah rah kudos to the MTA blah blah hooray ....I'm expecting that some I am anticipating, will argue and say the ( M ) is lightly used :rolleyes: .

 

Well to those do some of you guys who are for those 2010 budget cuts  live in these areas served by the BMT 4th Ave Line lately? Well it WAS useful because of that (R) train which we well know with its service, is absolutely abysmal. Absolutely horrible. No wonder Boro Park and Bay Ridge residents were absolutely pissed off when the MTA even came up with that crazy idea to discontinue the bus service. The high ridership (From what I have seen as of last week) shows that that service is needed.

 

In fact I could care less I will say it - the redundancy (using the word in a different light) inside the BMT Broadway line is in dire need, we do need that (W) back in service. Ditto on added BMT Nassau service. The benefits of that added local services can be felt all the way to 95th Street as is helpful in reducing passenger loads on the (R). Ever see how absolutely crushloaded the (R) can be at times particularly the AM rush? Insane. 

 

 

 

Subways and buses should not compete with each other for passenger, they should rather compliment each other's shortcomings. 

 Basically my take on the argument on BK service in terms of the B37 and the BMT 4th Ave (now shifting back to the proper definition of redundancy)

 

Pardon for the long winded post, I had alot to say on this hence the long post, to cover all the bases as to why I was pissed when the MTA slaughtered South Brooklyn with service cuts in 2010. 

 

 

 

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Limited bus service when compared to it's unlimited counterpart would be like having express and local service along a subway line—good redundancy on paper, but duplicative in practice since they all bunch up and waste time

Are you saying that Limiteds do not make sense because of bunching or that subways bunch also and express and local service makes no sense too? If you are only talking about buses, bunching is a separate issue. Of course Limiteds make sense for long distance travel on wide streets. On streets like Church Avenue, I don't know. It might just be better there to increase stop spacing from two to three blocks if they haven't been increased already.

 

Subways and buses should not compete with each other for passenger, they should rather compliment each other's shortcomings. The subway is good for long distance travel, while buses are great at serving large areas and relatively cheap at providing that service (compared with subways). The problem lies when the balance is off-set. When the subways were built their #1 opponent were trolleys, it was meant to be that the trolley would go bankrupt since subways provided similar service, the issue with that is that the station spacing had to be minimal in order to attract people. While surely it got the customer, it also left many stations too close to each other, increasing burden on the maintenance and low average speed of operation by current standards. It is very, very expensive to build the subways, this is where the buses come in. The low price tag of operation and the biggest service limit lie in the use of public roadways. Double parking, poor driver's manners and much more lead to sometimes inadequate service, yet if you start "digging" around i.e. as in other thread the suggestions were to make elevated roadway to put b44 sbs on it, you loose that advantage of cheap operation, might as well dig a portal and put the Nostrand line there, it will run the circles around the sbs any day. I think SBS is ok where it is now, it doesn't cost and arm and a leg to get one running, any significantly bigger financial burdens should not be focused on the buses, light rail or even more cheaper subway could use the money. By cheaper I mean is that the distance between the stations be increased and stations to be simplified; get rid of the mezzanine, just have the entrances at both ends of the platform. Less stations=cheaper, also less stations would mean higher operating speeds. The buses adjacent to such line will bring the passengers to the stations.

Of course, buses and subways shoud complement each other. That is stating the obvious. All I was saying was that some redundancy is also good.

 

As far as your other points. The reason te IRT stops are so close together when the first subway was built was because the trains only had five cars. The IND has stops spaced much farther apart with exits on both ends instead to still maintain walking distances of about a half mile which is what people are willing to walk without taking a bus.

 

As far as those big mezzanines (IND), those were different times. No one will be building them today.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that subways caused the trolleys to go bankrupt. Most were just converted to buses because of Mayor LaGuardia and other factors including conspiracies by the rubber companies which were not known until the 1970s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, buses and subways shoud complement each other. That is stating the obvious. All I was saying was that some redundancy is also good.

As far as your other points. The reason te IRT stops are so close together when the first subway was built was because the trains only had five cars. The IND has stops spaced much farther apart with exits on both ends instead to still maintain walking distances of about a half mile which is what people are willing to walk without taking a bus.

As far as those big mezzanines (IND), those were different times. No one will be building them today.

I don't know where you got the idea that subways caused the trolleys to go bankrupt. Most were just converted to buses because of Mayor LaGuardia and other factors including conspiracies by the rubber companies which were not known until the 1970s.

LaGuardia not without help of others pulled the plug on the trolleys which were experiencing ridership drop since subways took over. In the profit oriented practices it was obvious only one would survive. I agree that redundancy is good, but only when one does not completely mirror the other, the subways have to have increased distance between stops. In such way that there will be no more cases like Wall st. - Fulton st. With increased distance between stops buses on top carry passengers to those stops and cover for short distance travel.

As for wasteful construction, things aren't as good, from what I see so far there will be mezzanines at stations that are being currently constructed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes no doubt no wonder the MTA dropped their plans to eliminate the B37 after a public uproar which is justified  Anyone who needs to commute via the BMT 4th Ave line would know that the elimination of the ( M ) really caused some serious problems for rush hour service to Manhattan during the rush hour commute.

 

OK to supplement my arguement lets talk BMT on a different tangent slight off topic if I may: Now in general at those who are against added coverage on the 4th Ave line, who says that the cuts in service are A OK rah rah kudos to the MTA blah blah hooray ....I'm expecting that some I am anticipating, will argue and say the ( M ) is lightly used :rolleyes: .

 

Well to those do some of you guys who are for those 2010 budget cuts live in these areas served by the BMT 4th Ave Line lately? Well it WAS useful because of that (R) train which we well know with its service, is absolutely abysmal. Absolutely horrible. No wonder Boro Park and Bay Ridge residents were absolutely pissed off when the MTA even came up with that crazy idea to discontinue the bus service. The high ridership (From what I have seen as of last week) shows that that service is needed.

 

In fact I could care less I will say it - the redundancy (using the word in a different light) inside the BMT Broadway line is in dire need, we do need that (W) back in service. Ditto on added BMT Nassau service. The benefits of that added local services can be felt all the way to 95th Street as is helpful in reducing passenger loads on the (R). Ever see how absolutely crushloaded the (R) can be at times particularly the AM rush? Insane. 

 

The B37 was eliminated. He's saying B37 riders (who lost their redundant/duplicate/parallel/whatever bus) weren't as lucky as B25 riders, who kept their bus. They compromised and had the B70 cover the Bay Ridge portion, but Sunset Park riders (as well as Bay Ridge riders who wanted a direct ride to Downtown Brooklyn) are/were stuck with the (R) & B63.

 

As for (R) train riders, keep in mind that their service levels are better than those of a lot of bus riders. Trains are scheduled every 6-8 minutes. Even with delays and bunching, there aren't going to be a whole lot of gaps greater than say, every 12 minutes. There are plenty of bus riders who deal with much worse service than that. As for crowding, unless there's a huge delay, (R) trains aren't that crowded, even during rush hour. A lot of the riders jump ship to the (D) & (N). Of course, you do have the riders going downtown who stay on, but the average train is far from crushloaded. I've taken the (R) during the AM rush at Whitehall Street, and also in Bay Ridge (since I live in SI, I can take the ferry or S93 to the (R)). Would extra service be nice? Of course, but it isn't direly necessary. Sometimes, you'll have to wait a few extra minutes, and stand on the train. Such is life in NYC.

 

Not to mention that if they kept the BMT Nassau service, we wouldn't have the present-day (M), which was much more successful than the old M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for (R) train riders, keep in mind that their service levels are better than those of a lot of bus riders. Trains are scheduled every 6-8 minutes. Even with delays and bunching, there aren't going to be a whole lot of gaps greater than say, every 12 minutes. There are plenty of bus riders who deal with much worse service than that. As for crowding, unless there's a huge delay, (R) trains aren't that crowded, even during rush hour. A lot of the riders jump ship to the (D) & (N). Of course, you do have the riders going downtown who stay on, but the average train is far from crushloaded. I've taken the (R) during the AM rush at Whitehall Street, and also in Bay Ridge (since I live in SI, I can take the ferry or S93 to the (R)). Would extra service be nice? Of course, but it isn't direly necessary. Sometimes, you'll have to wait a few extra minutes, and stand on the train. Such is life in NYC.

But how do you automatically conclude that there wouldn't be a lot of gaps?? Based on what?? Just because a train is scheduled every 6-8 minutes doesn't mean anything.  When a train or bus is schedule and when it comes are two different things and I've waited plenty of times for the (R) well over 10 minutes.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

But how do you automatically conclude that there wouldn't be a lot of gaps?? Based on what?? Just because a train is scheduled every 6-8 minutes doesn't mean anything.  When a train or bus is schedule and when it comes are two different things and I've waited plenty of times for the (R) well over 10 minutes.

 

For starters, I said 12 minutes, not 10. 12 minutes when the train is scheduled every 6 minutes means that you're waiting twice as long as you should for a train. Not to mention the fact that I said this is during rush hour (especially since we're talking about the old M train). Yes, off-peak, when the trains are scheduled to run every 10 minutes, it's easily possible for you to wait a lot longer than that.
 
I use the (R) fairly often, considering that I live on Staten Island, and there haven't been many times when I've waited over twice the scheduled headways for a train. Does it happen? Of course, but it's not on any sort of regular basis. If a train was scheduled every 10 minutes, I don't recall waiting longer than 20 minutes for that train.
 
My point is that there are plenty of riders who have it a lot worse. There are plenty of bus routes that have bunching problems worse than the (R) train. If you have a long route with crummy headways, that travels through congested corridors (whether it's passenger traffic, automobile traffic, or both), you end up with those issues. Routes like the M20 & S78 would be good examples, and there's plenty of other routes where people have complained of long waits for various reasons (B47, Q38, etc).
Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

For starters, I said 12 minutes, not 10. 12 minutes when the train is scheduled every 6 minutes means that you're waiting twice as long as you should for a train. Not to mention the fact that I said this is during rush hour (especially since we're talking about the old M train). Yes, off-peak, when the trains are scheduled to run every 10 minutes, it's easily possible for you to wait a lot longer than that.
 
I use the (R) fairly often, considering that I live on Staten Island, and there haven't been many times when I've waited over twice the scheduled headways for a train. Does it happen? Of course, but it's not on any sort of regular basis. If a train was scheduled every 10 minutes, I don't recall waiting longer than 20 minutes for that train.
 
My point is that there are plenty of riders who have it a lot worse. There are plenty of bus routes that have bunching problems worse than the (R) train. If you have a long route with crummy headways, that travels through congested corridors (whether it's passenger traffic, automobile traffic, or both), you end up with those issues. Routes like the M20 & S78 would be good examples, and there's plenty of other routes where people have complained of long waits for various reasons (B47, Q38, etc).

 

I know what you said. I talked about how long I've waited for a (R)train NOT you.  I don't see how you can compare the waits that riders have for a train vs a bus.  Two completely different things.  Most trains have service scheduled every 10 minutes or better, even the crappy lines.  The (R) when compared with other train lines is horrendous and in fact I do everything in my power to avoid using that line. IMO it's the worst subway line in the system outside of the (G) and the (G) doesn't even run to the city like the (R) does, so based on that (R) riders by far have it the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaGuardia not without help of others pulled the plug on the trolleys which were experiencing ridership drop since subways took over. In the profit oriented practices it was obvious only one would survive. I agree that redundancy is good, but only when one does not completely mirror the other, the subways have to have increased distance between stops. In such way that there will be no more cases like Wall st. - Fulton st. With increased distance between stops buses on top carry passengers to those stops and cover for short distance travel.

As for wasteful construction, things aren't as good, from what I see so far there will be mezzanines at stations that are being currently constructed.

 

Well, you certainly won't have to worry about close stations like Wall and Fulton in the future. As far as mezzanines, some may be necessary because of the depth of some stations, but they won't be anything like the full length IND mezzanines when they forecasted an NYC population of 12 million by 1960.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B37 was eliminated. He's saying B37 riders (who lost their redundant/duplicate/parallel/whatever bus) weren't as lucky as B25 riders, who kept their bus. They compromised and had the B70 cover the Bay Ridge portion, but Sunset Park riders (as well as Bay Ridge riders who wanted a direct ride to Downtown Brooklyn) are/were stuck with the (R) & B63.

 

As for (R) train riders, keep in mind that their service levels are better than those of a lot of bus riders. Trains are scheduled every 6-8 minutes. Even with delays and bunching, there aren't going to be a whole lot of gaps greater than say, every 12 minutes. There are plenty of bus riders who deal with much worse service than that. As for crowding, unless there's a huge delay, (R) trains aren't that crowded, even during rush hour. A lot of the riders jump ship to the (D) & (N). Of course, you do have the riders going downtown who stay on, but the average train is far from crushloaded. I've taken the (R) during the AM rush at Whitehall Street, and also in Bay Ridge (since I live in SI, I can take the ferry or S93 to the (R)). Would extra service be nice? Of course, but it isn't direly necessary. Sometimes, you'll have to wait a few extra minutes, and stand on the train. Such is life in NYC.

 

Not to mention that if they kept the BMT Nassau service, we wouldn't have the present-day (M), which was much more successful than the old M.

 

I stand corrected on that typo. Was in a tizzy this morning.

 

Can't argue the point on the QBL (M). The new (M) was a hit. Absolutely. But this was at the cost of Brooklyn riders who got shafted. I can see already that ppl will say I'm a foamer for a (J) extension or reactivation of the (W) if at all possible with available rolling stock (The MTA did screw up with the premature scrapping of some well running equipment with good records on their MDBF's in the frenzy of getting the R160's on the rails)  but seriously from a logical standpoint, Brooklyn riders need that additional service.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected on that typo. Was in a tizzy this morning.

 

Can't argue the point on the QBL (M). The new (M) was a hit. Absolutely. But this was at the cost of Brooklyn riders who got shafted. I can see already that ppl will say I'm a foamer for a (J) extension or reactivation of the (W) if at all possible with available rolling stock (The MTA did screw up with the premature scrapping of some well running equipment with good records on their MDBF's in the frenzy of getting the R160's on the rails)  but seriously from a logical standpoint, Brooklyn riders need that additional service.

Agreed.plus the (MTA) needs to keep its promises too.Examples:

1.86 Street (R) was renovated(as most of us know)BUT the (MTA) "forgot"that 86th was and still is one of the 100 key ADA stations,got the wheelchair boarding "bump"(for lack of a better phrase) and they forgot the elevator... :deadhorse: [facepalm]

2.Bay Ridge,77th,86th and 95th were reported BY THE (MTA) to recieve the countdown clocks like the ones at Atlantic-Barclays.ONLY 86th got them and they have never been in use...

3.the :bus_bullet_b1: / :bus_bullet_b64:  swap has been EXTREMELY successful in terms of ridership but the :bus_bullet_b1: s reliabilty has been abismal...One of every 3 buses in the timetable NEVER shows up

4.the lack of a b37 and the ghost replacement :bus_bullet_b70: has severly angered many in the Bay Ridge community

XcelsiorBoii probably remembers me being late many time to PolyPrep during the past summer because of the lack of scheduling with the :bus_bullet_b70:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.plus the (MTA) needs to keep its promises too.Examples:

1.86 Street (R) was renovated(as most of us know)BUT the (MTA) "forgot"that 86th was and still is one of the 100 key ADA stations,got the wheelchair boarding "bump"(for lack of a better phrase) and they forgot the elevator... :deadhorse: [facepalm]

2.Bay Ridge,77th,86th and 95th were reported BY THE (MTA) to recieve the countdown clocks like the ones at Atlantic-Barclays.ONLY 86th got them and they have never been in use...

3.the :bus_bullet_b1: / :bus_bullet_b64:  swap has been EXTREMELY successful in terms of ridership but the :bus_bullet_b1: s reliabilty has been abismal...One of every 3 buses in the timetable NEVER shows up

4.the lack of a b37 and the ghost replacement :bus_bullet_b70: has severly angered many in the Bay Ridge community

XcelsiorBoii probably remembers me being late many time to PolyPrep during the past summer because of the lack of scheduling with the :bus_bullet_b70:

lol.. I used the B1 over in Dyker Heights... Trip was so slow... Only went to Bensonhurst too... They should put a B1 LTD in.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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