Fresh Pond Posted June 26, 2013 Share #51 Posted June 26, 2013 no just try to look at this analytically cause it seems like you lack that ability. And it seems like you lack the ability of route planning since it seems like you just throwing 2 random routes with each other and making some half-assed idea, trying to pass it off as something great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 26, 2013 Share #52 Posted June 26, 2013 Eliminate the B67? Lets not get ahead of ourselves , that's like saying eliminate the Q32 because the M1/2/3/4/5/7/Q60/Q33 are right there to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 26, 2013 Share #53 Posted June 26, 2013 1.Restore the service lost on the B67 and parkslope folks will have direct service to sunset park!!! Eliminate that relationship between B69&67 if B37 was so light then 3rd ave shouldn't slow it down too much if at all. Let B32 absorb B67 south of atlantic terminal via ashland place and flushing ave or via navy yard B67 has been violated enough 2.LET THE B67 BURN WE HAVE B69 AND SUBWAYS. 1. Too indirect 2. See, this is we're your biasism for subway vs. bus (yes I said biasism, have no better word) comes in. This is the same excuse as with the BxM4, Manhattan Buses, QM3, QM18, QM21, X64, and X63 (to an extent). If people decide to take the B67, its their funeral. Not gonna convince them to take a more inconvenient mode of transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 26, 2013 Share #54 Posted June 26, 2013 Now that you put it that way you have a point why not reroute and extend B69 to bay ridge via lutheran and 3rd ave with B70 taken off of 3rd ave south of bay ridge ave restored to former routing then northward extension to atlantic terminal barclays center via 3rd ave. That would be much more efficient than a full restoration of the B37 and should represent the usage patterns on 3rd ave better and even attract new ridership to the respective segments to boot just send B69 to williamsburg then it's complete. Restore the service lost on the B67 and parkslope folks will have direct service to sunset park!!! Eliminate that relationship between B69&67 if B37 was so light then 3rd ave shouldn't slow it down too much if at all. Let B32 absorb B67 south of atlantic terminal via ashland place and flushing ave or via navy yard B67 has been violated enough or LET THE B67 BURN WE HAVE B69 AND SUBWAYS. Yeah, because conjuring up two indirect services is clearly more efficient.... Not to mention the demand for either of these suggestions..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 28, 2013 Share #55 Posted June 28, 2013 1. Too indirect 2. See, this is we're your biasism for subway vs. bus (yes I said biasism, have no better word) comes in. This is the same excuse as with the BxM4, Manhattan Buses, QM3, QM18, QM21, X64, and X63 (to an extent). If people decide to take the B67, its their funeral. Not gonna convince them to take a more inconvenient mode of transport. Funny all those lines have one thing in common 3 of the MTA bus lines you mentioned are in the bottom 5 in MTA bus express ridership nice try. I never bashed X63 as useless it is a very good line but sees little use in rosedale as B35 church pointed out earlier and the sad part about bxm4 is that it's ridership is the same as the x64!!! And guess what x64 is dead last in ridership for NYCT express buses. My biassism towards subway vs bus is an illusion cause it only pertains to routes in the bottom 5 of ridership thus invalidating your argument. Bxm6 duplicates but I don't bash it X68 to an extent but I haven't slammed it I think it would be better off on union tpk west of 179th as most x68 riders are east of the and not within reach of the subway anyway. Face the facts your case is BS and you know it. QM3 however only has 3 trips. But I only suggested the elimination of express buses with LOW ridership meaning rank 30 or below. St albans I heard was closed for a while. Bxm4's ridership is lower than you think dude. And is rank 27 yet has ridership equal to the x64!!! The QM17 has ridership very close to the bxm4 and it is unidirectional rush only. Eliminate the B67? Lets not get ahead of ourselves , that's like saying eliminate the Q32 because the M1/2/3/4/5/7/Q60/Q33 are right there to take. well Q32 gets slammed in manhattan so getting rid of it is difficult. B67 can be restructured to avoid redundancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 28, 2013 Share #56 Posted June 28, 2013 I never bashed X63 as useless it is a very good line but sees little use in rosedale as B35 church pointed out earlier.... Compared to the x63's overall usage, the Rosedale riders account for little of it.... It isn't bursting at the seams, no.... but I'd say it gets enough usage in Rosedale..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted June 28, 2013 Share #57 Posted June 28, 2013 Compared to the x63's overall usage, the Rosedale riders account for little of it.... It isn't bursting at the seams, no.... but I'd say it gets enough usage in Rosedale..... EXACTLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.