|
|
| Re: MTA service cut proposals by borough---Brooklyn (183601) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: MTA service cut proposals by borough---Brooklyn |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 25 21:55:31 2010, in response to Re: MTA service cut proposals by borough---Brooklyn, posted by B49 Limited on Sat Jan 23 03:28:45 2010. I'll try to keep this brief cause I could go on forever.I'll just address four points. B 67/69 Actually, this is one of their better ideas if efficiency and saving operating costs is what you are after. The problem is they are not being honesst and not telling you everything. But believe me, I know them well enough and how they think to know the real reason they want to make this change. They intend to cut B67 service in half at the next pick after the change is made. They figure that if they do that, the 67 will be so crowded and come so infrequently, that people from Park Slope going to Downtown Brooklyn will take the first bus that comes even if it is the B69. They want them to get off at Sands Street and then walk to south of Tillary Street for their destination. Will people do that, yes, only if they are forced to and B67 service is really bad. Is it ridiculous, yes. As I said if they left B67 service levels alone, it would not be a bad idea but certainly not a service improvement, just inconvenience a few people. But it only saves them money if they cut B67 service. Second Point. B1/64 or B86. The history is almost as bad as the Second Avenue Subway. It goes back way before the 1990s. It was first proposed to the TA by Community Boards 10 and 11 in the 1960s. Of course, they showed no interest. In 1974, I thought of it independently while working at the Department of City Planning. I studied and planned my changes for four years, negotiating with the TA. Everyone agrees that the 86th Street route is a great idea. The problem is what to do with the other routes. After three weeks of study, I eliminated the alternative that the the MTA is now proposing to simple swap the routes, as an unwise move. (Don't have the time to explain why) The alternative I came up with was much more complex. Anyway, the 86th Street combination that exists today at 25th Avenue, was the only part of the 86th Street plan for a single route that was accepted in 1978 along with a bunch of other changes. I coined the term B86. Around 1992, the TA revived the B1/ B64 combination actually proposing to call it the B86. The number and destinations were even programmed onto the digital signs. I opposed it then and still oppose it because it hurts too many people. This is not the way to get the B86. Anyway at the last minute after studying it for two years, the TA killed their entire plan, which also included F expresses, due to a budget crisis. Now they've revived it again. That's it in a nutshell. Point 3. Not going to get into it, but I'm hurt personally by the proposal to discontinue the eastern portion of the B4, because that was the part of the route I designed all by myself (except for the move to the Shore Parkway south service road whioh the TA made some time later) The last point I'll address is your last statement: Someone please tell me how can I be in charge in operations planning. What b***$*** degree do I need to get to smack some idiots over there in the MTA LOL You are blaming the wrong people. It's not the planning people who are to blame. If you want to blame someone, blame the budget people and the ones above them. Trust me, you wouldn't want to be in charge of Operations Planning. If you are unhappy now about what's going on, you would be unhappier if you were in charge of OP. They get their marching orders from Budget. They are told by Budget, Cut _________ Dollars, and that's what they do. They usually don't make the best choices and make plenty of mistakes, but if you think that being head of OP allows to make positive changes, you are wrong, not with the constraints they ae working under. I was head of Bus Planning and I saw what they allowed me to do. Very little, and to get those things done, I had to do them on the sly and not through official channels. I don't personally know him, but I think Peter is a decent guy. He's not the problem. You want to know what degree you need to do Planning at the MTA, I'll tell you. You need a Finance or Mathematics degree, not a Planning Degree. Does that tell you something? Looks like I failed at being brief. |
|
|
|