|
|
| The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 (238647) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (238647) | |
The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 22:36:02 2011 See Here |
|
|
| (238650) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jul 12 22:53:35 2011, in response to The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 22:36:02 2011. I would be surprised if Sunday service remained on the B64 beyond next year. But I cannot see the MTA leaving central Dyker Heights with no bus service on weekends, which is why I see the B4 keeping weekend service. But by this time next yearThat said, the plan for the B1 that was implemented last year was proposed over 30 years ago. I would not call it sinister, however, as there is the demand for an 86th Street crosstown bus. I'm posting more details on that website using Disqus. |
|
|
| (238655) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jul 12 23:00:48 2011, in response to The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 22:36:02 2011. I can see Bath Avenue eventually losing bus service, but 13th Avenue and Bay Ridge Avenue will always have bus service. The B64 might be eliminated eventually since the service cuts made it practically useless, but Bath Avenue will probably retain its service too in the form of a B8 branch. |
|
|
| (238657) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 23:04:34 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jul 12 22:53:35 2011. There was nothing wrong with what they did with the B1. I was the one who first proposed it in fact in 1975. However, flipping with the B64 was not the way to accomplish that. I ruled that option out after three weeks of study and looking at the data. It was the easiest thing to do, but not the best. Since the MTA is lazy, they picked the easy way. Forcing people on to the B1 in order to ultimately eliminate the B64 is sinister. |
|
|
| (238659) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 23:08:33 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jul 12 23:00:48 2011. What makes you think they would ever create a Bay Ridge branch of the B8?And why is it so hard to believe they would eliminate 13th Avenue service. The segment is too short for people to use it for both ends of their trip. I would guess hardly anyone gets both on and off on 13th Avenue. In fact, they could use that information to justify that it isn't necessary directing people to the B1 and B4 instead. |
|
|
| (238660) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jul 12 23:15:46 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 23:08:33 2011. It's a much better way to serve Bath Avenue than the current B64, there is undoubtedly demand between Bath Avenue and 18th Avenue, and it would give Bath Avenue riders a quicker ride to the subway.There are a lot of stores and restaurants along 13th Avenue whose patrons and employees at least took the bus when it was more useful to them in the form of the B1. I've only ridden the new B64 along that segment once when it was pretty late at night so I don't know what kind of ridership it attracts there, but 13th Avenue most definitely used the B1 when they had it. |
|
|
| (238662) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by B68 slow poke on Tue Jul 12 23:27:44 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jul 12 23:15:46 2011. Well..anyway it goes.. BATH AVENUE BUS SERVICE STAYS ! Something tells me so !!!
|
|
|
| (238663) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jul 12 23:30:45 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 23:08:33 2011. Vis a vis the B16, it is possible that that route could be extended down 13 Avenue, and then routed down Bay Ridge Parkway to Fort Hamilton Parkway. I would terminate alternating trips at 4 Avenue/86 Street, replacing them with B1 trips to Fort Hamilton High School or up to Xaverian via upper Shore Road. |
|
|
| (238664) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by B68 slow poke on Tue Jul 12 23:50:16 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jul 12 23:30:45 2011. The B16 is already "heavy riding" This will only work if more buses on put on line. Hopeful...that MTA will comply...and the operators will NOT suffer the abuse !!! LOTS OF LUCK !!! |
|
|
| (238665) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Wed Jul 13 00:01:32 2011, in response to The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 22:36:02 2011. Meh, the B64 will run about as often as the S46 and S48 does so I do not consider that a plot to destroy the route. And isn't it quicker to use the N & R between Bay Ridge & Coney Island? |
|
|
| (238673) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Wed Jul 13 02:11:46 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Wed Jul 13 00:01:32 2011. But what if you're not?The S46 and S48 connect the ferry and their respecive neighborhoods; that's a good thing. The B64, however, uses a roundabout routing in order to connect Bath Beach, Dyker Heights, and Bay Ridge to the subway; that's a bad thing. |
|
|
| (238675) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Wed Jul 13 02:15:18 2011, in response to The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 22:36:02 2011. Go to http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/ for a good idea as to how tihs could be fixed. |
|
|
| (238691) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 13 06:25:02 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by dkupf on Wed Jul 13 02:15:18 2011. Why would he?? |
|
|
| (238749) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 14:05:58 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jul 12 23:15:46 2011. Please explain your proposed route or branch, because I really don't understand. |
|
|
| (238750) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 14:07:43 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by B68 slow poke on Tue Jul 12 23:50:16 2011. I thought the B16 was empty except perhaps for school trips. |
|
|
| (238751) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 14:14:42 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Wed Jul 13 00:01:32 2011. But Brooklyn ridership is generally heavier than Staten Island ridership so buses run more often. People in Staten Island may be used to waiting 30 minutes for a bus because most of the buses may operate that way, but in Brooklyn, that is not what people are used to and 30 minute headways are a big deterrent to taking a bus. It will only cause more passengers to desert the route prompting further cuts, hence the rationale for a plot.Maybe the N and R is quicker if you are getting on at 4th Avenue and 86th Street. Otherwise you have to go out of your way to first get there which would take you an additional 15 minutes, whereby the B64 was a direct route and hence quicker. |
|
|
| (238752) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 13 14:30:44 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 14:14:42 2011. Exactly. There is nothing nearby that is more frequent than the S46 or S48, whereas 12-15 minute headways on the B64 will simply cause a shift in ridership to the B1 or B82. |
|
|
| (238753) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 13 15:05:08 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 14:14:42 2011. I still don't understand how the B82 takes priority over the B64 in terms of servicing Coney Island? What's the harm in just switching it up so that the B64 goes there instead?The only other option I can think of is a B70 extension of some sort, perhaps meaning both the B82 and B64 would be cut back to Ulmer Park. |
|
|
| (238758) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jul 13 16:02:31 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 14:05:58 2011. It would simply run down Bath Avenue to Ulmer Park. |
|
|
| (238759) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jul 13 16:11:28 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jul 13 15:05:08 2011. The business alonb Cropsey Avenue makes the B82 more useful to Coney Island residents, and not a lot of people used the B64 along Harway Avenue IINM, the MTA should have tried running it straight down Bath Avenue though. |
|
|
| (238790) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 20:46:48 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jul 13 16:02:31 2011. From the VA Hospital all the way down Bath or use Cropsey till 18th Avenue? |
|
|
| (238791) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jul 13 20:48:46 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 20:46:48 2011. It would branch off of the "main" B8 at 18th Avenue & Bath Avenue, and continue down Bath Avenue to Ulmer Park. |
|
|
| (238792) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 13 20:49:39 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jul 13 16:11:28 2011. I proposed straight down Bath instead of Harway in 1975 but the MTA didn't want it. There's also many high rises such as Contello Towers on Cropsey. Harway and Bath are mostly one and two family homes and a few small businesses. |
|
|
| (239031) | |
Is is "sinister"? (Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64) |
|
|
Posted by Gotham Bus Co. on Sat Jul 16 09:57:44 2011, in response to The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 12 22:36:02 2011. Is it really, truly a "sinister plot" or just a case of bad planning? (Maybe the lack of a "sinister plot" is itself a sinister plot!) |
|
|
| (239033) | |
Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 16 11:29:05 2011, in response to Re: The MTA’s Sinister Plot To Destroy The B64, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jul 13 16:11:28 2011. But then why not just move the B64 over to Cropsey at around Bay Parkway and let maybe every other B82 take Bath from Bay Pkwy to 25 Av and then end there (the other half of the B82s would use Cropsey and end at either 25th or Canal Av. |
|
|