|
|
| B44--SBS (308276) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (308276) | |
B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Tue Nov 17 22:32:31 2015 Today marks the 2nd anniversary of the B44-SBS Service. |
|
|
| (308313) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 19 18:27:18 2015, in response to B44--SBS, posted by transitbuff on Tue Nov 17 22:32:31 2015. Fantastic.Still,there should be some adjustments made the line, but overall it works. |
|
|
| (308315) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by nyctransitman on Thu Nov 19 21:17:12 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 19 18:27:18 2015. How about more SBS stops south of Avenue U and a branch to Kingsborough Community College. |
|
|
| (308318) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 19 22:31:41 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 19 18:27:18 2015. How do you know? We're you the only one who saw the first year assessment? |
|
|
| (308321) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 20 05:49:11 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 19 22:31:41 2015. To clarify my statement...It Works,at least for ME,in MY Opinion...but it needs adjustments. Eliminate bus bunching,thus eliminating the long waits between buses...the same can be done for the local bus. Add a ADDITIONAL station at Myrtle Ave. Bring back the limited service. Nothing wrong with having am express Semi express And a local service,for the type of volume this line carries. |
|
|
| (308322) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Nov 20 09:11:55 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 19 22:31:41 2015. Not a bad post, man. Not bad at all. |
|
|
| (308324) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 20 09:26:00 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 20 05:49:11 2015. I agree with the three-layered service idea, for both Rogers/Nostrand and on Woodhaven (oops, did I say that?). It especially works well when you have progressive traffic signals ("traveling lights" to some), because an express truly does not come to a complete stop in between pick up locations.I don't mind the B44 SBS but it could use a cleaning up. Thinking cost-neutral, if the B36 could continue north to the Junction then you could have more B44 locals just going from Flatbush to Flushing Avs. Also with B36 service going north to Flatbush you could. . .well, theoretically. . .take away the Ave L SBS stop and eliminate the residual desires for an Ave R SBS stop. The northbound SBS has a local that is of a different routing (the B49). Maybe on Nostrand it should use the B36 as "its local." |
|
|
| (308325) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Nov 20 09:44:05 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 20 09:26:00 2015. I think the B36 is better off going to Kings Plaza. |
|
|
| (308328) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 20 13:14:08 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Nov 20 09:44:05 2015. Same here, but I'm trying to think like the MTA, namely neutralize or cut costs while making it look like a service expansion to the untrained eye. Extending the B36 to Flatbush / Nostrand and cutting out all B44 local service south of Flatbush is along those lines.When the B36 is at its peak, alternating service to Kings Plaza may work. |
|
|
| (308329) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:57:45 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 20 09:26:00 2015. I really don't follow any of your logic. |
|
|
| (308330) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:59:08 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 20 05:49:11 2015. But the exclusive lanes were supposed to eliminate bus bunching and that clearly didn't work. |
|
|
| (308331) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 14:04:43 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by nyctransitman on Thu Nov 19 21:17:12 2015. They do not need more SBS stops south of Avenue U. The only ones needed are at Avenue R and at Myrtle.An SBS branch to Kingsborough during school hours would make a good deal of sense because buses nearly empty would be filled with no additional operating cost. That it turn would reduce B49 requirements and make the B49 Limited in the morning unnecessary. Many of the B49 Kingsborough students are transferring from other bus routes. They could just as easily transfer to the B44 SBS. They are not riding te subway only ecause of the double fare because the MTA does not allow a bus-train-bus for one fare and perhaps cannot afford the cost of an unlimited pass. |
|
|
| (308333) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 20 15:09:54 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:57:45 2015. When you have traveling lights (lights turn green as you arrive at them), then you make the most out of skipping stops, because every time you stop you miss the light and lose up to 2 minutes. That's why SBS or limiteds will be most effective in those environments. I believe both Rogers and Nostrand, as well as Woodhaven, have these.As for Nostrand / Flatbush, it is a huge turnover point. People from Sheepshead Bay want that stop. So to have the B36 end at Ave U where all there is a "crosstown" bus is to cut it short of its potential. Run it to Flatbush / Nostrand. And the B36 is more frequent than the B44 local so non-SBS stops south of Flatbush would get some help. Less of a need to worry about having more SBS stops in the south. The B44 local (maybe best to renumber it) could then start at Flatbush and go north. This shorter run could also increase dependability. The issue that comes to mind is that there's practically no more space to turn buses around at Flatbush and Nostrand. |
|
|
| (308335) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 20 15:47:18 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:57:45 2015. Are you surprised? |
|
|
| (308340) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 19:50:10 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:59:08 2015. No they weren't. |
|
|
| (308341) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 20:08:39 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:59:08 2015. No they weren't. |
|
|
| (308342) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by mike nash on Fri Nov 20 20:58:57 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Nov 20 09:11:55 2015. if every driver would drive the line the same way it would reduce bunching. what i mean is many drivers like to drug to get unneedrd runningtime. |
|
|
| (308354) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Nov 21 12:33:14 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 20 13:59:08 2015. Not true.The bus lane present the opportunity for non bunching. Its dispatching,dogging the line THAT causes bunching. |
|
|
| (308397) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:18:42 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 20 15:47:18 2015. Now that he explained himself, I understand him. |
|
|
| (308398) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:21:15 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 20:08:39 2015. They certainly were. The MTA position is that other traffic which the MTA has no control over causes the bunching. Without the interference of other vehicles, buses could run on time. That is clearly not what happened because te MTA simplified the causes of bus bunching. |
|
|
| (308399) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:22:03 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Nov 20 09:11:55 2015. You actually agree with something I said? |
|
|
| (308400) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:36:57 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 20 15:09:54 2015. I understand what you are saying about progressive lights but there are a number of problems with your proposal. You talk about the need to be cost neutral but your proposal would add a great deal of cost.The first problem is adding a third layer of service. First you have to explain if the Limiteds would use the local or SBS route. You would have to cut SBS service in half to keep costs the same. I don't know how scheduling three levels of service works out. The MTA has proved they can't even reliably operate the existing B36, so why would and extended B36 be anymore relable? The biggest problem is terminating the B44 local at Flatbush/Nostrand. That would mean anyone south of Avenue Z not going to an SBS/Limited stop would need an extra transfer to get off at a local stop and an extra fare to transfer to the B2 or B54 if the Limited is not returned. Also they would have to walk further to SBS stops. (No stops at Avenues Y, Z, Voorhies and only three stops on Emmos Avenue. If you run the Limited, where would it start? |
|
|
| (308403) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Nov 23 21:42:06 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:21:15 2015. Really?Where does it say any of that? (Hint. Nowhere, because the MTA never did say such.) |
|
|
| (308406) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Nov 23 22:37:45 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:18:42 2015. Good. |
|
|
| (308407) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Nov 23 22:38:57 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:22:03 2015. Why are you so surprised? I've been telling you for years that my issue is with the message, not the messenger. |
|
|
| (308410) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Nov 24 04:04:01 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Nov 23 18:36:57 2015. The same exact service that was im place before the introduction of the Express bus. |
|
|
| (308411) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Nov 24 04:11:59 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Nov 23 22:38:57 2015. Which is usually the complete opposite of what you really.mean.Been telling you that For years,also. |
|
|
| (308413) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Nov 24 09:05:41 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Tue Nov 24 04:11:59 2015. And I've been telling you for years that you are wrong. This is a perfect example. You are wrong about what I really mean. |
|
|
| (308414) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 10:02:41 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Tue Nov 24 04:04:01 2015. That is not what he proposed. He proposed an extension of the B36 and a triple level of service and that is what I responded to. |
|
|
| (308415) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 10:05:27 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Sat Nov 21 12:33:14 2015. I never said it works. In fact I said the opposite. exclusive lanes will not work without enforcement which is sparse and of course proper dispatching is essential. If buses leave the terminal bunched, they will continue to bunch regardless of exclusive lanes. |
|
|
| (308416) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 10:07:30 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Mon Nov 23 21:42:06 2015. Look at any article where the MTA is asked about bunching. They always answer it is caused by traffic and is beyond their control. Sometimes they even add, that is one of the reasons they are instituting SBS, to lessen bunching. |
|
|
| (308418) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Nov 24 10:56:37 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 10:02:41 2015. What about without the limited (so only two layer) and with an SBS stop at Myrtle? That would be B44 SBS and B36 Lcl south of Flatbush and B44 SBS and B44 Lcl north of Flatbush.OR The other thing is to leave the B36 alone, have B44 SBS and LTD only south of Flatbush (LTD makes all local stops south of Flatbush) and then have a local start at Flatbush going north. |
|
|
| (308419) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 12:09:08 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 10:07:30 2015. With regards to your first sentence: I have read many. They say no such thing anywhere.With regards to your second and third: Obviously. But those are largely irrelevant to your claim. |
|
|
| (308421) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Tue Nov 24 12:35:07 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 12:09:08 2015. >> Look at any article where the MTA is asked about bunching. They always answer it is caused by traffic and is beyond their control.> With regards to your first sentence: I have read many. They say no such thing anywhere. But they do. Bus lane is slow lane, say locals “Although buses operate on a schedule, they are also subject to roadway conditions,” said Marisa Baldeo, an authority spokeswoman. “Bus bunching … can be caused by a variety of factors, including general road congestion, weather, traffic signal timing, double parking, bus stop obstructions, accidents, et cetera.” |
|
|
| (308422) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 12:36:56 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 12:09:08 2015. I will try to find an article where they claim bunching is caused by traffic which is beyond their control.Sentences 2 and 3 are not obvious. Those are MTA statements which are untrue. SBS has not reduced bus bunching. |
|
|
| (308424) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 12:50:53 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 12:36:56 2015. Here is the first one I can find where they blame traffic.http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/archives/1811-bus-bunching I will find more. If they don't attribute traffic as the only cause, they will always mention it as a cause never saying they can do a better job. Better question: Why are they not using Bustime and BusTrek as they promised in order to control it? |
|
|
| (308427) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 14:04:51 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Kevin from Midwood on Tue Nov 24 12:35:07 2015. The MTA has never said that SBS would eliminate bus bunching, nor have they ever said that traffic is the sole cause of such, nor have they ever said that bus lanes would eliminate the effects of traffic on bus bunching. Nor for that purpose have they ever said that SBS is intended solely to eliminate bus bunching. |
|
|
| (308428) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 14:05:49 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 12:50:53 2015. Yes, Traffic is a cause of bunching. Nobody is disputing that. |
|
|
| (308442) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 19:01:55 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 14:05:49 2015. But the MTA more or less insists it is virtually the only cause. I think it is more like half the cause. For example, if service is inadequate, dwell times become excessive which has an effect on bunching. Also, buses not leaving their terminal evenly spaced and inadequate running times, just to name a few of the other causes, which the MTA will never admit. |
|
|
| (308445) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 20:10:24 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 19:01:55 2015. "But the MTA more or less insists it is virtually the only cause."BUT THEY DON'T. "For example, if service is inadequate, dwell times become excessive which has an effect on bunching." Obviously. The MTA agrees here which directly contradicts your prior claim. That is probably a big part of why so much of the SBS investment is actually in lowering dwells at stops. "Also, buses not leaving their terminal evenly spaced and inadequate running times, just to name a few of the other causes," Even spacing is a direct cause of the prior bunching, so it really is the same issue, just snowballed. Inadequate running times are irrelevant. The real issue is inadequate recovery times. "which the MTA will never admit." LOL! CONSPIRACY!!!!! JFK's second shooter must work in 2 Broadway!!! |
|
|
| (308447) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Nov 24 23:24:42 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 20:10:24 2015. Great post. Owned. |
|
|
| (308455) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Nov 25 11:34:01 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Nov 24 10:56:37 2015. Your first proposal still greatly inconveniences local passengers boarding and getting off south of Avenue X. I realize there are not too many of them but it is still an inconvenience. I also fail to understand what is really achieved by extending the B36 to the Junction. It's not as if the B36 service area has a great need to travel up Nostrand towards the Junction. They mostly want the Brighton subway. The MTA needs to return the shuttles to the Brighton subway they used to operate in rush hours. They were full.As for your second idea, anyone boarding south of Flatbush needing a local stop north of Flatbush would now require a transfer, and you still would have three layers north of Flatbush. So either you would be adding service or reducing SBS service to compensate. You also haven't made clear if the Limited would follow the local routing or the SBS routing, and since there are two routings, it really seems too confusing for riders to accept. They had enough difficulty even with just a separate SBS routing. |
|
|
| (308456) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Nov 25 11:46:34 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by R30A on Tue Nov 24 20:10:24 2015. Where is it obvious that the MTA agrees that if service is inadequate, dwell times become excessive which contributes to bunching? Show me the reference.When I stated inadequate running times, I was including inadequate recovery times. Another issue is wheelchairs. With high floor buses one wheelchair getting on delays the bus five minutes and another five minutes for the passenger to get off. If the following bus doesn't have a wheelchair, the driver already caught up to his leader with ten minute headways and it snowballs from there. No one wants to mention wheelchairs as contributing to bus bunching. I am sure that recovery times do not include time for a second wheelchair and may not even allow for one wheelchair. So one wheelchair and some traffic to boot and recovery time is insufficient so then the drivers through te schedule out the window and stay at the terminal anyway longer than they are allowed and will leave it already bunched with no dispatcher around. |
|
|
| (308468) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Nov 25 15:36:23 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Nov 25 11:46:34 2015. And on top of traffic, wheelchairs, general variance in passenger loading (the MTA assumes passengers arrive fairly uniformly, but in practice, that's not always the case, especially at major transfer points), there's also differences in operators habits. Things like yellow lights and waiting for running passengers also contribute to the variance (and then as much as I hate to say it, some operators drive slow to get extra overtime). |
|
|
| (308483) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 25 21:26:15 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Nov 24 10:02:41 2015. No.I proposed the Tripled layered service... He included the B36,which by the way sounds pretty choice. So BASICALLY,you Were responding to My post. Im Not the person riding your back,dude...so lets be nice. |
|
|
| (308497) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Nov 26 08:55:26 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 25 21:26:15 2015. In all fairness, I originally said I liked your idea of triple layer, but wasn't too clear and specific with the things I proposed.Anyway, part of my rationale with the B36 is that the main reason why we have B44 SBS at all is because of the portion of the route north of Flatbush. South of Flatbush just got caught in the trap because it was part of the same route. Ave R, as well as all stops south of Ave U, which made excellent use of the B44 limited, were hurt just because they were attached to the B44 line. Ideally they would send the Rogers/Nostrand SBS somewhere else besides Sheepshead Bay (Kings Plaza anyone)? because there's no law that says an SBS route must follow the same local all the way, but MTA doesn't know how to to do BRT as I've said many times. Or you can alternate SBS between Kings Plaza and Ave U, or just run it to Ave U. If the SBS was banished from Sheepshead Bay, maybe you could scrap all B44 service entirely south of Flatbush and have alternating B36s go from the Junction to Knapp St and the Junction to Coney Island. Is anyone really going from Sheepshead Bay to north of Flatbush? I do acknowledge, once again, the congestion at the Junction, as a problem for relaying another bus route like the B36. My biggest point is that there are options, and there are ways to extend the B36 to Flatbush without breaking the bank (or perhaps without even touching it). |
|
|
| (308500) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 26 11:58:12 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by Edwards! on Wed Nov 25 21:26:15 2015. When have I not been nice to you? |
|
|
| (308501) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 26 12:10:38 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Nov 26 08:55:26 2015. You are wrong about the southern portion of the B44 "getting caught in the SBS trap."Even if such were the case, you would never guess that from the presentation the MTA made to CB 15 years ago (the 25 minute video is still available on Sheepsheadbites if you search for it). What they said was that SBS would be such an improvement for Sheepshead Bay with buses operating as frequently as every three minutes, and be so quick that most residents will now prefer to take the subway at the Junction than use the sow service to the Brighton subway although it is closer. First of all it made no sense that they woud want to encourage use of the IRT over the Brighton line because it s much more overcrowded. And of course their prediction was wrong and I told them at the meeting, that their predictions were totally wrong. I was right because the B36s are already jammed at Avenue Z and Nostrand while the B44SBS only as six passengers and doesn't start to fill up until Avenue W. I don't see the point of a B44 branch to Kings Plaza. If they need more B44 service, they need to restore the rush hour shuttles from the Junction to Kings Plaza/Bergen Beach. And yes, Kings County Hospital/Downstate is a big destination. You have workers in Sheepshead Bay going there, not to mention heavy loads of school students using the 44 local. |
|
|
| (308511) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 27 10:21:27 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Nov 26 12:10:38 2015. I don't know all the stages of the planning, but based on a heavy emphasis on the section on Rogers / Nostrand, between Fulton and Flatbush, on the promotional materials (the mockups and most photos all come from that area), it is difficult for me to think that anything happened other than that they saw that section as their "baby" since it seemed a slam-dunk to install the bus lanes in each direction there. The B49 wasn't going to get SBS for many reasons, so that left the B44. A new routing was not an option because then they wouldn't have been able to show how much time SBS saves over the local.Sheepshead Bay happens to be the south end of the B44. If Kings Plaza was, then Kings Plaza would have gotten the SBS. Look at those ridiculous bus lanes near Voohries Ave. Is there even the slightest purpose of them from a transit perspective? No. But if they didn't put them there, there would be no bus lanes south of Ave I and it would be even more blatantly obvious that Sheepshead Bay got sucked in to the SBS because it suited their Rogers / Nostrand focus area. |
|
|
| (308515) | |
Re: B44--SBS |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Nov 27 12:22:42 2015, in response to Re: B44--SBS, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 27 10:21:27 2015. What do you mean that a new route was not an option? The B44 SBS is a new routing.As far as the B49, correct, it was not an option. The final two choices were the B41 and the B44 after they eliminated the B82, and they chose the B44 over the B41 for reasons that never we're really explained. Other than we made that choice because we know what we are doing. And you are also correct that Nostrand Rogers was the prime reason. But it sent the slam dunk you make it out to be if you consider the impacts to other traffic which have been significant. They needed not only to look at traffic on Nostrand Rogers but on all the parallel routes. I think it could have worked if they would have banned more parking during rush hours on those parallel streets, but they never looked at that. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|