Threxx

I have seen it (and personally dealt with it) since I live relatively close to the route. The one seat connection between both halves of Ralph Avenue is semi-convienient but I can concede it does more harm than good overall for the route. A basic idea would be to realign the B15 to serve the northern half of Ralph Avenue (either ending at Woodhull or Gates/Ralph/Broadway in lieu of whatever Broadway route the MTA wants), and then just have the B47 serve the old B78 route from Sutter to Kings Plaza. This leaves a very obvious service gap along Lewis/Marcus Garvey which I don't have an immediate solution to. An easy brute force idea would be to extend the B17 up Troy and Albany but I don't think this is a good idea for multiple reasons (probably something the MTA would do though.) It does benefit both the B15 and B47 and would probably improve those two routes, at the very least. This is all better saved for when we get a real draft for Brooklyn though.

As was mentioned before, turning all B46 service at Dekalb would turn that area into a zoo of buses and they specifically mention wanting to avoid ridiculous layovers as justification for some of the Queens changes, so I doubt they'd do that in Brooklyn. It would likely come sooner they cut the locals all the way back to Fulton or Eastern Parkway or even just get rid of them. I'm not really in favor of spitting the B47 back into two routes again, since I think they could do more to make that route a legitimate alternative to the B46 as a north-south option; it's mainly just too infrequent rather than unreliable. I also don't think the B39 needs to go all the way to Broadway Junction, but whatever proposal they make is probably going to insist on some kind of full-length Broadway bus route (likely as a cheaper alternative to making the Broadway stations ADA compliant), and sending the B39 down there makes infinitely more sense than that insane B53 super route. That thing has to go.

Can't speak much to the Queens changes but the insane B53 makes me a bit more worried about the Brooklyn plan, especially given the context of how routes that currently use Broadway will be treated (we already know they want to kill the Q24 segment, and the B46/47 aren't probably going to survive either). Given that there are multiple better options here (B32 retained and covering that new B62 segment to Astoria, extending the B39 to Broadway Junction instead), I don't get the logic of making a super route with no limited/SBS service on an absurdly crowded corridor under an el.

Are there any plans for other elevated stations to get the glass treatment like Astoria, or is everyone else just stuck with the somewhat ugly pre-fabricated station walls?

Provided that someone at the MTA doesn't drag out something bonkers, if they actually want to attempt to fix anything I expect they'll propose some kind of stop-gap service between Nassau and 95th Street; they're probably not looking to turn the entire B Division upside down, as positive as it might be in the long term. It's incredibly unlikely any reasonable service changes will come out of this complaining though. Enjoy the garbage 3-borough local.

Just played catch-up on this thread and the issues at hand. I'm not familiar with the Montague issue and I didn't see much elaboration on it so could someone explain? I assume it has something to do with the reconstruction work that was done after Sandy. After actually reviewing the issues and the proposals, I'd probably say the and the are the best options for the R32s/R42s, although the being a primarily underground route poses its own issues with HVAC failure, the relative isolation allows any disruptions caused from failures to remain isolated to the - not great for those riders but prevents widespread delay in the rest of the system. While these cars have run on the for years, I really don't think it's fair to say that was the best place for them in any remote capacity, considering the maintenance issues as well as the route being entirely underground.

There is more than enough reason to make the connection, but I'd imagine it would be a difficult structural matter to pull off.

Random historical question... any reason why Jay Street-MetroTech on the (formerly Lawrence Street) has no trackside tile? It's out of the Dual Contracts style to neglect this and there's no real documentation on why this station got passed over. It's especially weird when the mezzanine is completely tiled.

With the Culver Express seemingly imminent as a new service, I was considering whether it could make sense to have a 3rd 6th Avenue local service to help supplement Culver Local service considering those stations are heavily utilized. Fleet expansion would likely be necessary for this, so it probably wouldn't be able to happen at all until the R211 order, but a possible service that could be implemented is a new route running between Church Avenue and 96th Street/2nd Avenue. This would provide the double service of providing East Side riders with more access to Midtown destinations while also boosting service on 2nd Avenue until the is implemented. After the is implemented however, it could prove to be problematic with 3 services running on a 2 track line. CBTC could help alleviate that. Another issue is the problem of having 3 local services on 6th Avenue. Service would ultimately have to be cut back on the line in order to support such a service as well, which could adversely affect Queens riders. Something to think about though, as the current plan of just splitting headways for Culver Local/Express probably is not going to last.

Why do people continue to acknowledge Wallyhorse's ridiculous ideas when they've been consistently exposed as impractical and foamer-esque? It's bait at this point. Just pay it no mind.

The station is just that: a transfer station. In terms of riders actually using the station to embark/disembark, the ridership doesn't compare with other Midtown stations. If it weren't for its status as a transfer station it'd probably be just another regular station.

Didn't see that part of the post... sorry.

Alright, I have the initial draft of my overhaul plans ready. I will likely add specifics about things or add more changes as discussion goes on. I've also made a map of some of the modified and new routes here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=13PZFo1cxoDWXAbJSOBpc1-zRTUI&usp=sharing

The schedule has run like this for a while. Between about 9 AM and 6 PM on weekends buses alternate between Flatbush/Nostrand and Downtown... running every 10 minutes overall.

People aren't going to leave the B46 and B44 for the B15... the B15 just doesn't have similar coverage to those two routes and isn't as attractive (not as frequent, no LTD and no SBS). The B43 definitely needs a review, bunching can be an issue on that route. If anything all that's really necessary there is possibly a frequency increase if you want to improve it. The only route worth looking at strengthening as an alternative to the B44 or B46 is the B47... and that route has problems of its own that need correcting. I have my own list of changes I would make to Brooklyn buses, not dissimilar to checkmate's list for SI buses, but I'm still working on some things. Included in it though, are some improvements to the B47 (including adding short runs between Sutter Avenue and Kings Plaza, and limited service). The B15 has its own job to do in serving the airport. Changing its routing will help no one.

So is the MTA planning to convert every crosstown route to SBS? There are a few routes where it probably doesn't make sense (M8, M66, M72), but it seems like that's their plan for the rest.

Question for those more familiar... How are the B2/B100 in Marine Park? Considering they both essentially serve the same corridor, are they both necessary in that neighborhood?

B71 to Manhattan wouldn't have enough ridership to really be meaningful. I doubt it would take a significant amount of riders off of the subway. The routing I proposed could allow buses to actually carry passengers on Court/Smith since there is now a connection to points east instead of mirroring the B61, and the route could provide a new alternative to the B45/B65 for Crown Heights customers. I'd like to keep the B67 and B69 to the same north/south terminals so interlining could be maintained.

Some reworked ideas: S44/94: St. George - College of SI via Henderson/Cary. Takes a minor hit in service since the route no longer doubles with the S59 on Richmond and no longer serves SI Mall. This service would be reinvested into the S59 and the new S77 route (S59 part time service to Tottenville would be eliminated.) S55: College of SI - Perth Amboy, via Annandale/Amboy and Bricktown Mall. Follows current S59 route north of Eltingville Transit Center, then runs via Victory Blvd to the College of SI. Covers service on Richmond lost from S44 and provides a connection to Central Jersey. S56: SI Mall - Bricktown Mall via Woodrow/Amboy. Interlines with the S73 (western half of current S74) on both ends. Rerouted to use the X23 route on Woodrow Road. (Shorter S72/73 means that route is more reliable to cover that corridor on its own). Weekday service only. (Use S55 or S72 for service to Bricktown weekends) S72/73: SI Mall - Bricktown Mall via Arthur Kill. Interlines with the S56 on both ends. Same as checkmate's proposal otherwise. S77: SI Mall - Tottenville/Amboy Road via Hylan. From SI Mall, runs Richmond Hill Rd-Arthur Kill Rd-Giffords Ln-Nelson Ave-Hylan Blvd, covering the southern half of the S54. Takes some service from S59 rush hours to cover eastern Hylan Blvd. S78: St. George - Richmond/Hylan via Hylan. Approx. half of buses turn at New Dorp station. I'll make maps of these later, but this i think should help western SI service a bit better.

This was essentially my original plan... using the new route to take over the southern half of the B62 is an interesting idea. I feel like this new B75 could also be plagued by reliability issues though as traffic on Court/Smith could get really bad. The Court/Smith corridor doesn't need a full route because I know from experience that most residents would prefer to use the or the . Sending the restored B71 to Downtown Brooklyn/Williamsburg would kill the problem of dealing with resident complaints about loss of bus service (which is arguably necessary for elderly and disabled riders since Bergen/Carroll are not ADA-accessible yet).

Slightly off topic but a moderator might want to look into removing the years from this thread... since we obviously aren't in 2013 anymore. A small nitpick but it still bothers me.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13PZFo1cxoDWXAbJSOBpc1-zRTUI&usp=sharing An attempt to kill two birds with one stone here... Reinstating the B71, but also having it cover Court and Smith. The proposed routing is depicted in the map. The route is a bit circuitous but it could work. Most of the streets it travels on are relatively lightly used save for Court/Smith, so reliability isn't a huge concern. Somewhat similarly to the current B67, the route would short turn during off peak hours, but at Fulton/Smith instead of at Sands Street. Along with this: The B57 would be rerouted to share the B62 terminal once again. The B67 would be rerouted to share the B69 terminal once again. Riders desiring IKEA/Red Hook can use the B61 (like almost all of them do already, or use their free shuttle).

I would assume they just cut right into the tunnel, similarly to what they did at Bleeker Street for the / transfer. The tunnel columns would become platform columns for the new extended platform.