Lex

29 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

As far as a bus on Ocean Avenue north of Foster, I really wouldn't call it a service gap, but a necessary direct route on a street lined with six story apartment houses. Considering the transit dependency of the area, the density is certainly there for a route that would make transferring much more direct. 

That portion of Ocean Avenue is flanked by the BMT Brighton Line to the west (south of Prospect Park) and Flatbush Avenue to the east (up until it turns into it, where it becomes Empire Boulevard). In addition, the only portion without any bus service is between Cortelyou Road and Caton Avenue. These things in mind, there is literally no reason for having a direct bus service down Ocean Avenue north of Foster Avenue.

1 hour ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I know that the  train and the  train swap had already been discussed and I know I am beating a dead horse here in that regard, but there seem to be two things that I do not get about that IND swap (note that I do understand the Brooklyn IRT swap in 1983 and the  train and the  train swap in 1987):

How did the  train running via the Grand Concourse get so crowded than the  train running via Washington Heights before March 1998? I seem to think more of the lines that the  train had difficulty transferring its fleet from the overhaul shop at 207th Street to the Grand Concourse Shop just to make service to Bedford Park and Harlem-145th Street weekdays and vice versa to become the  train weekends from 168 to the Chambers Street - World Trade Center local platform.

Also, how did riders become so confused about the  train's three different northern terminals, when the  train that replaced the rush hour  train to Beach 116th back in '92 (thereby cutting the from the western half of the Rockaways during the rush) is in general more overburdened and confusing at best than the  train in terms of terminals as a result of the March 1998 swap?

Route consistency is the name of the game.

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

It's 2019. These service gaps need to be filled to make travel simpler. Bus service need to be simple and direct, not convoluted, complex, and indirect. The need for an straight Ocean Avenue Route serving the entirety of Ocean and a route along the entirety of Empire Blvd between Utica Avenue and Flatbush Avenue has become greater, as no potential passenger is willing to put up with a complex routing to get to popular places, like Prospect Park. No offense, but what year are you living in? 1999?

Okay, I'm done.🤦‍♀️

20 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Gives the  space to take its slow diverge and merge to/from the  w/o backing up Lex. 

Northbound isn't so bad, but southbound is an absolute joke.

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Knowing the way the IND was designed and built I would say this is most likely correct.

In my opinion, its the one thing they got wrong. In most other respects, the IND did a pretty good job future proofing itself, compared to the BMT and especially the IRT, which was clearly designed for the New York of 1904 not now. (The sheer complexity of the grade separated interlockings on the IND particularly West 4th, 59th and in the vicinity of 53rd and 6th are very impressive)  Of course if the Second System was built, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is exactly why I find the various arguments for deinterlining problematic. Aside from 8th Avenue and Fulton Street (the connection should be rather obvious), there aren't many notable instances of the IND failing to think ahead, whereas the IRT and BMT routinely failing to have produced issues like Rogers Junction, the , Chambers Street...

1 hour ago, Stephen Bauman said:

What they are not saying are: the service (TPH) levels that CBTC will make possible; the service levels they plan to operate with CBTC; the service levels they currently operate; the service levels that are possible with the existing signal system; and the service levels predecessor agencies actually operated with this signal system.

You're missing a crucial element.

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Just shut down the  on weekends west of Bedford Ave and run the rest of the line on 6 minute headways.

Fixed.

19 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well that can work too, but I feel that a Southern Brooklyn can get some latent demand on the buses as well. I just looked up directions between Sheepshead Bay and Rockaway Park and a transit trip takes around 1 hour and three minutes, while a driving trip takes around 20-35 minutes. A bus route from there would make it a little more competitive compared to driving, but a Q35 extension to Newkirk can work as well.

That's assuming there's much of any in the first place.

20 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I also noted that Knapp Street has no bus service as well, forcing people in the area to drive or walk out of their way to walk out of their way to a bus route and ride there. While my Q35 reroute would better serve that corridor, i feel that it is a Brooklyn Division responsibility for local service. I may have a plan for that corridor that involves the B4 that I can put in the Brooklyn redesign thread.

What, exactly, warrants dedicating a route to Knapp Street? Everything about the street hinders any potential for one.

22 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well as a compromise, I would have the Q35 terminate at the Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue station instead of Sheepshead Bay if there are turning problems at the Sheepshead Bay station. Route would be via Avenue Z, Shell Road, Neptune Avenue, and Stillwell to the Mermaid bus loop. It can work.

Yes, because that totally addresses the fundamental issue.

19 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I only upvoted for this (the small smidgen of text that I put in bold). I don't believe the demand is that great for a new bus route between the peninsula and S. Bklyn, but perhaps a small extension to the Brighton Line (perhaps at Newkirk  ) could help shorten commutes when people are traveling from other lines other than just what's around Nostrand. Leave everything else be, for obvious reasons.

I honestly wouldn't even bother having it do anything else in Brooklyn. As it is, it already has a decent run when traffic is good, but because we're talking about a route on Flatbush Avenue (with a small stint on Nostrand Avenue), things can easily turn sour. Sending it to another area with traffic issues (and one that is ill-equipped for turning buses, to boot) would pretty much kill it.

The route has three camps worth noting:

1. Brooklyn College

2. Floyd Bennett Field

3. Compensation for shortcomings of other routes (read: B41 and Q22, even before restructuring)

19 minutes ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Isn't there a certain cap to how many trains you can squeeze per hour? That sounds like a bad idea. But I could be wrong.

What is the TPH limit for the crosstown?

Put simply, much higher than what they've been running at.

8 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

Well the loops are pretty short so you won't need too many buses to keep 3 minute headways.

That's not what I was getting at...

12 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Just noting: The B91 and B92 weekend loops will be out of ENY and GA. 3 min headways.

Let's see how long that'll last.

58 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I already did before making that post, and it allowed me to see what is wrong with bus service in the Rockaway Peninsula.

Would you like a laxative? Perhaps an enema would be more suited for you?

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I would rather keep the Q35 with Queens Divison. Instead, I have some rather neat changes for the Q22 and Q35.

The Q22 would be extended via the Marine Pkwy Bridge and Flatbush Avenue to the current Q35 terminal at the Flatbush Avenue  station.

The Q35 would be rerouted west along Avenue U, Knapp Street (which currently has no bus service), and Emmons Avenue/Shore Pkwy to the Sheepshead Bay  station. This would ensure direct access between Southern Brooklyn and the popular Rockaway Peninsula, a trip that currently requires three buses or multiple subway transfers. Those two options consume LOTS OF TIME. It would also serve the Knapp Street corridor, which currently has no bus service, as I said. During late nights, when the Q22 doesn’t run, the Q35 would continue to serve the Flatbush Avenue  station.

In addition, I would also propose the the route be extended east along Beach Channel Drive to Beach 54th Street and Beach Channel Drive. This would give people who live closer to Beach Channel closet access to a bus route.

Go wash your face.

1 hour ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Might as well start renaming this thread " and Other Unplanned Subway Service Changes"

They'll really be holding that .

I'll see myself out...

4 hours ago, Flatbush SBS Duece said:

Yup...Not a lot of run, but I can see this going to be an annoying route to pick going in circles like crazy. According to the weekend paddle, Reminds me of the B2 and B31 run. 

At least they actually do something.

8 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Actually I had suggested earlier a switch east of 1 Av...

Slopes...

8 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

the  to 96 St would not have been needed in this case

At present, the  is scheduled to run every 4-6 minutes on weekends. Cutting it back to 6 trains per hour (10-minute intervals) with single-tracking won't be enough, especially if when something craps out along the only available track. At least the full shutdown left the door open for consistent 6-minute intervals on a daily basis with little trouble.

5 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

I think the real reason the  setup for late nights and weekends is every 20 minutes is to allow the...

Okay, that's more than enough for me.

Single-tracking -- especially for longer stretches -- decimates capacity, and with the number of trains that will also be serving every Brooklyn station save for Bedford Avenue (because having only half of the weekend trains serving it is somehow smart), cutting the frequency to an abysmal 10 minutes east of Lorimer Street is the easiest way to ensure that merges don't conflict. Not even a switch east of Third Avenue will do much to help.

5 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yes I ❤️ the silica dust I'm going to be breathing in everytime I take the because our mayor wants to look good.

Wrong guy...

Something that really pains me actually pertains to routes under the Canarsie shutdown plans. Under the old (and reasonable) plan, at least some of those bus routes may have had potential outside of their scope. With the current farcical plan, I have doubts about the routes' potential even within their scope.

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Question, would a split on 7th Avenue and Lexington ever happen?

For example, downtown trains operate via 7th Avenue to Bowling Green and uptown trains operate via Lexington Avenue.

You mean aside from the times they've already done it?

5 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Building a new yard in Astoria, not happening until  gets their costs down.

Yes, that's the problem.

21 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The B9 idea is one of the best ideas anyone has come up with in recent history. It takes a lightly used route, reroutes it East to serve a big residential area, passes the B46 and B47 sooner, and boom, you’re there.

This bit alone is full of a lack of understanding.

For one, who's clamoring for a transfer between the B9 and B46/B47? For another, while the B9 doesn't have the heaviest ridership on Flatbush Avenue, calling it lightly-used is utter nonsense, as it has decent ridership along at least most of the route (including Flatbush Avenue).

The worst part about this is that it utterly fails to take into consideration why people actually don't use the Bergen Beach branch that often. There's just about nothing along that branch to serve in the first place, and changing which route serves it will do absolutely nothing to change that.

21 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That proposal for the B2 along 65th Street and Avenue P is not new. The proposal was first introduced in 2004 by Allan Rosen. When he made the proposal, this routing was called the B1, and would operate from Shore Road to the small Bergen Beach community south of Avenue U. This would've replaced the B64 along Bay Ridge Avenue, which would then be combined with the B70 via VA Hospital to provide a one-seat ride between Sunset Park and Coney Island. However, it, along with several other proposals he made were unfortunately rejected because of the arrogant attitude of the  that dictates that no one tells them how to plan.

In the last 15 years, Allan has made variations of the proposed route to address some of the problems with bus service in the area. Link here: https://bklyner.com/my-proposed-bus-route-changes-for-sheepshead-bay-and-adjacent-neighborhoods-part-1-of-2-sheepshead-bay/. In that proposal, the proposed Avenue P and 65th Street route would've ended at 12th Avenue and Bay Ridge Avenue to connect with the still-existing B64 line.

Now that it is 2019, these old proposals should be revisited as they are perfect to a point that they can serve the Brooklyn of 2019, given how the borough has changed since 2004. To start with the Avenue P route, that is perfect. What it should do is stay in tune with the original proposal and have it run on 65th Street. However, I propose that the route serve the 62nd Street station via New Utrecht Avenue, since 61st Street would be a little narrow for a bus. Also, if the B64 were to be kept on Bay Ridge Av, then the route would end at Bay Ridge Avenue to connect with the B64 (as was proposed with the 2012 post I have linked). I don't necessarily agree with operating the route on 68th/69th Streets as they are also narrow. Either 65th Street or Bay Ridge Avenue is preferable.

As for the B9, that B9 to Bergen idea is also not new, as it also dates back to 2004 (and possibly earlier). Its actually one of my favorite ideas that has ever come up. When the proposal was first made, it was supplemented with reducing the B41 on Avenue N to rush hours only, with a B11 extension to Georgetown Shopping Center, which has since been redeveloped with new businesses. I've lived in the Old Mill Basin area since I was little, and for too long I've noticed that the weekend buses are literally carrying air on Avenue N. My 2019 proposal would keep in tune with the original, but I did make some changes. In my proposal, the B41 on Avenue N would operate during rush hours and late nights only, rather than rush hours only in the original. Absolutely nobody takes the B41 on Avenue N during the weekends, but night service does have potential since it serves a major hub with a busy train line (Flatbush Junction ). To replace the B41 Bergen Beach branch that nobody uses, B9 service would be rerouted from Kings Plaza, where there is already a party of bus routes service it, via Avenue N to Bergen Beach-East 71st Street, at all times except late nights. This would provide Old Mill Basin and Flatlands direct and convenient access to the Brighton  line as well as the Nostrand Avenue , rather than only the latter, opening up new travel options. It would also provide a convenient connection to the B46 Local and SBS, as well as the B47, instead of forcing B9 riders to backtrack to Kings Plaza and transfer at a busy and dangerous location.

Also to add, the B11 would be extended via Avenue K (instead of eastbound Avenue J and westbound Avenue K in the original) Georgetown. At the Georgetown Terminal, the B11 would turn right at East 59th Street, left at Avenue L, and left at Ralph Avenue to terminate in front of the shopping center. Going back, the route would proceed straight to Avenue K, turn left there, and resume the normal route. While this would give riders convenient access to the Georgetown Plaza, that routing would subject residents on East 59th Street with a bus route going down their street. As the B11 primarily uses compressed natural gas (CNG) C40LF and New Flyer XN40 buses (and will eventually use electric buses), I hope they don't cry pollution problems.

All of this would better serve the population in the Southern Brooklyn of year 2019.

Taking bad ideas proposed by others and trying to call them good doesn't make them any better than they are (especially if we're talking about that B9 BS).

4 minutes ago, Interested Rider said:

The reason that many riders prefer taking two buses instead of a bus and a train as if there is no elevator at the station, then climbing the stairs is tough especially if you have packages and cannot walk that well.  

As our population ages, climbing stairs becomes more difficult so the alternative of two buses especially now with all local buses low floor very soon becomes an attractive alternative to a bus/train routing. Do a search of previous threads involving access to subway stations and right there is the best argument for keeping parallel bus service to subway lines.

In the era of providing better access for all riders, it is incumbent that if it means that parallel routes to subways be kept, then so be it. My advice to those that are thinking about it to think twice as while you are able to walk steps with no problem right now, think of yourself when you become a senior and are the position of a person who has to travel for medical appointments or shopping. Right then and there,  unless the person making the decision is without a heart, they would keep the parallel bus routes.

All that said, they're also the most susceptible to losing ridership, providing a disincentive for continued operation.