Lex

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

Yes, that's the problem.

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.

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).

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

Aside from the fact that there isn't that much overlap between their markets (there's some, but not that much), Avenue H does not need that many buses between Albany Avenue and Flatbush Avenue.

They pretty much end there as it is, but on a more logical (and accommodating) route. Cue the width being a greater issue than at the next street north, not to mention that not everyone is trying to reach the . Oh, okay, so Linden Place is magically wider than Union Street in order to handle the turn without conflict. Good to know. Perhaps it would be better to take a good look at Union Street and Kissena Boulevard before making that conclusion. Then close Main Street to cars while allowing buses and trucks to use it. Not only are cars better suited for those smaller spaces, but they literally do not need to enter Flushing from Northern Boulevard, especially since they're not large vehicles on fixed routes.

If the point is to get buses in and out of Flushing faster, the solution is to increase bus priority, not divert buses. Since you decided to bring up passenger patterns, I'd really like to know about the other buses using Kissena Boulevard to access Flushing. I didn't even realize this until I looked at Google Maps, but you're talking about going from Kissena Boulevard to Barclay Avenue, then to Union Street. Unless your plan is to turn that entire bit (from at least Roosevelt Avenue) into a busway, forget it. With a high bus volume involving five routes currently using Kissena Boulevard to reach Main Street (three of which continue beyond to reach College Point and Whitestone), that can only end poorly (and considering that we're talking about that many on a less capable route, probably will). Note that I didn't mention the route from Nassau, which uses Kissena Boulevard to reach Sanford Avenue. Also note that I didn't even bother focusing on the route for the Q25 and Q34.

You can come back to Earth, now.

Again, people only care about getting where they need to go. Those features are nice, but utterly meaningless when they're not the main focus (and if that's your issue with the RTS, then it would be better to just stop trying to argue).

As someone who's actually bothered to do some research (unlike certain "reporters") and lives near two of that depot's routes, I can tell you right now that the riding public cares more about getting where they need to go than whether or not the buses are new, not to mention that the depot itself is located in an affluent neighborhood and provides service to both poorer and wealthier neighborhoods. Literally the only thing that people will agree on as a reason to push the RTS out happens to be the lifts, which have a long history of being awful.

Awkward turn from Kissena Boulevard aside, what would be worth serving on this route?

In other words, nothing's really changed. As others have pointed out, the B1 is far too packed with KCC students to handle anyone else, and even with the B49 there to take some (not that much, since it's simply not as desirable) stress off, the core issue is that KCC is doing nothing to help. Rebranding some buses to indicate that they won't make any stops by nature (rather than being too full) will, if anything, make the route even less attractive to those with no KCC affiliation (as @B35 via Church basically pointed out).

Except it doesn't, as nearly all of the Manhattan Beach ridership is from KCC. Doing that would lead to the B1 still being ridiculously packed for those trips starting at KCC while the ones not starting there carry air to Brighton Beach (assuming students don't walk the extra distance to catch those trips).

That started in December of 1950, and only grew to be rather popular. Focusing so heavily on how many trains are running through a specific junction is the problem. Basically, what you've been doing here and in other threads is eschewing utility for frequency, which won't be anywhere near as effective as you claim. For one, Brooklyn riders generally care far more about Lexington Avenue. For two, the has two requirements for its continued existence (providing empty trains for those in Harlem at 135th Street and points south during periods of higher ridership and allowing trains to short-turn to provide some semblance of reliable service on that route, which is not as tied to a poorly-designed junction as is often insinuated). The fact of the matter is, the ridership potential for the just isn't there, and divorcing it from relief duty in Brooklyn will only kill it that much sooner (not helped by the fact that the only stations served by it alone have a combined ridership that is lower than 110th Street, nor by the fact that there are buses in the vicinity of both of those stations, nor by the boneheaded design that the IRT went with from 142nd Street up to the somewhat-recently-established current terminus). Also, turning any Brooklyn IRT service into some sort of "shuttle" is pure bunk, only partially because of the fact that there's absolutely no place to turn trains until reaching Atlantic-Barclays.

That depends on what you're referring to. Some areas have lower ridership potential than others, as do certain times. Some things that hamper throughput are inherent design flaws, likely due to a failure to future-proof (I can think of a couple of areas off the top of my head). There are others, but because there are many factors, I won't even try to get into every one of them.

Why we can't have nice things...

We might as well expect this to actually happen thanks to him and his very qualified group.

That was supposed to happen years ago, but it didn't. Three guesses as to why.

I swear, people are so fixated on doing this again...

Under both of your proposals (especially the second one), this entire bit is moot, as none of the stations along Fulton Street will have express service, anyway. If this had been about local service, that would be a different story, but literally no one called for rerouting that.

1. Great, a waste of funds just to have that express track. 2. Sure, because eminent domain will totally fly in a community where the median income is only somewhat better than that of Brownsville (and, given the area, would likely not have suitable replacements). You would be better off having any potential express track follow Jamaica Avenue, anyway, as the curves by Alabama Avenue and between Crescent Street and Cypress Hills are extremely sharp. Of course, doing this means that you'd run into virtually the same issue as the previous proposal, where the only express station between Jamaica and Broadway Junction would be at Woodhaven Boulevard (the only difference is where the station in Jamaica is located).

Now if only we could do something about that pesky concept of space...

In that case, forget it. There's a reason why the stretch between Crescent Street and Broadway Junction is stuck with two tracks.

Exactly.