B35 via Church

No problem. To answer/opinionate on your questions..... On the Q35, very very little... A typical Rockaway bound ride on the Q35 within Queens (to give a safe range), you'll see anywhere b/w 0-10 ppl embarking towards B 116th.... I'm not listing zero only b/c it's a statistical possibility either - I'm listing zero because it's common to ride a Q35 after having crossed the Gil Hodges, to have no one embarking on it before it reaches the terminal.... There are more ppl. that utilize the Q22 b/w B 169th & B. 116th, compared to the Q35 - nothing drastic though.... Anyway, unique Q22 usage towards B 67th... It's hard to tell/gauge because you have the folks that take Q35's that disembark at B 149th for the 22, and the ones that ride the 35 out to B 116th @ walk over for the Q22 @ the B 115th stop as well (a stop I can't stand btw... always full of drunks over there).... But in general, Q22 usage picks up east of B 116th st.....

Not that it has any bearing in this particular discussion.... but since you brought it up (and also to clarify), yeah from what I depict, the Q35 has more black riders than white riders.... If it's rockaway bound 35's we're talking about, the black riders either disembark at 1 or 2 stops in Queens - the B149th st stop for the Q22, or at the terminal (B 116th) itself.... the white riders get off anywhere along newport (including B 116th).... Junction bound 35's w/i Queens, it's a mix of black & white riders embarking at the terminal, white folks embarking along newport, and a mix of black & white riders embarking at B 169th (the white ones are most likely those coming off 22's, or those coming off the blue goose)..... Yeah, it's not so much that it's a bunch of rockaway patrons heading out to the IRT necessarily (and just to be clear, I'm not trying to implicate that none of them are seeking the brighton b/c they are... I just don't think a separate route should exist for that purpose for those folk)... The Q35's you see in the mornings that are jammed packed arriving at the junction, are also riders that board at kings hwy.... meaning the Q35 has decent intra-Brooklyn usage as well.... Black or white (lol), LIRR far rockaway usage is abominable.... It's easily the least used station out of the entire line. Matter fact, it's almost as bad as LIRR usage on those stations east of Ronkonkoma on that line; hell, LIRR far rockaway sees 50 riders a day, I'd be shocked.... not exaggerating either.... People would rather take the Q113 full to jamaica center for the E or the J to manhattan, than take the LIRR to manhattan..... The people that live in far rockaway (even what would be considered the "good" parts of the neighborhood) barely use that station, nevermind anyone else west of far rockaway driving or otherwise making their way there.....

yep, those are the options.... and I can't believe that if a new route were to be introduced & be sent to sheepshead subway, that there would be as many patrons down there all of a sudden so willing to take public transportation (of the ones that already don't, I mean)..... Basically, his Q51 idea, at best/if successful, would take ppl. off Q35's.... An adverse effect which would affect the Q35 & a stalemate as far as public transportation (overall local bus usage) goes.... Because no way would current 35 usage be sustained, and a Q51 of sorts would flourish w/ newfound ridership on top of it..... Since, as you already alluded to (which is true in general), folks aren't exactly going "wild" (lol) for public transportation down there...... So for BrooklynBus (or anyone else) that wanna tell me not everyone has cars.... That doesn't mean everyone is just as quick to use a newfound bus route also..... Which is exactly the same ish' we were all preaching to QJT back when he was going magilla gorilla bananas w/ all the BS "rtes" he was infesting the forums with...... Anyway, I'm not gonna break down commuting time (in terms of minutes) of each of those options they have (BrooklynIRT is good at doing that stuff)... But in any event, I'm like, how many more people are we gonna try to force on the Brighton.... I'm sorry, but getting Sheepshead riders to the Brighton is more important than getting Rockaway riders to the Brighton..... Attempting to do both with one route makes things worse for Sheepshead patrons.... or, "Plumb beach".....

Exactly my point.... If they don't wanna deal with the A (or the shuttle to the A, or the Q53 to the A), they have the Q35 to the IRT via Brooklyn.... Which is more than enough additional access to the subway in Brooklyn for someone coming from the Rockaways..... I will say that the Q35 can be improved (service-wise) though His Q51 to me, is equivalent to having a whole new route coming from SI & having that serve some station on the D (for example).... under the same logic he's using, SI-ers need better connections to Brooklyn too... on top of it, he's using that route to address the concerns of Sheepshead riders, as well.... As for your question, subway service west of the wye has been absolutely horrid for the longest now; well before they started rehabbing the stations along that portion of the line..... This is why you have ppl. in that area taking the bus (the Q53 to be exact) to the A at Rockaway blvd/Cross bay blvd..... The ones that don't do that, take the Q22 to arverne (B. 67th st subway) & catch the A from there, since A service w/i the Rockaways is dedicated to the portion of the line that is east of the wye (meaning, towards Far Rockaway)...... Those that don't deal w/ the local buses, the subway, and don't drive, use their QM16's well.... especially since that extension back in 2007 to B 147th st, which made all the more difference.... before that, QM16's stopped dead on B 116th - Which didn't directly serve the residents that actually reside west of B 116th.......

Because they already have the A within the Rockaways, that's why.... Those patrons chose to live out there. If the Q35 didn't exist, then I could see the push you're trying to make for this Q51 of yours.... b/c it would provide Rockaway riders access to our borough which wouldn't have existed otherwise.... But advocating for another route down to the Rockaways from Brooklyn, I'm still not seeing as necessary - regardless if it serves a subway line that the Q35 does not..... you can't ignore that... What next, a route from the Rockaways to the F train? The N perhaps.... Surely you're not gonna make a point of contention out of ONE Staten Islander you saw on the B4.... Yeah, people come from all over, that's not news to anyone.... As far as not everyone having cars, also obvious..... If you're gonna use that as a defense to sending a bus route somewhere, then you may as well have a bunch of unnecessary bus routes all over the place......

All that time when it was just the B13 serving that mall, yeh, you'd think it'd be common sense to have at least *one* other route there... There was a point & time when stores were closing down left & right (of the stores that were left anyway) @ Gateway; started to look pretty empty down there.... Then out of nowhere, shoppers started frequenting the area again... All those big box stores (as they call em) that are there now, were propped up.... If if wasn't feasible for you to get to the 13 (pretty much meaning ppl. that lived too far west of the route), it was rather cumbersome to get to Gateway via public transportation.... Now you have the B83 & the Q8 down there, and those two routes brings a considerable amt. of folks to the mall.... I'll admit, having Q8's I didn't agree with at the time - I was surprised at the intra-Brooklyn usage it was getting... then it hit me; all it was, was an alternative b/w the subway & the projects (incl. linden blvd), since the 13 is as laggy as it is..... The B17 to Canarsie was my idea, so I'll elaborate on it.... I highly doubt increasing headways on the B7 will do it.... That'd only result in an increase in emptier buses along the route IMO.... I look at the route in three parts - 1] the stint b/w coney island & flatbush av..... 2] the stint b/w flatbush av & church av.... and 3] the stint b/w church av & B'way/Halsey..... 1st stint, riders (schoolkids + commuters) basically frequent the 7 if it comes before the 82, or the 82 was just missed and/or was too packed to board.... folks that pile on 7's b/w CI av & flatbush usually get off b/w that stint.... ridership from these set of folks past flatbush av is not great at all.... 2nd stint, these set of riders mostly consist of schoolkids.... during school hours, this portion of the route is just about dead (not counting church av itself).... Everyone that lives in the catchment area (or w/e you wanna call it) of this stint are too busy making their way to 46's & 47's.... it's been like that for decades (according to brooklyn bus, trainmaster5, and older family members of mine).... Those two aforementioned routes serve patrons/residents better than the 7 does..... 3rd stint, is where B7 usage is sustainable, has a far greater importance in the neighborhood this stint serves, and doesn't supplement any other route.... This is the part of the route that should be retained..... As for the B17, the route shouldn't be that unreliable for as important as it is in Canarsie..... I agree w/ a span expansion on the 17, but I also think the 7 is better off serving Remsen av - Canarsie than it is serving Kings hwy (because I wouldn't cut the B7 outright, as a few ppl have proposed in the past).... better use of resources moving the 7 elsewhere if you ask me..... If you're tryna get to the , it's also a quicker ride; as saratoga av is closer to canarsie than Utica av subway is..... of course, if you need utica av (B46 or B12) or other areas along remsen north of church, the B17 will still be available for those riders.....

...and you interjected in telling me this because???? Look, You can minimize that distance all you'd like..... Try telling that to people who actually live in the neighborhood who need the bus to get around..... Good for you....

Yeah, I've been sayin for the longest that the B82 should remain terminating within Starrett City..... As such, the B83 remaining to serve Gateway Mall.... The MTA has it right with that setup, and they made the right choice in having extended the 83 instead of the 82 there back in late 2007.....

Yes, of course..... Under the B2 commentary, when I said: "Not sure why service should be revoked from Av. R & Fillmore av, east of nostrand, for the sake of moving it up to Quentin" I was referring to the general area with which you're getting rid of service; didn't think I had to say "Av R for the B2 & Fillmore for the B100, east of nostrand"... I mean, we both know the areas...... I was gonna say your Q51 benefits Rockaway riders moreso than Brooklyn riders.... As far as Rockaway being untapped, yeah, someone else brought that up (don't remember who)..... Fact of the matter is, those folks can't have it both ways.... It's not like they have no subway service, or no other alternatives to get to the subway w/i the Rockaways themselves.... I, probably more than anyone on these forums, am the most vocal when it comes to improving the bus network... So I'm all for improving the network, but on the same token (as you brought up in the B2/100 part of your post) duplication is a determining factor..... Flat out, Rockaway riders are gonna have to make up their minds..... It's ill-justified to have 2 bus routes running between the Rockaways & Brooklyn, since the rockaways is not that dense.... it's either they want the B/Q (more), or the 2/5 (more).... In other words, the current Q35, or having the Q35 serve some other station along the Brighton instead.....

When did this happen? Contrary to belief, some actually are.... I'm not just talking about forum posters that don't live in the affected area either.... That whole svg - png thing is the main reason I don't care much for inkscape..... SVG's are a PITA....

First off, Thanks again to RTS CNG' ! ---------------- As for these suggestions by BrooklynBus...... Ok, instead of looking back & forth as I comment for each change, lemme make it easier on myself & do it this way... a- A Q51 b/w the Rockaways & Sheepshead Bay subway b- Having the B4 run towards Sheepshead Bay subway via neptune c- The SBS B44 to Sheepshead Bay Subway d- Having the B2 run b/w Mill Basin & Coney Island e- Cutting the B82 back at CI/Quentin f- A B31 extension to (what looks like) 12th av & 69th (aka bay ridge av) g- The canning of the B100 h- Having the B64 reverted to Coney Island ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Right off the bat, I'll say I do not agree to making Sheepshead subway a full time terminal... With that said.... a- As far as a Rockaway - Sheepshead Bay route, while clever, I'm not sure how well such a route would perform.... Goes way back to what I said about service along knapp, back when folks were suggesting extending buses to kings plz. from that area..... My belief with that is one of, there is no need for bus service along knapp st - If that were the case, it'd be simpler/cheaper to have the B36 swing along Av Z & up that same portion of Knapp to end somewhere around Gerritsen/Av U, instead of having to create 1] a new route & 2] having it come from Queens...... The route does have its benefits (serving kings plz from sheepshead, connecting the rockaways to the B/Q, the elimination of having to xfer to the B3), but I don't see it outweighing the negatives, I'm sorry.... On top of that, as was said, there's no real need for two routes b/w the rockaways & Brooklyn... b- B4 stopping dead at sheepshead subway to support a route coming from the Rockaways to address the needs of Sheepshead riders... as a former court jester poster would say, "nope".... I'd rather revert the B4 in that area of sheepshead, have that serve (not terminate) at the subway, and send it to a part of Brooklyn where those riders would benefit more from..... which doesn't include neptune av..... c- B44 to sheepshead subway's been done to death in the B4 thread... no need to reiterate how I feel about that.... d- B2... I can agree with the general idea (not exactly, but in general)..... Not sure why service should be revoked from Av. R & Fillmore av, east of nostrand, for the sake of moving it up to Quentin..... coverage reasons perhaps? Anyway, having a separate portion of another route serve kings hwy (west of the brighton) I agree with... e- B82 truncation to CI/Quentin I agree with; current 82 is just too long & drawn out.... f & g- meh, having said the above about the B2 change, there's no need for me to really comment on the B31 & B100 changes, since I would restructure things differently - but this aint about me right now... lol.... Guess all I'll say about that is, I do agree with *some route* serving Av. P & 65th st..... h- B64 to Coney Island I agree with; usage has quite noticable decreased since the truncation to UP depot.... Bath av is another area/strip that feels more dead since they altered bus service in that area....

I also have it doing that..... I don't know Threxx's reason, but my reason was to attract more riders.... Currently, VA Hosp. bound buses use linden blvd to get back to church.... B8 gets very poor usage on linden blvd & that side of the hospital - What happens is, riders on the E. 98th st/hegeman side of the hospital needing the southbound B8 take B35's to Remsen & xfer for the B8 there.... My aim is to simply let those riders have the choice of the B8 & the B35 right on Hegeman, instead of having to take the 35 to get to the 8, if it's the 8 they need......

heh... that real estate ploy you speak of, is ongoing throughout brooklyn so it seems... my personal favorite is the calling of bushwick "East Williamsburg".... full knowing bushwick has a negative stigma attached to it, and williamsburg been an "up & coming area" (another term I hate) for years now..... The real question is (stealing your lingo for a sec... lol), why decide to introduce/call that area Plumb beach all of a sudden.... Don't think sheepshead bay fell off that hard, to where folks have to look to deem that particular part of sheepshead something else.... Those condo's & hotels along Emmons.... My theory is (and the timeline pans out too) when they were talking about possibly moving the nets down to Coney Island, that's when they started erecting those new condos & hotels..... If that's what developers were banking on, then it failed miserably - Those hotels for sure are gonna remain empty.... There's nothin in south brooklyn to warrant enough vacancies to fill up hotels in sheepshead.....

Link is not working right now; getting a 400 error... I'll check back some other time.... As far as resolution.... for starters, doing a print screen & saving it as a jpg, you'll always lose quality that way...... jpg is a more compressed/lossless file format than png..... The particular inkscape problem you're having, I can't assist with.... I found inkscape hard to work with, so I'm going with my bread & butter (paint shop pro) instead..... You know, I was wondering the same thing in the B4 thread..... Plumb beach kept getting brought up.... I always thought plumb beach was that small area b/w (east of) knapp st & the creek....West of knapp (including where the 4/44 terminates), that's considered Sheepshead Bay.....

Keeping it brief..... B45: On the surface, it makes sense.... except they won't terminate a bus full time there, for (one of) the same reasons the old 40/78 was combined... that was the old 78's full time terminal.... The only buses that start over there now, are weekday AM B47's heading towards kings plaza.... B65: SImply put, don't agree with putting anymore buses on flatbush.... Bad enough they got the downtown bound B103's now utilizing more of flatbush av in that area than what it used to..... either leave the service it as is, or have them cross flatbush at some other street (like, atlantic, for example).....

Exactly.... You have the Q67 going to Rego Park.... That is what I'm disagreeing with. I didn't even bring up the in that last post.....

Shortened the post to make the quoted post less lengthy..... Anyway: - Simply don't agree with any Q33 extension - From LGA to 74th st terminal is as ideal/maximal (efficiency-wise) that route's gonna get... - lol @ Q54 ltd service.... unless you plan on having buses hovering over the very narrow Metropolitan av from stop to stop, good luck with that... - Breaking up the Q18 @ roosevelt to have it take on the Q47 at-and-south of 74th st terminal? Not sure what you're trying to solve by doing all that.... surely you have some explanation..... - Q11/21 to jackson hgts... Bro, do you not see the heavy crowds at Hoffman that bombard the woodhaven locals... Do you not see the hell-of-a-time NB buses take to get to the last stop on QB? It's bad enough the 53 gotta deal w/ that, on top of panning northward on top of it.... Those buses need (and I don't use that term often when I talk about bus routes) to remain right where they are.... The 38 breakup plan here, ok.... - your Q88 I like... you could even truncate it on the eastern end & have it serve oakland gdns/230 st (like the old 75), instead of it swinging all the way down to LIRR QV like it currently does.... QV bound Q88's have a tendency to almost empty out @ springfield (for the 27) anyway... - The Q67 running over to rego park makes no sense.... Middle Village riders take that route primarily to get to the [at hunters pt.] to get to manhattan..... Try to find/think up another place to send the 63rd Drive spur..... - Q52... How can I say this.... I don't necessarily dislike the idea, but I still think the Q52 should remain @ hoffman dr. to relieve all those folks bombarding 53's (for woodhaven LTD service).... I agree with the MTA starting a woodhaven LTD route over there, instead of having Q53's come in, already packed to the gills.....

Nah, No route in suffolk county should have LTD's.... not even the S1.... can't afford to have buses skipping stops out there.... I don't know about a S20/S40 merge; those two routes are better off separate IMO.... The S40 is timed w/ the S66 @ Patchogue (a very common xfer scenario down there w/ riders); merging the 20/40 would screw that up..... As far as pinepower's idea.... I actually agree with him on moving the S90 from Ctr. Moriches, and I can see there being a need for a supplementary route for the south fork portion of the S92.... My only thing though is (and I pointed this out to him the first time he brought that idea up a couple months back) I still see riders waiting for the S92, over taking an S90 through Quogue to get to Riverhead.....

Yeah, it does have it going to SUNY Farmingdale.... to make life easier, here's a screenshot from the pdf about an extended/combined 25: I also don't like this combination, because of the reason you brought up (there already being the S23 & the S29 panning from LIRR Babylon to Walt Whitman mall).... as well as, simply put, the routing it takes...

I see you lurking pinepower.... thought you were done with the internet... ------------------ Anyway, for anyone interested, knock ya'selves out.... these are some proposals from SCT back in 2009... http://pdfcast.org/d...als-in-2009.pdf ^^ Some of these I think are actually good ideas..... Mac, the proposal in that pdf I linked talks about getting rid of the 31 & the 35, and extending the 25 to whitman mall.... Not sure if this is the study you're referring to.....

- The 69, and the "10 family" (guess I'll call it) usage I know nothing about... - I don't think anything can be done with the 5a.... it fills a void, but still hardly anyone rides it.... If you see 3 riders at any one point on that route, it's had a good day.... so sad.... - The S31 routing I always found to be strange; who wants to ride through pinelawn & ride back like that to get to 5 corners.... I always thought a full fledged route should've been made from it (instead of the 4 runs/day) by having it pan up to 5 towns, and also going inside SUNY farmingdale as well.... I don't feel like drawing a map, so I'll do it this way (in blue, below)... * from LIRR lindenhurst, hoffman av to south wellwood av, to montauk hwy, great neck rd, regular route to melville rd, loop inside SUNY farmingdale, smith st, wellwood av (which eventually turns into pinelawn rd), half hollow, to end inside 5 towns.... - the 35... send it up to wheatley hgts (that little shopping ctr, where the 2a ends)... regular route from GSB shopping ctr to the southern state... then take the southern state 1 exit over to straight path, where it'd run up straight path to 5 corners... then across edison, up wellwood (via LIRR pinelawn), and across colonial springs rd to wheatley hgts..... this way wellwood has bi-directional service.... - I'd get rid of the 1b portion west of strong av and the 1a portion along dixon east of albany ave.... iono, guess you can rename it the "s30" or whatever... the point is, it would be one route between LIRR lindenhurst & sunrise mall... remaining to serve the residential parts of north amityville, as well as lindenhurst... edit: The 20 & the 25 would be left alone....

Richmond terrace... pristine? ....I needed a good laugh. did webster suddenly change the definition of that word.... because pristine it is not. No industrial area ever is..... That show on the discovery channel isn't called "clean jobs"....

Someone that's even a more a voice of reason than I am.... Thank you. You just bottomlined the whole scope of the matter... They don't care to improve the network & truly hear folks out and consider what's being suggested/wanted because they are that out-of-tune with ridership habits across the board; the refusal to learn because they're only worried about cutting resources & manpower... Which results in funds being saved....

...and how many ppl. even take the S90 anymore?

Well... - Heading back towards ocean hill before it hits Flatbush av, it (the 65) only picks up at 3 stops mainly.... the terminal itself, the 2nd stop over on boerum/joralemon, and over on 5th/dean.... most the current atlantic av ridership is snatched up by the 63.... - Heading towards downtown brooklyn, west of flatbush, it doesn't get good usage at all (those stops along bergen west of f'bush).... That, and buses can take forever to get from smith/bergen to smith/fulton in the morning (which is one reason you have as many ppl getting off at f'bush).... These are the two main reasons why I do side w/ the idea.... The fact that riders would get direct service to Atlantic terminal (and for the nets when they get here) are added bonuses..... What I don't like about the idea is not so much that dean will be left w/ nothing b/w washington & 3rd, and bergen will be left with nothing b/w washington & smith (basically what you're alluding to)..... Because most the riders that get on the EB 65 within downtown have already gotten on before it hits flatbush; hell, before it even hits Atlantic !.... and you don't really get too many riders on the WB buses staying on past flatbush anyway..... ....but more (exactly) what Future flatbush b/o mentioned; the traffic situation around 4th/atlantic/flatbush.... It's only gonna get worse in the future w/ this stadium here now.... Bad enough the 45 gotta deal with turning onto atlantic off flatbush..... Anyway, even though this idea suggests that the 65 would be straightened along atlantic & it wouldn't have to put up with as much of bergen/dean, Having the 65 cross flatbush av @ bergen/dean does have its benefits..... All of that is why I'm neutral on this suggestion/idea....... Your question.... I already came to that conclusion; yes one of those routes should be sent there... What I'm second guessing is, which one.... b/c I don't think both the 45 and the 65 should run past ralph.....