B35 via Church

When I mentioned time savings, it was regarding the M9 in its totality (the old M9 compared to the current M9).... The part about union square was a totally separate point.....

I'm gonna add to what Cait said...... - As was said, the M9 to City Hall works.... quick, simple ride to the F train... It is used as an alternative to the M22 also..... never much cared for the M9 curling around Battery pl. to serve Battery Park city.... mich as I miss the M9 on 14th, it was rather redundant to the M14a.... I don't know how much time's been saved w/ the M9 truncation, and it seems as if there's always a bus when you need it now.... before, it was like, you aint know when the M9 was gonna show - it's gotten way more reliable IMO..... - M22 to Peter Cooper? What's wrong with making your way to the M9.... The demand out there is for service to union Sq., not to 23rd st.... Why do you think the 14a & 14d serves different parts of the LES..... The streets in that area won't allow for such a feasible extension of the 22 up there anyway..... ....and lol if anyone thinks the DOT's gonna make pitt st (or any other 1-way street) st two-way, for the sole sake of having a bus route re-routed onto it.... ----------------------- far as the other ideas.... - I'm not buying what was previously given as an explanation as to why the M2 (of all routes) should be sent down to South Ferry as a plausible one, over reverting the M1.... - M5/M6 ideas I generally agree with.... - M31/57 merge is a bad idea all around... Justifying such a move by using the B82 as a comparison is off-base, as the traffic along kings hwy & flatlands av pales in comparison to the traffic of york av & 57th st..... How many yorkville & upper east siders do you think are really seeking service along West end av over there by the upper west side? The ones that do, would make their way to the M66 or M72.... This is why "U-shaped" routes don't work..... These two routes need to stay separated, as to retain a "dedicated" crosstown service along 57th.... M31 still has York av to contend with.....

Outside of the jockeying for position/lack of space b/w SB B41's, B103's, and Queens bound Q35's on flatbush b/w Nostrand & H, I still think this Q35 move has something to do w/ the B103.... Way I see it, more B103 short turns to come in the future = removal of the Q35 on the NB side of Av H......but aside from that.... This re-route to me, prolongs the junction bound Q35 a bit.... and as for catching the Queens bound Q35, it is a bit of a hassle to cross Av. H to get to the bus.... Forget about crossing 'H at flatbush; too many turning vehicles - what I did was walk mid-block on Av. H, and cross from there... little less to worry about (if you don't mind jaywalking, that is).... That parking garage entry/exit on Nostrand exacerbates matters... You (GC) may be right about the slightly increased B41 usage (for those that use the Q35 w/i Brooklyn)... it will be due to flat out laziness of not wanting to walk over to the Q35 now, since the kings plz. bound 41 would retain it's stop just south of the junction.....

I don't see the point of running overnight Q35's to Arverne.... those hrs, Q35's are timed to meet up w/ the .... Extending Q35's to still have them maintain a timed connection with the 2 would basically mean you'd have to run less service..... Not worth it, if you ask me..... Of those you do see that are taking Queens bound Q35's after like midnight, are ppl. that live on that side of the rockaways (meaning, as was said, these folks aren't heading to B. 116th for the A/S, or anywhere otherwise east of that point that doesn't involve the subway)...... Why extend Q35's eastward, when service east of the wye (meaning, service to/from Far Rockaway) during overnight hours are still running? You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone seeking service b/w Arverne & B. 169th (which is the same basic reason 22's aren't running).... and especially ppl. riding b/w Arverne & B116th st, to anywhere in Brooklyn.... I mean, during the daytime, hell yeah you have a lot of folks making that commute (Q35 to the Q22 & vice versa for the return trip).... Overnights though... ** crickets.gif ** Anyway, as far as why the Q22 doesn't have overnight service, ridership flat out dies after a certain hour out there... I'm surprised that service runs til about 1-2am to be honest..... Virtually (I really wanna say literally) no one is riding within the rockaways during those hours.... It makes more sense to dedicate overnight service to the Q35 over the Q22.... As for the Q35 & Q113 having overnight service.... It's due to the outlying areas they serve (2 train in Brooklyn, etc & the E/F/J in Jamaica, etc., respectively)... No "hawk" service on those 2 routes would leave too huge a hole in service - basically relegating anyone actually needing service to the rockaways to making their way to the (A)/ ....

- Well now wait a second.... By you suggesting moving Bx36's off 174th west of rosedale av, you're doing the exact same thing (underestimating).... From what I'm reading here of yours, only difference between what you're suggesting & what I'm suggesting is that I would still have Bx36 (locals) serving 174th (along with your "Bx37")..... Whereas you'd just have your "Bx37" serving that area.... - About the Bx13 & the removal of the Bx11 off ogden/plimpton, that much I figured out when I first read your plans (to boost usage on the 13).... It was (and still is) the extending of it to out to Hunts Point I find that isn't justified - Even if Bx6's are being bombarded..... - What you gave an answer to, wasn't really what I was asking about those 5 routes..... I wasn't talking about just it's usages to/from/along W. 181st..... Anyway, I would stop to say the Bx13 is the least used, then the 11, then the 35, then the 3, with the 36 being the most used of the 5 routes in their totalities...... Just from my vantage points anyway... Someone posted the ridership stats not too long ago, so I'm sure someone would double check to see how accurate my visual assessments are..... - lol.... about the Bx10, I thought that (benefit) was obvious.....

That was asked already.... See exchange below..... Physically, you can't extend it to Brooklyn, you'd have to cut off the East Side portion of the line.

That's how it should be anyway, with or without the removal of the Bx10.....

My reply: 1) I'm not implicating that the MTA's way of handling crowd control on the Bx6 is the best way (by extending 13's to 3rd to pick up some of the slack).... What I'm saying is, your method of having the 13 supplement most of the Bx6 in the bronx isn't the way to go either.... You're basically minimizing the 13's importance b/w the stadium & washington hgts..... What should happen is, more service should be added to the Bx6 where/ when/ in what direction the usage it at its highest..... 2) Give me your opinion on the five [bronx - W 181st st] routes from highest to least utilized.... 3) about the M100, yeh I figured that much.... Since you want to cut the 9 back to the mall on 225th, you needed something to cover the current 9's portion along broadway..... that is how that part of your plan came off to me..... As for the Bx26, Broadway b/w 242nd & county line doesn't need 2 bus routes though (your M100 & your extended Bx26)..... 4) Yeh, I agree w/ the removal of the Bx10 along Jerome av to speed it up.... However, I don't get the sense that there's much travel between Woodlawn & Riverdale enough to extend the 10 up there.... The route won't benefit from an extension to Woodlawn... The 10 is more heavily used west of the reservoir than it is on the eastern side of it.... an extension to Woodlawn would only garner but so many riders anyway - at the detriment of the folks that use that route the most... I still say it's good on 205th.... 6) Ok, so you would do things differently.... I would simply branch the Bx16 out b/w serving 233rd & 238th (nereid), instead of having the 16 serve 233rd & extending the Bx23 to cover 238th (nereid).... The 23 is a feeder route to PBP serving co-op, and is necessary since the 50 runs LTD w/i co-op (and is coming from Queens, to boot).... You are changing the purposes of both the Bx23 & Q50 with your plans (really to botch up the Bx30).... I would leave the 30 as being the only route entering/leaving co-op from the north..... 8) I would just shorten the current Bx36 to Lafayette/WPR & have the LTD's take the Q44 routing b/w WPR & E tremont av... then from there, make its way to boston rd & E 180th st....Then you could have that "Bx37" of yours act as a part time route b/w Castle Hill & Fordham plz.... What I'm saying here: * Bx36 LTD's: Lafayette > WPR > cross bx serv. rd > 177th > devoe > E tremont > boston > E 180th... then regular route to Washington Hgts... * Bx36 locals: current Bx36 route b/w Lafayette/WPR & university av/174th

I like how everyone that's posted in this thread thus far that knows about the route, all came to the same conclusion.....

JW72093 beat me to it; I don't think Bronx's bus system needs an overhaul, per se.... But I'll still comment on these anyway: Bx6/13: If the space existed, I would send the Bx13 to the Hub (via Melrose).... A 1-seat ride from the Hub to Washington hgts. might work. I don't really see the need for the 13 to run out to Hunts point, just so that it can be interlined w/ the 6.... Bx15/55: I would leave the Bx15 running b/w 12th/125th & Fordham plz.... But I do think maybe the 55 LTD should be sent up to Wakefield/241st w/ the 39 truncated to Gun Hill rd.... either that, or have the Bx39 & Bx41 reverted to it's pre 6/2010 routings..... Bx11: Rerouting the Bx11 to morris hgts to kill off the Bx18.... so basically you're saying the 11 isn't needed in washington hgts since you can take the 13 or the 35.... I'm neutral with this one. Bx9/Bx19/M100: How can I say this.... I don't like the restructuring of the Bx9/Bx19, just to have to M100 run all the way up to Riverdale - It's the M100 part of it I totally disagree with.... This notion of having 225th as a full time terminal in a couple of your ideas, I'm not too fond of either.... However, the splitting of the 9 & the 19 at Hunts Point or Westchester/Southern isn't too bad an idea.... Bx20: I wouldn't bother extending it.... may as well get rid of it & give that service to the Bx7 & Bx10.... Bx26: Don't agree with extending this... Folks up in Riverdale would rather take the BxM3 into manhattan over taking the current Bx9 (or some local bus, in general) to the ..... and I can't fathom there being too much of a need for those patrons to get to areas where the 4 train runs within the bronx..... Bx28/38: Yeah, I think the Bx28 should be reverted.... be gone w/ this Bx38.... Bx30: Don't think it's worth it - I mean, all that just to serve those projects while eventually getting back to Gun Hill/WPR.... Just have it loop around the edenwald houses via grace, making its way back to/from boston rd and & be done with it, if that's what you want to accomplish.... Don't agree with the notion of leaving Boston rd bus service all up to Bee Line either..... Bx10/16/34: hmm, well.... The only thing I think should happen to the 10 is the moving of it across Bedford park blvd & up Bainbridge to get to 205th ... the Jerome av routing is too slow.... Anyone using the 10 that needs the hospital will just have to transfer..... Your idea of sending this all the way to Woodlawn I don't understand, especially knowing how slow that route already is..... I agree in general with what you want to do w/ the Bx16/34.... I would go about the whole thing by creating 2 separate branches of the 16: * Bx16's [via 233rd] would run b/w 205th & Ropes/Boston Rd... These buses would just shoot across 233rd, and use the current routing b/w Dyre av subway & the shopping center over there... * Bx16's [via Nereid] would run b/w 205th & Dyre av ... These buses would run up Katonah av, to McLean<->Nereid, turn down Baychester av, and use the current routing from baychester av to get to Dyre av subway... With both branches, some rush hour service would be extended to/from Fordham ctr. Bx23/Q50: I don't think an extension to MNRR Woodlawn is necessary.... Personally, I think the Bx29 should be cut off at its head & merged with the Bx24..... This would increase the importance of the 23 b/c it would then be the only "local" (or, non-LTD) route that serves any section of co-op, coming up from PBP...... Basically, I'm saying leave the 23 alone.... - Co-op patrons needing MNRR can xfer from the 30 to the 16 (via 233rd)... - Co-op patrons needing Dyre av can continue taking the 30 & walking..... There's zero need to extend the Q50 (of all routes) up there - especially on top of running Q50's local..... Bx5: When that mall gets propped up over there or w/e, maybe then we can bring that up as a possibility.... Right now, I gotta say nah to this.... Bx24: The 21 should be doing all that in that area.... Bx31: Don't think this will be worth it; the 22 will still be prevalent down there... Not sure how much demand for service to Westchester Sq that exists from Castle Hill.... Bx27/36/"37": I dunno about this one... While I like what you did w/ the "37", what you're doing w/ the 36 overall confuses me.... and I wouldn't get rid of the 27 for an altered 36.....

I'm not gonna argue what's supposedly a true crosstown route because I'm not gonna waste time harping on semantics.... I don't see demand for the M21 increasing b/c they're building up over in the village.... As was said, since the M20 runs like crap, patrons that live around W. Houston st either make their way to the M5 (by walking), walking over to the W. 4th st station for the 6th & 8th av lines , or taking the .... When you live in an area where you have to put up w/ the likes of (the service levels of) the M20 & the M21, I cannot blame those residents one bit.... Word.... This is one of the better discussions in this section of the forum as of late, regarding a particular route.....

You'd most likely garner more riders if it were to be extended north of houston on the western end, as opposed to the south.... The areas the M20 covers in that general section of manhattan is pretty dead... I see virtually empty NB M20's 5 days a week... only reason that route isn't a weekday only route is b/c of it's usage north of 14th st..... --- I had an old idea that had the 21 going to chelsea piers, running up 6th & down 7th av... None of my old google map links seem to work anymore, so I'll just briefly describe it: WB route simply had buses turning off houston onto 6th av & shooting across 23rd etc. to chelsea piers EB route had buses shooting across 23rd, down 7th, down greenwich, across 8th, down macdougal, to get to houston.... - main problem I saw was that, the EB route would be too prone to delays/double parked vehicles.... having buses stay on 7th (varick) couldn't be done b/w houston becomes 1-way westbound west of 6th av... meaning buses would have to pan all the way down to spring, and do what they currently do to get back to houston.....

This goes back to what we're (now) talking about in Threxx's Brooklyn bus overhaul thread.... Manhattan's system is based off a grid, due to the layout of the streets w/i the borough..... I am not gonna further comment on how out of place the current focal point in this thread has now become.... The Q103 & the M21, smh... Since the M21 is part of a grid (a "crosstown" if you will), you can only do but so much with it..... What keeps that route from flourishing (outside of its low freq) is the fact that the masses are on the eastern portion of Houston - but the demand for bus service to the more western portion of Houston simply isn't great.... That is what plagues that route......

I didn't think anyone would agree that a modified grid network works best for a large scale bus system.... To kinda touch on the point Checkmate made.... I think it was JAzumah a while back, that said something to the tune of, grid systems generally don't work if the routes within em run on 30 min. headways or greater..... I would have to concur..... To be honest, drawing up a grid just seems lazy to me; as if the people's destinations don't matter near as much (or at all)... i.e., here's your bus system - you have routes that run east-west & those that run north-south... That's it. Deal with it. BrooklynBus' mention of Denver's bus system during the 70's is a very good example of what I'm driving at with that..... To give somewhat of an analogy... it's like attempting to teach a class (or even parent) out of a handbook, as opposed in getting to know (or in the case of parenting, nurturing & loving) the youth you're dealing with..... Don't know about you guys, but I hated textbook teachers - I usually knew more than them at the subject they were teaching, and hardly ever felt like I was truly learning anything..... Not to come off as a pompous ass, but there were many times I would correct a teacher in high school during a lecture/session..... I'll go as far as to say, any idiot can swoop through & draw a grid.... However, Someone that's not in the know (or as much in the know) cannot attempt to draw a modified grid.... Which is what makes it easier to opinionate in giving a yay or nay on ppl's ideas, especially the Brooklyn based ones..... I don't have the resume that BrooklynBus has, but I've been casually riding these routes ever since the mid 90's, onwards.... I think I would have a heart attack if some higher power were to come down & notify me of the summation of money I spent on fanning in Brooklyn alone for the past 2 decades (almost)...... not counting the other boroughs & other counties I've ventured into..... Some can call it corny, I honestly don't care - No one can shame me by calling me a busfanner (one fool that no longer posts on this forum already tried), because it's a lot I've learned about the cities I've fanned in, simply by doing so..... real world experience > textbook/word-of-mouth information..... More to the point though, I dread to see what Brooklyn's bus network would look like if it were to be based off a perfect grid for the entire borough...... To give some examples, the B6's, B103's, and B61's of the world would not exist.... True enough.... and these are generally the same people that the MTA can do no wrong... I mean, there is always room for growth.... this borough is becoming overcrowded enough as it is, and it's only gonna get worse over time... Tourism (and the networking b/w those of like countries/nationalities) plays a role in it too.... To give an example, I'm often amazed at how much territory Asians encompassed up in the NE part of Queens..... And those bus routes that run in that area of the borough are by no means shunned, or solely/mainly used during peak times..... Basic point is, routes can become antiquated & it's always best to stay on the ball as far as modernizing them...... I don't like basing a bus system off just feeders if we're talking about some large city..... One reason is because of what you mentioned about is subpar usage during off peak times.... Also, forget about latent ridership; the room for growth becomes minimized/marginalized..... I mean, they have their place in a network, but to use em as THE basis for a network..... Nah. Well I gotta say Mission Accomplished..... and talks will prolong, as long as there are enough people that see & point out the flaws (and extrapolate & even make a real push to rectify 'em).... on top of those whose literal commutes have been exacerbated by the further marring of the system/network..... Of course this concept shouldn't only reign true for Brooklyn.... which is why I can respect what Mr. Bounad Hahnic is attempting to do in his community..... I hath spoken......

Grids represent the ideal model of how one might go about structuring a network (large-scale, that is), b/c it's the most feasible..... Personally, I tend to favor modified grids - As opting to structure a network that way, better addresses what/where riders in a certain community are generally heading to (along such a route).... Modified grids are more involved than constructing a regular grid, but if you ask me, you can attempt to benefit more riders (in general) this way..... But in any case, you have to have some inkling of where the riders are heading (and/or what they want/need to begin with)..... I'm talking about the collective, of course.... ^^ You could make life easier by adding in a couple feeders as well, if you can't nail every nook & cranny w/ creating modified grid routed.... But to base a whole city's network off feeders - Or to actually suggest that current bus lines that aren't as such, be turned into feeder "rte's" wouldn't be the way to go, if we're talking about providing bus service for a large city.... You'll have some longer distanced routes, more "intermediate" routes, and some shorter distanced routes to optimize the network..... --------- For smaller-scale networks, I'd either use the hub & spoke network structure or a point-to-point structure setup (if we're talking about a real small city, or a city whose main points of interest are widespread)...... but that's a whole nother ballgame.... So to directly opinionate to this post.... The latter.... The more some bus system doesn't benefit the patrons of multiple areas within a city, the more useless that bus system becomes..... But that isn't to say every major destination should classify as being a terminal for every bus route in a network...... You can have some routes pass through one major destination, to possibly serve some other(s).....

So now we're gonna have a bunch of feeders all over the place.... gotcha.

1) Nice straw man argument.... If this was a general discussion on how to make public transportation better in this city, then I would address that part of the post.... Since we are specifically talking about one particular mode (i.e., the bus), I'm not going to engage in any direct discussion of an entirely separate mode of travel...... This isn't necessarily directed at you, but Why would anyone truly concerned about the declination of bus service bring up a new subway line as some sort of remedy to anything...... To me, that's nothin more than sayin "f*** the bus, as the train is more beneficial".... Quite frankly, it's that type of attitude about buses that peeves me more than anything..... Maybe it's just me & Threxx that thinks bringing up a subway line in a bus discussion thread isn't no where near relevant regarding the topic at hand..... 2) Yep, you get the idea.

Basically what you're saying is the current B4 terminal is weird.... which I don't disagree with....

That's over there where the current B4 terminates.... Save your strength.... Consider the source.

I have to side w/ Cait on this one... There's not much more that can be done to improve the M21, especially now that it no longer runs up to Bellevue...... It's usage throughout the day isn't consistent either.... I mean yeah, it sucks that the route has the headways that it does, but on the other hand, I don't really see a headway increase being warranted for it....

This. I believe this is nothin more than you tryna find some avenue to push your subway idea..... Yeah it would be easier & cheaper because more funds would be allocated towards propping up a subway line, and less funds going towards improving the bus network - Further justifying the running of less buses... That's part of what's wrong w/ public transportation in this city now, with the trying to cram everyone onto subways & the thwarting of bus usage..... Easier & cheaper, sure.... Of course you say nothin about it being better for the buses in the system though... How can you... I don't wanna say every third, per se.... What I will say is, in general, the altered headways on B4 would be similar to that of the current B1 (which would yield a drastic increase in service, compared to the current B4)..... But the amount of B1 runs/day that'd run from end-to-end would be decreased.... This could go some way in attempting to address that problem @ KCC w/ the gross overabundance of students waiting for the buses..... In other words, the amt. of B4's you'd see running along 86th st would be ~equal to the amt. of B1's running along 86th..... If I simply kept the B1 & B4 at its current headways running from its respective end-to-end's, the "ratio" of B1's to B4's would be too great.... That, and it would be nothing more than having even more physical buses getting caught up under the el there..... Like I alluded to, I'd attempt to balance the service out... If patrons need service b/w 4th av & av x , they can hop on either bus route.... Same deal goes for, if they need CI hospital (although they may favor the 4 heading SB b/c that diminish the worry of crossing ocean pkwy... well that, and there's less traffic on Av Z... but the option for the B1 is still present)..... If they need the brighton line, they'll have their choice of sheepshead or brighton beach, as both are "express" stations.... and of course, if they need sheepshead bay (the neighborhood) the B4 will be available.... and for KCC, the B1 will be available.....

B1- I was gonna edit the post, but I didn't bother.... right increment, wrong numerical direction.... But yes, it's 87th st... B3- I suppose.... The way I see it, on that route though, any little advantage in distance I think would help.... The B3 b/w the & Veterans av is about as optimal one could make that route... B4- I don't think so, for that same reason you pointed out.... Which is one reason why I wouldn't have every B1 head over to 86th/4th.... My aim w/ the B1/B4 plan is to try to balance out the # of B1's arriving/leaving 86th/4th & the # of B4's that would do the same thing If current service levels were to be kept the same on each, the # of B1's to B4's would be totally unbalanced......

Sometimes there are police cars on the WB side (atlantic terminal bound) of the LIRR tracks as well.... I had one stop & question me one time after having gotten off an LIRR train (after having done some fanning out in LI).... I used to take the LIRR all the way to atlantic terminal, but I find it's far easier for me to get off at LIRR ENY & walk over to the B12..... The B12 stop right after it turns off albany onto clarkson is just about perfect for me.... LIRR nostrand av, I don't remember the last time I used that station.... to tell the truth, I despise that station more than I do LIRR ENY... LIRR Atlantic terminal... well, I got sick of having to wait for a packed 2 or 5 (or B/Q) after having came off the RR.... Anyway, more to the point.... - Yeh, you walk straight up van sinderen for those 2 blocks & the Broadway Jnctn. buses are right there.... - To catch the B12 from the LIRR sta, you make that same 2 block walk up to fulton st, then pan right for another 2 block (or is that one long block) walk over there by the greenery/triangle it picks up at.... - To get to the Alabama Av station from the LIRR station, you then have to cross ENY from the B12 1st pick up stop & walk up like 1/2 a block or so.... I'm not sure what, or where Shortline thinks the actual ENY LIRR entrance is....

Let's set this straight, b/c there's something you're not quite getting.... Yes, Atlantic Av on the L is close to the LIRR... matter fact, the entrance to the jamaica bound platform & the steps leading to the L train is right there.... That much is true..... However, the LIRR station is closer to B'way Junction than it is to the alabama av station.... Atlantic Av on the L is no where near Alabama av on the J.... The entrance at Broadway junction is over there off fulton & van sinderen (well technically, it's ON van sinderen).... There's an underpass that leads to both platforms of the LIRR station on (the northern end of) Atlantic av & van sinderen...... The same side you can't directly reach Atlantic av on the L from..... The distance between the entrance to the underpass for the LIRR & the Broadway junction entrance is 2 blocks.....This is what Future FLA B/O was referencing......

Serve that area??? Dude, how far do you think the distance is between Broadway Junction & the LIRR ENY station......