B35 via Church

The LIRR entrance is closer to Alabama Av than it is to Pennsylvania av.... You're not making sense right now.....

Shortline Bus.... So now we're gonna extend buses to serve a couple of motels?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xA0ZHEwU2Q nzzzzz's is goin super saiyan now.... lmfao..... forward to like 3:35

Now for this guy, who thought I was being moody because he disagreed with my ideas..... Like I can't refute his points..... lmao.... B1: I can't see that happening.... it's bad enough residents don't want the buses utilizing 85th st the way it does now.... B3: The same reason it was cut back from Bergen Beach - very low usage... B4: There is a much bigger benefit to having a Sheepshead bay - Bay ridge route use 86th st, than it is to have such a route use bay ridge pkwy & panning down 4th av to 86th..... B4 via Bay ridge pkwy gives the MTA reason to run such piss-poor service that it currently does on the route.... and Sheepshead riders suffer b/c of it..... B5: That's basically a short turned 82... It aint the worst idea, it's just that I wouldn't do things that way..... B7: Don't see the point; virtually no one xfers b/w the B46 & the B7.... B8: Like I told you prior, I have no problem w/ B8's @ 95th st..... Anyway, the straightening along av. B was to shave off runtime from the route..... B11: Yeah, sure... * Lutheran bound- from regular route, continues south on 4th av to 60th st, to 2nd av, to 53rd st, to 1st av, then short right turn on 1st av to stand.... * Flatbush av bound- from 1st av, south on 52nd st, to 2nd av, to 60th st, to 4th av, to regular route.... B14: Those riders can xfer to the B13.... that's where EB B14's fizzle out anyway (over on Euclid)... The 2nd half of your statement, I don't know what you're trying to say.... I'm not removing the B13 from that area..... B15: don't agree w/ LTD service on this route.... the ridership on the B15 is too spread out.... B16: lol.... If you're talking about the actual park, there is an entrance on Parkside... If you're talking about the subway station, let em take the Q there..... B23: Your logic is backwards here.... You don't extend routes if they're successful..... The attempt is made to truncate a (longer) route if riders aren't utilizing it near as much on one end of the route.... B24: To have it running 7 days a week is my intent.... I'm not big on weekday only routes. B48: I suppose.... B54: heh.... Might wanna check this out: http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/servChanges_B54.htm ^^ Well at least one of my ideas actually came to fruition.... B57: Some riders, yes... quite a number of them? Not from what I depict.... I don't know how many downtown (well, Gowanus) bound B57's I've seen approaching Met. av w/ little to no pax on them.... Maspeth bound B57's pretty much empty out at Met av.... I can agree to sending it to 69th like Cotb16 suggested, but it's not all that feasible.... The only other thing that came to mind was to send the 57 to the Met av station .... but there's no where to turnaround around there..... B64: Yes, that's the consensus & that's the point.... B65: Those riders currently have the 12; what are you talking about.... and two, what is over there on Atlantic/Penn that is of such importance? The old 40 was an antiquated route that needed to go.... B69: I still have to think about what the short turns would be, as I wouldn't have all 69's go to manhattan.... But no way would I terminate a bus @ Grand Army Plz.... B83: To be honest, the only reason I'd keep the B20 around is for coverage.... Some suggest that route should be canned, which I don't agree with.... I don't get the sense that Starrett city patrons want service to ridgewood, and the usage/amt of pax. on the current 20 b/w the junction & forest av is rather weak.... Your B84 is nothing more than a re-routed 20 to starrett... The portion on Van Siclen I'm not worried about; those riders can make their way to the 20 or the 83 with the way I would restructure it..... B100: Who's "B5", mine or yours ? Q24: Don't agree... That route don't need to go past the junction... Waste of resources to have that route reverted all the way up to Van Buren.... Q59: Something's gotta cover that part of Metropolitan av....

My reactions are as follows..... B1- Disagree... never liked the idea of terminating buses on that part of shore road.... B2- I would do things differently, but ok. B7- Yeah, the current route north of Church av has decent usage.... it's stint b/w coney island av & flatbush av is used as a supplement to the 82..... it's stint b/w church & flatbush is mainly used by schoolkids, otherwise ridership on this part of the route is just flat out bad...... B8- No problem with that. B11- The problem is, buses get too caught up along 49th/50th sts... Just so happens that those 2 streets are where the school buses are routed also; and they make frequent stops along the way..... B12/16- Disagree.... I say the MTA's setup w/ those 2 routes are justified; B16 (serves riders) south & west of the prospect park area, & the B12 east of it.... I wouldn't alter these 2 routes just to address that gap on empire.... The amt of riders that would benefit from the 12 shooting across empire IMO, would be less than the current amt. of riders on the 12 b/w utica & its eastern terminal..... Basically, the 12 wouldn't be *as* useful..... Your 16 would snatch up the bulk of the riders. B15/17- Disagree... don't underestimate the amt. of people that use the B15 b/w Bed Stuy & Brownsville The route (15) is indirect, but that son of a gun works.... so I would leave that alone..... B24 - I actually thought about that.... I know they're building up over around kent/wythe @ North 7th,8th, 9th, etc., but unfortunately, MTA would just scream redundancy to the B62..... B30 - Then what becomes of the B83? B31- As much as I don't care for Gerritsen Beach patrons, I wouldn't do that to them..... B36- Another one of those old school ideas I never liked.... That route has its own problems. B38/B46- Bad ideas.... Don't know what you are thinking with this one... I think this one is your most radical.... lol... Seriously though, the Seneca branch gets MUCH more usage than the Met. av branch.... The B46 short turns don't exist b/c ppl. are xferring to B38's...... B41- Not happening.... there's no space for that. B43- I'm 50/50 on this.... I don't like the idea of moving 43's off empire, but this would aid in the loss of service on NY av when the SBS B44's come about..... B44- Sad part is, I think it's gonna eventually come to that..... B45- well, subway ridership would increase, I can guarantee that.... I see this idea failing for one reason the old 71 failed - there is no cohesion b/w those areas on the opposing sides of flatbush av.... In plain english, the IKEA won't be enough of a ridership generator to justify sending 45's out there..... You would just have ppl. w/i crown hgts taking buses to flatbush av for the 41, or have ppl. w/i crown heights walking south of st. johns to catch the subway along eastern pkwy..... B47- I don't necessarily agree w/ this (yes, I realize what you did w/ the 46), but it's not the worst idea in the world.... Guess the term is, I'm neutral on this one..... B48- Yeh, at the very least, it should be sent back to Prospect park.... Walking about the area, you can feel the void; as if there's something missing..... My main purpose of having it branch out to Sunnyside was to give 7 day a week bus service b/w (that part of) Brooklyn & Queens.... B49- By itself, I disagree... I still don't like the idea of having buses pan along ocean where there's currently no service..... But if the MTA plans on removing the B49 off Bedford/Rogers (in lieu of B44 SBS'), having buses pan up Ocean might just have to be done to keep the route alive...... B51- Never liked the idea of sending the 51 south of downtown brooklyn.... I remember someone that wanted to extend it to Atlantic Terminal/Atlantic Mall..... B57- I also thought about that..... Thing is, how would buses turnaround on the Queens end? NB Q18's from its terminal have a hard enough time getting back to 65th pl..... B64- Yeah, but the businesses are on Bath.... B65- One of those old school ideas that should have been happened already.... B82- Yes, agreed....

First of all, I didn't use a "WTF" - Get your facts straight. You cared enough about the use of a WTH it to point it out... Clearly you felt some type of way about that... I'm not gonna continue trying to dialogue with someone who's this unsure about his own plans....

real quick.... in no order.... I don't know what you are basing some of these ideas on.... Seriously.... - The Q24 the MTA got right.... that route lags enough as it is along atlantic av, and barely anyone rode it past (meaning, west of) the junction.... - At this rate, there's no point in bringing back bus service along the length of 3rd av (B37).... - You're quick to tell me my "B23" is too long, but yet you have a route going from broadway/halsey to 86th st in bay ridge.... are you kidding me.... - Yeah, the B8 may as well terminate with the B35 over on hegaman/mother gaston... - Extend the B63 from Brooklyn Bridge park to Cadman plaza... wth? Have you been in that area..... Who is it exactly this is supposed to be helping/serving.... - Sending the B14 to gateway is rather redundant to the B13 in that area.... - I don't know what newfound riderbase you're trying to tap into w/ that B53.... - Myrtle av commercial strip needs the B54... you wouldn't gain much of anything by moving buses onto willoughby.... - That B18... first of all, forget about terminating a bus at East 105th st .... second, you never state the routing b/w bushwick av & Canarsie..... - I actually like your B34 idea (to jamaica, not the cross bay blvd. part)... you're gonna have to make it a LTD to make it worthwhile though, IMO... - B42 to WBP would only worsen the commute for canarsie riders, I'm telling you that now...... That, and you don't need two routes running the length of Rockaway av..... Having the B42 help out the B60 b/w canarsie & WBP isn't gonna cure the problems on the B60.... The problem is with the 60, not the 42..... - moving B47's along a portion of kings hwy was BrooklynBus' idea... that's his way of getting rid of the B7 & leaving those schoolkids around tilden HS/ Meyer Levin (IS 285) with some sort of direct bus service.... Personally I'd leave the B47 alone, and leave those kids w/ the B8..... Lot of those kids walk to church av anyway..... The ridership is on Ralph av, not kings hwy..... * You were editing the google document this morning as I was replying..... I'm not going to edit this post to reflect the changes you made after the fact.... I know I missed a few of the ideas (some on purpose, as they were already discussed in the south brooklyn thread), but for now that's about it.... I'm about to get off the bus.... I'll check back in this thread later.

Swing and a god damn miss..... Since Threxx is talking about this is his thread, his ideas, that whole bit... That's why I said comment on his ideas first.... for someone that's moody because you disagree w/ his ideas, you sure as hell went out your way to PM me your commentary to my ideas..... ----------------------- Anyway, I'll get to Threxx's plans while I'm on the express to work tomorrow....

Sure, but my opinions aren't..... If you know where someone stands on an issue, why in the world would it change just because someone started up another thread.... I don't know why forum posters have that general thought process.... Yes of course... your thread, your ideas, possessiveness... got all that.... You may not get many replies to your ideas, since they're not directly posted on the forum.... That's another reason why I skimmed through them, instead of reading them in full..... Comment on ThrexxBus' ideas first, then I'll address some of your commentary some other time.... if I feel up to it.

already tried the infamous helvetica, still didn't look right.... thanks for the suggestion anyway.... 1] I'm not gonna repeat myself on my justifications pertaining to the south brooklyn routes... 2] I didn't base my ideas on yours... so there's no need for me to address your critique here.... In full, no - I just skimmed through it.... I already know how BrooklynBus would restructure things..... Didn't know you wanted a critique, to be honest..... Your prerogative.

Brooklyn bus routing changes; this is what I have drawn up on the map already.... (all I need to find are some good fonts that read well under 5pt or 6pt font & I am done with it....) B1: unchanged B2: extended to Xaverian... via av. P, via 65th st B3: truncated to 25th av B4: runs from Sheepshead bay/knapp st to 86th/4th.... [via old B4 routing in sheepshead bay], via av z, via 86th st - "B5": runs b/w Narrows/77th & Stillwell/Surf... via bay ridge pkwy, stillwell, 25av, and cropsey av B6: unchanged B7: runs b/w Broadway/Halsey & Canarsie/E. 80th st... via church, via remsen B8: runs b/w Brownsville/M. Gaston blvd & V.A. Hosp [straightened on av B b/w kings hwy & rockaway pkwy] B9: unchanged B11: rerouted around the Lutheran Hosp. area... B12: unchanged B13: turns onto etna & hemlock eliminated B14: extended to Rockaway blvd B15: unchanged B16: truncated to Parkside av , straightened on Ft. Hamilton pkwy B17: portion serving E. 80th st & rockaway pkwy. eliminated - {see B7} B20: runs b/w Bklyn. Postal Fac. & Myrtle av... rerouted to encircle the boulevard houses, and to run via new lots av - "B23": runs b/w 86th/Fort Hamilton Pkwy & Canarsie/E. 96th st... via 13/14 avs, via cortelyou, via av D, via foster.... B24: truncated to run b/w Greenpoint/West st & Queens blvd... via Greenpoint av B25, B26, B31, B35, B36, B38, B41, B42, B43, B44, B45, B46, B47 - All unchanged B48: would have 2 branches: - runs b/w Prospect park subway & Meeker av [via current routing in greenpoint] - runs b/w Prospect park subway & Queens blvd... from lorimer, via meeker, via kosciuszo bridge, via 48 st - {see B24} B49: unchanged - "B50": runs between Coney Island av/Quentin rd & Starrett city... via kings hwy > via av K > via flatlands - "B51" runs b/w BMCC & Downtown brooklyn (would terminate w/ the B62) B52: unchanged B54: reverts to the pre 9/11 routing in downtown brooklyn (jay > tillary > flatbush ext.) B57: runs b/w court/livingston & flushing/metropolitan (via park av, via flushing av) B60, B61, B62, B63 - All unchanged B64: runs b/w Mermaid bus loop & 86th/4th... via stillwell, via bath, via V.A. Hosp. B65: extended to Alabama av ... from current terminal, via st johns, via ENY av B67: unchanged B68: unchanged B69: runs b/w Williamsburg Bridge Plz. & South Ferry... via vanderbilt, [via old B71 routing], via BBT B70: truncated to 95th st B74: unchanged B82: eliminated... {replaced by B5, B50, B100} B83: rerouted to run across wortman, to pennsylvania av... also, some rush hour service would run the full length of penn.... B100: extended to Caesars Bay shopping ctr. B103: unchanged * Interboro Queens routes (brooklyn portions only discussed) Q7: no longes serves brooklyn - {see B14} Q8, Q24, Q35, Q54, Q55, Q56, Q58 - All unchanged Q59: portion serving kent/wythe eliminated... uses marcy/rodney to met. av, to bushwick av, to grand st... * Interboro Staten Island routes (brooklyn portions only discussed) S53, S79, S93 - All unchanged ....that's all & that's it.

I don't know about that..... So you really think even with increased frequency (not increased headways) on the Q35, there's still a need for a LTD. variant to the beach? Because that's all your Q35x is, in a nutshell..... Service isn't even implemented like that on the orchard beach Bx12's (since you bring that route up)..... During summers, they don't add service on the 12 emanating from manhattan (or sedgwick av) for the sake of sending them to orchard beach - What it is is that, you have less buses stopping dead at Pelham Bay Park & more of em heading to orchard bch.... Then of course, you have the shuttles that start over by that overpass (from the subway).... Those solely run b/w the subway & the beach itself.....

While we're on the subject of the Q35.... Since when did they eliminate that (brooklyn bound) bus stop on the corner of Rockaway Bch. Blvd. & B 147th st ? I can bet the reasoning behind it was, some ppl. coming from the beach was walking back to that bus stop (to try to beat the crowds already waiting at the B. 149th st stop)..... now the preceeding stop is on B 147th, short of neponsit av.... You aint goin get much, if any beach comers-from, walking that far back, well into the residential portion of the neighborhood..... Then again, it could simply be that no one uses the stop anymore, now that the outbound QM16 doesn't stop (terminate) around that corner anymore.... And nobody coming off Q22's xfer to the brooklyn bound Q35 there.... Alright, so it's not just me.....

- Ok bro, but how close was a preceeding Q35 in front of that Q35 you saw crushloaded that didn't stop at Av U..... - I'd go one further & say the main objective is that riders can get on the Q35's, regardless of direction......

Yep, the former. pfft, you kidding me.... It absolutely would help.... Yeah buses leaving the junction are crushloaded; no one's doubting that.... However, there are two separate crowds bombarding Q35's beach bound... the ones emanating at the junction & the ones emanating at Av U.... This is why you had quite a few ppl. back then talking about extending B2's to Riis Park.... Matter fact, you were one of them ! - Which is why this reply coming from you here, I find funny...... - You want to create a Q35x to get beach goers to/from the junction faster, and have regular Q35 service pick up the slack, running the full route.... - I'm talking about having regular Q35 service run the full route, and having some Q35's run b/w Av U & the beach.... You are not gonna get me to believe that there are more ppl. coming from the beach disembarking at the junction, more than they do at Av. U..... Sorry brah.... Done experienced that headache w/ the Q35 for too long.... Your Q35x junction bound will not be much different than regular Q35's heading towards the junction !

- Don't need a Q35x or whatever.... all you have to do to address those beach goers is to have a Q35 that starts over there opposite kings plaza.... or to make the transfer situation easier (so folks won't have to cross flatbush av, from kings plaza), start it over there at av S in front of that rite aid.... It'd be similar to how the Bx12's that start on bruckner blvd (NB side) do....

"The distance b/w east-west streets as you're traveling north-south are often underestimated" should have read: The distance b/w east-west streets as you're traveling north-south are often underestimated in that area.... ^^ I was curtailing the point to the particular discussion..... The main point of contention I'm seeing from those that think the B2 should be eradicated (or combined w/ the 100) is that the distance b/w [quentin & av r] and [av r & fillmore] is only a block away.... Generally speaking about block spacing underestimation though, yes, it doesn't matter the direction.....

You aint kiddin with that first sentence. But yeh, like I pretty much said in the other related thread, the way service is structured now is totally justified.... - The Q22 should be left alone (meaning, remaining in the rockaways) & not be combined with the Q35, or any other route that would have it coming to brooklyn.... - A case could be made for sending the Q35 to arverne, since there are a significant amt. of ppl. (coming from Brooklyn) that get off @ B. 149th, or the dirt passageway that leads to B. 169th for the Q22.... Personally, I think the Q35 should remain terminating @ B. 116th, being the quick link b/w the two boroughs.... The erratic service on the route should be looked into, though.... - The Q52/53 tandem (or whatever you wanna call it) I think will work out for the better... no more disembarking 53's coming from "mainland" Queens to xfer to an EB Q22...... The Q52 will also ease pressure off the 53, and the 11/21 really.... I said this before, but I'll repeat it - Instead of waiting for an already packed 53 having came from areas north of QB, Woodhaven/Cross Bay riders will now have "their own" LTD, beginning over on hoffman...... - The Q113 to/from the Rockaways I can't speak much on, although I do know those buses get SRO at the first stop at those apt's.... Not sure how service is on that route, ever since they've moved the LTD's off snake road (lol) & onto rockaway blvd.... - The QM16 they may as well move back to (terminating at) B. 147th..... The QM17 is fine..... If you wanna include the Q11/21 in this discussion.... - The Q21 truncation to 164th I don't have a problem with... Rockaway riders want quick access to the mainland, and on the Arverne end they'll have it with the Q52.... Only negative is the elimination of (local)bus stops within broad channel...... The one thing I'll say about Lindenwood is that they do use their buses (expresses and locals)... They'll have more reliable service now b/w their neighborhood & the subway station (rockaway blvd )...... - The Q11.... With the 21 being truncated, this most likely'll help out (crowd control along Woodhaven on) the 11 also, since buses (21's) aren't all coming from the Rockaways.....

Yeah, I don't agree with it either... However, this idea of his has less to do with 3 routes on Av. R, and more to do with the unnecessary branching between buses that'd serve kings plaza & those that wouldn't..... along with the combining of the B2/100 part of the idea..... I mean, I could argue that there's no real need for 2 routes on Av. R.... But it's the quickest path to the subway station for those folks coming from within Marine Park (B2) & Gerritsen Beach (B31), so that's how it's routed.... Even if I count his 100/101 idea as one route (which would be 2 routes on Av R, counting the 31), the moving of service off that part of Quentin I don't feel is necessary.... which tends to come with the majority of these B2/100 combination ideas..... The distance b/w east-west streets as you're traveling north-south are often underestimated... Taking a ride up/down Ocean av perfectly illustrates that....

I'm not defending or agreeing with the idea, but it's basically an attempt to combine the B2 & the B100, while also retaining the current B100 east of flatbush.... A sort of compromise, if you will.... Way I see it, there is no point in having 2 branches of a combined route.... either combine the two routes fully or treat them as individual routes..... Of course not... all people see is how close the 2 routes are on a map.... and from that, come to the conclusion that the 2 routes should be combined.... Which is why I wouldn't touch service on the 100 east of the subway station.....

oh nah... dude in the wheelchair needed (and missed) the 68..... He attempted to board the 82. It (the 82) was an RTS.

What a royal waste of time to operate the wheelchair lift to bring someone onto the bus.... To then bring them back down because they attempted to get on the wrong bus.... yesterday, someone needed the B68... but when he just missed the 68, he scooted over to the B82 bus stop in coney Island.... The b/o was about to let the standing passengers on the bus, but then the b/o accomodated to the wheelchair passenger first..... lmao @ how loudly the passengers were cursing, after the wheelchair passenger got let off the bus.... Those B82 passengers were standing there for a while too, b/c I had just missed a 74, and had to wait 10 mins. for the next one to pull up (with a 5 min. stall, after it pulled off).... If I were in that situation, I would have been pissed too, to be honest... but don't take it out on the man on the wheelchair....

You know that & I know that... but Threxx is coming across as if hardly anyone takes the route, no matter what time of the day it is.... As far as sending the B2 elsewhere (instead of cutting it like Shortline mentioned.... or merging it w/ some other route like a couple others have mentioned across the forums), your original idea of having that route serve Av P & 65th, etc. to me makes the most sense.....

B2 - The hell you mean where am I seeing these people? B2's arrive @ the subway station in the morning crowded... and they depart during the pm rush hours crowded.... The ridership is spread out from end to end, for the most part.... Furthermore, since you're conveying this notion as if hardly anyone takes the B2.... Why "easily" re-route the 100 to serve Marine Park if that's the case..... B16 - You said "came with almost all the seats filled".... That implicates buses heading towards prospect park.... Secondly..... Like I said, I want MTA's reasoning for the extension, not your summary of it..... B70 - "uh huh. yeah".... I will.

You know I was spot on with that..... Throwing those 2 ideas out of left field with no real thought or backing behind them whatsoever..... B16 - towards prospect park in the morning ? now that's just not true... those buses damn near empty out at church av subway.... Whatever amt. of folks you do see waiting for 16's heading towards bay ridge, mainly come off 43's, or the subway... If you do see a considerable crowd of folks waitin for the 16, it's b/c buses are late; which is rather common on that route... and the one thing I can't stand on top of it, is that some b/o's tend to crawl the route.... I really want to know their reason for extending it from parkside..... B23 - I'm not gonna argue with you on this one any further... with as many B6's & 82's that circle in & out of there, you aint terminating no other route inside there... why do you think they have buses layover on glenwood b/w E 96th & rockaway pkwy. (opposite the bus stops).... those buses that layover inside the loop itself doesn't help the cause either.... ....and forget about having some other route run inside the lane that the B42 does..... B70 - yeah well, still not convinced that this route "has" to go to VA Hosp..... You can have other routes serve the hospital.... B100 - The B2 is not used? Now I know you don't know what you're talking about here.... Tell those Marine Park residents that disembark that route @ the subway station in the morning & embark on them in the late pm hours that the route is not used..... those bad boys easily leave SRO, sometimed packed to the gills...