B35 via Church

The express bus haters would have a field day with that information... Let's just put it that way.

Oh, this sentiment isn't new by a longshot... I've wanted it gone since weekday peak riders basically said F' you to off-peak & weekend riders (and ended up getting their wish)... Lol. The Casino is the exact reason why I think they were short-sighted in killing off Saturday service in-particular.... I used to ride the thing from end to end (the walk from Tarrytown rd. to the {now, defunct) Galleria was always fun ) & would watch about 75% of pax. disembark the thing at the Casino)... Morning or afternoon NB trips, didn't really matter.... This was around the time Bee-Line had more of those Fort Hill rd. short turns on weekends than they did those Cross County Mall short turns on the BL-20... I'd give it the C4 treatment (hence why I've been purposely calling it the BxMC4 for years), regardless of the ridership gains it's gotten.... Perceived low ridership has nothing to do with it. But yeah, it's pointless to still have them running to (basically) Tarrytown rd.... Ardsley sounds about right for where peak riders generally don't ride past/ride from....

I wouldn't know it.... I haven't taken the BxMC4 since they cut weekend service & increased the fare.... It's one of the few routes in all of the NYC metropolitan area that I actually want gone.

I thought they considered the BL-17 a LTD? If they have it as an express, then good. That's how it should be IMO.

Exactly... The routes that those express variants are interlined with, are all local.... It would be like interlining an outbound x28 with the B36 (or an inbound x28 with the M57) Quite frankly, the prototypical riders of quote-unquote suburban style buses aren't all that fond of being dumped off at a train station to continue their commute... AFAIC, they should only be ran on the BL-77 & the BxMC4.... Bee Line's categorization of routes (expresses, limiteds, commuters) is something that has always mildly irked me (for instance, the BL-3 & the BL-17 have the same route structure, yet one is an express & the other is a limited - go figure), but that's another topic....

Yeah, let's not forget the links to the posts of posters that got hit when this site got hacked or whatever.... That Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect BS I suppose we're supposed to go back & edit our posts to remove those too.... It's enough that we have the time on our hands to even post on these forums as it is.

Talk about being unreasonable. This forum is over 16 years old. Find as many links as you want; knock yourself out. There are plenty of people on here that's made thousands of posts - a good portion of which don't post here anymore.... Regardless, those of us that are not forum staff can't go back & edit old posts to fix broken links even if we wanted to, so this crusade of yours will be all for naught, Flat out, I'll tell you right now that there are broken Google map links in old posts I have authored on here.... I'm not going to keep maps on my google drive I no longer have a need for - especially when they served their purpose around the time I posted a link to those maps... Some of the posts I outright state that said map will not be up for long (or something to that effect).... The thing about it is that people on here are fairly good with helping you out, as far as explaining what content a broken link may have entailed... You talk about taking whatever measures necessary to ensure that your links will continue to work for a long time... Yes, because we should keep track of the status of every website that we've ever linked to on this forum, for as long as we're on this forum... Man, get the hell out of here.

I ideally don't disagree with having the southern portion serve the Junction (as well as Midwood HS), but the Junction is just strapped for space... No where to put anymore buses... How would you handle the northern portion of the B49 though? I just think they need to throw the route in the garbage & come up with something else.... It & the proposed B48 are the two most blatant transplant-influenced proposals in this redesign AFAIC... The B103 shouldn't be nerfed at the Junction full time for this crap. To your point, there's most certainly a need for a route b/w Church av & Av. D around here... I forget the specifics right this second, but I had a very old idea for the B23 that had it panning east of Flatbush av. to serve Beverly rd on over to Brooklyn av, to then descend to being a bit of a supplement to the B8, before having it pan towards Remsen...

Google sign-in page pops up...You have to make your map public... We can't see anything.

I would not extend the proposed Q38 down Fresh Pond before doing so with the proposed Q14.... Proximate to Metropolitan av, the former already has the connection to the , while the latter does not..... I also would not extend the proposed Q38 to Flushing, because quite frankly, I believe the demand for it along/around Juniper Valley <> Penelope hardly exists... Not to mention having (an extension of) the proposed Q38 and the proposed Q58/98 running Ridgewood - Flushing, I find to be excessive.... Furthermore, the thing with having the Q38 be an alternative to the Q58 is that, how much of an alternative would the Q38 even be (in terms of service/frequency)? You wouldn't get too many people commuting b/w Ridgewood & Flushing passing up a bunch of Q58's (to avoid dealing with Grand av & Corona av) for said Q38's.... I mean, with the proposed Q98 taking away from (current) Q58 service, they'd still have proposed Q58's operating considerably more frequent than these proposed Q38's.... You'd more or less have to lessen Q58/Q98 service, or increase service on those Q38's for it to be much of/more of a viable alternative.... I suppose there's a discussion to be had, regarding how much time would be saved b/w an extended Q38 of sorts between Ridgewood & Flushing, compared to the Q58.... You'd still have to keep in mind, all the stops being canned for the proposed Q58, compared to the current Q58 local.... My thing is, even if it's more than worth it time-wise, you can't go too crazy increasing Q38 service to have it be an alternative to the Q58, as that would be tantamount to overserving the proposed Q38. All that said, while I agree the proposed Q38 leaves much to be desired, I get why they basically have it ending at Fresh Pond/Met.... The short answer is no. This sounds like you'd have SB buses stop dead on that NW corner of Myrtle/Fresh Pond.... I'd seriously refrain from that, as there's far too much traffic turning at that intersection.... I'd much rather have buses layover on that NW corner of Central/Myrtle (alongside that wall).... So, SB buses would do Fresh Pond - Cypress Hills - Central, to stand at Myrtle.... Central/Myrtle would be the last SB dropoff stop... After going on layover, NB buses would hang a right onto Myrtle & another right onto Fresh Pond... The first NB stop would be the current NB stop of the B13/B20 at Myrtle/Fresh Pond... Why single out the Q98 in this instance? The proposed Q58 would also serve Fresh Pond subway....

The old idea involving the Bx20 across the differing NYC transit based discussion forums (back when it had off-peak service) was always to have it run up to Mt. St. Vincent with the Bx7 & the Bx10.... Never cared for the idea. While I never brought this up back then (because I wasn't that adamant about extending the thing either way), I always thought that if the Bx20 were to be extended to make it more useful / have it make more of a difference, it should've been done so from the opposite end of the route... In other words, instead of suggesting running Bx20's to run b/w Mt. St. Vincent & 207th , I always thought having the Bx20 running b/w 168th & 246th made more sense from a growth standpoint... There were always too many Bx7's & Bx10's up at Mt. St. Vincent, so to have had Bx20's running up there would've exacerbated the problem... At the same time, having Bx20's and Bx7's share the pain (so to speak) b/w 168th & 231st would've significantly had Bx7 service being cut into - as this was around the time before the M100 got diverted off Broadway b/w Dyckman & 215th.... So to close this out, two things I've always wondered about, regarding the Bx20, is how would things pan out (again, back when it ran during off peak hours): If it & the Bx7 had a complementary relationship between 168th & 246th If it served "the other side" of Riverdale... Basically wondering if there's much of any demand to/from the from along the Bx9's portion in Riverdale. Note: Nothing mentioned above, are actual suggestions I'm making. Note #2: I don't really have a problem with the structure/relationship across the 3 routes - But at the same time, IDC for the Bx20 being relegated to a peak only route either.

Good to know.... I actually like to hear/read how these bus routes were utilized in prior eras.... It's one of the many reasons I like 'fanning; to compare/contrast, and/or otherwise keep up with how people utilize these bus routes.... But yeah, needless to say, the B49 isn't remotely used like that anymore.... These days, Flatbush av is an unofficial line of demarcation (so to speak) for the route, as far as riders from either end of the route not doing much through-riding past it.... Ridership (boardings/dropoffs) within both segments of the route is decent... These days, unfortunately, super fast would be the last thing anyone would describe the B49 as being.

Possibly... But the incessant crawling along Ocean has been apparent for (basically) as long as I've been alive... It's been the case in the 80's, the 90's, the aughts, this past decade, and it is still the case to this day. Being perfectly honest, at this point, I hope some sort of split ends up happening with the thing.... Buses often arrive at Fulton late, due to said crawling along Ocean & due to (the combination of) traffic & passenger activity on the northern portion of the thing.... Crazy part is, they'd probably still have buses snailing along Ocean. If I'm down in southern Brooklyn & need to get back north, I much rather prefer the B68 over the B49.... More reliable & (funny enough) even with the traffic along CI av, the B68 still moves at a better pace.

I didn't say anything about traffic.... It purposely crawls along Ocean & it's maddening.

- To have the Bx20 or the M100 extended for the sake of implementing a Bx7 rush route, sounds counterproductive.... I wouldn't trust the MTA to extend the M100 any further north, while still having Bx7's running down to Washington Heights. - I honestly don't think the Bx21 needs a skip-stop service.... Long, drawn out routes like it & the Bx8 simply don't carry enough. - I don't necessarily disagree with having the Bx22 serve less stops b/w Fordham Plaza & Bronx Park East/Pelham Pkwy.... I don't see why it has to be labeled a rush route though... Just have stops be eliminated b/w that stretch & be done with it. - Even if I thought Allerton warranted a rush route, I'd do it with the Bx25 over that of the Bx26... The very existence of the Bx25 yielded the Bx26 from end to end being sped up... The Bx26 already spends less time in Co-op than the Bx25 does. - Today's Bx11 is solid; I wouldn't change a thing... To extend the Bx18 to (whatever) station to have the Bx11 be turned into a rush route, I don't see being worth it.... The expansion of the Bx18 yielded in the speeding up of the current Bx11... Even though the current Bx11 covers more territory now, it still moves at a better pace than the prior rendition of the Bx11.... - I would look into combining the "Bx14" & the "Bx52".... The SBS doesn't need a supplement, the locals need to be more of a complement! - Quite frankly, I would revert the prior Bx15 (Manhattanville - Fordham Plaza) to have the Bx19 split instead.... The northern split would run Bronx Zoo - Bronx Gateway Mall (or, Bronx Terminal Market as it's called now), while the southern split would run Riverbank Park - Millbrook houses (via 149th & via St. Ann's).... Both would be local routes.... I'm not seeing what rationale there is for a rush route to/from Manhattan along the Bx19.... Seems to me like you're using the rush route concept & that of LTD service interchangeably.... - This is confusing.... What exactly is it that you have the Bx9 doing? And where exactly do you have the northern split of the Bx19 (your "Bx19") ending at, if you're saying "with no Bx19 east of Fordham Plaza"?

I would only agree with rerouting the B49 like this if the route were to be truncated on the northern end.... Quite frankly, I've long been sick & tired of the B49 crawling along Ocean the way it does.

There had to have been a seismic amount of layoffs in the financial center/sector & quite the boom of the # of jobs in LIC to now have LIC being only 2nd to Midtown Manhattan.... While LIC is growing, I'm rather skeptical that it surpassed Lower Manhattan..... Where did you hear/read LIC being the 2nd largest CBD in that category from? They scaled back the Q66 from the previous draft to essentially have a branch of the impending Q66 run the current Q66 ------------------------ To put it another way, they rescinded on having it run to the Hunters Point Ferry to retain service along 35th av & along 21st st..... Instead of having all Q66's run b/w Flushing & Hunters Point Ferry like in the previous draft, they divvied up Northern Blvd service where it would run b/w Flushing & Queens Plaza: via a scaled back rendition of the Q66 in the previous draft via the current Q66 (which they've renumbered the Q63) In other words, they want a piece of the pie by trying to cater to these transplants - the same transplants responsible for these increased rent prices & property values that the NYC ferry was designed to aid in doing. Funny how that works out.

1) That would be tone deaf then, considering they're also/still having the Q41 run through Lindenwood.... The current issue is that riders south of Rockaway Blvd are unsatisfied with local service (with good reason)... I'm not sure if this is their way of maybe addressing that, but if so, they've gone too far with it (the overserving).... 2) I'd say they'd make cuts to the B46 local/SBS elsewhere (like, running more of those Eastern Pkwy short turns on the B46 locals, and/or simply ending some of SBS' at Dekalb still) to retain the B47 - given that there's less demand for it (less BPH needed to run it), compared to the B46.... That difference in distance isn't nearly as stark, compared to how frequent the B46 is.... 3) I'd have it take LNP.... The Flushing bound Q12's would serve both *sides* of HHE, before running back up LNP to get to Northern... 4) I know it seems like I talked through the LNP part of your suggestion, but that much I got from jump (it being the point of your version of that QT34)... I was just furthering the conversation (given you'd still have it end where the proposed QT34 did) by adding that I would much rather have that mileage (a Jamaica - NSUH route) be spent on a Q30 extension, compared to just how lowly patronized I see your QT34 in question being.... I'm about right over the threshold of not even wanting to bother running anything along as much of LNP; there's simply not enough "there", there anymore.... Once the old Q79 got the axe, folks basically gave up as far as local service goes (if not public transit overall).... The Q36 on paper is a compromise, but compared to the old Q79, Q36 patronage along LNP doesn't remotely come close to it (which is saying quite a bit)... 5) I get the larger point of those folks in that pocket east of 58th/Laurel Hill getting shafted, but for the sake of clarity, what I'm saying is that I would've liked to have seen the Q39 run that course in question, to go on to continue doing the current Q39 north & west of Laurel Hill (as in, along 48th av).... That QT77 after 48th/Laurel Hill continued westward on Borden (a la the current Q67)... But yeah, that was that QT80 that ran up 58th; that Q18/Q39 combination... 6) At best, I think we may be saying the same thing in different ways here - How should Bayswater be served vs. What is it exactly that they want (assuming there's even a latent demand for public bus service)....

Unlike the B49/B68 terminal swap in southern Brooklyn, I honestly think that B48/69 swap is largely immaterial for northern Brooklyn patrons.... And yeah, before Mermaid loop became a thing, it used to end over there by Brightwater Towers, where Brighton Beach av ends (well, at that point, it's considered West Brighton av IINM).

The B49 should've never had a LTD to begin with. The B49 also has no business going to Coney Island AFAIC.... The real issue is that they wanted to dead the B68 right there at Brighton Beach/CI Av., but couldn't - so the next best thing in their eyes is to have B68's running to Manhattan Beach.... Can't have B1's, 49's, and 68's ending at KCC, so they shift the B49 westward to cover the Brighton Beach - Coney Island portion of the B68..... Also (and this is something I'm going to keep repeating), the fact that they no longer have the B82 and the B68 (which are currently interchangeably used b/w Stillwell av subway & CI av/Kings Hwy.) ultimately forces those riders to take the subway b/w Coney Island & Kings Hwy.... The B68 will do much of nothing for Manhattan Beach riders; as that area has long had a connection to (commercial) Sheepshead, especially.... That whole swap is a total lose-lose for southern Brooklyn overall.

Yeah, no worries. The simple answer is that they're trying to target a different demographic. But just what is LIC the 2nd biggest CBD in this city in? As in, in terms of what? Square-footage? Number of jobs? Number of employers? What I would honestly like to know about these ferries is, how far are the people that use them as part of their commute typically traveling to get to them.... Well that, and how many/what percentage are using buses and/or subways to get to them....

I wouldn't doubt it. If you're referring to service inside the Navy Yard, nothing at this point (MTA related I mean) should be running inside there.... Current B67 carries air through there & on top of it, barely gets riders in Williamsburg because they stubbed it in the southern portion of Williamsburg - which is clearly not where the demand is at.... FTR, I'm not saying extend the B32 to Astoria & cut the current B62 back at WBP from Downtown; that would leave the Bedford/Driggs portion with nothing... I'm saying that the proposed B62 should be cut back to WBP from Astoria.... The (extended) B27 would handle the Downtown Brooklyn - WBP portion/duties of the current B62, before making its way down to Red Hook.... I would be very iffy about merely having a route running the current B62 course b/w Downtown & WBP..... People aren't taking buses on Park av the way they used to, for whatever reason..... As far as the waterfront area goes, I'm not so sure it would be worth it to have some number of B62's (Astoria - WBP) diverting to serve it... So depending on how much (improved) service would be given to said B62's in question, I'd be fine with completely cutting ties with the B32.... It only garnered the patronage/level of favorability from Greenpoint riders, due to the deteriorating/diminishing quality of service that has plagued the current B62 I'd say for at least a decade now..... I was going to make another point about the B32 (regarding the fact that Williamsburg Waterfront patrons aren't gunning for the /), but something just hit me.... Come to think of it, I DO remember reading posts from different subreddits over the years, basically blurting out the sentiment of having bus service connect them to Bushwick and/or Ridgewood.... Doubt they actually want the Broadway part of Bushwick , but now I'm starting to wonder if that had a hand in spawning the proposed B53..... No idea... I mean, if there is, it would be news to me. It will, but not 100% as it is currently.... The main takeaway is that it won't run to Manhattan anymore. Proposed final plan: Q101 local

The B53 shouldn't be a thing, in any plan... LOL. In any event though, while I do see a certain market/demand for Astoria - Williamsburg travel, and for whatever backlash the proposed B57 has precipitated, I still see it garnering more interborough usage than the proposed B62 (or, than for if the proposed B27 were to be extended to Astoria).... Even interborough usage on the current B62 has (and is continuing to) wane.... Interborough usage on the old B61 (that Red Hook - Queens Plaza rendition) from Downtown on up, dwarfed that of the current B62.... One could argue that the gentrification of north Williamsburg has to do with it, but I wouldn't say that alone tells the full story.... Although I'm not all that gung-ho about retaining coverage on Smith/Court, I think it's a bit of overkill to create a whole 'nother route to have that coverage be retained, because they're pushing the envelope with the proposed B57 (to Jackson Heights) & with the proposed B62 (to Astoria).... Most of the usage of a route like that proposed B27 would likely be between the Farragut houses & Downtown Brooklyn.... I don't see the Red Hook - Downtown Brooklyn patronage of that proposed B27 being any closer to a balancement to the current/proposed B61 (in other words, those masses will continue to dogpile on B61's).... With all that said, to sum it up: The proposed B57 is a better usage of mileage, for the purpose of spurring interborough usage (compared to the proposed B62) The proposed B62 doesn't remotely need to be one continuous route (nor should it be the "main" route along 21st, but that's another discussion).... So, being that they're proposing the B27 to retain coverage along Smith/Court, I would redistribute mileage by truncating the proposed B62 & extending the proposed B27, to have them both end at WBP

Their proposed B27 uses Smith/Court to get to/from Red Hook.... The old B61 did no such thing. Yes, exactly... I wasn't implicating that the old B61 be reverted in the slightest... For several reasons.... Under which plan?

This is one reason why I've long been of the belief that an Astoria - Williamsburg route would do quite well... When they came out with the current B32, I thought that was a golden opportunity to have that be accomplished.... However, of course, they stunted it, to only opt to run it to the (ass end of) Court Sq..... As for that proposed B62 in the Brooklyn redesign plan, they're doing the exact opposite - having it run well past Williamsburg from Astoria, to Downtown Brooklyn... I would much rather combine the WBP - Downtown Brooklyn portion of the current B62 with that proposed B27 of theirs (in other words, a WBP - Red Hook route), over having the entirety of their proposed B62 come to fruition....