B35 via Church

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Which was extremely dumb on their part, because most of the casino patronage comes from Manhattan and the Bronx (specifically off the ). 

Exactly.

1 hour ago, Cait Sith said:

Until that redesign kicks in, whenever that will be. Whoever gets control of the operation will have to take on the redesign as well, and word is that the county wants Liberty Lines gone(and apparently, they fully own the BxM4C). They've also started retiring the Suburban Orion Vs.

I've been hearing rumblings about that well before talks of a redesign became public.... In any event, who's in the running for taking over the county's surface transit operations?

11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

See this is why I wish we were able to see ridership trip by trip on all the BxM’s (including the 4C) because I want to see if off peak service is being “well used” as they say it is.

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

2 hours ago, JAzumah said:

Is that you sticking the pin in the BxM4C doll? /sarc

It is going to stick around post-Liberty Lines with a little bit more shoulder service (AM & PM). The X factor for this route is Empire City Casino as it can backfill buses in the reverse direction.

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...

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Surprisingly buses are actually leaving mostly full to full during rush hour.

I wouldn’t say I want it gone, but severely modified with service north of ardsley rd cut.

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....

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Yeah it’s an express, it’s even labeled as such on the signage.

There are discrepancies however between how the county prints the timetables and how they’re actually supposed to be operated.

IIRC, that 26th St stop was discontinued by  like five years ago and the county still has it listed as a stop.

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.

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

As far as I know both of them are express?

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.

On 2/8/2024 at 7:38 PM, Lex said:

Is it, though? Honestly, how many routes would even use them, and to what degree? The 3 sees respectable ridership between White Plains and 242nd Street, yet it tends to use the same buses as most routes despite its long express segment. Routes 1X, 43, and 62 are express variants of routes 1C, 40, and 60, so they'd be better off using the same buses as their local counterparts. How long routes 17, 28 (BxM4C), and 77 will last is a huge question mark, and the same can be said for route 10. Regular coach buses are far more likely to run into clearance issues, which means they can really only run on a single route (28), while buses with a single doorway and/or a high floor increase dwell times at bus stops.

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....

23 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

I'm pretty sure there are a ton of broken Photobucket links.

19 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

yup, mine included.

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.

On 2/4/2024 at 6:15 AM, Interested Rider said:

I have to agree with you as to the service at the northern end. My reading on the proposed changes for the B/49 is that the MTA does not know what to do with it as it is too far from either the Ulmer Park or Flatbush garages and Operations Planning is looking for a place where there is supervision for the route. The problem is that the route has always been an outlier from trolley days when trolley ran empty from the barn on Hegeman and Rockaway Avenues to Rogers Avenue was where it went into service. When it was converted to a bus route, it ran out of the West 5th Street garage which closed on 7/26/60 with the opening of the Fresh Pond garage when it was transferred to Flatbush In the 1960'she change to one way streets from two way streets did not help the route.  There is a picture in one of the books on Brooklyn trolleys that I own which shows three Ocean Avenue trolleys going in the same direction at Rogers and Flatbush  Avenues in the 1940's.

I usually do not like to propose route changes on routes that I really do not ride but it is my opinion that the B/49 should operate on Ocean Avenue to Avenue J and then follow the B/11 route to the junction and terminate there.  My reasoning is based on that it will provide riders with transfers to the B/44 local and select bus routes which it is my opinion which is what operations planning wants to do anyway. 

Another alternative is to keep the B/49 on Ocean Avenue to the Prospect Park B,Q, Station and terminate it there. The B/48 starts there and it could provide alternative service.

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?

On 2/8/2024 at 6:39 PM, SubBus said:

B81: What if this route go across Beverly Rd instead of turning down Flatbush towards the junction?  Possibly use the old  terminal at the Brooklyn Terminal Market...  

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...

11 hours ago, UltraRandom1YT said:

B79.png

 

I had this idea for a long time

 

original version (with all the stops included and a few other stuff)

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

On 2/6/2024 at 11:05 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Would it be worth extending the MTA’s proposed Q38 route to Myrtle Ave & Fresh Pond Rd from its proposed southern and to Flushing on the north side? 

I believe the current proposed routing for the Q38 is weak and I think it will eventually allow the MTA to cut away service. An extended Q38 can provide an alternative to the Q58 and attract new riders.  

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....

On 2/7/2024 at 4:42 PM, Ex696 said:

Also, is there a good turnaround location near Myrtle/Fresh Pond?

The short answer is no.

On 2/8/2024 at 8:51 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

My idea was to have the proposed Q38 bus make a left on Myrtle, another left on Central Ave, then right on 64th street, then another right on Myrtle and right on Fresh Pond Rd.

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...

On 2/6/2024 at 11:22 AM, Q43LTD said:

While I do want the 38 to Fresh Pond , I don't think it would be feasible. There's the proposed 98. 

Why single out the Q98 in this instance? The proposed Q58 would also serve Fresh Pond subway....

On 1/4/2024 at 7:22 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think the general Bx7/10/20 structure works well. The Bx10 can handle any Spuyten Duyvil riders heading north of 246th Street, and the Bx7 acts as the direct link from the northern section of Riverdale down to the subway. Adding the "A" branch would cause imbalanced spacing on either one end or the other (the Manhattan end or the Riverdale end). 

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):

1. If it & the Bx7 had a complementary relationship between 168th & 246th
2. 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.

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

I no longer ride it now north of Sheepshead Bay, but when I was a regular user, I don’t remembering that being the case. It was only slow due to passengers getting on and off. Back in the 1960s, I used to use it to get to the beach. The buses would fill up at Church Avenue and only stop to let people off. Some has to wait an hour for a bus to stop for them if they weren’t at a major stop. Buses were super fast stopping like once every six blocks to let people off. This was usually on weekends. They never crawled along Ocean. The speed limit also was 35 mph. So it sounds to me if buses are crawling, that the schedules are padded to much. 

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.

18 minutes ago, Lex said:

That sounds like the route is padded to hell along Ocean Avenue.

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.

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

It doesn’t crawl along Ocean because of the traffic. Yes, there is some double parking, but a greater cause is frequent turnover which means many stops and many buses bunching with nothing being done to regulate them. Since there are many Kingsborough students on the 49, with many there just to save a fare, shifting them to the B44SBS going to Kingsborough, would greatly speed up the B49 by reducing the passenger load. Also, my suggestion for a state law for non emergency vehicles to give the right of way to buses pulling out of a bus stop, would not only speed up the B49, but all buses in the city, much more so than by eliminating all the bus stops now proposed for elimination.

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

On 12/23/2023 at 8:51 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

As the Queens redesign gets closer to implementation, one thing I thought would be interesting is the idea of how much different the Bronx redesign might be if they was the ones to implement Rush routes first. Here's the changes in the system I had in mind in the style of the Queens and Brooklyn Bus redesign:

Bx1 Limited: all current stops; but added Sunday Limited service from 10AM-6PM similar to Saturday service, evening local service

Bx7 Rush: limited stops south of 225 St (requires expanded Bx20 or M100 extension) or 207 St, stopping only at 191 St, 181 St, GWB bus terminal and 168 St. Local replacement: M100 and/or Bx20

Bx21 Rush: Selected stops on 3 Av only, stopping at 138 St, 148 St, Westchester Av/150 St, and 163 St. Local replacement: Bx2/15

Bx22 Rush: it can either be nonstop from Bronx Park East or Southern Blvd all the way to 3 Av. Local replacement: Bx12

Bx26 Rush: service would be provided at least during peak hours on Allerton Av, evening and weekend service all stops. Nonstop between Bartow Av and Boston Rd, with only one stop at Eastchester Rd. Local replacement: Bx25

Bx28 Limited: would be only making select stops on Gun Hill Road during weekdays, evening and weekend service all stops. Limited stops between Bainbridge Av and Bartow Av, including Webster Av, White Plains Rd, Bronxwood Av, Boston Rd, Gun Hill Road , and Eastchester Rd. Local replacement: Bx38

Bx40 Limited: Daily limited stops from approximately 6AM-9PM weekdays and 7:30AM-8PM weekends between Grand concourse and Bruckner Blvd. Limited stops include Webster Av, 3 Av, Crotona Av, Southern Blvd, Morris Park, Unionport Rd, Castle Hill Av, and Westchester Av. Local replacement: Bx42

- 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.

On 12/23/2023 at 8:51 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

Other proposals that require significant changes:

Bx11 Rush: Requires an extension of the Bx18 to freeman St to be used as a local variant of the Bx11, not including any chance that would need to be done due to the Bx18A/B split. Service could also be under a new separate Bx51 local between 170 St and Freeman St. Bx11 rush stops would be between St Nicholas Av and 174 St , including 170 St and , Webster Av, 3 Av, Crotona Av, and Louis None Bl/Boston Rd. Local replacements: Bx35, Bx18/51, Bx21

Bx12 service split: This would turn the Bx12 into 3 separate routes from the current 4 branches (including the Orchard branch). The Bx12 SBS would remain unchanged, a new Bx14 designation would be introduced replacing the Bx12 Local (mimicking the proposed Q5/115), and a new Bx52 rush route would be introduced to supplement the Bx12 SBS. The Bx52 would make all stops west of Jerome Av. East of Jerome Av, stops would only be at Fordham Plaza, White Plains Rd, Eastchester Rd/Jacobi Medical, and Pelham Bay. All missed stops would be served by the Bx12/14. During summer months, service would be extended to Orchard Beach. Service to Orchard Beach could possibly be supplemented by the Bx14, but to simplify designations, it makes more sense for orchard beach to only use the Bx52. 

Bx19 Local/Bx49 Rush: a proposed Bx19 split, with the Bx19 ending at Bronx terminal Market instead of going to Manhattan and the Bx49 Rush operating between Riverbank Park and West Farms at Southern Blvd/Westchester Av or near Whitlock Av . Bx49 makes all stop in Manhattan, with proposed Bronx Stops at Grand Concourse, 3 Av, Prospect Av/Southern Blvd, Hunts Point Av, and the above West Farms stops

Bx9 Local/Bx59 SBS: another proposed split route, with no Bx19 east of Fordham Plaza and the Bx59 making select stops between Marble Hill and West Farms. Stops include Marble Hill Av/W 230 St, W 225 St/Broadway, Jerome Av, 3 Av/Fordham Plaza, Southern Blvd/E 183 St, E 180 St/Crotona Pkwy, and West Farms .  Local service would be available via the Bx9, Bx12, Bx19, and Bx42.

- 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"?

On 1/29/2024 at 2:36 PM, Interested Rider said:

The B/49 should continue to Manhattan Beach but continue on Avenue Z to Coney Island Avenue then south on Coney Island Avenue to Neptune Avenue and  then east on Neptune to Shore Boulevard then resume regular route to Manhattan Beach. This change will eliminate the routing through the narrow streets and provide access to the Coney Island Avenue - Avenue Z shopping center. This would eliminate the problems with the narrow streets in Sheepshead Bay

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.

13 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Second-largest in terms of job count...

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?

13 hours ago, Ex696 said:

But on the other hand, why'd they cut the Q66 from serving the Hunters Point Ferry?

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)

10 hours ago, JAzumah said:

Connectivity. There are still physical ferry boats to connect to and it is worth a shot to tap demand that would be more than just rush hour in nature.

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.

On 1/31/2024 at 7:55 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

1) I have to check the Trip Planner (which seems to give a preview of what the proposed schedule they would run on the route), but from what it sounds like, pretty much all of the current Q11/21 service would end up running down through Lindenwood, and then splitting between Old Howard Beach/Hamilton Beach. I don't think the planners calculated that they would be overserving the southern end of the route.

2) Hmm....essentially trading the B47 for the B46 SBS at Woodhull...I wonder how that would look from a budget perspective and if they'd be looking to consolidate like that (it's a longer distance from where the B47 turns onto Broadway, but the B46 SBS is more frequent). 

3) In the original draft, they had the Q12 (numbered QT17) running down Marathon Parkway and ending at the present-day Q30 terminal. Would you have it use Marathon, or run down Little Neck Parkway? (Not sure how the turnaround scenario would look in that case)

4) The idea behind my revision of their QT34 would be to connect Little Neck Parkway to Jamaica via a more direct route (rather than having it backtrack all the way to Jamaica Avenue and head back up, or having a Q79-type shuttle).

5) In the original proposal, the QT77 ran like that, but the issue is the people in the vicinity of Laurel Hill Blvd & 58th Street complained about the lack of a connection to LIC...to have the Q39 bypass that area and have nothing (rather than at least the 58th Street route they had in that proposal...I think it was called QT80 IIRC) might generate enough opposition to scare them off from doing so.

6) The Q22A seemed to be more focused on getting Far Rockaway residents (and those connecting at Far Rockaway) over to Bayswater during school hours, rather than being focused on getting Bayswater residents to other areas. Other than maybe a straight out Q22 extension (or having the Q22 run through there while the Q52 serves the southern end of Far Rockaway), I'm not sure how else to feasibly serve it.

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)....

46 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

Similar to northern Brooklyn with the 48/69 swap. Also didn't the 68 stop dead by the aquarium at one time?

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.

11 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

Perhaps, I should have said B27 Williamsburg Bridge Plaza with no service through Navy Yard to Red Hook. Since you said the NY shuttles get good usage 

Yeah, no worries.

11 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Something I never thought about until recently, what's with trying to reroute buses from around the Queens Plaza area to the Hunters Point Ferry? I know Long Island City is the second biggest CBD in the city, but the proposed Amazon HQ was canceled. Has the ferry become more popular over the years or is there something else amiss?

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?

6 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

That LIC ferry has been popular ever since it began, and it hasn't let up since, even with the fare increase to $4.

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....

6 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I think the B27 is being set up to fail. It doesn’t go to many places and has poor headways.  They don’t want any bus service on Smith /Court. After a year, they will just say there's not enough demand to justify the service, If they just discontinue the service today, they are afraid of protests. 

I wouldn't doubt it.

4 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

So the:

B27 Wiliiamsburg-Red Hook (no Navy Yard service)

B32 Williamsburg-Astoria possibly a rush or a LTD on 21 St. Maybe local

B62 Downtown Brooklyn-Williamsburg

Now what to do about that Greenpoint Av leg of the proposed B53 since it wouldn't be a thing and the  feeling there has to be a through Broadway route 

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.....

4 hours ago, Lex said:

Regarding the Greenpoint Avenue leg of the current B24/proposed B53, is there any impression that people want to go to Woodside/Jackson Heights?

No idea... I mean, if there is, it would be news to me. 

12 minutes ago, TyBusLover1 said:

Random but is it true that they are getting rid of the Q101bus ?

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

9 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

If the B32 was extended north to Astoria rather than the 62.

I do like the 27 to Williamsburg though

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:

1. The proposed B57 is a better usage of mileage, for the purpose of spurring interborough usage (compared to the proposed B62)
2. 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

5 hours ago, limitednyc said:

B27/b62 combo was the old b61.

Their proposed B27 uses Smith/Court to get to/from Red Hook.... The old B61 did no such thing.

4 hours ago, Ex696 said:

The one they are talking about is the portion of the B62 between Williamsburg Bridge Plaza and Downtown Brooklyn and combining it with the B27 so that it would run between Williamsburg Bridge Plaza and Red Hook as opposed to the B61 prior to 2010, which ran between Red Hook and Queens Plaza.

Yes, exactly... I wasn't implicating that the old B61 be reverted in the slightest...

For several reasons....

3 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I wonder would the B53 still exist under this plan

Under which plan?