B35 via Church

6 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

So SCT routes are now on Google maps 

Noticed it this morning.... It appears they rearranged where buses stop inside Whitman Mall...

Now that the S1 (or route 1) has less service now, they apparently bumped it back to where the S54 used to pick up (of the SCT area of the terminal, it's the very shelter the furthest away from the n79 & those HART routes).... It used to take up the closest 2 bus shelters; right before you make that left turn for the bus shelters for the HART routes.... I would go take a look for myself, but that's clearly not worth taking the LIRR to Huntington & walking to Whitman Mall from there, to then catch the n79 (even though I still like to fan that route, given that it's been a shell of its former self)....

Also saw one of the pine sniffer's videos, where he took one of the routes to Smith Haven... One of the gripes I've always had with Smith Haven mall with the old system, was that there was no rhyme or reason where buses would pick you up around the terminal area / all the differing bus shelters... I've seen more than my fair share of people miss buses, because they were waiting at the wrong shelter, because they weren't attentive and/or diligent enough.... For the most part, it was proximate to (the pathway to) the entrance of the mall, but you still had to be alert - especially when drivers would pull up with the destination signage off or whatever... In any event, judging by his video, it still looks to be more of the same...

It amazes me how ignorant some people are to public transit.... There was this lady in front of me on the BL-42, that was talking to this dude on the phone, that was apparently waiting at 233rd to meet up with her on said BL-42.... She, like everyone else that boarded in The Bronx, got on the thing at 241st.... She had to tell the dude that the 42 don't run to 233rd on weekends.... She, like half the bus, got off at 1st & 5th (and "was gonna stop off at the store first")... They sure enough sounded like locals of the area..... I was just sitting there shaking my head the entire time....

There's no way in hell that I'm not going to keep abreast of how the bus routes around me, operate - especially SPAN wise !

42 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Ahh got it.. Than mayor copy cat went along with it and boom here we go.  Since, I work in the vicinity of the area. Traffic is gonna be horrendous and there's absolutely NO parking on Livingston in both directions and since Schermerhorn Street is one direction (Eastbound Boerum to Flatbush) Parking in that area is gonna get very stupid.

Watch for (even more) cars abusing the loose non-enforcement of the buses only rule along Fulton, west of Flatbush av. extension.

Not sure how else to put this, other than by saying that Livingston was some motorists' last hope to directly (feasibly, enough to) get into the heart of Downtown.... This is only going to increase the amount of people backdooring their way to it... Even outside of peak hours, the B61 slogs its way to get to Livingston after it turns off Columbia.... I'm not sure what's going to be worse - Atlantic, or Tillary.....

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I've always thought the Q60 should be two routes, the Manhattan portion to Queens Center and Queensboro Plaza to Jamaica.

Many many moons ago, I used to think that....

Depending on how much service that would be ran on both, you potentially run the risk of running too much service on the overlapping portion (QBP-QCM).... If you run most of the service on the QCM - Manhattan portion, service east of QCM would be short-changed (which that usage isn't anything to sneeze at).... I'm not sure if there's even a numerical sweet spot (in terms of headways, so to speak) that would appease riders of both portions....

If it's any issue that I have with current Q60 service, it's that too many buses are delayed by them running over the 59th st Bridge (or whatever the heck it's called now)... That's the main reason why I would have some trips end at QBP... IDK if they still do them, but while I get why they have/had those 33rd st short turns, they were even more of a disservice than if buses were to be stopped short of Manhattan at QBP.....

53 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

First off, what was the previous Livingston Street Plan?

This new plan is just worse and it starts on Tuesday 11/14.

Livingston St. was a part of that Better Buses Action Plan that De Bozo (De Blasio) introduced, around 4 or 5 years ago.... It was an attempt to improve bus speeds along certain corridors throughout the city.... There were about 20 corridors or so that were to see improvements, with Livingston st. being one of them.

In laymans, the previous Livingston st. plan were the first set of bus lanes that were painted along it.

6 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

I know my stance earlier was extending it to Fordham was a bit much but in the last few weeks, having to make the schlep up there before the AM rush, it fills a hole created in the lack of Bx9 service. The Bx9 departures out of West Farms Sq at those hours are: 1:49, 2:34, 3:19, 4:02, 4:45, 5:27 then 5:42 and getting better and better so roughly every 45 mins overnight. I would support the Q44 being extended to Fordham during the overnight hours (12AM - 6AM) to help bridge the gap. You could increase the Bx9 frequencies but I think there's a reason why the MTA chooses to spam the Marble Hill to Riverdale trips. Less deadhead time, less cost. The Q44 also taps into a good chunk of the Bx9 market with the proposed routing and for those that live along Southern Blvd, they could take the Bx17 instead. 

Oh, I see people taking Q44's from Fordham over the Bx9 south of Fordham rd, simply on the basis of the proposed Q44 not running along Fordham rd...

IDK about ending Bx9's at the Bronx Zoo or whatever, but I don't doubt for a second that they're going to continue to tinker with Bx9 service/levels more than they've already been doing over the years, if/when this Q44 extension comes to fruition.... I've long been of the belief that they really solely want to run Bx9's up/down Broadway all day anyway....

10 hours ago, SoSpectacular said:

The previous bus lane idea didn't work out so they're going full-on "f**k cars" and making it two-way for buses only while making everyone else take it westbound. At least it'll be easier for me next time I'm on the B67 to get around it...

So they're going fully cocked instead of going half-cocked - because the latter is exactly what that initial bus lane idea was..... At least this would have Schermerhorn see more usage than it historically did & currently does... Always tripped me out how dead Schermerhorn was/is, traffic wise.... The dollar vans (well, mini-buses) are going to be in for a rude awakening when this plan is completed - no more of that illegal u-turning on Livingston at Smith (in front of the Park & Fast) BS.....

Speaking of Smith/Livingston, they have one of those yellow signs/placards up at the current B62 terminal stating that the stop will be discontinued (not surprised at that, TBH)... It also mentioned a stop at Smith/Livingston that's set to replace it (don't remember how the sign was exactly worded).... I can't figure out if the B62 will be shifted to terminate at the current penultimate stop (alongside the Civil Court bldg.), or on the same side of the street with the B61 & B65....

2 hours ago, limitednyc said:

The ? Is how many people ride from south of flushing to the bronx?

The demand for the Q44 from areas south of Flushing, to The Bronx in general, isn't the issue; there are plenty folks riding to The Bronx from south of Flushing.... It's how deep into The Bronx is that demand warranted to/for, is the question.... With this Fordham extension bit though, I think some people, quite frankly, are treading down the path of flat out ignoring intra-Queens usage on the thing.... With the Q20's proposed truncation to Briarwood , even though its intra-Queens usage pales in comparison to the Q44, there's going to be that much more of a burden on the Q44 in & out of Jamaica....

The obvious/real issue is the basic lack of rail transit b/w the 2 boroughs.

1 hour ago, limitednyc said:

I ask this because maybe splitting the route somewhere in flushing not roservelt/main - Fordham and jamica whitestone?

That would cause way more problems than is attempting to be solved with this extension to Fordham.

For starters, they already plan on having the Q20 go Jamaica - Beechhurst, so to have Q44's from Jamaica split to end in Whitestone would massively overserve that immediate part of Queens....

1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I actually don’t have much issues with the Q44 going to Fordham, however I don’t think every bus needs to go there if it does become a thing. I would have several buses during rush hour turn around at Parkchester since most people are getting off Q44’s by then anyways...

I would end them there full time, if not for space issues....

Someone on reddit that supports the extension went as far as bringing up cutting the Bx9 back to Bronx Zoo... IDK if that's supposed to mean stopping it dead at Southern/Fordham, or running it down Southern to that entrance around 182nd, or what....

Wtf are they (the DOT) doing with Livingston Street.....

Took the full B45 into Downtown earlier today...... Looks like they're going to (try to) E.L. Grant Hwy., Livingston Street.... In other words, do away with curbside bus stops for the Downtown bound buses & install islands in the middle of the street for buses to stop at.... I want to see how they're going to pull this off... Livingston doesn't have the width that E.L. Grant does.... EB traffic is going to have to be redirected onto Schermerhorn, or Atlantic (which is already a shitshow as it is).....

7 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I think cutting it back to Queensboro Plaza would hurt the route. Even though it only goes to 2nd Avenue, those buses do tend to carry, especially from 2nd Avenue. Many of those people might have been able to take the Q32 but many are also going past Sunnyside into Woodside and Elmhurst. There's no subway along that part of Queens Boulevard, and dealing with the QBL is absolute horseshit on top of it. The Q60 runs better than the QBL local during parts of the day, moreso on weekends. 

I wouldn't have a problem with it serving both Jamaica Center and East Midtown. 

Yeah, I know about its usage to/from E. Midtown & how those EB buses pick up at that stop over there (especially if WB buses arrive in bunches, which is pretty common on that route)... My concern was runtime related.

Now that I went back to check how they had buses (QT60) running to Jamaica Ctr., it shouldn't be much of a problem (could've sworn they had them turning off on Archer at Sutphin.... instead/apparently they had them go Hillside - 150th - Archer)....

4 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I wasn’t too fond of the MTA keeping the Q60 running to 109th Ave in the last redesign plan. I get that they are trying to limit the amount of buses that terminate at these major hubs but in a lot of cases it’s necessary to have some of these routes end at the hubs.

I can see a few people transferring from buses that originate in SE Queens to the Q60 if it went to Jamaica Center. I personally believe it would be a better use of resources having it go to Jamaica Center vs having it continue to run to 109th being a short backup to the Q6. This new routing can also assist when then  is down or delayed. 
 

If the Q20 in the final plan is cut back to Briarwood the Q60 should go to Jamaica Center. 

Who knows why they rescinded the original proposal to Jamaica Center... But yeah, I can also see people xferring off the Jamaica Center feeders to a Q60 of sorts.

Regardless of what ends up happening with the Q20, I would try my hand at running Q60's to Jamaica Center.

1 hour ago, JoshTheScrub said:

That's crazy if they were thinking of terminating at Queensboro instead of Manhattan... Im glad they made up their minds a bit 

Worse.... They had the QT60 terminating at the Hunterspoint Ferry.

On 11/7/2023 at 3:49 PM, JoshTheScrub said:

I’m surprised they haven’t changed much of the Q60 route and just removed stops, they could have at least extended it?  Or made it a limited

Quite honestly, I would've liked to have seen how the Q60 would perform if it were to run to Jamaica Center (over continuing to run it south of Archer, even still given the usage it does get).... With the previously proposed QT60 in the first draft, I didn't concur with the fact that they had it running to the Hunterspoint Ferry... The proposed diverting of it to Jamaica Center on the other end of the route, I didn't mind nearly as much....

If for not keeping the same/current routing, the conundrum I have, is whether:

• the route should serve E. Midtown and Jamaica Center
• the route should serve Jamaica Center, instead of  E, Midtown

For the latter, basically, would running it to Jamaica Center & all the other connections there, be worth the sacrifice for scaling the route back (on the other end of the route) from Manhattan, at say, Queensboro Plaza....

9 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Question for my Brooklynites on the forum. Noticed a few articles in a newspaper that bills itself as " hometown ". There was an article about an accident on the corner of New York Avenue and Fulton Street in Crown Heights. Same newspaper reported on a homicide at 179 Linden Boulevard in East Flatbush. I'm guessing that bus fans see the errors that the " hometown" newspaper reporters made.

1- New York Avenue and Fulton Street is In Bed-Stuy, not Crown Heights. Crown Heights begins on the south side of Atlantic Avenue, specifically the Eastbound LIRR tracks.

2 -179 Linden Blvd is just east of Rogers Avenue on the north side of the street in Flatbush. Definitely not East Flatbush.

Just wanted to point out these mistakes because I've noticed many posters quoting articles and/or press releases as if they were engraved in stone tablets. In the first instance I was employed at the Restoration Corporation for many years. I remember one of the original buildings at that corner was the Sheffield Farms milk bottling plant. When the delivery drivers went out on strike when I was a kid my grandmother would take my brother and I there with a shopping cart and load up milk bottles for her and her neighbors on Herkimer St.

The second instance is easy for me. I used to live in that building. That was never considered East Flatbush.

Just some recollections. Carry on.

This is what we're going to get when we have transients or gentrifiers moving in to the city.... I've overheard this one group of people talking amongst each other on the coming home 2 Sundays ago, where one of them mentioned that they moved to Sterling Street... The one guy goes "Crown Heights right", She goes "no, Bed Stuy, by Empire".... They all go "Ohhhhhh", like some revelation was just brought upon them....

...and I'm sitting across from them like .... you gotta be f***ing kidding me....

---------------

As far as Linden/Rogers. AFAIC, anything west of Nostrand in this part of the borough is Flatbush.... Linden/Rogers has a completely different "feel" (so to speak) than East Flatbush - even (still) given the amount of Whites & Arabs that are slowly starting to move into the (western) part of the neighborhood here.....

16 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Not all of the NABIs at NJT are governed at 65.....some are at 55, some are at 45, some aren't governed at all.

I've always suspected that....

9 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Did they truncate it to Sands Street in the plan or was it left untouched?

5 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

It was truncated to where the B27 would end. The Williamsburg portion was deleted. 

Something else I'd do with the proposed B67 (if it's to terminate over there by the Sands gate of the Navy Yard {Sands st/Navy st}) is to have it parallel the proposed B27 b/w the Farragut houses & Downtown Brooklyn..... In other words, I would do away with having buses run along Jay St. north of Tillary.... Much of nobody is trying get to York st by bus & those folks that live in the Concord Village apartments don't use the buses (current B67/B69).... Those school kids in the immediate area walk to/from Downtown Brooklyn.... Having the proposed B67 run over the proposed B27 routing up there won't exactly be double the proposed service (of the B27), but it'll have it be that much closer to the amt. of service that those folks in the Farragut houses currently get with the current B57 & B62..... That routing (Tillary to Gold) is infinitely more useful.

22 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Even more than Park Avenue?

Yeah, people were using Flushing as a bypass more than they were Park back around that time...

25 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

The 452 doesn't just "boomerang" — it intersects itself.

(Question: Does it offer a transfer privilege from itself to itself, or do people have to ride out of their way to get from one terminal to the other?)

Yeah, at 26th & River, before it turns off for the Kroc Center.

To your question, IDK (although I've thought about that, myself)....

22 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Yeah, I don't really see the point of fracturing bus service on Flushing Avenue at the BQE instead of having a through route and keeping the B62 on Park Avenue

It isn't a problem anymore, but back in the mid to late 2000's), traffic along Flushing was notoriously bad (to the point where you'd be in a dead standstill for minutes on end during peak hours), because people at an increasing rate were using it as an alternative to the BQE... It was then that I suggested that the B57 should be taken off Flushing (west of Classon) & ran on Park with the B62 instead, where it would remain until it hits Tompkins/Throop, where it would've then went back to utilizing Flushing, at-and-east-of Woodhull Hospital....

Being honest though, I still think the B57 would be more useful along Park b/w Classon & Tompkins/Throop, compared to remaining along Flushing b/w that same stretch......

On 10/8/2023 at 1:19 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Between that and the former DeCamp routes (the #109 physically enters the City of Newark, but obviously the other Essex County routes have an impact as well) they're going to need to revise it anyway. They forgot the #97 and #108 in the original plan (I guess because the #97 doesn't enter Newark and the #108 is an interstate route...but they include the #107...make that make sense). All of the other redesigns are by County (Burlington/Camden/Gloucester, Hudson, Passaic) so it makes sense to just do an Essex County redesign and call it a day. 

In any case, given the poor service levels on the #44 and the #31 west of Dover Street, my guess is that they might swing the #31 up to cover the western end of the #44 (at least to serve the VA Hospital, maybe if we're lucky they go out to Orange) and leave South Orange with just the #107 for east-west service. I would disagree vehemently with that (if anything I'd say more #31 buses should run to South Orange...if I were in charge I'd run it to St. Barnabas to connect to the proposed 773 to Livingston Mall), but I think it's a possibility. 

I'd say it essentially is an Essex County redesign (still embarrassing that you forget to consider current routes in the network).... Guess using NewBus Newark (instead of NewBus Essex County, or something to that effect) has a better ring to it; marketing purposes....

The only way I'd support having the #31 serve S. Orange at this point, is if it goes on to serve (and eventually terminate) somewhere past it.... Basically, I don't agree with bothering to continue to have some trips end at S. Orange like they currently do.... St. Barnabas Hospital has a similar problem that Short Hills Mall has; in that it's a poor place to have a bus route end at.... I'd ideally like to have the #31 end at Short Hills, if it's going to run to past S. Orange.....

Given what was just said in the above paragraph, instead of breaking up the #1 the way they propose, I would like to see how a #31 between Dover St. & JSQ would perform (basically a combination of the #31 & their proposed #4) - With the point being to make it more useful in the opposite direction of the route (east of Newark, as opposed to west of South Orange)..... The #31 is noticeably quicker than the #1 west of Newark-Penn & most folks that use either branch of the #1 in Jersey City that rides past Jersey City, typically ride no further than Broad..... I can concur with having the #1 be more focused in transporting folks b/w Ivy Hill & the Ironbound, but I can't concur with running one (let alone two) routes b/w Newark-Penn & Jersey City on shit headways like their proposed #3 & #4.... Something else that irks me is their proposed relegating of service for those Terrell homes residents (Chapel, north of Raymond) with a frickin industrial boomerang route (that proposed #9; the East Ferry - Wilson av. route via Newark-Penn)....

Hmm... think I just stumbled onto a new term there.... gonna start using it from now on to describe those B24, Q38, NJT #452, etc. type of routes.... Boomerang route.

2 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

West of Classon Avenue, the B57 normally runs on Flushing Avenue whereas the B62 runs on Park Avenue, but in the redesign, this is reversed.

I'm trying to figure out what the "it" part of your inquiry is referring to, when you say - "What about it switching places with the B57 onto Flushing Avenue?"

Given this latest reply, I guess you're suggesting that the B57 should remain on Flushing & that the B62 should remain on Park...

32 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I would think option 2 is better. The 67 could stay as is too 

I favor option 2 also.... But in professing that, I still wouldn't have B62's running to Astoria.... Nor would I have buses running back & forth b/w Red Hook IKEA & the Farragut houses via Smith/Court (the proposed B27) throughout the day.....

As for the B67, at best, I'd maybe consider ending where they plan on ending those proposed B27's, if it were to run past Jay/Sands..... Otherwise, I'd have it go right back to terminating at Jay/Sands full time... I wonder how many people in Williamsburg after all this time, even know that the B67 runs in their neighborhood (albeit not in the "trendier" portion of the neighborhood, but still)....

19 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

What about it switching places with the B57 onto Flushing Avenue?

Not sure what you're suggesting here....

9 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

So you want two routes between 27th Avenue/2nd Street and WBP?

I said, "I would much rather either have...."

So, no.

1 minute ago, Q43LTD said:

Does the B27 serve Navy Yard property in this scenario? 

Nah.... and TBH, I would do away with having the current B67 run through there at this point.... The private Navy Yard shuttles get good usage, while the B67 through the Navy Yard basically carries air all day through there....

Being frank, I don't doubt for a second that the vast majority of people that are concerned about congestion pricing, would give much of a damn about how that money will end up being spent.... Imagine being robbed of cash by someone, to worry about where your stolen money would end up being spent - over having your money being stolen in the first place....

The immediate concern, which should be obvious, is that this will be yet another way to siphon money out of city residents...

13 hours ago, Ex696 said:

I see...so losing a connection between 21st/41st and Queens Plaza would be bad, then, considering the B62, Q66 and Q69 are all being rerouted away from there.

While the proposed B62 & proposed Q69 wouldn't serve Queens Plaza, the connection between 21st/41st & Queens Plaza would still be had with the proposed Q63 (which would do the current Q66 routing between Queens Plaza & Broadway/Northern).... The connection between 21st/41st & Court Sq. would still be had with the proposed Q39.... So folks north of the Ravenswood PJ's along 21st st. seeking QBP, loses out.

I'm less concerned with the decrease in service levels/BPH between [21st/41st] & [Queens Plaza], and are more concerned with nothing going WBP - LIC..... The proposed B62 bypassing WBP, QBP, and Court Sq. proper, to become more of a regional route by running up to Astoria, is going to be a deterrent... I would much rather either have:

1. the proposed B62 broken up into:
   • a combination of the proposed B27 & the proposed B62 b/w Downtown Brooklyn & Broadway, enroute to WBP
   • a route running between WBP & Astoria PJ's, doing portions of the current B62 north of WBP & portions of the proposed B62 in Queens (with modifications)
2. the proposed Q39 broken up into:
   • the current Q39 from end to end
   • a route running b/w WBP & Astoria PJ's, doing most of the proposed Q39 route north of Court Sq & most of the current B62 south of Court Sq.

16 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Should the B62 go to Astoria on the first place? It seems like it was done so the Q69 could run limited on 21st Street. Is there a lot of transferring between the Q69/Q100 and the B62 at Queensboro Plaza?

Just saw the new post notification as I was typing the above reply (which opines on your first question).....

As for the other question, nah.... Virtually nobody does that xfer scenario.

14 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Why are there a decent amount of dropoffs NB there?

1. You have the folks getting off for the projects themselves, and...
2. You have the folks xferring b/w the (Q66/69/100) & (the Roosevelt Island bound Q102 or the NB Q103)
   • For the RI bound Q102, a decent amount of people don't bother with the hassle of trying to get from Queens Plaza south to Queens Plaza north (whether via the QBP overpass, or actually crossing the street{s}) to catch it... They find it more feasible to take a bus that's (already) on the Queens Plaza south side (Q66/69/100) to 21st/41st & xfer to the RI bound Q102 there... Of the 3 routes, the Q69 sees the most NB dropoffs there, given that it backtracks to serve Court Sq (incl. the schoolkid usage at 21st/44th dr.as well).....

Few people bother walking from Queens Plaza to 21st/41st - even if they're on/along Queens Plaza north.

8 hours ago, 46Dover said:

The DeCamp lines 101, and 105 have been relocated from gate 208 to Gate 315.  The former Lakeland gates 206 and 207 will be manned by the 112 and the 116 on 207and the Secaucus buses 122, 124, and 129  on gate 206

What's the reasoning behind those relocations (and/or, why do you think/know those changes were made) ?