BrooklynBus

That is why I proposed an alternate routing on my website. http://brooklynbus.tripod.com I don't remember the specific page offhand but you will find it.

There is also the B83 that uses the Belt for passenger service between Pennsylvania Ave and Erskine Street. The MTA actually was considering an express bus on the Belt from Bay Ridge to JFK in the early 90s. They changed their mind because they thought the bus would get stuck too often in traffic. The weight limit problems with bridges actually didn't occur until around 2000, making a route past Knapp Street unfeasible, but with all the bridges being rebuilt scheduled for completion in 2014 or 2015, it will be a possibility again, but the MTA now probably just would not want to spend the money because of their cost neutral policy which makes any major improvements impossible. The taxi and limousine industry would probably also oppose it because it would cut into their business.

I assume you mean a free transfer that would not count as one of the allowed transfers. Of course they should do that if they cared about the passengers. I believe the B61/62 extra free transfer is the last one they created. Of course none of these are even publicized to help riders plan their trips. Besides that and the B6/11 transfer, I wonder how many others still remain.

According to their own numbers, the B48 is also much more inefficient since the cutback, with fares paying a smaller percentage of the cost of operation. Riders abandoned the route because it is not so simple just to change to the shuttle. If you were previously using two buses, changing to the shuttle would cost you an extra fare so you are now probably just walking further to other bus routes adding ten or fifteen minutes to your trip and avoiding the B48 altogether unless you have an unlimited pass which less than 50% have. I pointed this out after the cuts regarding the B48 particularly to the New York Times and they quoted me on it. I also asked Operations Planning why they don't restore service where the cuts made the routes more inefficient and the response was they are saving money and that's all they are concerned with. So if the routes are more Inefficient, they don't really even care.

I would use Utica going north and Schenectady going south and cut B45 headways in half. I'd try to mesh B14 and B45 headways if that would be possible.

Eastern Parkway is overkill. The B14 should be combined with the B71 using St Johns Place using half the B45 service. Half the B45 riders use it only for St Johns Place, never setting foot into Downtown Brooklyn and those who do could take the subway if they don't mind walking. Others could take the B65 which also goes there. It would also improve reliability on St Johns since buses will not get stuck in Downtown Brooklyn as well as provide many new connections. Also, I was the one who mentioned that the original B51 was proposed to start at Grand Army Plaza and not just be a bridge shuttle.

That was one of the first problems I recognized in Brooklyn when I wrote my masters thesis in 1972, that any trip around the park was an obstacle. I made several proposals to fix it. With the elimination of the B71, it has only gotten worse.

I sort of like your route. It's sort of simple and direct and fulfills a need. The only change I would make is that I would use Clarkson Avenue Eastbound all the way and Winthrop, Utica and Clarkson westbound. The only problem as I told QJ Transit Master is that we can't afford to just add layers of service. It has to be incorporated into the existing system, requiring changes to other routes. You have to come up with a comprehensive system for it to be workable.

I really don't have the time or interest to get heavily involved in the other boroughs. I try to limit myself to Brooklyn. I also never was really interested in express bus routes. The last time i studied routes elsewhere was Staten Island in the late 1970s. (I can't get multi-quote to work today so I am doing separate posts.)

I don't like the B32 because it is too short and doesn't serve enough purposes.Also, the loop it makes is too large. It is not good practice for a route to go on one street and not return on a neighboring street, but three avenue blocks away. I've always viewed bus rerouting like a jigsaw puzzle. The trick is to figure out what to do with the left over remaining pieces. Not to sound insulting but anyone can come up with an additional layer of service. The problem with that is that it is just too expensive. You have to integrate it into the existing system. That is the problem with you proposed B1. You haven't figured out what to send to Kingsborough College. Also, I don't think 86th Street is enough of a draw to justify increasing service on Emmons Avenue. The current route ends with a magnet, the college and the beach. There is no magnet near Knapp Street other than the UA Theater. A better idea to increase service on Emmons Avenue would be to have a route from Rockaway connect to the Sheepshead Bay Station. I think B35 via Church's proposal makes more sense than yours. At least he thought it out a little more and thought about the existing service without just adding another layer.

To Brooklyn IRT: You asked me to comment on your proposals. I looked at them and am afraid I can't comment at this time because it is just too difficult to follow when trying to picture how it would all work together. You also give too many options which only makes things more confusing. Just do a simple map showing which routes you would change with no options for the time being. We can discuss options later.But you have to be cognizant of costs. You state the B1 should go to Knapp Street so Emmons Avenue would get better service but you shouldn't think that way because it would never happen. They would just short turn buses at 25th Avenue to still provide poor service eastward. You can't just improve service and hope new patronage materializes. (I know I'm sounding a little like the MTA now.) There has to be a reason for more people to ride. Generally as a planning principle it is not a good idea to combine a portion of a route with good headways with another portion having poor headways. It is far better to try to combine two routes with similar headways. Also, I don't understand your B32. Is that the entire route on the map? I also don't think there is enough demand for a 16th Avenue service on the entire street.

For large cities such as NY where the streets are based on a grid system I agree that a modified grid system is the best because it reduces the need to double back when transfering. That's why I believe the B49 should continue straight on Ocean rather than divert to Rogers. People make the mistake of thinking that there is something holy about the current system when in reality it just developed one route at a time and was never planned, much like the way the skyscrapers were built. No one ever sat down to determine where they would be built. In theory, where a street or corridor is very long, I would run overlapping routes or services instead of having one route ten miles long or longer. If a north south street does not go to the end of the borough I would have it terminate at another north south route so someone can change to go further. I would use the same methodology for east west routes. That was why I was against eliminating the B40 without extending the B45 or B65 because if you are traveling east, there is no route to transfer to to travel further eastward. During rush hours or from 6AM to 9 PM, I would have supplementary L shaped routes where needed. I would try to avoid U shaped routes. At night I would have a separate netwoirk where alternate routes operate, so instead of a route every half mile, at night they would be spaced every mile. That way you could operate service at 30 minute headways on every route at the same cost of 60 minute headways on every route. I dislike routes that are just feeders because they are usually empty outside of rush hours. Either extend them, like the B2, or have them operate rush hours only.

It really warms my heart to see so any people realize how deficient the Brooklyn bus system is and to see so many ideas on how to fix the problems. When i created my website in 2003, that was exactly what i was hoping, to get a discussion going When I get a chance and get in the mood I should study everyones ideas and see what I should change from my original plan. I will do that when I can figure out how to use Inkscape. The old way I was doing it using PowerPoint is just to difficult to make major changes. It's just so difficult for me to get motivated again after doing this for 40 years and still seeing how the MTA denies there are any problems. Hopefully one day there will be some major restructuring. I hope I live to see it in my lifetime. If not maybe one of you will a my dreams come true someday.

I think the basic system should be a grid, but there has to be exceptions where warranted. The advantages of a perfect grid is that you could get anywhere with two buses. The disadvantage is that many trips that currently require one bus would require two. So you need some rational sort of combination. There are just too many O's and D's in a borough to base a route system solely by origin and destination. Look at what happened in Denver in the late 70s. They had a complex bus system that was working. Then they hired John Simpson to head the system. (He was from New York City.) Not knowing a thing about Denver or its transit system, he took out a pencil and paper and redesigned the bus system getting rid of all complexities and drawing a perfect grid. The bus map was so much clearer and easier to understand. Everyone thought he did a perfect job. New York City immediately hired him around 1980 to head the New York City Transit Authority, thinking he could take out unnecessary routing complexities here also and make the system better. Then six months later ridership data from Denver came back and it turned out that the changes he made there was a dismal failure because bus ridership dropped sharply. When people were asked why they stopped using buses, they responded that although the system wasn't perfect, the buses generally got them to where they want to go. Now they had to walk a mlie to get to that new simpler, straighter, and quicker route so they took their car instead. The lesson to be learned is that you have to understand people's needs and habits, not that a grid system is inherently bad. You can't make good plans by simply looking at a map as John Simpson tried to do.

We share the same philosophy about a basic grid system, with certain exceptions where there is an obvious need and the idea that it is better to have one frequent route than two infrequent ones a block apart. That's why I proposed moving the B64 from Bath to Cropsey west of 18th Avenue in my Southwest Brooklyn proposal. What people don't realize about the B100 is that the bus stops are further apart than the B2. That was intentional because it was placed one block from the B2. If the MTA does eliminate the B2 without changing the B100, they wouldn't add extra stops, so you will be left with one route with infrequent stops.

The B2 may still be crowded during the rush hours, but at other times when people don't need the subway that much, buses are virtually empty. That's why it needs to go to places other than the subway and must make connections to other bus lines.

I think the B31 could be extended instead of the B2 if the B2 and B100 were combined into a single route. I proposed a B81 limited or SBS that in essence would be a B82 not making all stops and going to Gateway instead of Spring Creek Towers. That would still be possible even if the B82 stops operating as we know it. I like B35's idea of two routes on 86th Street. It doesn't necessarily have to mean more buses on 86th Street. About half the B1s could terminate at 18th Avenue and more at 25th Avenue.

Not sure if you realize it but you are proposing to return the B4 to its pre-1978 route but extending it from Ulmer Park to Coney Island. What I proposed for the B4 in 1978 was to extend it straight along Stillwell to Coney Island and then turn it east, but the MTA wanted it to go around the other side of Coney Island Yards via 86th Street. Not sure what the advantage of using 25th and Cropsey is over straight on Stillwell if the B64 is brought back to Coney Island too. Didn't realize you moved the B70 away from the VA. Don't know if I like that. Don't see anything wrong with three bus routes serving the VA Hospital. (CI Hospital has three.) Don't forget Victory Memorial is still operating as an emergency facility under another name and there is also Poly Prep. If the space can't handle all the buses, there is no reason why through routes like the B64 need to enter the VA property. It's just a short walk inside. They would take whatever comes first if their destination is the L train, unless they need the extra bus transfer. Extending it to K or L makes the route much more useful and is more expensive than combining the routes. I think Shore Road needs the service and that most would prefer a bus to the 59th Street Station rather than 86th Street and getting there wouldn't take any longer. If you think extending the B2 or B9 would make them too long think about a terminal at Maimonides or 62 St and New Utrecht. and shortening the the proposed B2 extension. Don't think there is enough service on the B70 to alternate buses. I think the turn could be made with a recessed stop line if the cars would listen and it would still be with great difficulty. The bus would have to swing out to the left and go into opposing traffic before returning. The left turn poses no problem.

Generally, I like it. You seem to have incorporated some of my ideas. Especially like breaking up the B82 and what you've done with the B100. I have only a few suggestions. I'd switch the names of the B4 and 5 making the 4 the 5 and the 5 the 4. I'd terminate the 23 at the VA Hospital since you don't want it to go to 4th and 86tj because of the congestion there. I'd run the 2 on 65th street as a limited stop, stoping every other avenue since the B9 provides local service a few blocks away and it would keep down costs, and since there currently is no service on 65th Street, no one would protest elimination of any stops. I'd hook the B23 up with the B42 with alternate buses going through although Canarsie would probably just want to leave the B42 as is. The only thing you didn't address was a route on Shore Road to the N train which I think would be a hit since it eliminates a change from the R. I would extend the 2 or 9 to 101st Street and cutback the 16 to 86th and Shore if you don't want to extend the B1 to Shore. You don't specify how you would make the transition from 65th Street to Bay Ridge Avenue, A bus driver once told me that a right from 13th to Bay Ridge Avenue would be very difficult. That would mean that service would have to be moved from Bay Ridge Avenue to 65th Street for a few blocks,

I would continue it along 65th Street until around 13th Avenue and hook it up with the B64 along Bay Ridge Avenue so 13th Avenue, and Ft Hamilton Parkway can have their own separate bus routes. Bath Avenue can be separate routed on Cropsey to 95th Street or extended part time to Staten Island. Since there is a local route on 60th Street, the extended B2 could stop operate like a Limited and stop every other avenue block along 65th Street to save time and costs.

Checkmate is correct. The flip flop and the truncation are two separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they occurred simultaneously. A through 86th Street route (and all straight routes) are less confusing and makes it easier to plan trips and necessitates less indirect trips. As for the people inconvenienced I would guess that slightly more were convenienced than inconvenienced by the flip flop. You cannot go by the number of passengers transferring at 13th Avenue because before the change, you had your choice of transferring from the B1 to the B64 to get to 86th Street and 4th Avenue or staying on the B1 to 5th Avenue and change for the B63 there to 86th Street there. Although it was more indirect, it would have been quicker if you just missed a 64 and had to wait 20 minutes for another one. If your destination was 95th Street or further south, changing for the 63 would have definitely be a better choice than making two changes, one for the B64 and then later for the B63. A straight 86th Street route avoids such indirect trips and makes the trip a direct two bus trip with only one change at 86th and 5th Avenue. That's why the through route was a good idea. However as Checkmate stated, it should have been accomplished in other ways, not by flipping the routes which was the simplest solution and primarily just a cost saving technique since B64 service is less frequent than B1 service so service on Bay Ridge Avenue was reduced.

In order for a route to be successful, it has to be multi-purpose. Routes such as the B2 and B31 whose sole purpose is to serve one subway line only gets use during the rush hours. The routes are dead at other times with never more than a handful of passengers. There is no mystery why residents have stopped using these routes. First of all they were never heavily used during off-hours. The B2 saw some increase in ridership after the opening of Kings Plaza as it now had two purposes, but then several things happened. The B9 was extended to Kings Plaza providing the B2 with some competition. Service was cut further discouraging usage. Then the B31 was rerouted from Avenue U to Avenue R further cutting into the B2's ridership base and causing additional service cuts. Also, express routes BM4 gave Gerritsen Beach residents an alternative to the B31. When the B31 was rerouted, B2 service was cut and B3 service was increased, so if you are living near Kings Plaza, although the B2 takes you to an express stop, you also have your choice of either the B100, the B3 or the B31 depending on where you live, so the B2 really doesn't serve too much of a purpose with its limited headways and now no service on nights and weekends. It didn't have to be this way. The B2 could have been extended along Avenue P westbound toward Bensonhurst giving it additional transfer connections and making it more useful. During the overnight after Kings Plaza closes, instead of being eliminated, the B46 could have been rerouted over the B2 route to Kings Highway Station at no additional cost. I disagree with using Fillmore. Continuing to using Avenue R to East 36th Street makes more sense because it is centrally located and not bordering the park like Fillmore is. Also, residents would never permit a bus on East 54th and 55th Streets, so taking U all the way is more feasible. I still think it should go past the Brighton subway westbound. In rush hours, probably only every other bus could be extended.

Actually proposed that in 1975, but with the old B64 routing. Bensonhurst was opposed to it so we dropped it.

What about the G train accident (1970s?) on Queens Blvd line involving car 4500 in which one person was killed which I think was the first fatality due to operations in something like 25 years?