BrooklynBus

1 hour ago, 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 I 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.

 

The B49 should stay on  Ocean to Empire and then turn east on Empire to Utica. I used to live near there and a route like that would have been very helpful. 

34 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

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.

I forgot to mention that on one of the days I described going to the beach in the mid sixties, I was waiting for a B49 at Bedford and Church along with several hundred others because the B35 was one of the few routes that transferred to the B49. (It would have been easier for me to take the B12.) Special buses were put in at Church. We weren’t close enough to board the first bus, so I counted the number of people getting on. Probably one third were children and many were carrying small beach chairs. 110 people got on that New Look bus which was filled down both stairwells. It probably went straight to the beach without stopping more than a couple of times. 
 

As far as the B41, in 1978, I did a study for three days of riders getting on at the Junction. That time there were many short runs from there to Avenue U. Also, same thing in the B44. A bus came about every five or ten minutes in the evening rush hour, but if I subtracted the short runs, there were 45 minute gaps in buses coming from Downtown Brooklyn, which is why they were so important. Sadly, today, I don’t know if any remain. Back then they knew much more how to run a system without the Limiteds, SBS, and bus lanes.

Also, many buses left the Junction with just a seated load because the trains weren’t arriving. So we requested the train info from the MTA. It turned out that half the 3s and 4s leaving Manhattan and the Bronx were abandoned mid route, mostly due to door problems. That’s how bad it got. 

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

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 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. 

49 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

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.

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.

52 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

I see the NYC Ferry system eventually becoming the MTA Boat Company.

Because they run everything else so well? (Autocorrect tried to change run to ruin. Maybe I should have let it.) 

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

So, how do you address the Sheepshead Bay Station stop for the B49?  Personally, the B49 really needs to be left alone.

He would have everyone walk from Ave Z and E 15 Street. The walk would be slightly longer since accessing the Voorhies Ave end of the station would no longer be possible. (They already changed the B36 to make it less accessible to the station several years ago.) I am not sure if his proposed change would be any quicker since it is more indirect and traffic on Avenue Z is also heavy, although the street is not narrow. Guider, northbound would be a little shorter than Neptune to C I Ave. It could be investigated however to see if it’s any quicker. 

1 hour ago, Ex696 said:

From what I'm seeing, a lot of people dislike that change. Especially considering that a lot of people who use the route to get to KCC will now have to transfer to the B1 or B68 and likewise with B68 riders who want to go to Coney Island. I feel like this swap will be significantly more detrimental to the B49 than it will to the B68. That and the B48/B69 swaps are bad, and it's ironic because the 8 and 9 are swapped in either situation.

I doubt the swap will go through. There was unanimous opposition to it. The B49 Limited would not be necessary if the B44 SBS were rerouted to Kingsborough during school hours. It would save about 20 minutes for students coming from Crown Heights. Service to the nursing homes needs to be retained during changing of shifts. 

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

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

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 suggested it several times in the local Rockaway papers and each time there was a positive response for it. Also, there was a positive response from Subchat, and the former director of the Queens Study admitted that this was definitely a gap in the system. 

11 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

You should propose a summer seasonal test bus between Rockaway Park and Sheepshead Bay. They can use surplus express bus equipment on it.

A test would be a great idea. Something the MTA does not do. I was thinking of it more for commuters than for people going to the beach. 

The B3, B41, 46 and 47 get probably like 90 percent of the usage. Few use the B2 or B9. Of course if the B9 is rerouted, the B2 must be retained. That goes without saying, or the B100 must pass Kings Plaza if the routes are combined. 
 

Don’t know why you would say the B3 and B9 would. Be more reliable than the B2. Since it is so much shorter, I would say the reverse is true. 

15 minutes ago, Brillant93 said:

As someone who lives in the area, the Bergen Beach branch is usually full of the people who live in this area until it hits the junction. It will often filter in passengers along flatbush all the way to downtown brooklyn and vise versa. The issue arise when there aren't as many Bergen Beach branch buses as there are Kings Plaza buses on the 41 and when it gets to the junction in the evening rush its crowded. So, its not much of an issue going northbound i.e to downtown BK, its the issue for when its coming back in the evening which isn't much reliable. I usually take it often and over the years it has gotten better but they do often short turn the bergen buses at prospect park. 

What the B40 does to right to me is that for one, it separates the branches entirely by number, the times people who wanted to go to KP got on the wrong bus is funny. And second, its a rush route i.e a limited. 

What I think it does wrong is it being cut back from downtown BK, but we have to keep in mind that the B41 is being planned to become an SBS in future, so this will really be a conduit avenue since there will be a local here along with an SBS that will go downtown, along with transfer connections to the  and the  trains that go in the same direction. 

I think the B40 rush should probably go to at least Grand Army Plaza or the Brooklyn Museum, but it does seem to make sense to end it at prospect park.  

The B9 needs to be rerouted to serve Avenue N to Bergen Beach. The B40 is only necessary during rush hours and overnight hours. It is empty during the day along Avenue N 

2 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

I don’t think all were bad on my side of BK. I think the B40 is a good idea for people in the Bergen Beach side, but it would be great if it went downtown. Then you have the B5 which I feel is just an overlap of the B6. I think if they’re gonna have the B5 go to the gateway it should be the B6 ltd and have the local terminate at Rockaway parkway. 

The B40 is just a cutback of 50 percent of B41 service to Downtown Brooklyn.

https://qns.com/2024/01/mta-queens-bus-network-redesign-plan-under-fire/?fbclid=IwAR00dFzR-dnYN7V0c3xIYl5IEKc9LNztPc1qIQQ-SaQVvgVXSNGWsDY9SNc
 

Queens Advocates speak out.

1 hour ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Yet you conveniently refuse to recommend more frequent overnight service.  

 

 It's the age-old principle of "if there is even 1 person who won't benefit from this, then nobody should be allowed to benefit from this."

What are you talking about. I have always recommended more frequent overnight service.

Two more letters in the Queens Chronicle:

https://www.qchron.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/more-bus-plan-issues/article_f3d1fedc-a4f6-11ee-ac09-afdc3d7c62bb.html 

https://www.qchron.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/devil-in-bus-details/article_c1be3ed8-a4f6-11ee-9a6a-5fb52cf14208.html 

49 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Please do not assume that public transportation has never existed in NYC at any time in the history of history.

Who is making that assumption? What I was saying is that someone who works at odd hours cannot use public transportation. It isn’t fair to ask him or her to wait 60 minutes for a bus. 

57 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

Not quite. The cheapest way to increase ridership is to consistently advertise your services. You can't assume that people know what you are offering unless you reach out to them.

I had an argument with an MTA official about 50 years ago. He said the MTA was guilty of not advertising the services enough that they provide. I responded that you first have to improve the product before you advertise, because if the service is bad, people won’t return. 

14 hours ago, Lex said:

Maybe you haven't noticed, but sedans have become substantially less common as of late, and the ones that remain are more likely to have design choices similar to the SUVs and pickups that are displacing/replacing them (larger, boxier engine bays). In addition to dropping visibility, these front ends combined with the increases in mass make these things deadlier for pedestrians than before.

Since you don't want congestion pricing, why not push for a massive expansion in (good) bicycle infrastructure alongside improving public transportation? Actually providing meaningful alternatives to cars will drastically cut the incentive to use them, which is crucial for sustainability.

Cycling is no solution. For one thing, it is highly weather dependent. Most will not use it for long daily trips no matter what the infrastructure is. For many trips, cars are a necessity especially if you are hauling more than you can fit in a bicycle basket. Mass transit also has its limitations and can’t be used for many trips, but that does not mean we shouldn’t invest in it. Investing in cycling only encourages more of it and reduces road capacity for other vehicles increasing congestion. Cars and bike don’t mix and the more we encourage bikes, the higher the fatalities will be. Maybe we need to place higher taxes on these larger vehicles? 

On 12/18/2023 at 9:03 AM, BrooklynBus said:

On 12/18/2023 at 7:56 AM, Janine Mantzaris said:

Please do not charge New Yorkers [who can not afford it] to drive to their essential jobs every day in order to serve the city.
Do not punish people for going to work. Punish people for illegal activity. Install red light cameras in every traffic light. Install more speed cameras all over the city. Make your money on illegal activity that is hurting others. Do not make your money by punishing people who are going to work.

Punishing illegal activity is only fair when it really is illegal, not when speed limits are unrealistically low. Some are now pushing for 20 mph speed limits. Did you know that have the revenue made on red light cameras are by those going past one at a fraction of a second after the light turns red,  because there is zero lenience? Those are not people flagrantly ignoring the law but those who have miscalculated when the light will turn red since it varies by intersection. There would be a half second grace if it wasn’t purely for revenue reasons, not safety. 

1 hour ago, Janine Mantzaris said:

Please do not charge New Yorkers [who can not afford it] to drive to their essential jobs every day in order to serve the city.
Do not punish people for going to work. Punish people for illegal activity. Install red light cameras in every traffic light. Install more speed cameras all over the city. Make your money on illegal activity that is hurting others. Do not make your money by punishing people who are going to work.

Tell your elected officials. Posting here accomplishes nothing.

6 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Let me guess.... The answer is yet another forensic audit of the MTA.

 

Of course, every politician and every advocate who has ever demanded a forensic audit of the MTA has subsequently refused to release the results of said audits. (Maybe that's because they show how much the MTA has to reimburse the state for all those audits!)

Remember when the IG showed all the corruption involved for 2 Broadway? He was immediately replaced. 

23 minutes ago, FLX9304 said:

This article should be filed under “Random Bus Threads”, NOT UNDER NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY! 

It discusses inefficiency and waste through the MTA, Buses as well as subways, so it could be filed under either. 
 

I mention the employee suggestion programs which were a great opportunity to reduce costs without impacting service. Some departments were very ameniable to suggestions such as where I worked, the Central Electtonics Shop which approved like 50 suggestions each year of the hundreds submitted. Employees felt that nine months was too long to wait for a response, so we started our own program which I oversaw. Although we could not give employees more than $100, still many suggestions were approved saving many thousands of dollars. 
 

Operations Planning on the other hand, rejected virtually ever suggestion submitted, and only approved three per year because of their arrogance that they have all the answers. During my final year I submitted about sixty suggestions, all of which were rejected, most with non-sensical reasons. There was a useless rubber stamp appeal process. I have about 300 pages with suggestions and responses. 

https://www.qchron.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/mta-inefficiency-waste/article_ca6e696a-99c3-11ee-9409-3fbf6bd975d0.html

5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

 

 

...so we took it out of the plan...very smart...

 

 

The B57 is still in the plan.