BrooklynBus

I just read the M86 report and it is a big joke. They spend a fortune just for the bus to save about 2 1/2 minutes. And since virtually no one travels the entire route, the average passenger only saves around a minute. They don't mention your chances of missing a bus because you first have to buy your ticket which means your trip may actually take longer. I have no problem with measures such as queue jump lanes because there are not going costs. So if you take that away, that means that prepaying your fare actually saves the bus less than 2 minutes River to River so the passenger saves virtually no time at all for a huge ongoing cost of enforcement and maintenance of the machines. As for the improvement in wait assessment, from what VG8 stated, bus bunching is still bad, so the question is what methodology are they using to determine wait assessment? That is how late does a bus have to be for it still to be considered on time? I didn't see that described in the report. Don't even get me started on their ridiculous methodology that shows a 96 percent satisfaction rate. It's too bad people aren't smart enough to be able to read between the lines.

I first mentioned that the MTA has been pushing SBS just to obtain the available federal funding about three years ago. It is only available for initial setup. There is no federal funding for ongoing routes. There is no limit, but now the total funding available is less so there is more completion for those SBS funds from other transit projects and of course also from other cities. So as the funding dwindles. The number of future SBS routes will dwindle. DeBlasio wants to meet his goal of 20. Once met, there might not be many more new SBS routes. And of course no matter how poorly they perform, DOT and the MTA will always claim success. You even stated that the M86 SBS is an improvement but far from a success with all the bus bunching you see. But DOT will just ignore the bunching with statistics like travel speed has increased by 10 percent even if that translates to only two minutes.

I thought it was behind schedule with all the back and forth with the merchants that changed the original plan which was supposed to get bus passengers from river to river in only 15 minutes. That would have been great, but we wound up with a plan that onl saves three minutes because merchants and residents rejected the original plan. Big deal and a big waste. And they implemented the thru streets program for 49/50 St which barred virtually all turns off the street and was supposed to have greatly sped traffic. So what happened?

And the SBS uses artics while the local uses 40 footers. So what does that tell you about crowding? Also NY Avenue service which serves two major hospitals was cut by over 50 percent. Also waits on the local were frequently being reported at 45 minutes. That was due to overloading, not to a lack of reliability from increased traffic. Complaints were so widespread, the MTA was forced to increase local service. There is a big incentive to use the SBS but people still prefer the local even though the SBS is stealing some riders from the B49 northbound increasing SBS numbers. So what does all this tell you about the success of the B44 SBS. Not to mention that the SBS carries only about six passengers per bus south of Avenue X in both directions at all times are except when shifts are changing at the Emmons Avenue nursing homes.

Neither. They didn't give it a number. I should not have called it B82. Sorry for the confusion.

When the southern Brooklyn SBS was originally announced as it was called before they decided it would just be the B82, it was supposed to start at 86 St Fourth Avenue and then go along 86 Street and turn up Bay Parkway and then follow the B82 either along no Kings Highway or Avenue P. SBS under the 86 Street el would have been insane but the MTA insisted they could make it work. I think they planned to ban all parking under the el but the community would have none of that. Bath Avenue could have been considered as an alternative because it would have been better than 86 St but it was never considered. Then magically without explanation it just became either a B6 or B82 SBS or both. Now it looks like it is just a B82 SBS. They talk about community input but just ignore all the input unless there is a mass protest. The use selective community quotes to support what they already decided and call that "participation."

It seems like the MTA does whatever it wants without explanation. The B82 SBS was supposed to start in Bay Ridge. What ever happened to that? It seems like the MTA does whatever it wants without explanation. The B82 SBS was supposed to start in Bay Ridge. What ever happened to that? The B5 and B50 never should have been combined in the first place. The B82 needs to be split up. Now like the B46 they are making people who want to take advantage of the faster service to pay an extra fare from the end of the route if they want a second transfer. Let's look at the proposal for the B82. It simply is to convert the Limited to SBS. A much better route could be designed. Kings Highway is not suitable for SBS. Putting SBS on the two lane congested portion is ridiculous. Traffic on the wide portion moves fine at all times even during rush hours so exclusive lanes are not necessary. They will have no effects on bus speeds but will slow down other traffic considerably causing congestion where none exists now. On Flatlands Avenue exclusive lanes also will not work unless you ban parking. Imagine the delays with only one traffic lane each way when the Belt is backed up. What they could do is the following if they want an SBS route. Truncate the eastern end of the B82 at Ralph Avenue. Make the eastern end SBS and operate it from Spring Creek Towers along its current route to Avenue P (keeping the Limited) and reroute it off Kings Highway to stay on Avenue P and continue along 65 Street stopping only at even numbered avenues where it would make all transfers. It could continue on to Shore Road passing the 59 Street station and down Shore Road until the end. Through travelers do not need a transfer to the Brighton Line which would still be available with the B82 Limited, local and B7. The SBS (B81) could also be extended to Gateway. There is also a plan for the B41 SBS.

The emphasis is and has always been cost cutting, not serving the passenger better or better connecting neighborhoods. That is the agenda. Since they lose money with every passenger they carry, they actually want to carry fewer passengers. That's why they we'll come dollar bans and Uber because less MTA service is required. I was involved with the B83 negotiations in the 70s. ENY wanted a new north south route between Penn and Fountain. The MTA refused because they didn't want to spend the money so they offered to move the B83 from Penn to Van Siclen. ENY didn't like it but was given the choice of that or nothing. So reluctantly they agreed.

The B84 is just another example of the MTA being pennywise and pound foolish and their lack of willingness to invest in the system. They also combined the B13 and B18 just to save one bus. Then when they extended the B13 to Gateway, it ended up costing them more money in the long run so they ended up just getting rid of the B18. They have no imagination whatsoever with their entire emphasis on keeping costs low and no emphasis on what to do to attract riders.

I don't see why every new route has to be SBS or why you need exclusive bus lanes for SBS to work in most cases.

You can't state any street is excellent for bus lanes without first discussing bus frequency and looking at existing traffic volumes as well as alternative routes. There are no alternatives to using Kings Highway without significantly increasing travel distances so it would be a poor choice under any circumstances. My personal feeling that any street where bus headways exceeds every five minutes makes it unworthy for an exclusive bus lane, and I would prefer every three minutes or more frequent.

First of all I never made Sunset Park a focal point. What I am saying is that I believe it is important to have one or two bus access to JFK or for that matter anywhere there is significant demand, and I do believe there is significant demand from all parts of Brooklyn to JFK, or there would be demand if it were accessible. I believe there would be little demand for a bus or two two buses and a train as you propose with the J. So all that adding Sunset Park would do would be to add a new service area to two bus access which would also include the north part of Borough Park. It has nothing to do with any hidden agenda for the B35 to operate from Sunset Park to JFK which I never proposed and would never want. You also make it seem that there would be much more of a demand for JFK from Church than from Clarkson. I do not believe that would be the case. The importance of using either street is that they cut across the borough and provide transfers to many north south routes thereby providing two bus access to JFK from many parts of Brooklyn unlike the B15 which doesn't do that. I respect your opinion so I changed my proposal to not involve the B35, and for that I get accused of "pandering" to you. And to keep things simpler (but more expensive) I decided not to involve the B12, and you accuse me of screwing up the B12. It seems to me that you have your mind made up that you do not want a route along Church or Clarkson to serve JFK. I don't even know if you want any service to JFK from Brooklyn other than the B15, the A train and the LIRR which are totally useless for those coming from southern Brooklyn. As I said before there needs to be three new services to JFK, not one. There needs to be the one along Church or Ckarkson, one from Brooklyn College along Glenwood and Foster and one from Bay Ridge using the Belt Parkway and Belt Parkway service Road making a few entrances and exits to serve additional neighborhoods. It should also be allowed to use the shoulder (where one exists) as an exclusive bus lane. These routes would be to serve workers and potential workers at JFK as well as travelers.

How do you figure that? I never said that at all. My first proposal was to extend McDonald B35s to JFK which would have allowed two bus access to JFK for those boarding the B35 between 1st Av and McDonald. Then you complained about all the traffic on Church and how unreliable the B35 is and that the B35 should be left alone. So I said okay and revised the proposal to leave the B35 out of it entirely and instead create a new route along Clarkson Avenue which would have the same western terminus at McDonald and Church to still allow B35 riders two bus access to JFK as with the first proposal. So what is the problem with that if any? (As an aside, crazy thing just happened with autocorrect. I tried to type "B35" and autocorrect changed it to "Utica." Good thing I proofread it.)

The point of McDonald Church instead of Parkside as the terminus was not to serve the F also, (although that is a side benefit), it was to provide a transfer to the B35 to enable use of the route for some Sunset Park residents to provide them with two bus access to JFK instead of three bus and two fares. The extra distance is not that much and there is nowhere to turn at Ocean and Church which also would have provided B35 access.

I was proposing Winthrop for between Utica and Remsen, so Kingsbrook and Kings County traffic is irrelevant to the discussion. It is certainly wide enough for one way bus traffic.

I know. I used to live there. It is too narrow for two way bus traffic which is why I proposed westbound on Winthrop and eastbound on Clarkson, between those two points.

B35 via Church: "compromise, you're missing a small piece of information... Superimpose a new JFK route using Clarkson instead of Church, etc. etc.... With the terminal on the Brooklyn side being, what....." The terminus would be McDonald and Church. The route would operate north on McDonald to Caton, east to Coney Island Ave, north on CIA to Park Circle, east on Parkside to Bedford, south on Bedford to Clarkson, east on Clarkson to Remsen to Clarkson to Rockaway Parkway to Linden to Conduit to JFK. Return using Winthrop between Remsen and Utica, then Utica to Clarkson to Woodruff to Ocean to Parkside to CIA to Caton to McDonald to Church. As for bus stops, they would be Limited. Intermediate stops at Coney Island and Caton, Flatbush, Rogers, Nostrand, NY, Albany, Utica, Remsen, Rockaway/ Clarkson, Rockaway Pkwy and Linden, and at Cross Bay Blvd.

But you haven't provided a reason why you would oppose an extension to the B35. As far as providing route change suggestions to the MTA, I have found them to be totally unresponsive. I got a BS verbal excuse why a suggestion I made was not viewed favorably and when I challenged their logic, they just never replied again. I have followed up numerous times and they just ignored me. In fact, if you try to make a suggestion via email, Operations Planning instructed MTA email to respond with a blanket, "We cannot respond to suggestions." Even if you just submit a question to them, all you get is that it will be forwarded for a response and that response never comes no matter how many times you follow up. In the past, I have noticed if they like a suggestion, they will spend years studying it, sometines altering it so as to ruin the suggestion, never acknowledging it was something submitted to them, but passed off as their own suggestion. On the other hand, I have found Road Operations to be very responsive.

Excuse me, but I do not remember what your objections were to my proposed extension of the B35 to JFK. What I proposed was that buses starting at McDonald be extended to JFK by turning from Church onto Linden at East 94 Street and only make two more stops. One at Cross Bay and one at JFK.

You have the LIRR from Downtown Brooklyn so you don't need a bus. Coney Island area yes via Belt Parkway. From Central Brooklyn yes. Via Linden yes via extension of B35. Greenpoint/Williamsburg No because you can transfer to B15. Metropolitan don't know.

Unfortunately, my IPad won't open your Google naps. I will look later on my PC. I also came up with a route about ten years ago from the Junction to JFK on my website. I think I called it the B19. Http://Brooklynbus.tripod.com

As I previously stated, there needs to be at least three Brooklyn routes to JFK, not only one. But if all you are gong to have is one, it should be the B35 from McDonald (with no stops along Linden because of the B15 a few blocks away) because most everyone in the borough would have two bus access to JFK. Thst is not true with the B15. The only reason that route was picked because someone wanted direct access from Bed Stuy. So in answer to your question, if few B15 riders boarding in Bed Stuy are not going to the airport and I doubt they are, your split sounds good to me.

Before you go badmouthing the unions, learn a little about their history and all the good they caused. You gave no idea how much more management would exploit its workers if not for unions. Before Mike Quill, those running the subways believed that safety was entirely the workers responsibility. If a track worker was killed it was because he was careless. And many were killed. The work environment is much safer today because of unions. All the safety gear used and now required for transit workers is all due to the unions. All those no clearance signs are there because of the unions. Yes, done work ruins need to be changed and some times unions can feel an obstacle, but the good they have done fa outweighs the bad. If not for the unions, management could just fire you at their will because they didn't like the way you looked. We have due process and hearings all because of unions.

I fully agree with you and Turtle. This is a very bad idea. In addition to the reasons already stated, you never want to split the headway on the route. Also I really doubt there is an exit at Nostrand and Linden so people would gave a two block walk. Enough of an incentive to stick with the local. Also from what I've seen, traffic on Caton is horrendous and heavier than on Church. Van Sinderen is also a ridiculous terminal.