BrooklynBus

I agree, but if they both operated over the same street where they are a block apart is not the same as getting rid of a route. It just means that if you could use either bus, you wait less.

My guess is that at least 75 percent of B100 passengers are destined for east of Gerritsen Avenue and very few are Marine Park bound so I agree with you about different clienteles. I also agree that more people are not patronizing the B2 outside of rush hours because of its poor headways. During rush hours I doubt if there is much difference. I would also guess that many are walking from a quarter mile within Marine Park to Gerritsen Avenue if they don't see a bus coming or see one far away on bus time in order to take advantage of the B2/31 combined headway. I agree the routes should not be combined but still would like to eliminate Quentin Road service by putting B100 buses on the B2 route to shorten headways for those who can use either routes. It doesn't make sense for two routes to operate with 20 minute headways only be block apart, when they could operate on the same street with 10 minute headways. The only reason the B100 uses Quentin Road is that Pioneer could not get a franchise to use the same streets as the B2. Now that it is all one company, there is no longer a need to use different streets.

The reason the B2 has more ridership in Marine Park than the B100 is because the B2 has a greater service area and has closer stops. That's why I am against discontinuing the B2 because it is near the B100. What I proposed is a combination of the B2 and B100 (although separate route numbers could be kept) using the B2 route with the B100 splitting off at Flatbush and returning to Fillmore there to serve Mill Basin. The advantage is a combined headway instead if having two infrequent routes operating one block apart. You might be intersted in knowing that in the 1950s and 60s the B2 was like the borough's second or third top performer in terms of making money. Rush hour service was among the best in the borough at every two minutes. Every 10 minutes was the base service at most other times. What killed the B2 was the B9 extension to Kings Plaza and later the B31 rerouting from Avenue U to Avenue R. The declining patronage resulted in severe service cuts which caused additional ridership declines and further service cuts. Keeping the existing route without extensions at either end or maybe both ends is dumb.

Of course you are correct. That was my proposal in 1978 and still is. It is also what the community wants, but the MTA just doesn't want to spend the money because their assumption is that there would be no additional riders which is absolutely wrong. They need to consider revenue along with operating expenses. I also would like to add that I never proposed flipping the B34 (B1) and B64. It was the first thing I eliminated in 1974 when survey results showed high numbers of B64 riders would be inconvenienced by losing the transfer at 86 Street. I proposed the B64 to operate on Poly Place to 86 St Fourth Avenue. Interested Rider still would have been able to use the B64 if 86 Street traffic were too slow. And as I mentioned, DOT's blocking the former right turn lanes at 86 Street and Bay Parkway only made the B1 slower. I just spoke to the MTA this week about the B1 and the Road Operations people are very interested in making the route run better. They can't do it without more resources from upper management and cooperation from DOT.

So the problem wasn't the routing change which is what I figured because the B1 is actually more direct than the B3 for your purposes. The problem was scheduling and traffic. Also I would like to point out that before 1978, it wasn't even possible to take the B3 to the B64 since the B3 terminated at 25th Avenue and 86 St. It was my idea to extend it along 25 Avenue to replace the former B4 and B34. The MTA would have just left the existing terminus but I wanted to add the connection between the B3 and the B64. So I did something right.

I know. I was the one who worked on it from 1974 to 1978 when I proposed it and only the first half was implemented. I called it the B86 and in the early 90s when the MTA was again thinking of it, they actually put B86 on the digital signs, but they scrapped the idea because of budget problems. It was the same time when they were thinking of bringing back the F express which they also scrapped then.

The B2 is also a route to Kings Plaza. If it as extended to Riis Park, it would be a route to Riis Park as well as carry Rockaway riders to the Brighton line. If it was extended to Bensonhurst, it would be a route to Bensonhurst. When the B21 operated it was just a route to the Brighton line and Coney Island Hospital. When it was replaced with the B1 and B4 they also became routes to Bebsonhurst and Bay Ridge. That demand did not exist for 1978. It increased the number of places where people were wiling to look for jobs. Please explain how your B1 trip became so much worse with the 2010 change.

You know I can't show you the proof. You don't see the demand. Guess you never heard of "build it and they will come." How do supermarkets decide if there is demand to build a new supermarket? They do an analysis to predict demand. If the MTA were in the supermarket business, and were analyzing a specific location, they would conclude there is no need for a supermarket there because no one is shopping there now. So what if the B1 connects to several subways? The only places where transfers are significant are at Brighton Beach and at 4th Avenue. There are few transfers to the B, F and N. It is a vital East West link because I created that route. If you ever rode the B1 under the el, you would know his slow it is there. (I was at Bay Parkway the other day and saw that DOT permanently closed off right turn lanes they had just put in when creating bus islands. Now those wanting right turns must wait in the only moving traffic lane which is blocked when buses are stopped. Ridiculous. They don't want traffic to move.) You don't want SBS on a slow street which is why the MTA chose not to operate the B46 SBS along Broadway. If you want SBS, it would make more sense to use Bath Avenue for part of the Route like a Bath, Bay Parkway, Avenue P route.

Yes that would be much fairer than what we have now. It would also encourage more trips because it would allow people to group short trips. That would probably offset the number of round trips that would be made for one fare. But the MTA doesn't see it that way. They are very slow. It took the BMT/NYCTA/MTA 50 years just to provide universal free bus transfers. You could transfer to one route for free and have to pay extra for a parallel route. Free transfers were based on agreements made in the 1930s prior to the BMT taking over operation of all bus and trolley routes. The problem wasn't corrected until the mid 1980s. The MTA kept on insisting the loss of revenue would be too great to correct the problem. Now they are saying the same thing about allowing round trips for one fare. Their fear is greater than reality.

Midday B2 usage on weekends is a little higher because of Kings Plaza shopping. During the week, I doubt if it is greater than 6.

Did you see my proposals? Since there is a 60 Street route a quarter mile away, I propose that 65th Street service stop only at even numbered avenues. Buses would stop at all transfer points and it would be faster. SBS under the 86 Street el? You gave to be kidding. Yes they are dinky little shuttles that are only used during rush hours. That means for they rest of the day they are big money losers with six passengers or less per bus. If they really went somewhere, they would carry like 20 or more passengers per bus. That is why they need to be extended. If the MTA had the courage to make some bold changes, the decline in bus ridership would be reversed.

And you know for a fact that no one from Gerritsen Beach needs or wants to get to other areas of Brooklyn like Bensonhurst or Bay Ridge? They are 't going there now because they can't. Funny, when access to Bensonhurst and Bay Ridge from Brighton and Manhattan Beach was greatly improved by the new B1 in 1978, I didn't see anyone complaining that they lined their isolation. I also didn't see Plumb Beach residents rejoicing in 2010 when the MTA made that community more isolated by greatly reducing B4 service. They wanted to run it only between 5 and 7 PM. They told me that they kept it running longer starting at 1 PM only because of the data I collected and submitted to them showing afternoon demand. And everyone knows that improved public transportation increases property values. I am sure Gerritsen Beach residents would be in favor of that. And I suppose Marine Park residents have no need to go west of the Brighton Line. Where are you getting your data from? The MTA needs to look further than existing bus usage to determine real demand. They need to look at taxi, limousine, and van services to find the gaps they need to fill but their objective isn't to connect neighborhoods and improve mass transit. Their objective is to find ways to reduce service to so they can spend less.

So if new people are moving into the neighborhood, they have no need for public transit or to travel anywhere? Will they all be driving or just staying at home? Don't really get where you are going with your endless talk about changing demographics. Their trip needs may feel a little different but the same transit policies still apply. More direct and straight routing and longer routes increase the ability to transfer reducing the number of buses required to make trips. That does not mean that every bus travels the entire route. Neighborhoods with access to only short routes line the B2 and B31 greatly reduces travel options and isolates neighborhoods. That was a major reason why I did away with the circuitous B21. Plumb Beach only had access to the Brighton line with the B21, much like Gerritsen Beach does now. I am sure Plumb Beach residents appreciate tat they now can get across Brooklyn on one fare and with one bus.

No one is proposing to change the Q 35. The point is riders to and from Rockaway need other options. It should not require three or more buses and double fare to reach Rockaway from southern Brooklyn. If you don't like the proposals I presented, the least that could be done is to extend the B2 to Riis Park and provide free parking in the area or extend to Beach 116 Street during rush hours.

I proposed this four years ago. An alternative would be the Belt Parkway instead of Knapp and Avenue U. It may very necessary to split the B4 at Sheepshead Bay Station. 86 Street under the el and Avenue U especially between Coney Island Avenue and Nostrand would incur too much traffic. http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2012/08/southern-brooklyn-service-investments/

And the MTA wants those vans to operate as well regardless of public statements. Why? Because they can provide like 30 percent less service abs since more service costs them more money since they lose money for every passenger carried, their bottom line, the only thing they care for, is better if they provide less service. Now there is a reason why the B41 used to be the number one route in Brooklyn for many years carrying 12 million a year for decades. No route even came close. I believe the B46 was second with only 9 million. Now the B41 is like sixth. The only possible reason has to be the vans. But every time the politicians make a stink, they have thus well publicized crackdown for a week. Then no enforcement for five years so they all come back. Yes it is all a big joke because the politicians, the MTA, and the TLC think we are all stupid. I am also cynical. There needs to be legal van routes where the MTA does not conveniently operate and demand exists. But they shouldn't be allowed to operate in direct competition with the MTA. Also there are many areas where this demand exists like Sunset Park or Chinatown to Flushing. Do you know the history of the B110, the orthodox bus route between Borough Park and Williamsburg? In the 1960s or 70s, the communities asked for an MTA route. The MTA responded that there was not enough demand. That is because they only considered existing ridership not potential or latent demand. So they bought doe buses and started their own route. It was enormously successful and is still operating. It is the only privately operated route left in the borough that I know of after the MTA took over all the others in 2004. Why is it still private? Because it makes a profit and never needed a subsidy even though there are no transfers to MTA routes. The fare is now $3.75 and buses are still crowded. So they "experts" who claim they understand demand and can't run a bus route with a profit, rejected a profitable route that has demand because they claimed there was no demand. What does that tell you? The MTA is not the experts they claim to be when it comes to understanding demand. That is also why they refuse to make needed bus route modifications.

Show me where it says there are legal routes. Nothing you posted says anything about routes. Boundaries you can operate in is different from routes. I agree that this whole thing is very confusing and needs to be changed. There should be legitimate routes that do not compete with MTA routes so they complement the MTA system and run where the MTA does not want to run. The city makes a lot of money by selling medallions that allow street hails. If vans could do the same thing for a lot cheaper, the medallions would not make sense because no one would want to pay for them. The city does not want yo give up that revenue which is why I believe they do not allow vans to pick up passenger hails. I wonder if any vans really do have a subscription service or they are all operating ilegally.

I proposed this back in 2003 but you can't just leave 13/14 Aves without service. The service gap is too great especially since 16th Avenue service was eliminated. You have to restructure the entire network. See my proposal here: http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/id12.html

Commuter van stop is not synomous with street hails. You can have commuter van stops as well as subscription service. The stops are just so the vans do not double park and cause congestion. It does not mean they can just pick up anyone who comes to the stop. And that goes for legalized routes on Flatbush Avenue too. They may be permitted to operate on that street but until I see in writing something specific about street hails being allowed, I still maintain they are illegal even if there is no enforcement.

I don't see any approved routes. What I do see are geographic area boundaries they can operate in. That sounds ridiculous to me since there are no boundary restrictions for livery cabs. The same should apply to vans. This sounds like a lot of unnecessary bureaucratic regulation and can explain why so many are illegal. I also see nothing about street hails. It clearly states that passengers can be picked up through pre-arrangement which is what I thought. It has to be through a subscription like a monthly charge which would limit airport services to employees only. I guess an app or phone call would be considered pre arrangement, but certainly not a street hail.

Thanks very much for the info. Now my questions are who decides the routes? Where are these routes publicized? Are there fixed stops for these routes? Is this what TLC was proposed after the 2010 bus cuts and if so, did any of those routes survive? So we have TLC plates with the word "bus" on them. Then we have the real bus plates from the DMV. I also saw what looked like a charter bus with the word "Apportioned" instead of the word "bus". Apportioned is also used on trucks. Does anyone know what it means and why a normal bus would say "apportioned" not "bus".

So are you saying that having a TLC designation allows street pick ups? How is that possbile if the service is in direct competition with MTA service? What is your source?

Just having TLC plates does not make them legal for street hails. Only the green and yellow cabs can do that. All others have to phoned or you have to use an app to get them. One reason I heard is that for the Haitians and other Carribean people who patronize them it is sort of a status thing because in the islands only the lower class take buses while the middle class uses vans and shared rides. I remember the very first day the dollar vans started on Utica Avenue because that is where I lived at the time. I even wrote a 25 technical paper on their history when I was at the Department of City Planning and I think I still have it. Basically, all the blame goes to the MTA which in July 1975 decided to cut rush hour headways on Utica Avenue from 2 minutes to four minutes although the buses were overflowing at 2 minute headways. The rationale was budget cuts and it was reasoned that more could be saved by cutting heavily utilized routes than lightly utilized routes. No consideration at all was given to potential loss of revenue. So when that happened there were mobs of people who could not get on the bus on Monday. On Tuesday, about 100 private cars were filling up taking people to the Eastern Parkway Station for the same bus fare. This went on for several weeks. Then the gypsy cabs got in on the act and soon replaced private cars. About three years later, they figured they could carry more passengers using vans, and the "dollar vans" were born although they weren't called that until the fare actually reached a dollar. Later, the service was extended to Kings Plaza. I do not know exactly when. Instead of restoring the cut service, when the MTA saw what was happening, they cut additional service in future years, driving even more people to these vans. After Utica Avenue, they quickly spread to the B35 between Kings Highway and Nostrand, the B6 and eventually the B41. Soon they were in Queens and the Bronx as well. One thing you have to hand to those drivers is that they know where service is deficient and where there us demand. The Labor Day before last when people were literally waiting at Riis Park for hours for a Q35, dollar vans were soliciting riders for non-stop service to the Barclay Center for $6.25. They were offering another destination as well but I forget where. Actually it was a good deal. The MTA wouldn't even consider providing such a service.

If they just pick up on the street, they are operating illegally. There are many illegal things that the city constantly ignores. I was in a little supermarket the other day that only had prices on like five percent of the items, the ones on sale. All items need to be marked. There is also a law requiring private garages to post their rates in large print outside the garage so you can see them before you enter, yet virtually every garage I see now violates this law by posting their rates in small print after you enter so it is impossible to change your mind and back out if there are cars behind you. Worse yet, some rates are posted in very dark locations so they cannot even be read up close. Or there is a large sign saying something like PARK HERE FOR $2.99 and in microscopic print it says "for the first 15 minutes" or something like that with the rate for 4 hours being like $25 plus 16 percent tax and like $40 for four to 8 hours plus tax and even higher for longer periods. So why does it surprise you that virtually all dollar vans are illegal? Then once a year or so it makes big news when they have a crackdown. I believe dollar vans can serve a useful purpose and they should be allowed to pick up without subscription, but the city must decide the routes so that they do not compete with MTA routes and make sure the vehicles are properly maintained with adequate insurance. Look how well the jitneys in Atlantic City gave been operating for over a hundred years. Each vehicle is privately owned and maintained but where they can operate is strictly regulated. The owners know exactly during which hours they need to provide service.

I am not aware of any demographic analysis of JFK employees that resulted in a B10 extension so it wasn't me who previously mentioned it. I suppose is is possible. As to why the B10 was chosen over the B14, the B10 serves more of Brooklyn. But if I was doing the planning, I would have chosen the B35 instead because it would have provided virtually all of Brooklyn with two bus access to JFK even if more employees are served with one bus via the B10. That route only leaves too many areas with three or four bus access. Knowing the MTA they might have chosen the B10 because politicians representing that area suggested that route. As far as using dollar vans for new services, it would have to be by subscription to be legal which means it would be limited to employees. Also if Belt Parkway traffic is your concern, they would create more traffic there than buses would especially if buses could use the shoulders where possible after reconstruction of the bridges is complete.