BrooklynBus

That's sort of like a chicken and egg. Of course few JFK employees come from southern Brooklyn because transportation to JFK from there is miserable unless you have access to a car. But that would change if it became more accessible. I bet there are more JFK employees living near the Barclay Center than say the Kings Highway Homecrest area for example, although Barclay Center is farther away.

I would only agree with you if it is quicker to take the R, change for the N, the LIRR, (or the R and change for the A) then the Airtrain than it would be for a bus from Bay Ridge via the Belt to JFK. Not to mention that a bus would be direct and not involve three transfers which is a problem with luggage and stairs. Don't believe Bay Ridge stations are handicap accessible. It would also open up employment opportunities which the MTA never considers when planning new services. They only look at existing demand.

Buses are not allowed on the main roads of Ocean and Eastern Parkway although some did once run there. The B14 westbound used to use the main roadway in the 1950s before being moved to the service road. The B9 used main roadway until much later before feint moved to the service road. The B1, and B4 use the main roadway only because they have done so since the 1920s as the B21. The only route that was added to the main roadway was the B36 in 1978. That was because no new stops were added that would block a lane. Also the B1 was allowed to operate between Avenue X and Z as a new route under the condition there would be no stops. The MTA wanted stops but DOT refused. I was present at those discussions. So generally the only buses allowed to travel the whole length are school buses which seem to be exempt from the DOT rule of no buses on parkways. MTA buses have special permits.

I have not been following this thread for a while so let me throw my two cents in regarding Brooklyn JFK bus service. There definitely needs to be a second, and third route to JFK. One route only from Bed Stuy is absolutely ridiculous. As I proposed in 2003 on my website http://Brooklynbus.tripod.com, a route from the Junction as I outlined and another for southern Brooklyn via the Belt Parkway. Also extension of a Limited B35 from McDonald via Church, Linden and making only one more stop at Cross Bay would be good idea. The reason: JFK service from Brooklyn has to be the worst airport service from anywhere to a NY airport. I remember seeing all sorts of shared services to places like Westchester at more reasonable prices than a cab costs you from Brooklyn. I remember when the TLC started a reasonable fare for sharing rides and even that is now very high. Something needs to be done for visitors as well as employees and potential employees. History: In the early 90s, the MTA was thinking about a needed service from Bay Ridge but the route they proposed along Ft Hamilton Parkway and I believe Caton and Linden was just too cumbersome and time consuming given the traffic. The only way it could be done is using the Belt Parkway. But the Belt is often plagued with traffic delays. Without delays, the trip from Bay Ridge with a few stops would only be slightly longer than with a cab like 45 minutes to an hour. Using the route proposed by the MTA would take perhaps twice as long at all times and would be about the same time as the Belt with congestion. In 2003, I proposed a route getting on and off the Belt Parkway avoiding the bridges that were having weight problems. Now all the problem bridges are being rebuilt with the lanes widened in many places. The Future: What I would propose today is that after all the reconstruction is complete in another few years (which would mitigate done of the traffic congestion) that buses be allowed to use the shoulder where one exists or could be built, as a bus only lane. That is the only condition where I could see a Belt Parkway route being feasible. As far as the Avenue J or Avenue P / Flatlands route proposals, neither are a bargain trafficwise. (Neither is 86 St.) Avenue J is chronically congested near the Brighton Station. (Avenue K might be better.) And Avenue P is a standstill during rush hours. To use Avenue P, you would need to ban all parking on both sides of the street during rush hours. Don't think that would fly especially since they got rid of the municipal parking. (The private parking rates that replaced it is through the ceiling) That is why from Bay Ridge, the Belt after reconstruction is complete is the on,y feasible alternative. What also would help the Belt is a bridge from Avenue U to Seaview and another to connect the other Seaview. But the NIMBY's won't let that happen so Flatlands is the only Belt alternative and is also a mess when the Belt is backed up.

I fully agree with you about the B67 and B69. You talk about inconsistency. Inconsistency is the MTA's middle name. You say riders are pissed off because of inconsistencies. How do you think I feel? During my last year working there. I submitted like 40 route change ideas through the Employee Suggestion Program. I have several hundred pages of responses which I never got around to posting on the web just to show those inconsistencies. Any route extension proposal received the response that reliability would be compromised. Any route truncation suggestion received a response that customers depend on this route and it can't be cut. A shift of streets for a route was rejected with a response that no bus route currently operates note street and residents might not welcome it. Adding service would cost extra that couldn't be afforded with the assumption that no additional riders would be attracted to the route. In other words, there was always a reason why your suggestion was impractical. If a reason could not be thought of, they would respond to a suggestion you were not making by reinterpreting your suggestion and then dismissing it. In the rare chance they liked a suggestion, they would give you a reason why it could not be done then spend three to five years studying it, and call it their own or else modify it to ruin it. However when they proposed to extend a route, the additional cost could always be afforded or they would make another neighborhood suffer by cutting service there to make it a zero cost proposal. Compromising service reliability was never an issue because the route was longer. When service was cut, there was either no negative effect, the negative effects were dismissed as affecting few riders or minimized, or an alternative service was available even if it made no sense to use that service. Any suggestion you send in through the normal email process now merely receives a response that they cannot respond to customer suggestions for route changes.

I asked a bus driver a few weeks ago if it is more difficult to drive an articulated bus. He told me they are no more difficult to drive than a standard bs except when you are making a turn. Visibility is a problem.

Few realize that the MTA never wanted the B51. It was a response from communities to run a local route over the Brooklyn Bridge. Several community boards faught for it over a period of three years as an alternative to the subway. The route they requested began at Grand Army Plaza and would have operated along Flatbush Avenue straight over the Manhattan Bridge and south to Worth Steet via Park Row. They MTA knew it would have been successful and they woud have had to provide too much service. They also knew many would choose that route to get a seat rather than standing in a crush loaded subway, so they refused to operate it. So instead they proposed a poor substitute, something they knew woud attract far fewer passengers. A shuttle route from Downtwn Brooklyn. And they were right. It was never well utilized, and they eliminated it at the first opportunity, the 2010 service cuts.

Yes, the car ownership rate is high, but so is bus usage. Except for the B4 and perhaps the B64, the other routes in the area do quite well ridership wise. i.e. B1, B6, B8, B9, and B82. There are plenty of households either without a car, or the breadwinner is using it to get to work, leaving the spouse and children transit dependent during the day.

Actually, I proposed something similar in 1978, but continued down 16th Avenue instead of New Utrecht. The MTA rejected it at the time, and later I realized that they were right. I don't think the demand is there to justify it.

@QJ Transitmaster Yes the is express and it is quick. But most people do not live next door to an express stop. Many have to change from a local or first take a bus to the train. The B might take 25 minutes from Sheepshead Bay Station to Atantic Avenue. But you also have to wait about five minutes for the train. You wait about ten minutes for the bus if you are lucky, and ride another 10 or 15. So you are talking about a trip close to an hour. Another ten minutes to get to the LIRR. Another 10 minutes or so until the train leaves and you are now at 1:20. Fifteen minutes to Jamaica? Plus Airtrain and you are talking about a trip close to two hours. Add another hour if the plane leaves or arrives at an inconvenient hour and your trip could be 2 1/2 to 3 hours. Not very convenient, especially when a cab takes under 30 minutes.

Correct about the first part. That's why I called it a stop gap measure. The route either should be spilt at McDonald as I proposed on my website Brooklynbus.tripod.com or extended along 65 St and Bay Ridge Avenue to replace the B64 there. At the eastern end, in addition to service the area around the hospital it would give connections to the B35 and B12 for travel eastward. When I made a similar proposal to East Flatbush back in 1978 and gave them this option or continuing the route along Avenue D to Utica to connect with the B8 and B46. They chose the Kings County Hospital option.

I would do more with the B23 by involving more routes to solve other problems. But what you suggest would help as a stopgap measure. It would certainly make the B23 more useful. The only thing is that the bus would have to go north on Albany and south on NY Ave, not the other way around, because the bus could not make a right turn from New York to Winthrop without banning parking and putting in a recessed stop line. Having the loop go te other way with a left from Winthrop to New York, causes no such problems. LIRR is fine if you live in northern Brooklyn, but very inconvenient from southern Brooklyn. It could take you 45 minutes to an hour just to get to the railroad, then you still need the railroad and Airtrain. Not very convenient. A bus on the Belt Parkway with limited stops would be faster. Could definitely be done once reconstruction is finished. Buses could be allowed to use shoulder when road is congested.

That's the problem, the above $10's per ride. Why couldn't the MTA operate such a service for the price of a local or express bus with a couple of intermediate stops? I bet those buses would be filled. I still say the taxi lobby would prevent the MTA from doing that if they wanted to. Remember the low flat fare they started for group taxi rides from the airport? I think it started at something like $30 a ride. What's it now? $50 or $60? Not very low cost. What about a private fare from the airport, how much is that? We really have to do much better for our airport passengers, and the MTA is in a position to do something about it. No other city that I know of are bus and taxi fares from the airport so expensive. As I said, one local bus route per borough to an airport is utterly ridiculous.

Weren't there once private express routes from Grand Central to LaGuardia or do they still exist?

@B35. There also needs to be more than one bus route from Manhattan to LaGuardia. All the airports have always been grossly underserved and it's no accident either. All mass transit improvements to airports especially at regular fares cuts into fare revenue of taxi operators and they have a strong lobby.

I ruled it out after two weeks of study and analyzing the data. It, however was the simplest way to get a through 86th Street route and the MTA always looks for easy solutions to tough problems because it means less work for them. I came to that conclusion after watching them in action as an employee for almost 25 years. It is just too difficult for them to consider more than two routes at a time which is what the problem with the B64 requires. It boggles their little minds and they are so stubborn, they won't listen to those who understand the problems better than they do. In fact they resent suggestions from the public and stated that publicly in 2006 in Borough Hall at a NYMTC meeting. The Director of MTA Planning actually stated, "We have our own planners. No one tells us how to plan" in response to suggestions that the NYMTC study made to them.

Only two people got off to change for the B1 is because now they are walking all the way from Cropsey to 86 Street so they don't have to transfer. Although it will be easier for them once the B8 gets reextended to 95 St.

I assume you mean they transfer from the B15, points east. Anyway a transfer between the B15 and B35 can be maintained by routing the JFK branch via Church, East 98th to Linden. @B35 via Church. Using McDonald service instead of the Limited would make the route more available to Central Brooklyn riders and it would be more reliable because it would be shorter. How much time does the Limited save anyway and is it really worth it? Also why is there a Limited stop at New York and not Rogers with the B44 now in place? But using the Limited instead from Sunset Park to go to JFK would also work. Additionally, there also needs to be JFK routes from the Junction and from southern Brooklyn. One JFK route to serve the entire borough is just ridiculous.

The only reason I'd pick the B65 over the B45 is to maintain service by the B45 to Kingsboro Houses and avoid an indirect loop if service is maintained to the Houses. As for the B15, we need a second Brooklyn route to JFK. McDonald B35s need to be extended from East 98 St via Linden Blvd making limited stops to JFK. They should run non stop between E 98 St and Fountain, since you have the B15 one block away.

It's much more than that. No route should terminate where you cannot transfer to another route going in the same direction. Currently people walk much further than they have to to get to a bus route. Those near the B65 going east of Ralph will walk extra to the B25 to make the trip. Those near the B45 will walk extra to the B14 or use an indirect north south route such as the B44 to get to the B12 to get to East NY when they could have had a quicker and direct one bus trip.

How about extending the B65 instead as you proposed? That way service to the Kingsborough Houses would be maintained for both routes, but it would cost a little more.

What bothers me is that both the B65 and B45 terminate where ther is no possibility of transferring to another route that goes further eastward. The MTA needs to follow some planning guidelines where when a route terminates, unless it is near water, terminates where you can continue to travel further in the same direction. The B23 suffered from the same problem and it is no more because of it. Given how important transferring is to the system, this is essential.

The B2s twisting west of Flatbuush ensures a minimum walking distance to a bus. The duplication I don't like is running a bus on Quentin west of Flatbush. That needs to be changed. There are several logical combinations of the B2 and B100 that could improve efficiency. A simple elimination of the B2 and moving the B2 to Fillmore or eliminating the B100 and extending the B2 to Mill Basin on weekdays are the worst alternatives.

The B110 was jammed whenever I saw it running and that was usually in midafternoon on a weekday.

B83 service would be doubled to accommodate the loss of B20 service. The only people who would be hurt would be East NY riders going to Bushwick and Ridgewood. Since buses to Ridgewood are not frequent, there could not be many riders making that trip. If needed some B83s could be extended to Decatur and Broadway or a three-legged transfer could be provided. In exchange, extending te B7 to Ridgewood would open up that route to a new service area and boost ridership on that route. The idea in rerouting is to help more people than you are hurting, because any plan will hurt some people unless you always just add layers of new service which is not feasible.