BrooklynBus

Okay, briefly this is what we are thinking about. Instead of the B84, reroute and extend the Q8 down to New Lots and west to the New Lots Station, then pick up the proposed B84 with a slight modification to run on Vandalia instead of Flatlands where there is new housing to Gateway. Reroute the B15 from New Lots to Linden between Ashford and Fountain. Reroute the B6 up Van Siclen to the Van Siclen Station. Eliminate the B20 Straighten to B83 to operate straight on Pennsylvania doubling service with every other bus terminating at Vandalia. Extend the B7 to take over the Bushwick and Ridgewood portion of the B20.

Just want to say this. The B21 operated every 15 to 20 minutes and the old pre-1978 B1 operated every 20 minutes. The B49 which was extended into Manhattan Beach in 1969 operated every 10 minutes. KCC enrollment was a fraction of what it is today. Most of the current buildings weren't in existence then, only the temporary buildings were there. If it weren't for the Beach and college, MB would be similar to Gerritsen Beach with poor service. My guess is some GB residents would not the route extended and some would, if it meant more frequent off hour service. Even if GB residents would not use a westward extension, riders north of Aevnue U would use it and that accounts for about half the route's existing ridership.

If you have a choice of running a route alongside a park or a few blocks from the park, you pick the one a few blocks from the park so people can access the route from both sides of the route, not only one. Hence the route is fed from both sides or double fed. That's why the B2 does not operate alongside Marine Park. The same true with the B31 before it was rerouted from Avenue U. I'm still not sure that was such a great idea. It killed the B2 and made it necessary to increase B3 service. Also when the MTA combined the B67 and the 69, they chose 7th Avenue for both rather than 8th and 9th Av for both. It is preferable to double feed although I don't like the idea of putting both those routes on one street.

How I wish I was younger, young men? Threxx if I was you're age now I would be debating all of you and watching this discussion very closely. How nice it would have been to know people also interested in bus routes instead of all my friends who only cared about baseball stats. I will only say this. Yes, the B21 was empty all the time. It always had like 6 to 12 people and virtually everyone on it got off or on at Coney Island Hospital if they weren't going to a train. Practically no one rode around the loop and it never operated more frequently than 20 minutes. That's why I decided to do away with it one Saturday morning when laying in bed and it hit me like a flash to send the B1 using Ocean Parkway to 86 Street instead of extending it through Sheepshead Bay Station. I just knew instantly it was the correct move. I consider the B1 my greatest accomplishment although it took another 32 years for the extension to 4th Avenue. I still think some buses need to go the rest of the way to Shore Rd and 86th or to 101 Street if there is no bus along the length of Shore Road. Threxx, there are some planning principles you should know. Try to avoid branching and double feed buses where possible to minimize walking distances instead of using border streets like Bergen Avenue. Continue with the discussion and remember you are doing a big jigsaw puzzle. The pieces must all fit.

I don't understand the B43 route near the hospital so I don't see how it causes a lost connection to the Brighton line. I also don't think that too many buses on Clarkson is an issue.

You really need to stop with the branches. That is not done when absolutely necessary. There is a market for service around the Park, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that revenue would make up for the added costs. You pretty much need standees in both directions much of the time and high turnover to break even. Do you envision that with your routes? I think you' be lucky to ever get a seated load. As far as the 43 to KCH, there is plenty of demand for that. Not saying you woud get new passengers but a lt would be diverted from the 46/12 with a direct bus. I agree that few would take it to the Fulton subway.

To Threxx Bus: I've just looked at your proposal without looking at anyone else's comments. Some aspects I like but others I don't. Like the idea of getting around the park very much. Also like the idea of Clarkson Avenue service. Now this is what I don't like. You've got to be more concerned with mileage. Providing service costs money. Not sting you have to be zero cost, but you've gotto be efficient. You can't just increase B43 service by 50%. Whle I agree there is demand for the Hospital service, I can't see that much of an increase. I don't like that the B28 does not to the IRT although it comes close to Saratoga Av. Also don't understand why it has to go one way on 9th Street and the other on Hamilton Avenue. It is not good planning practice to keep directions that far apart. Also Clarkson is too narrow and congested between Utica and Remsen for two way service. Westbound needs to be on Winthrop. Also can't make out 43 turnaround by hospital. Don't like using Linden for buses although it is only for a few blocks. Realize that few will need Brighton Line with new Clarkson Av service, but why take it away? I see buses on Linden underutilized with like 6 people getting on at Flatbush and another few at Rogers and not really filling up to the hospital. I would rather see it duplicating the 28 on its existing route although it woud be a few minutes longer. But who knows? Maybe that would work? The biggest problem is a lot of extra mileage without enough justification that the demand could justify it. The 28 is a completely new route that doesn't use parts of any existing routes. Adding totally new layers of service is something the MTA just cannot afford to do now unless perhaps it is an airport route.

I doubt it would get further delayed. The extension is no longer than about 5 or 7 minutes and the streets are traffic free. The buses could even make up some time there if there is enough of a cushion and reliability could even be improved. There certainly would be a demand for that service.

You are well intentioned but that's an awful lot of extra mileage. I like the route along Washington but I woud rather see that being a reroute of the B69. You know I like the Empire Blvd part but I don't think it is necessary to go up to Eastern Parkway. And I don't believe you need a route along Bedford. You are too young to remember, but the only reason the B49 uses Bedford today was because Rogers was made a one way in the 1960s. And Bedford is also very congested between about Winthrop and Snyder. And the reason there even were bus lines on Rogers and Nostrand only one block apart because because the trolley operators that once ran those routes were competing for the same clientele before being merged into the BMT or the B&QT, I forget which came first.

I've been considering what Checkmate and B35 via Church have been saying and I think they are correct. To use half the B47 service to serve Mill Basin would do a disservice to Kings Plaza riders. And to add a little more service as you suggest, Threxx is not that great of an idea either with the service levels you would be ending up with. I don't think Mill Basin riders would be willing to wait 20 or 30 minutes for a bus when they probably could get where they want to go with two buses using the B100. They certainly would not want to go to the Sutter Avenue station. They only places your route would increase access by two buses (and it's a considerable area) would be to areas west of the Brighton line and east of Ralph Avenue. It may even be more than half of Brooklyn which is why I initially liked your idea. The question you have to ask yourself is if that access is worth reducing access to Kings Plaza as I suggested or woud it attract enough riders at the headways you are proposing by adding more buses. If Mill Basin did not ave a high car ownership (probably the highest in all of Brooklyn) I would say there would be demand. But realistically I don't think you would get more than two or three per bus until it left Mill Basin. It woud also be a very hard sell to the MTA.

Regarding Threxx's ideas for Mill Basin, giving Mill Basin 2 routes is not for them to go to the IRT at Sutter Avenue Station. It is to give them a choice of an east west route and a north south route. That is the way you maximize connections to the rest of the borough with two buses. As I said before, if it doesn't add buses to Ralph Avenue, it could work well. I don't like replacing the B82 with the B31 because you lose connections with the B46 and B47. That's why I sent it up 65th Street and and combined the B82 with the B2 because it maintained those connections.

Just want to make one more important point. At the Town Hall last night Transportation Alternatives announced the results of its poll from 200 respondents. I had some input into the questionnaire. One of the questions asked what do you think is the biggest problem with transit. IIRC the choices were significant delays, more frequent service, better bus routes, and Better notification of service changes. Better bus routes scored 25% I would have expected it to rank much lower. That is the type of question the MTA needed in its satisfaction survey.

The video of the Town Hall meeting is now posted on Sheepsheadbites.

Threxx, your routes aren't bad. Just have a few questions and problems. Avenue R might be the most central street in Marine Park, but not the most central route. As I stated, the route tat minimizes walking distance east of Nostrand would be Quentin Road, E 36 St, Avenue S, Utica and back to Fillmore. After the meeting last nighti am now convinced that on weekends that route should be altered to Avenue S, Flatbush, Avenue U to Mill Av to provide service to Kings Plaza. The schedules of the 2 and 31 supposed to be coordinated now which should have happened when the 2 was moved from Ave. U to Av R in the early nineties. They cut B2 service when the 31 was moved which they promised woud not happen. Don't understand what is happening at McDonald and S. Your B32 is very doable if every other B47 only operates as far south as Church Avenue. Otherwise it would be too much service. What is that light blue map along 65 St? Don't like it in Marine Park. You don't need two routes one block apart. Also, don't like it using E 15 St. Think the residents woud oppose it. Now that we have so many ideas, I think I will finally put all of mine down on a map and steal, I mean borrow, some of the best ideas I agree with in this thread. After all isn't that how Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became so successful by stealing all the good ideas they saw?

Threxx, I've been so busy lately that I haven't had time to even read this entire thread. A B7 / B2 idea sounds just awful. Just update me on your B7 /B17 idea for east 80 St and what your B32 is. If you go to my website, you will see I had a different plan for the B7, but yours may be better. Anyway we both agree that is is not needed south of Tilden High School. It's nice to add bus routes but you have to cut also. I think the B7 is one of the routes that you can justifiably cut at the southern end without hurting man people and benefitting a great deal more. That is the objective of bus reroutings anyway or else it should be.

A crucial paragraph justifying my idea to send the B44SBS to Sheepshead Bay Station was inadvertently omitted from Part 2 of my proposals on Sheepsheadbites.com. Also, the map problems hav been corrected so now it is easier to follow the proposed routes. You might want to take a second look.

And my answer is we don't know until we ask or try it as a trial. Something the MTA never does. As for why its better than fixing an existing route let me answer that. First, if the route is cut to Sheepshead Bay that would make it more reliable. Second, the Q51 will also pick up riders along Knapp Street to Sheepshead Bay Station. They will come from the B36 because they will have a shoirter walk, thereby improiving their commute. However, at 20 minute headways, they would not be attracted to it, just like people are not attracted to the B4 and use it only if they have no other alternative. It would not only be for Rockaway riders and people going to the subway, but for people going to the UA Theater from both directions and to Kings Plaza. I think ti could be very successful but you have to remember, ridership patterns don't change overnight. Trials must last at least 6 months. Three is not enough. Yesterday I took the first B4 at 2 PM. It had 15 to 20 passengers. Would you believe that 5 of them had no idea that they were on the first bus since 9 AM? That leads me to believe that people are still waiting for the bus between 9 and 2, two years afte it stopped running.

Brooklyn IRT: I will answer your other question here because quotes don't seem to be working on my IPad. I do not know why ridership on the Brighton line has been decreasing and increasing on the 2 and 5. I jus pet it may have to do with neighborhood demographics Perhaps population in southern Brooklyn is on the decline or jobs are increasing in New Jersey and Long Island while dropping in Manhattan so more people are driving to work. But if what you say is true why would you want to make an overcrowded line more overcrowded with the SBS? Wouldn't it be smart to encourage more people to take the Brighton Line with the Q51 especially if ridership is falling? If ridership on the Nostrand Avenue line is anything like it was when I used to see the trains at Franklin Avenue everyday from 1967 to 1977, every train was jammed to the gills during rush hour. Brighton trains aren't nearly as crowded. (I'll get to B35 later today when I'm on my other computer and can use quotes.)

I thought I explained my thinking in the three articles. One of the problems with the B4 and why it is lightly utilized is that people will walk further to use other routes that are less convenient or even take the subway to Downtown Brooklyn because the B4 is scheduled for only every 20 or 30 minutes and they know that at times it is not reliable and they could get stuck for an hour waiting. If you have to be somewhere by a specific time, you just aren't going to take a chance on the B4. Now you can't just go and increase the service hoping more people would ride the bus. Your solution of sending the bus to 86th Street instead of Bay Ridge Parkway may be one way of increasing demand. But I wonder if anything on 86th Street has something (a store or attraction) that is so attractive that riders can't get closer to home. The trip from Rockaway on the A train to Midtown is long and slow. I believe that there are people in Neponsit, Belle Harbor and Breezy Point who want to take the subway to Manhattan from Brooklyn because it would be quicker than the A train which they first have to travel east to go west. (Not very direct) They don't take the Q35 because they don't want to change at the Junction especially during off hours. I believe they would take a bus to the Brighton Line. Knapp Street and Emmons are very quick. It would only take about 5 minutes more than going to the Junction. If you ran the Q51 every 20 minutes, that in addition to the B4 running every 20 minutes would effectively make a combined headway of every 10 minutes if they could be scheduled that way. Even if not, more buses would lessen the likelihood of having to wait 45 minutes or an hour for a bus causing more people to not avoid the B4 when it is their most direct route. (Some people may walk further to the B36 just because they don't want to deal with the B4, not that the B36 is a bargain too. You could also get stuck for a half hour waiting for it, but it is less likely.) Also, it would make trips to the UA theater and Kings Plaza much easier. Someone might even take a bus from Rockaway to the UA theater if there were a bus. They certainly won't take three buses.

I'm just gonna say this right now. I have a friend in Neponsit who doesn't have a car. If he comes to visit, it's lie 90 minute trip requiring 3 buses and 2 fares and at least 90 minutes of travel time, more if he wants to get home at a late hour. By car it is only a 20 minute trip. I usually drive him part of the way so he has only two buses to take. That's what people have to do to deal with these three bus trips and it is not right. We need to improve connections to make more trips accessible by two buses. If we did that you woud see bus ridership increase. When you truncate routes lie the B48 and the B64, or the B4 you see ridership go down. That''s why he system is failing. The purpose of a Q51 isn't just to bring people to the subway but to generally improve access. Maybe people from the Rockaways are driving because they don't want to change at the Junction. You don't know if there is demand or not until you ask.

Of course it matters. Fillmore alone does not serve Marine Park well because pat of it runs along the park People between Kings Highway and Fillmore would have a very long walk to a bus. That's why I don't want the B2 to be flat out eliminated leaving only the B100. Don't see why Rockaway riders shouldn't have a choice. You will never know if there is demand or not if you don't try. Rockaway needs better connections to Brooklyn. Not everyone has a car. It would make many two bus trips possible that are now impossible. No one ever surveys the riders to determine their needs. I just rode the B4 to get petition signatures. You would be surprised to see all the places where the people live who use that route. There even was someone from Staten Island on it. And someone took it just to see what Sheepshead Bay looks like.

The B83 ro Gateway was my idea. I proposed it to them in 2003. They told me they couldn't do it because buses were not permitted on the Belt Parkway. I told them that if they get a permit from DOT it could be done. Guess they didn't know that. It took them how many years to study it and finally do it? 5 years for such a small extension? I also believe they used the exact routing I propossed. It shouldn't have to take 5 years for a change that small and that obvious. Of course, I never even received an acknowlegement or thank you and if you would ask them, of course they would deny it.

I guess since the B4 was cut back. I've gone to several of the Plumb Beach Civic Association meetings and they keep talking about the area south of the Belt Parkway so it sounds like to me they are including that area in Plumb Beach. Possibly, but not the people in Bensonhurst. They only want the part of the B64 east of 25th Avenue reinstated. Regarding your other comments: As far as the Rockaway route, why don't we wait and see how the Rockaway people feel about it. It is posslble that the Sheepshead Bay people don't even want them. I'm still considering your idea to reroute the B4 Sheepshead Bay portion to 86th Street. Just didn't want to complicate things more right now. I'll save it until I do my entire Brooklyn map. As far as both the B4 operating to Knapp Street and the Q51 also at 20 minute headways, that certainly is a possibility I will be presenting. I mentioned cutting it at Sheepshead Bay because some others in the area also suggested the B4 be shortened years ago to increase reliability, but not to discontinue service like the MTA has done on weekends and evenings. B2 doesn't use Fillmore. B100 does. I'm trying to reduce the duplication. Fillmore is alongside the Park and doesn't serve the area well. Avenue R is one block to the north. Serves the area better, but Quentin Road is equidistant between the B82 on Kings Highway and the park minimizing walking distances for all. Also, it is a commercial street, unlike Avenue R which is completely residential, so it is suited more to a bus. Quentin Road west of Nostrand is completely unnecessary. Eliminating part of the B2 and part of the B100 would help pay for the westward extension. Otherwise all we have are additions and no subtractions. The MTA would never go for that. I really think Rockaway is an untapped market and some riders now going to the A would switch and take the bus the other way to the B and Q and get a quicker subway ride.

I submitted the svg file from Inkscape and that provided a much clearer resolution, but unfortunately some of the lines disappeared like the B4 on Bay Ridge Parkway and many of the route numbers. I have since made the corrections but since I did it in Powerpoint I'll have to wait for tomorrow to find out if it is usable. Plumb Beach is the area around Knapp Street or to the east of it. They are also using it to designate the area south of the Belt Parkway and east of Nostrand Avenue to distinguish it from the larger Sheepshead Bay. The B2 loses ridership every time service is reduced. Read my first article on the B2 which is linked in the story to read more about its history. The Q51 would either run at 10 minute headways on Emmons Avenue without the B4 or at 20 minute headways together with the B4 to provide a combined headway of every 10 minutes to encourage more bus usage. The restoration of the B4 is not shown on the map since he preferred alternative is the Q51 without the B4, but either is possible. If the B4 is not restored, and easy transfer on Emmons would be available betwen the two routes without having to make a loop to the station as was necessary prior to the B4 cut, so the ten minutes previously lost going around the loop would instead be spent waiting for the bus. Travel time to Bensonhurst would be the same as it was prior to 2010. The B64 is shown on the map east of 25th Avenue. That was the part that was eliminated. No one is proposing to undo the 86th Street change. I tried saving it as a png and the result was no better. Ned converted the svg format somehow which is what is now posted. It is much clearer, but much of the map got messed up. Hope to get everything fixed by tomorrow.

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2012/05/my-proposed-bus-route-changes-for-sheepshead-bay-and-adjacent-neighborhoods-part-1-of-2/ I apologize for the low resolution of the map. I made it in Inkscape which was a good resolution. I tried converting to png and also doing a print screen and converting to a jpg. Both times I lost resolution. It would be higher resolution if I could crop the map before exporting but I can't get that to work. If someone could explain to me how to do it, or another way to get a higher resolution, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.