BrooklynBus

42 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Going back to this, I see Knapp Street will gain overnight service (Overnight service currently ends at Nostrand/Emmons)

If it’s once an hour, that doesn’t mean much. Those buses mostly either run empty or have one or two passengers the entire trip 

1 hour ago, Ex696 said:

Interesting...when it was presented to CB 12 this year, what did they have to say about it? Same thing?

No. The meeting had an abysmal turnout. Only about 18 from the neighborhood. No elected officials and no one from the community board. I asked why they are not straightening the B16 but they wouldn’t answer the question. 

4 hours ago, Ex696 said:

The B16...I honestly think it should just be streamlined to Fort Hamilton Parkway and have another route replace service on 13th and 14th Avenues, but it is what it is....Running on 60th Street to transition between 13th/14th and Fort Hamilton Parkway looks good on paper, however, 60th Street has traffic congestion issues and this would likely mess up service on the route. Using McDonald Avenue instead of 12th Avenue to get to Caton Avenue, can't say much about this. I almost was concerned about B16 riders losing express service when I saw it was rerouted from Prospect Park, but an auxiliary entrance to Church Avenue station is located on Caton Avenue, The B16 running on Clarkson Avenue gives riders along its corridor a one-seat ride to Kings County Hopsital, Kingsboro Psychiatric Center and Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, while also providing another route on Clarkson other than...the B12, so I see this as a good change.

60 St was presented to CB 12 in 1975 and again in 2004, and both times was rejected for congestion issues. Both times they suggested what you did. My plan suggested everything you did for the same reasons, yet the MTA insists they know what is best for the community and has refused to discuss my plan with me. 

9 hours ago, Ex696 said:

The redesign doesn't propose a change to its frequency, but you're saying in the future, if the MTA needs to cut corners, they will reduce B36 service, correct?

Right now the B36 is underserved during rush hours. The B44 SBS will fill some of that demand when they should just add B36 short turns from Avenue U to Sheepshead Bay. B36 riders will now take which bus cones first which means there will be fewer B36 riders. Fewer riders translates to reduced non-peak service. 

7 hours ago, Ex696 said:

I don't know how the B44 SBS to Coney Island Hospital will go, last time I checked, Avenue Z can have congestion problems some times, but people on the current B44 route south of Avenue Z will have lesser service due to B44 local service not being increased. I think the B44 Local Avenue U trips should all be extended to Knapp Street to make up for this decreased service.

Rerouting to Coney Island Hospital is a poor idea. All it accomplishes is allowing for reduced B36 service. Makes much more sense to reroute it to Kingsborough College when classes are in session. There is no need for increased local service south of Avenue U as it is lightly used. However SBS trips to Knapp Street need to be maintained during the change of shifts to serve the workers from Crown Heights at the several nursing homes and assisted living facilities near Knapp St. 

1 hour ago, Ex696 said:

What about north of there?

 

As I stated, before the mid sixties there was no bus service north of there and of course no trolley service before that. Service was not added to help passengers but making Nostrand a one way left the TA no other choice. You could be asking why we needed duplicate two way service on Nostrand and Rogers before that since they are only one block apart. We didn’t. They only existed because there were two competing trolley companies trying to get the same market which is why the Rogers and Nostrand Avenue trolleys and later buses did not grant a free transfer to the same routes. If the 44 transferred to a crosstown route, the 49 did not and vice versa. 

14 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Wouldn't Rogers or New York lose their local service?

I would move the B44 to Rogers and replace New York Ave service south of Kings County Hospital with a new route. 

12 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Wouldn't Bedford Avenue south of Fulton lose their service?

Yes, but you have to remember that prior to the mid 1960s, Bedford Avenue never had bus service. It was only when Nostrand and Rogers became one way pairs, that the TA was forced to add service to Bedford and NY Avenues. It was not done to help bus passengers, but to speed traffic which it greatly did on Nostrand and Rogers. But Bedford has always been exceedingly slow for buses. I don’t see moving service from Bedford to Ocean as a loss, but as a gain. 

12 hours ago, Ex696 said:

and B12 riders would lose their Brighton Line connection

The only riders that would lose a Brighton connection are those from east of Utica Avenue and I doubt there are many. If the B16 terminates at Rutland / Sutter, those near East 98 St would use that route to access the Brighton line and some could walk from East NY Ave to Clarkson for the B16. There would be very few east of Howard Ave who are going to the Brighton line. Most B12 riders are destined for Kings County Downstate or the Nostrand Ave Line. I used the B12 all the time growing up so I am familiar with its usage. 

1 hour ago, Ex696 said:

What was your idea of fixing reliability on the B12?

I totally restructured all the routes in the area. I shortened the B12 so it terminates at Kings County Hospital. I rerouted the B49 to operate straight on Ocean Avenue then on Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. I rerouted the B43 to continue south on Brooklyn and north on Kingston going around Kings County Hospital to Clarkson Ave, and extended the B16 east to E 98 St along Clarkson. 

7 hours ago, Ex696 said:

I see...I think splitting the B12 into the B10 Limited and B12 Local is good, the B12 is notorious for being unreliable and having frequent bus bunching

 

My idea is much better.

10 hours ago, Ex696 said:

What was the B36's routing pre-1978? and do you think rerouting away from Shell Road and Avenue Z in exchange for Stillwell and Neptune Avenues is a good idea?

 

The B36 operated from CI on. Surf to W 5th, then on Neptune from West 5th to Emmons, then Sheepshead Bay Road to E15 to Avenue Z to Nostrand and then to Ave U. There also was the B21 which used the B4 route from Sheepshead Bay but used Emmons to Sheepshead Bay Road, to E 15 to Ave Z to Ocean Parkway to Brighton Beach Ave to Manhattan Beach. 
 

I like the Stillwell Neptune route for the B4 provided the B36 is rerouted onto Shell Rd and straight along Ave Z to replace the B4. It’s just too bad the Ruth Bader Ginsberg Hospital only has vehicular access from Ave Z, but I guess you could walk through the parking garage. 

7 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Any opinions on the B4 changes? Is the detour it takes to Sheepshead Bay station detrimental to it's reliability and service?

I was the one who designed that detour. It is definitely needed. It allowed the straightening of the B36 in 1978. The MTA is not proposing to change it. If MTA had any brains, when two eastbound buses bunch on Neptune Avenue, the late bus could transfer its passengers to the following bus and bypass the loop, where it would gain about nine minutes and be back on schedule. That is one of the advantages of the current route. But the MTA has no interest in reliability so both buses unnecessarily follow each other around the loop when they bunch. 

51 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

What makes you say the B65 over, for example, the B45? The B40 ran on Liberty Avenue to Liberty Avenue ...should whatever route that takes over that portion of the B40 also take over the B12's former route on Liberty Avenue to City Line as well?

51 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

What makes you say the B65 over, for example, the B45? The B40 ran on Liberty Avenue to Liberty Avenue ...should whatever route that takes over that portion of the B40 also take over the B12's former route on Liberty Avenue to City Line as well?

Because the B45 has or had that loop that it would have to lose if it were extended.

3 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Can you explain more about this, why you think the B47 should be split and where it should be split?

It should remain as is because it provides an alternative to the B46. The only bad idea about the B40/78 combination was eliminating the east west portion of the B40 which should have been added to the B65. 

I don’t know where you got 2026 from.

13 hours ago, mikecintel said:

Update Brooklyn Bus Redesign will go in effect in 2026.  So that means 3 years from now.

I got it from another site and it states:

Staten Island Express Bus Redesign Network 2018 then had Bronx Local Bus Redesign Network 2022 Next Year it's Queens Bus Redesign Network 2024 rest a Brooklyn Bus Redesign Network 2026.

1 minute ago, Ex696 said:

I meant more in the sense that it wasn't as terrible as the B48/69 swap, but I could still understand why it's bad. Coney Island Avenue loses its overnight service and while the B49 would get overnight service, a decent amount of people ride along the B49 to KCC, considering that's the whole reason the Limited exists on it, so rerouting it to serve Coney Island isn't really that great of an idea. They should both keep their existing routes, although whether or not it should still get overnight service is up to your discretion.

Overnight service is not an issue. The B49 has no overnight service between like 2 and 4 AM last time I checked. If the routes were switched, then the B68 loses service between 2 and 4 AM. We are only talking about two round trips which are probably empty or near empty anyway. 

The major problem is the loss of direct service between Manhattan Beach and Sheepshead Bay turning a current ten minute trip into a 40 minute trip. Also, there are dozens of medical offices along Ocean Avenue which would no longer be directly accessible from Manhattan Beach. I haven’t really looked at the B48/69 swap that closely but it also has received lots of opposition. 

22 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Yes, it could allow them to have their separate frequencies again so that Vanderbilt Avenue riders can have the real service they deserve. The 49/68 swap, don't really know how to feel about it, but it would be way better than the 48/69 swap. Also, I don't know how many people from Vanderbilt Avenue ride through to the 7th Avenue portion, so I don't know if cutting the B69 to Park Slope like proposed is a good idea.

The B49/68 swap is a horrible idea which is why it received so much criticism. Only one person likes it and he lives in Southeast Queens and doesn’t use the route. 

47 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

 

Part of it is because they get away with underserving the Q66. There's a lot of activity at every stop because it's a major corridor, and it has a lot of commercial areas. I think that headways should be increased during the day. During the rush not only should there be more service, but that there should also be an LTD variant. That, along with the bus lanes (and proper enforcement) would have been more helpful than just seemingly eliminating every other stops, making certain transfers more inconvenient. 

If they wanted to remove bus stops, they needed to establish a parallel route a few blocks away. Now some have to walk as much as 3/4 to access the route , when the guidelines call for a 1/4 walk. There is a reason why stops were previously only two blocks apart. 

2 hours ago, lornaevo said:

As a former Q66 operator, those stop removal helped alot. 

Helped the operators, but it the passengers. 

14 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Less stops allow buses to actually move along with traffic and not constantly being halted by red signals because it pulled into a stop during a green phase. Also, a few mins make a difference when making connections.

Yes, the bus will save a few minutes, like five from end to end which means less costs for the MTA, but it also means many will now have to walk extra minutes to the bus stop increasing the chance of missing the bus and adding about 10 to 20 minutes to your trip. The time it takes you to make your trip including walking and waiting is more important than the time it takes the bus to make its trip. Also, eliminating lightly used stops save virtually no time at all since most buses would skip the stop anyway. 

3 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

I'm starting to question the usefulness of stop removal or even limited stop for speeding up service. According to timetables, a good limited service might save around 5-6min for an hour long route, which really isn't a lot especially if few people are even riding the entire length of that route. What they often do instead is distort ridership between the limited and local, effectively causing them to bunch up and cause problems for consistent service. I think what would make a much bigger impact is a law giving buses the right of way when reentering traffic. Many drivers are already pretty good at being aggressive with reentry, but making it a law would definitely help on high traffic streets. The other thing that would help, although this is more of a pipe dream, is to make all the buses free so there aren't lines to pay for the bus and all doors can be used. 

I'm fine with most of the rush routes since they're meant to serve the branches far away from the subway, and crosstown/SBS since they'll probably have a ridership base separate from the locals with enough stops removed that it might actually make a difference, but most proposed limited routes should just be locals with no limited counterpart IMO.

Stop removal will lengthen the time it takes to make trips. I have been pushing for a law to give buses the right of way leaving bus stops for about five year. The MTA has agreed to support it and agreed to get bills introduced, but they still insist on eliminating bus stops. 
 

Read more in my latest article. https://www.bkreader.com/local-voices/op-ed-the-brooklyn-bus-network-redesign-needs-to-have-public-town-halls-7279288

https://www.bkreader.com/local-voices/op-ed-the-brooklyn-bus-network-redesign-needs-to-have-public-town-halls-7279288

19 minutes ago, ThatSubwayFan980 said:

Well, when all the boroughs are having a redesign with the buses, just thank the MTA for nothing! I mean, look what happened to everything the MTA got involved with. Now this! I think it's better if we keep the bus lines the same as it was before.

It’s a shame because the redesigns are opportunities to correct 70 year old routing problems, but not when your goal is to reduce costs rather than improving service for the passengers. 

4 hours ago, Q43LTD said:

I thought the whole point of these "redesigns" was to get buses off narrow streets. Hence why we have routes like the Q57 and 109 proposed. 

Don’t expect consistency from the MTA.

17 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Some opposition to the redesigns are disheartening. Keep in mind that some of these new routings:

• Allow trips not currently possible without major backtracking.
• Provide alternative routings between various areas, in case of service disruption, subway disruptions/outages/planned service changes, or just options if a bus is missed etc. Especially bypassing congested areas.
• Open up new trips for existing riders & new riders.
• Makes it easier to connect to various NICE routes, LIRR stations, crosstown Queens service and Brooklyn routes.

But the question is if the positives outweigh the negatives. Many don’t think so. Hence the opposition.