Jump to content

Create your own bus route!


Broadway Local

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

Not trying to be rude here, but is there really a point? Most would have no ridership and also it is expensive. You have to order the trolleys, place the rails, etc. Overall, I just think it’s not worth it. Again, not trying to be rude.

This is BRT, so no trolley tracks. what routes do you think wouldn't get ridership?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 800
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If we're talking about improving transit on Roosevelt Island, I'd propose the following:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUYGIUN8SSc9CVfU1tl88DeRU4mC9z8m&usp=sharing

An underground trolleybus line.

The line would be underground between 31 St and Roosevelt Island on the LGA Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the North Manhattan Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the South Manhattan Branch, and the entire Queens Plaza branch.

Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 (would this warrant enough ridership for a 60' bus? Would it be better to have a XT40 or XT35?)

Ideally, 30 BPH on the core line, 15 BPH on each branch.

The service patterns would be:

  • 79 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - QUEENS PLAZA
  • 34 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - LGA

Long Island City and Octagon would be transfer points with island platforms.

Thoughts @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jova42R said:

If we're talking about improving transit on Roosevelt Island, I'd propose the following:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUYGIUN8SSc9CVfU1tl88DeRU4mC9z8m&usp=sharing

An underground trolleybus line.

The line would be underground between 31 St and Roosevelt Island on the LGA Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the North Manhattan Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the South Manhattan Branch, and the entire Queens Plaza branch.

Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 (would this warrant enough ridership for a 60' bus? Would it be better to have a XT40 or XT35?)

Ideally, 30 BPH on the core line, 15 BPH on each branch.

The service patterns would be:

  • 79 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - QUEENS PLAZA
  • 34 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - LGA

Long Island City and Octagon would be transfer points with island platforms.

Thoughts @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex?

I don't think this really makes sense for the infrastructure costs at all; if you can afford to add two new East River crossings you really ought to use those for subways for the same reason I outlined in the subway proposal thread; 66K pax an hour vs 6K absolute max. Also your runtime is going to be pretty long; figure on 20 mins from LGA to Northern Blvd, 10 minutes more to Newtown Rd, 15 minutes to Roosevelt Island, 5-10 mins on the island, and then 25 minutes in Manhattan (so maintaining 30 BPH is now going to take an oddball fleet of 75 buses or so). Also, if you use XT buses they literally can't run anywhere but under the wires, which is fine on a dedicated ROW with no traffic, but that's going to be a disaster on 82 St and 83 St (and potentially on a Northern Blvd with only four lanes because of center-running BRT or LRT); Broadway, 30 Av, Steinway St and 31 St are also really pushing it. Trolley buses are also uniquely vulnerable to bunching because they can't leapfrog each other. You'd be better off (and it would be cheaper by far) to add a bridge between 83 St and W Rd with a draw segment in the center, run half the M79s to Cornell Tech and run a new bus from Lenox Hill Hospital to Jackson Hts/74 St bus terminal via 79 St/East End Av/83 St bridge/W Rd/Main St/Roosevelt Island Bridge/Vernon Blvd/35 Av/Northern Blvd/74 St. That option would also let you run the Q66 limited from Queens Plaza to 74 St (which would speed up travel time there a bit.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jova42R said:

If we're talking about improving transit on Roosevelt Island, I'd propose the following:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUYGIUN8SSc9CVfU1tl88DeRU4mC9z8m&usp=sharing

An underground trolleybus line.

The line would be underground between 31 St and Roosevelt Island on the LGA Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the North Manhattan Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the South Manhattan Branch, and the entire Queens Plaza branch.

Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 (would this warrant enough ridership for a 60' bus? Would it be better to have a XT40 or XT35?)

Ideally, 30 BPH on the core line, 15 BPH on each branch.

The service patterns would be:

  • 79 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - QUEENS PLAZA
  • 34 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - LGA

Long Island City and Octagon would be transfer points with island platforms.

Thoughts @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex?

now this is pretty good, I just don’t think you need xt60s. You can use XT40s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

now this is pretty good, I just don’t think you need xt60s. You can use XT40s

 

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I don't think this really makes sense for the infrastructure costs at all; if you can afford to add two new East River crossings you really ought to use those for subways for the same reason I outlined in the subway proposal thread; 66K pax an hour vs 6K absolute max. Also your runtime is going to be pretty long; figure on 20 mins from LGA to Northern Blvd, 10 minutes more to Newtown Rd, 15 minutes to Roosevelt Island, 5-10 mins on the island, and then 25 minutes in Manhattan (so maintaining 30 BPH is now going to take an oddball fleet of 75 buses or so). Also, if you use XT buses they literally can't run anywhere but under the wires, which is fine on a dedicated ROW with no traffic, but that's going to be a disaster on 82 St and 83 St (and potentially on a Northern Blvd with only four lanes because of center-running BRT or LRT); Broadway, 30 Av, Steinway St and 31 St are also really pushing it. You'd be better off (and it would be cheaper by far) to add a bridge between 83 St and W Rd with a draw segment in the center, run half the M79s to Cornell Tech and run a new bus from Lenox Hill Hospital to Jackson Hts/74 St bus terminal via 79 St/East End Av/83 St bridge/W Rd/Main St/Roosevelt Island Bridge/Vernon Blvd/35 Av/Northern Blvd/74 St. That option would also let you run the Q66 limited from Queens Plaza to 74 St (which would speed up travel time there a bit.

Ok, here's a new one:

(also posted in Subway Proposals)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eGpllsmIuNCUPr9dvW08bN1PqVuZzkv3&usp=sharing

Thoughts @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex @OrionVIIonM79?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Do the main Northern Blvd line as LRT with the Flushing/Main St connection going underground and expand Corona Yard to handle the trams and this could work pretty well. You'd need to do it as median-running LRT separated from traffic so it doesn't get bogged down but this could work pretty well. The LRT to Roosevelt Island would be better handled by running the M79 to Cornell Tech as a bus service, and then providing supplementary bus service between Lenox Hill Hospital (maybe 86 St or Hunter College) and Jackson Hts the way I suggested above. Don't try to fit LRT onto the island; it's not gonna fit and it will have to be mixed/street running (which is a recipe for delays).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Do the main Northern Blvd line as LRT with the Flushing/Main St connection going underground and expand Corona Yard to handle the trams and this could work pretty well. You'd need to do it as median-running LRT separated from traffic so it doesn't get bogged down but this could work pretty well. The LRT to Roosevelt Island would be better handled by running the M79 to Cornell Tech as a bus service, and then providing supplementary bus service between Lenox Hill Hospital (maybe 86 St or Hunter College) and Jackson Hts the way I suggested above. Don't try to fit LRT onto the island; it's not gonna fit and it will have to be mixed/street running (which is a recipe for delays).

The Northern line is LRT.  As it'd only be on the island for 5-10 minutes, there's not much of a potential for delays.

The Roosevelt LRT is meant to serve as the Upper Manhattan to Roosevelt Link, so any M79 extension would actually end up being a new route from 96/Bway to Roosevelt. That's why I made it LRT with two branches.

 

Any thoughts on where the stations should be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

The Northern line is LRT.  As it'd only be on the island for 5-10 minutes, there's not much of a potential for delays.

The Roosevelt LRT is meant to serve as the Upper Manhattan to Roosevelt Link, so any M79 extension would actually end up being a new route from 96/Bway to Roosevelt. That's why I made it LRT with two branches.

 

Any thoughts on where the stations should be?

I don't think LRT on 36 Av is a good idea at all; it's not wide enough to take the median so it would be in mixed traffic all the way to Northern, and it would drag ass the entire way. Also the island doesn't need an LRT at all; a decent low-headway bus route plus the existing tramway/(F) connections is more than fine. Extending the M79 to Cornell Tech and running a bus service from 86 or 96 to Jackson Hts is all you need (and may be a little overkill for the island; the main value there is connecting people who live in western Queens and work at Lenox Hill Hospital or go to Hunter College, plus some level of action as a relief valve for existing Manhattan to Queens connections). 

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I don't think LRT on 36 Av is a good idea at all; it's not wide enough to take the median so it would be in mixed traffic all the way to Northern, and it would drag ass the entire way. Also the island doesn't need an LRT at all; a decent low-headway bus route plus the existing tramway/(F) connections is more than fine. Extending the M79 to Cornell Tech and running a bus service from 86 or 96 to Jackson Hts is all you need (and may be a little overkill for the island; the main value there is connecting people who live in western Queens and work at Lenox Hill Hospital or go to Hunter College, plus some level of action as a relief valve for existing Manhattan to Queens connections). 

Again, 36 Av is only a short section of the route, so it'd be ok.

LRT service is faster (and overall, better) than bus service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Again, 36 Av is only a short section of the route, so it'd be ok.

LRT service is faster (and overall, better) than bus service.

LRT service is only better than bus service when you can guarantee that it's going to be running in its own ROW; I'm in Boston and we have LRT configurations ranging from full grade separation to median running to in-street running like you'd need over the bridge and on 36 Av. The grade separated stretch runs really well, the median-running sections less so but OK, and the small chunk that runs in the street runs like shit. On the E line in Boston the street-running segment is a congested pain in the ass but it's only the last half mile to mile of the route. You're talking about two full miles between the two ridership generators, which means you're going to have large reliability issues and bunching problems on the Roosevelt Island route that would be less severe if you ran the route as a bus.

You've also in no way convinced me that LRT service is actually needed to and from Roosevelt. Extending the M79 to Cornell Tech gets you 20bph access to Manhattan, which is able to move 2000 pax/hr max, plus the tramway and the (F) station. Similarly something running through northern Roosevelt Island connecting 79 St to Jackson Heights is reasonable, but you really want that to be the bus, especially since the Q102 is only 2-4bph. Running 6-8bph to Jackson Heights from 86 St or 68 St would be a solid start, and would likely have enough through ridership to justify serving Roosevelt Island, but frankly LRT is overkill, and mixed traffic running LRT is a recipe for problems.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

You've also in no way convinced me that LRT service is actually needed to and from Roosevelt.

That's the reason I didn't bother commenting on this particular proposal, up until this point...

Something else I've noticed with quite a bit of his proposals is that they utilize W. 79th st.  in some form or fashion....

5 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Again, 36 Av is only a short section of the route, so it'd be ok.

LRT service is faster (and overall, better) than bus service.

Very simplistic way of looking at things; possibility does not mean plausibility....

In laymens, it doesn't mean that every corridor (or any part of a specific corridor) is suitable for light rail, because light rail is better than bus service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jova42R said:

The 96 St branch is never gonna happen: the rich people on park avenue don’t want construction on park because of the noise. And as you know what they want they get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OrionVIIonM79 @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @MeeP15-9112 you guys may be interested in this:

I made a proposal for a redesign of Central Park Crosstown Service:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QYBRpZGFnKxDaT7PLt4XkvmCqXQ3li4p&usp=sharing

Some notes:

  • M110
    • Fleet: Orion VII NG (previous M106 fleet)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M106, with different routing.
  • M96+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XDE40 (these buses replace OGs)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 12BPH non-rush, 5BPH nights
    • Other notes: M96 becomes +SBS+ route.
  • M86+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 and Nova Bus LFSA
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 20BPH rush, 12BPH non-rush, 6BPH nights
    • Other notes: current M86 route except slight change on East Side
  • M79+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 and Nova Bus LFSA
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 18BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 5BPH nights
    • Other notes: current M79 route except slight change on East Side
  • M62+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD40 (previous M72 fleet)
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 12BPH rush, 8BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M72, with extensions and different routing.

Thoughts?

Edited by Jova42R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

@OrionVIIonM79 @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @MeeP15-9112 you guys may be interested in this:

I made a proposal for a redesign of Central Park Crosstown Service:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QYBRpZGFnKxDaT7PLt4XkvmCqXQ3li4p&usp=sharing

Some notes:

  • M110
    • Fleet: Orion VII NG (previous M106 fleet)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M106, with different routing.
  • M96+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XDE40 (these buses replace OGs)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 12BPH non-rush, 5BPH nights
    • Other notes: M96 becomes +SBS+ route.
  • M86+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 and Nova Bus LFSA
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 20BPH rush, 12BPH non-rush, 6BPH nights
    • Other notes: current M86 route except slight change on East Side
  • M79+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 and Nova Bus LFSA
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 18BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 5BPH nights
    • Other notes: current M79 route except slight change on East Side
  • M62+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD40 (previous M72 fleet)
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 12BPH rush, 8BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M72, with extensions and different routing.

Thoughts?

Very interesting indeed. I just think that maybe you should have an East Side connector to connect all these lines (if space and equipment are sufficient).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jova42R said:

@OrionVIIonM79 @danig1220 @engineerboy6561 @Lex @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @MeeP15-9112 you guys may be interested in this:

I made a proposal for a redesign of Central Park Crosstown Service:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QYBRpZGFnKxDaT7PLt4XkvmCqXQ3li4p&usp=sharing

Some notes:

  • M110
    • Fleet: Orion VII NG (previous M106 fleet)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M106, with different routing.
  • M96+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XDE40 (these buses replace OGs)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 12BPH non-rush, 5BPH nights
    • Other notes: M96 becomes +SBS+ route.
  • M86+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 and Nova Bus LFSA
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 20BPH rush, 12BPH non-rush, 6BPH nights
    • Other notes: current M86 route except slight change on East Side
  • M79+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 and Nova Bus LFSA
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 18BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 5BPH nights
    • Other notes: current M79 route except slight change on East Side
  • M62+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD40 (previous M72 fleet)
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 12BPH rush, 8BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M72, with extensions and different routing.

Thoughts?

M110 will be slow, on 110 St the bus will make stops and the traffic will make it really unreliable, as with the M4. Also, the M4 covers stops on 110 St, so M110 is not needed there. Why make it slower when it doesn’t have to be?

M96 SBS is already planned, and other routes fine. M62 doesn’t need to be SBS though, but I like how it uses 79 St

Edited by OrionVIIonM79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

M110 will be slow, on 110 St the bus will make stops and the traffic will make it really unreliable, as with the M4. Also, the M4 covers stops on 110 St, so M110 is not needed there. Why make it slower when it doesn’t have to be?

M96 SBS is already planned, and other routes fine. M62 doesn’t need to be SBS though, but I like how it uses 79 St

M110: it is the better M106, actually serving 106th on the west side.

M96: Yes, I thought so!

M62: I think it should, but why do you think not?

12 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Very interesting indeed. I just think that maybe you should have an East Side connector to connect all these lines (if space and equipment are sufficient).

That's the current M31 down York. I would also propose making the M103 SBS, for faster service (that could become the connector)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jova42R said:

M110: it is the better M106, actually serving 106th on the west side.

M96: Yes, I thought so!

M62: I think it should, but why do you think not?

That's the current M31 down York. I would also propose making the M103 SBS, for faster service (that could become the connector)

I don’t think M62 should be because M72 isn’t SBS and it is doing just fine. M72 doesn’t have high ridership outside of rush hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2020 at 8:20 PM, Jova42R said:

Some notes:

  • M110
    • Fleet: Orion VII NG (previous M106 fleet)
    • Depot: MHV
    • BPH: 15BPH rush, 10BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M106, with different routing.

 

  • M62+SBS+
    • Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XD40 (previous M72 fleet)
    • Depot: MJQ
    • BPH: 12BPH rush, 8BPH non-rush, 3BPH nights
    • Other notes: replaces M72, with extensions and different routing.
On 4/10/2020 at 10:13 AM, Jova42R said:

M110: it is the better M106, actually serving 106th on the west side.

- Even if you wanted to replace the M106, a bus route serving E. 106th, 110th st, and W. 106th st. does not warrant service every 4 minutes during the rush, every 6 minutes during off peak hours, and service for an every whopping 20 mins. overnight... 110th st is well served with the M2/M3/M4, and having an "M110" of sorts, along with the M116 on W. 106th is excessive.... While you could make a case that E. 106th deserves more service than it currently gets with the M106, 110th st. is oversaturated/overserved enough as it is... So to say that your "M110" is the better M106, simply because it serves both east & west 106th st, doesn't mean much of anything.... On the bright side I guess, you did replace the lost M106 service along W. 96th with increased M96 service....

- As far as that "M62", this appears to be an offshoot of @BM5 via Woodhaven's M72 idea.... While IDC for having the M72 running up to 79th, at least your route doesn't run all the way down to Chelsea Piers.... I'm not seeing why something like this would need SBS though.... Something else that's concerning is that you would retain the M57, with this M62 of yours serving all of Riverside Blvd. (of all things).... For that immediate area of Manhattan, it's overkill - I can see those folks along Riverside Blvd. easily shooting this idea of yours down.... Every north/south street in Manhattan doesn't need to have bus service running along it.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

- Even if you wanted to replace the M106, a bus route serving E. 106th, 110th st, and W. 106th st. does not warrant service every 4 minutes during the rush, every 6 minutes during off peak hours, and service for an every whopping 20 mins. overnight... 110th st is well served with the M2/M3/M4, and having an "M110" of sorts, along with the M116 on W. 106th is excessive.... While you could make a case that E. 106th deserves more service than it currently gets with the M106, 110th st. is oversaturated/overserved enough as it is... So to say that your "M110" is the better M106, simply because it serves both east & west 106th st, doesn't mean much of anything.... On the bright side I guess, you did replace the lost M106 service along W. 96th with increased M96 service....

I understand that 110th is well served. What do you think a better M106 conversion would be?

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

- As far as that "M62", this appears to be an offshoot of @BM5 via Woodhaven's M72 idea.... While IDC for having the M72 running up to 79th, at least your route doesn't run all the way down to Chelsea Piers.... I'm not seeing why something like this would need SBS though.... Something else that's concerning is that you would retain the M57, with this M62 of yours serving all of Riverside Blvd. (of all things).... For that immediate area of Manhattan, it's overkill - I can see those folks along Riverside Blvd. easily shooting this idea of yours down.... Every north/south street in Manhattan doesn't need to have bus service running along it.

I would not retain the M57. The M31 would get a boost and become the sole 57 St Xtown. You are right that the M62 doesn't need SBS, though. Do you think it'd need artics, or would XD40s do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I understand that 110th is well served. What do you think a better M106 conversion would be?

If you understand that 110th is well served, why would you suggest such an influx of service along it for?

You're asking me what a better M106 conversion would entail... I don't necessarily care to deem it as "better", nor would I categorize it as a conversion, but I would do away with the current setup of the route (that is, it essentially being an M96 branch that serves E. 106th instead of E. 96th)... I don't see a need to connect E. 106th & W. 106th with one route; especially for the purpose of maintaining a (crosstown) numerical scheme... Putting it another way, I wouldn't bother connecting E. 106th st. with the UWS, I would connect E. Harlem with Harlem & Washington Hgts.... I would do that by repurposing the (northern segment of the) M3 & having it serve E. 106th....

11 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I would not retain the M57. The M31 would get a boost and become the sole 57 St Xtown. You are right that the M62 doesn't need SBS, though. Do you think it'd need artics, or would XD40s do?

So, eliminate through West End av service for Riverside Blvd. service?

Anyway, 40 footers should suffice on a route like that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 4/12/2020 at 9:42 PM, B35 via Church said:

You're asking me what a better M106 conversion would entail... I don't necessarily care to deem it as "better", nor would I categorize it as a conversion, but I would do away with the current setup of the route (that is, it essentially being an M96 branch that serves E. 106th instead of E. 96th)... I don't see a need to connect E. 106th & W. 106th with one route; especially for the purpose of maintaining a (crosstown) numerical scheme... Putting it another way, I wouldn't bother connecting E. 106th st. with the UWS, I would connect E. Harlem with Harlem & Washington Hgts.... I would do that by repurposing the (northern segment of the) M3 & having it serve E. 106th....

This good plna. So M3 bus would go from Ft George then to 110 st then go to 106 st and FDR drive correct or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My route refers to something @BrooklynBus briefly touched on awhile back about a lack of service through central  ENY. The route connects Cypress Hills in the north with Spring Creek to the south. No clue how to makeshift a bus map but Google Maps was a good guide.

B85 Cypress Hills Terminal: Arlington & Jamaica Avenues.

 

To Spring Creek:

East on Jamaica Ave

South on Miller Ave

East on Fulton St: [ (J)(Z) at Van Siclen Ave] 

South on Hendrix St[ ( C ) at Pitkin Ave & Van Siclen]

West on New Lots Ave

South on Van Siclen

East on Cozine Ave

South on Schenck Ave

Right on Gateway Drive

From Seaview Ave, north on Fountain Ave

West on Cozine.

Spring Creek Terminal NW c/o Cozine & Fountain.

 

B85 To Cypress Hills:

West on Cozine

South on Atkins Ave

East on Flatlands Ave

South on Fountain

West on Seaview

From Gateway, left on Vandalia Ave

From Schenck, west on Cozine

North on Van Siclen

East on Hegeman Ave

North on Schenck [(C) at Pitkin Ave & Van Siclen]

West on Atlantic Ave

North on Van Siclen [ ( J ) (Z) at Fulton] 

West on Arlington to terminal

 

The north and south running streets are narrow through the area. Alternate side parking hours might need adjusting. According to Google Maps both Schenck and Hendrix cross Atlantic Ave. Van Sic doesn't. Considered putting the north terminal at Broadway Junction but with the bus traffic already over there it's overkill. Van Sic & Fulton (J)(Z) Xfer is adequate.

 

Edited by TeeLow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.