B44 +SelectBusService+

[Fresh Pond]

Bedford Av at Fulton St is about the same 1 block distance (Arlington Pl doesn't really count since its midway) from both the Franklin & Nostrand Avs stations. People would walk down to Nostrand Av since both the & stop there compared to just the at Franklin Av.

 

When i go to my mother's church to work (the church is on Bedford & Halsey), I get off at either stop (Franklin Av if i take the , Nostrand Av if i take the , whichever train comes first). Now with the SBS stop literally across the street, i just take the 35 to the 44 SBS

[TeeLow]

Bedford Av at Fulton St is about the same 1 block distance (Arlington Pl doesn't really count since its midway) from both the Franklin & Nostrand Avs stations. People would walk down to Nostrand Av since both the & stop there compared to just the at Franklin Av.

 

When i go to my mother's church to work (the church is on Bedford & Halsey), I get off at either stop (Franklin Av if i take the , Nostrand Av if i take the , whichever train comes first). Now with the SBS stop literally across the street, i just take the 35 to the 44 SBS

Yeah I'd rather walk to Nostrand too if I had my choice, but Franklin actually is closer to Bedford than Nostrand is by about 50 yards. Really an insignificant difference. If only MTA would reopen the Bedford entrance. If only MTA would leave the B49 intact!

[Mysterious2train]

As vital as a NY Av is, I completely favor Rogers Av in all aspects, but mostly because over time it will bring business back to life along the corridor. There's plenty of vacant space and closed down operations simply because there's not enough foot traffic, and with the poor B49 service, it's simply dead weight. A super utilized route such as the 44 real restore business to the area.

Just my two cents.

That'd be nice for Rogers Av and all, but that's a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

Granted, if the B44 local replaced B49 service on Rogers Av and there was no service on NY Av, it would be a great way to make Rogers Av patronage look higher than it really is.

 

Also, the B44 local isn't all that much more frequent than the B49 local (on weekdays anyway); before cutting service the MTA should be looking to improve the reliability of those routes.

 

I do find myself a little skeptical about how well the B49 would perform on the upper part of Ocean Av with the B41 and nearby but I wouldn't know.

[TeeLow]

I do find myself a little skeptical about how well the B49 would perform on the upper part of Ocean Av with the B41 and nearby but I wouldn't know.

It performs quite nicely on Bedford Ave (S/B) btn Empire & Foster with Flatbush just a block to the west. I'd imagine it would do well on Ocean Ave going N/B if it came to that.

[BrooklynBus]

It performs quite nicely on Bedford Ave (S/B) btn Empire & Foster with Flatbush just a block to the west. I'd imagine it would do well on Ocean Ave going N/B if it came to that.

You have to realize that a good number of B49 passengers on Rogers between Empire and Foster are not boarding or getting off there, but are passing through. Similarly the same will be true if the route is moved to Ocean. Transferring passengers will merely have their transfer point shifted. For example, transfers to the B35 will be made at Ocean and Rogers instead of Rogers or Bedford and Rogers. And B43 transfers would be made Kingston/ Brooklyn and Empire instead of Rogers/ Bedford and Empire. Passengers who currently use the B41 probably would continue to use that route. If passengers currently transfer to the B49 at Foster, they will transfer instead at Empire. Only if you board and get off between Empire and Clarendon Road, would you consider switching from the B41 to th B49, but probably would not because the B41 runs more often.

 

Additionally, since you will be serving a new market in East Flatbush, patronage on the route should increase, by possibly attracting some Brighton line passengers who would now have more direct trips by not having to access the Eastern Parkway subway via the B46 or oter routes to Franklin or Atlantic Avenues and transferring to the Brighton line.

[TeeLow]

You have to realize that a good number of B49 passengers on Rogers between Empire and Foster are not boarding or getting off there, but are passing through. Similarly the same will be true if the route is moved to Ocean. Transferring passengers will merely have their transfer point shifted. For example, transfers to the B35 will be made at Ocean and Rogers instead of Rogers or Bedford and Rogers. And B43 transfers would be made Kingston/ Brooklyn and Empire instead of Rogers/ Bedford and Empire. Passengers who currently use the B41 probably would continue to use that route. If passengers currently transfer to the B49 at Foster, they will transfer instead at Empire. Only if you board and get off between Empire and Clarendon Road, would you consider switching from the B41 to th B49, but probably would not because the B41 runs more often.

 

Additionally, since you will be serving a new market in East Flatbush, patronage on the route should increase, by possibly attracting some Brighton line passengers who would now have more direct trips by not having to access the Eastern Parkway subway via the B46 or oter routes to Franklin or Atlantic Avenues and transferring to the Brighton line.

You pretty much sum it all up. I can't think of a single thing to add except that riders of the B16 would have access further east along Empire.

[B35 via Church]

....Can't cut the B49 back to Flatbush Ave. With 10 49LTD S/B runs in the mornings from Empire Blvd, there's enough ridership to justify keeping it.

They would cut back the B49 before they'd consider permanently keeping the B44 SBS on Rogers & the B44 local on NY av.....

 

The ridership the 49 garners north of Flatbush won't matter (to the MTA).... SBS is the MTA's baby, so to speak - and they will use it to try to siphon as much ridership off the 49 as possible..... They didn't just come out w/ the 44 SBS to try to speed up ppl's commutes on that route.... The whole thing is a chain reaction.... 

 

Anyone using the 49 north of flatbush to areas south of flatbush would simply be diverted/suggested/forced to taking the shuttle to the brighton... Where, you know - "Not too many riders would be affected" (their favorite statement to make when trying to justify cuts).....

 

That'd be nice for Rogers Av and all, but that's a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

Granted, if the B44 local replaced B49 service on Rogers Av and there was no service on NY Av, it would be a great way to make Rogers Av patronage look higher than it really is.

 

Also, the B44 local isn't all that much more frequent than the B49 local (on weekdays anyway); before cutting service the MTA should be looking to improve the reliability of those routes.

 

I do find myself a little skeptical about how well the B49 would perform on the upper part of Ocean Av with the B41 and nearby but I wouldn't know.

Bold #1: Exactly the way I see it.....

 

Bold #2: I've long been skeptical about sending the 49 on Ocean, north of Foster (read below)....

 

Additionally, since you will be serving a new market in East Flatbush, patronage on the route should increase, by possibly attracting some Brighton line passengers who would now have more direct trips by not having to access the Eastern Parkway subway via the B46 or oter routes to Franklin or Atlantic Avenues and transferring to the Brighton line.

I'm not as optimistic w/ your 49 idea up ocean & across empire....

 

For starters.... Sure, the transfer point to some connecting route (like the B12 or the B35) would change, but for patronage to increase, you would have to make it more beneficial for the Ocean av, etc. patrons, than what the 41 already provides for them..... Only thing that comes to mind is getting to Prospect Park subway a little faster (an elimination of walking to flatbush, then crossing flatbush to access the station, to take your 49's up ocean instead)..... I honestly don't see much of those folks (along/around ocean) wanting Empire anyway.... What you'd attempt to do is have the 49 shoot across empire, because the 43 doesn't serve empire from prospect park subway, to utica.....

 

I think you're bastardizing the 43 to make the 49 more useful (than what it [the 49] is, north of flatbush).... Honestly, that's the part that bothers me about your plan - You send the 43 to KCH & you will watch ridership unnecessarily die on that route @ Empire..... I can almost guarantee that.... Why? because your 43 would do nothing for those that need KCH from the south (this is one reason why some of us on here detest the idea of any eventual moving of 44 locals off NY av)..... 

 

The gap you want to fill along Empire Blvd IMO would be much ado about nothing for Ocean av patrons....

As much of Empire blvd that is already served by the 43, should remain being served by the 43..... It serves enough of it.....

 

You have to realize that a good number of B49 passengers on Rogers between Empire and Foster are not boarding or getting off there, but are passing through. Similarly the same will be true if the route is moved to Ocean. 

Lol... Absolutely right.... Exactly.....

 

So this is mainly about service along empire then, and connecting it, to the part of the route that sees the most usage (which is the southern portion of the 49) - if the aforementioned situation would likely be similar/true with the riders' activity along [ocean b/w empire & foster], to that of the current situation along [rogers b/w empire & foster] - Being mostly that of xfers/xferring & hardly utilizing the "intermediate" (or w/e you wanna call it) stops.....

 

You pretty much sum it all up. I can't think of a single thing to add except that riders of the B16 would have access further east along Empire.

The current 16, yeah...

 

Ask him what he thinks should be done with the B16 & the B12 though.....

[TeeLow]

They would cut back the B49 before they'd consider permanently keeping the B44 SBS on Rogers & the B44 local on NY av.....

 

The ridership the 49 garners north of Flatbush won't matter (to the MTA).... SBS is the MTA's baby, so to speak - and they will use it to try to siphon as much ridership off the 49 as possible..... They didn't just come out w/ the 44 SBS to try to speed up ppl's commutes on that route.... The whole thing is a chain reaction.... 

 

Anyone using the 49 north of flatbush to areas south of flatbush would simply be diverted/suggested/forced to taking the shuttle to the brighton... Where, you know - "Not too many riders would be affected" (their favorite statement to make when trying to justify cuts).....

 

Bold #1: Exactly the way I see it.....

 

Bold #2: I've long been skeptical about sending the 49 on Ocean, north of Foster (read below)....

 

I'm not as optimistic w/ your 49 idea up ocean & across empire....

 

For starters.... Sure, the transfer point to some connecting route (like the B12 or the B35) would change, but for patronage to increase, you would have to make it more beneficial for the Ocean av, etc. patrons, than what the 41 already provides for them..... Only thing that comes to mind is getting to Prospect Park subway a little faster (an elimination of walking to flatbush, then crossing flatbush to access the station, to take your 49's up ocean instead)..... I honestly don't see much of those folks (along/around ocean) wanting Empire anyway.... What you'd attempt to do is have the 49 shoot across empire, because the 43 doesn't serve empire from prospect park subway, to utica.....

 

I think you're bastardizing the 43 to make the 49 more useful (than what it [the 49] is, north of flatbush).... Honestly, that's the part that bothers me about your plan - You send the 43 to KCH & you will watch ridership unnecessarily die on that route @ Empire..... I can almost guarantee that.... Why? because your 43 would do nothing for those that need KCH from the south (this is one reason why some of us on here detest the idea of any eventual moving of 44 locals off NY av)..... 

 

The gap you want to fill along Empire Blvd IMO would be much ado about nothing for Ocean av patrons....

As much of Empire blvd that is already served by the 43, should remain being served by the 43..... It serves enough of it.....

 

Lol... Absolutely right.... Exactly.....

 

So this is mainly about service along empire then, and connecting it, to the part of the route that sees the most usage (which is the southern portion of the 49) - if the aforementioned situation would likely be similar/true with the riders' activity along [ocean b/w empire & foster], to that of the current situation along [rogers b/w empire & foster] - Being mostly that of xfers/xferring & hardly utilizing the "intermediate" (or w/e you wanna call it) stops.....

It's all speculation, basically a 'what if' scenario if the B44 is moved from NY Ave. We know that's a certain death sentence to the B49 as we know it today. I'm not about to dissect the above post to get at your specifics so I'll say this: it's not a bastardization of the B43 to provide a semblance of N/B-S/B service to replace what would be abandoned by the B44LCL reroute. As such, a logical move to save the B49 while STILL providing service along Empire Blvd to Kingston (and beyond) would be to move B49 to Ocean and extend it along Empire. This will allow the run to keep its 10 S/B AM LTDs to KBCC and with a thru connection along Empire, it opens up rides to/from the B17 and B46 with direct transfers while offering another option W/B besides the crowded B12. It would gain increased ridership from the immediate area in both directions, particularly residents who live/work west of Ocean and offers a direct connection to Midwood via the B16. Over time these rough moves will smooth out and justify themselves as the ridership will make do with a changing situation, just as we always do.

 

None of this will probably come to pass but we makes these 'figuratively speaking' posts to reassure ourselves that it's not we who have lost our minds; it's the butt heads at MTA who've lost theirs. The bureaucracy of the MTA is like a bitch slap in the face to the people they're supposed to be serving. Their arrogance and 'always right' mentality blinds them to the actual needs of the ridership, especially when it comes to the outer boros. While on one hand it's admirable bringing SBS service to Brooklyn, it's mind bogglingly asinine to do so by cannibalizing or eliminating existing service.

 

Of course, the best thing all around is for the carrot heads at MTA to leave things as they are. I'm hoping they will.

[BrooklynIRT]

 

your 43 would do nothing for those that need KCH from the south (this is one reason why some of us on here detest the idea of any eventual moving of 44 locals off NY av).....

Then what about running the B49 on NY Ave (southbound service uses Brooklyn Ave north of ENY Ave, north terminal is still Franklin-Fulton) while running the local B44 on Rogers? This gets riders from points south to KCH, even though these are Ocean Ave riders instead of Nostrand Ave riders.

[BrooklynIRT]

blinds them to the actual needs of the ridership, especially when it comes to the outer boros.

To some extent. Flatbush has a much better transit network than a lot of other outer borough neighborhoods, aside from New York/Rogers Ave problems. Also the lack of highways near Flatbush results in fewer catastrophes on the local roads (when catastrophes occur on the highways, causing traffic to move to local roads to circumvent said catastrophes) that affect bus service.

 

Of course there are still problems with people illegally parking/double parking on streets where buses run and not knowing how to drive (and there being too many personal automobiles on the roads, occupying tons of space while transporting measly amounts of people given that amount of space, and adding insult to injury by lawbreaking), which affect bus service, but it is not like 1st Ave in Manhattan where you have tons of traffic coming off the QB Bridge or the FDR Drive when there is too much traffic there. That is a real catastrophe and it stinks.

 

I also strongly feel that the biggest part of the problem is that there is not enough of a sense of urgency to improve the transit system because people (not me) have a love affair with the personal automobile and many people use the personal automobile to circumvent or run away from (depending on just how badly they 'need' to use the personal automobile) the problems the transit system has instead of pressing MTA to fix the transit system and do what they, the riding public (assuming they use mass transit and/r want to use it as much as possible), want them to do....

 

...Or pressing MTA to be more accountable, which accountability would be much more important to people if they had to use the transit system a lot more or made a conscious decision to do so.

 

MTA will always behave the way it does unless its finances drastically improve and/r people start appreciating mass transit more and realizing how damaging the personal automobile is to society (especially urban society), including the transit system (think externalities).

 

Entirely removing parking (keeping loading zones is fine) from the west side of Nostrand between Flushing and Flatbush, for example, would probably help reduce operating costs because the buses would have more room to maneuver, allowing them to travel at higher speeds and stop at fewer red signals. No more having to slow down because of double-parked vehicles on the right side of the road; the worst kind of illegal parking anybody would do would be curb-parking in the no parking zone where there currently is legal parking. Also no more having to slow down for vehicles trying to make turns in front of the bus when there is no room to move over because cars in the next lane do not want to let the bus move over (which reminds me of the commonplace phenomenon of aggressive driving).

 

Even though the signals on unidirectional Nostrand are pretty decent, most SBS buses still hit one red signal between E Pkwy and Empire, between Empire and Clarkson, and between Church and Newkirk; and of course they always hit reds at Linden Blvd and at Flatbush Ave, where the curbside bus lane is supposed to be clear every day from 07:00 to 10:00 and from 14:00 to 19:00 except on Sundays, but nobody pays attention to this rule and that lane is probably almost never clear.

 

MTA has to put lots of running time in these schedules because of illegal parking that delays service and situations where there is lots of traffic on the road for whatever 'reasons' so many cars 'needed to' be on the road at the time, and I have a big problem with the fact that the B44 SBS schedules have so much running time (I find it excessive), which would not be necessary if they had the bus lane plus extra space on the right hand side (except where there would be commercial trucks parked and planters/sidewalk extensions in certain places).

 

Of course the personal automobile absolutely needs to be used by certain people (for better or for worse), but younger people whose lives are not set up yet can make arrangements to eschew personal automobile use. If more young people did this, we could probably work towards a common goal of putting the 'public' back in 'public transportation'. I do not think the 'public' is out of 'public transportation' as much as others on this forum, but still.

 

If the personal automobile were not as easily available to so many people as it currently is, there would be more of a sense of urgency to improve the transit system because it would be the only form of transportation available to most people (aside from bicycles and other forms of human-powered transportation, which do not have nearly as many external impacts as driving a personal automobile).

 

SBS would be a much bigger deal than a lot of people think it is if it came with features such as much more parking removal to give the buses more room to maneuver so they could travel at higher speeds and not get slowed down by double parked vehicles and vehicles waiting to make turns and whatnot. Or vehicles darting out of parking spaces to the right of the bus lane, in front of the buses. Cabs do this a lot on Nostrand.

[Vistausss]

The biggest issue seems to me not SBS itself but the fact that it's still relatively new (at least for, in this case, the B44). Had SBS been there for a long time with no local service to begin with, views would probably be different from a commuter perspective. I like it though.

 

If really wants to speed up people's commutes on the B44, they could talk to the DOT to open up the bus lanes 24/7 (or, well, as long as the B44 SBS runs) and adjust the priority lights even better so that it'll track the bus from a distance (which would make it more true BRT-like).

[BrooklynBus]

Let me say this. I spent the first 20 years of my life growing up without access to an automobile living a few blocks south of Empire and Utica and I can't tell you all the times we needed to go places along Empire Blvd. we just ended up walking to the police station on Empire and NY Av or all the way to the carousel. We never used the roundabout routing that was available. There is a real need for that service.

 

Also, rerouting the B43 south is not bastardizing the route. There is a need to access the hospital from the north more directly also and also for the three high schools located on the Wingate Campus. If the B43 wasn't so long I would have proposed extending it further south past the Junction. To better serve Kings County Hospital from the south, you would still need another route perhaps from Knapp Street or Kings Plaza along Albany to te Hospital.

 

You have to remember that the only reason the B43 (formerly the B47) turned from Kingston to Empire was so it could serve Ebbets Field. The route remained although the need to serve the Kings County Hospital complex which now includes Downstate and the building of Wingate in 1954, and development of East Flatbush in the late 1920s through the 1940s and 50s never caused the BMT and the TA to reconsider the functionality of former trolley routes such as the old B47 and early bus routes of the 1930s. As a result we do not have through service along Empire Blvd or Clarkson Avenue. The B35 is the only through east west route in the entire central Brooklyn area which is why it is so heavily utilized.

 

What Flatbush IRT suggests is certainly a possibility but unlikely since it requires much extra mileage by first diverting the B49 east to NY Av and back west to Franklin.

 

I'm also afraid that a snowstorm such as today will be used as justification to combine the B44 local and SBS routes since it would minimize confusion where to wait for a bus if and when SBS service is suspended. The MTA will minimize any inconvenience caused by truncating the B49.

[BrooklynIRT]

If really wants to speed up people's commutes on the B44, they could talk to the DOT to open up the bus lanes 24/7 (or, well, as long as the B44 SBS runs) and adjust the priority lights even better so that it'll track the bus from a distance (which would make it more true BRT-like).

The bus lanes actually are 24/7 north of Farragut in a sense, because the curb extensions that allow the buses to service stops without pulling out of and into traffic force any vehicles in the bus lane behind the bus to either wait for the bus to service the stop so they can move again, or move into the other lane to go around the bus to keep moving. More cars that are not making right turns are in the non-bus lane than the bus lane even outside of bus lane hours.

 

The presence of non-buses in the bus lane is most annoying if there are too many of them in front of the bus at Linden Blvd, where Nostrand gets very little green time and the presence too many non-buses in front of the bus causes the bus to miss the green signal. Or a double-parked vehicle in the bus lane with cars not allowing the bus to get in the non-bus lane to circumvent the obstruction.

 

It is also very annoying at Flatbush Ave where people regularly ignore the bus lane and park there anyway, but whatever. We are spirits in the material world. I do not even think photo enforcement is enough for the bus lane in the vicinity of Flatbush Ave; I think that bus lane needs to be physically separated and active during all times SBS is running, and for anybody who needs to make deliveries during that time, parking should be removed from the HSBC block of Flatbush Ave and trucks should park there (on Flatbush) and bring the goods around the block to the fish store, the Golden Krust, the clothing store etc. (these stores are on Nostrand) The amount of traffic there is just ridiculous for buses to have to sit in and on top of that this is part of a situation where people have to get off at "H" after sitting in all of that traffic and walk back to Glenwood to transfer to the B6 if they want the B6.

 

A bunch of motorists have also been ignoring/not noticing the left turn ban at Flatbush/Nostrand Aves; I thought part of being responsible while operating an automobile was being on the lookout for any and all regulations, including new left turn bans and signs that say "no standing from 07:00 to 10:00 or 14:00 to 19:00 on any day except Sunday" in the bus lane! 

 

Even before it was a bus lane there was a no standing regulation there (the HSBC block of Nostrand) during certain times that was regularly ignored.

[B35 via Church]

It's all speculation, basically a 'what if' scenario if the B44 is moved from NY Ave. We know that's a certain death sentence to the B49 as we know it today. I'm not about to dissect the above post to get at your specifics so I'll say this: it's not a bastardization of the B43 to provide a semblance of N/B-S/B service to replace what would be abandoned by the B44LCL reroute. As such, a logical move to save the B49 while STILL providing service along Empire Blvd to Kingston (and beyond) would be to move B49 to Ocean and extend it along Empire. This will allow the run to keep its 10 S/B AM LTDs to KBCC and with a thru connection along Empire, it opens up rides to/from the B17 and B46 with direct transfers while offering another option W/B besides the crowded B12. It would gain increased ridership from the immediate area in both directions, particularly residents who live/work west of Ocean and offers a direct connection to Midwood via the B16. Over time these rough moves will smooth out and justify themselves as the ridership will make do with a changing situation, just as we always do.

 

None of this will probably come to pass but we makes these 'figuratively speaking' posts to reassure ourselves that it's not we who have lost our minds; it's the butt heads at MTA who've lost theirs. The bureaucracy of the MTA is like a bitch slap in the face to the people they're supposed to be serving. Their arrogance and 'always right' mentality blinds them to the actual needs of the ridership, especially when it comes to the outer boros. While on one hand it's admirable bringing SBS service to Brooklyn, it's mind bogglingly asinine to do so by cannibalizing or eliminating existing service.

 

Of course, the best thing all around is for the carrot heads at MTA to leave things as they are. I'm hoping they will.

I know they're what if scenarios & none of it will probably come to pass, but I still decided to comment on said scenarios.....

That's what we do on these discussion forums, whether in agreement or disagreement..... What's the problem?

 

As far as cutting the 43 back from Prospect Park subway, yeah it is a bastardization of the route to have it cut back from Prospect Park subway to Kings County Hospital, to have the B49 run up Ocean & across Empire to Utica.... Yeah, it saves the 49, but it does nothing for the 44 local..... The folks on the 44 north of KCH will still have Nostrand av + the B12, or walking from Nostrand av to get to KCH.....

 

The rest of what you say about the B17 & the B46, I can't see those riders riding an altered B49 of sorts to get to Midwood (even though such a choice would be opened up to doing so).... They'd likely continue bombarding B6's & B82's...... Especially B17 riders, their commutes are long enough coming from that part of Brooklyn..... No way would those folks disembark at Empire, for a bus that would run the length of empire, and then ocean av on down to anywhere in Midwood...... IMO, that's not practical....

 

Lastly, to say " but we makes these 'figuratively speaking' posts to reassure ourselves that it's not we who have lost our minds; it's the butt heads at MTA who've lost theirs."... I mean, to me, this is like saying, anything that we forum-users present on these forums shouldn't be scrutinized, because the MTA done lost their minds..... We know the MTA is too hyper-focused on cost cutting (instead of focusing on the riders who need the services they provide) & I'm not implicating BrooklynBus lost his mind... When you have as many ideas/points of views presented on a forum, heads are gonna be butted.....

 

The rest of what you say after that statement, I concur......

 

Then what about running the B49 on NY Ave (southbound service uses Brooklyn Ave north of ENY Ave, north terminal is still Franklin-Fulton) while running the local B44 on Rogers? This gets riders from points south to KCH, even though these are Ocean Ave riders instead of Nostrand Ave riders.

At this point (if the NB 44 local were to get diverted up rogers), I would side with running 49's eastward on foster & up NY av to Franklin/Fulton, over having 49's continuing up ocean to the very end & running on empire to the end of it..... For instance, The main group of ppl. utilizing the subway for short-distance service now are the vanderveer, erm "Flatbush Gardens" (smh) folks.... No NB (bus) service for those folks would mean all of those folks would resort to doing such a thing..... Damn 2/5's get crammed up enough as it is.....

 

I'm less interested in running buses along Ocean, north of foster... These are the ppl. making their way to B41's for north-south bus service as it is.....

 

side note.... I wonder if that practice/occurrence at Church/Nostrand is still apparent, with folks getting off the train @ Church & riding SB B44's to (wherever they're disembarking at).....

[BrooklynIRT]

The biggest issue seems to me not SBS itself but the fact that it's still relatively new (at least for, in this case, the B44). Had SBS been there for a long time with no local service to begin with, views would probably be different from a commuter perspective.

Did you mean no limited service to begin with?

[BrooklynIRT]

At this point (if the NB 44 local were to get diverted up rogers), I would side with running 49's eastward on foster & up NY av to Franklin/Fulton, over having 49's continuing up ocean to the very end & running on empire to the end of it.....

What would you do about the long walks to the police station and whatnot that BrooklynBus discussed?

 

Perhaps it would be better to keep running the B49 to Franklin-Fulton and create or modify a different route to provide continuous service across Empire?

[B35 via Church]

Let me say this. I spent the first 20 years of my life growing up without access to an automobile living a few blocks south of Empire and Utica and I can't tell you all the times we needed to go places along Empire Blvd. we just ended up walking to the police station on Empire and NY Av or all the way to the carousel. We never used the roundabout routing that was available. There is a real need for that service.

 

Also, rerouting the B43 south is not bastardizing the route. There is a need to access the hospital from the north more directly also and also for the three high schools located on the Wingate Campus. If the B43 wasn't so long I would have proposed extending it further south past the Junction. To better serve Kings County Hospital from the south, you would still need another route perhaps from Knapp Street or Kings Plaza along Albany to te Hospital.

 

You have to remember that the only reason the B43 (formerly the B47) turned from Kingston to Empire was so it could serve Ebbets Field. The route remained although the need to serve the Kings County Hospital complex which now includes Downstate and the building of Wingate in 1954, and development of East Flatbush in the late 1920s through the 1940s and 50s never caused the BMT and the TA to reconsider the functionality of former trolley routes such as the old B47 and early bus routes of the 1930s. As a result we do not have through service along Empire Blvd or Clarkson Avenue. The B35 is the only through east west route in the entire central Brooklyn area which is why it is so heavily utilized.

 

What Flatbush IRT suggests is certainly a possibility but unlikely since it requires much extra mileage by first diverting the B49 east to NY Av and back west to Franklin.

 

I'm also afraid that a snowstorm such as today will be used as justification to combine the B44 local and SBS routes since it would minimize confusion where to wait for a bus if and when SBS service is suspended. The MTA will minimize any inconvenience caused by truncating the B49.

Yeah, I'm glad you (re)posted that such a B49 alteration is a personal issue for you.... I remember the first time you professed that.

 

I'm well aware of what routes today's B43 is comprised of.... It may have been for Ebbets field then, but obviously it isn't for it now.....

 

Let's not get it confused - I'm not saying the B43 would be bastardized because it would serve the hospital.... Of course a hospital is a major destination....

 

I'm saying the route would be bastardized because that many less people would have a use for it..... I cannot see an equal, or more amt. of riders using the 43 if it went to Clarkson or w/e, over the current routing now, towards the subway.... I don't think you realize how many folks use the 43 over the 48 at prospect park subway.... Having the 49 run to Utica would do nothing for the loads of folks that utilize the 43 b/w prospect park subway & Fulton.... There are few dropoffs on the NB 43 along Empire anyway....

 

 

What would you do about the long walks to the police station and whatnot that BrooklynBus discussed?

 

Perhaps it would be better to keep running the B49 to Franklin-Fulton and create or modify a different route to provide continuous service across Empire?

 

1- In short, Nothing.... Every nook & cranny can't be addressed with public transportation.... 

 

2- Yeah, the 49 can remain ending at Franklin/Fulton....

 

The other portion of the inquiry, I really do not see a need to have a route run from one end of Empire to the other.... Whether it be with the 49 (as BrooklynBus suggests), or with some other route.....

[BrooklynIRT]

 

Every nook & cranny can't be addressed with public transportation.... 

This is true.

 

But I was just thinking, what about running the B84 across Livonia, up E 98 St, and then west on ENY Ave and then Empire all the way to Prospect Park?

[BrooklynBus]

Yeah, I'm glad you (re)posted that such a B49 alteration is a personal issue for you.... I remember the first time you professed that.

 

Let's not get it confused - I'm not saying the B43 would be bastardized because it would serve the hospital.... Of course a hospital is a major destination.... I don't think you realize how many folks use the 43 over the 48 at prospect park subway.... Having the 49 run to Utica would do nothing for the loads of folks that utilize the 43 b/w prospect park subway & Fulton....

 

1- In short, Nothing.... Every nook & cranny can't be addressed with public transportation....

 

I don't see how the B48 enters into this discussion. Just how many people travel between Empire Blvd and the Fulton Street subway on the B43?

 

I really can't see that it could be many. Because buses are so slow most riders will take the first subway that intersects with the bus line closest to you because they all more or less go to Manhattan and you can usually transfer to the line you want once you board the subway. The only exception I am aware of is that Canarsie riders would choose to take a longer bus ride to the IRT (or the BM103) rather than take a shorter ride to the L train unless that train will take them directly to their destination.

 

It would seem to me that Empire Blvd riders would choose either the Flatbush IRT or the Brighton Line and Kingston/Brooklyn Ave riders south of Eastern Parkway would choose the IRT. If B43 ridership is anything like B46 ridership, half the northbound riders get off at Eastern Parkway, and half of what remains get off at St Johns Place. After that point there aren't too many riders left on the bus to get off for the A train because by the time you get to Fulton Street, you could already be by Atlantic Avenue with the #4 train if you happen to catch one without waiting.

 

I really can't believe there are "loads people" traveling via the B43 between Prospect Park and Fulton Street. There are no direct east west bus routes between St Johns and Church Avenue because the B12 is very indirect for certain trips. That's why there needs to be routes along Empire and along Clarkson Avenue. Those are large service gaps that I woudn't consider "nooks and crannies".

 

To me peninsulas are nooks and crannies and even some of those have easier access than traveling between Flatbush and East Flatbush/ Crown Heights and it's even more important there because car ownership is not that high and most of the bus routes are well utilized. There is a need for more service there. But I'm afraid we never get it with this zero cost mentality. The MTA was willing to spend a little extra for the Southwest Brooklyn improvements, but not anymore. All they will do now is thirty minute shuttles which is really very pathetic.

[B35 via Church]

I don't see how the B48 enters into this discussion. Just how many people travel between Empire Blvd and the Fulton Street subway on the B43?

 

I really can't see that it could be many. Because buses are so slow most riders will take the first subway that intersects with the bus line closest to you because they all more or less go to Manhattan and you can usually transfer to the line you want once you board the subway. The only exception I am aware of is that Canarsie riders would choose to take a longer bus ride to the IRT (or the BM103) rather than take a shorter ride to the L train unless that train will take them directly to their destination.

 

It would seem to me that Empire Blvd riders would choose either the Flatbush IRT or the Brighton Line and Kingston/Brooklyn Ave riders south of Eastern Parkway would choose the IRT. If B43 ridership is anything like B46 ridership, half the northbound riders get off at Eastern Parkway, and half of what remains get off at St Johns Place. After that point there aren't too many riders left on the bus to get off for the A train because by the time you get to Fulton Street, you could already be by Atlantic Avenue with the #4 train if you happen to catch one without waiting.

 

I really can't believe there are "loads people" traveling via the B43 between Prospect Park and Fulton Street. There are no direct east west bus routes between St Johns and Church Avenue because the B12 is very indirect for certain trips. That's why there needs to be routes along Empire and along Clarkson Avenue. Those are large service gaps that I woudn't consider "nooks and crannies".

 

To me peninsulas are nooks and crannies and even some of those have easier access than traveling between Flatbush and East Flatbush/ Crown Heights and it's even more important there because car ownership is not that high and most of the bus routes are well utilized. There is a need for more service there. But I'm afraid we never get it with this zero cost mentality. The MTA was willing to spend a little extra for the Southwest Brooklyn improvements, but not anymore. All they will do now is thirty minute shuttles which is really very pathetic.

This, coming from the same guy that injected the B43 in this discussion (which doesn't serve KCH like the 44 local does), you're one to talk... Let's not go down that route....

 

B43 ridership doesn't have to be like B46 ridership (who said that anyway) for the B43 to garner more riders than the 48 b/w Prospect park subway & Fulton st..... Aye, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe it; I mean this is stuff that anyone can go out and see for themselves, I'm not making this up.... Why I brought it (the 48) up is to lead credence to (and why) how well the B43 is used out of it's SB terminal, as a reason to not have it diverted to KCH....

 

Empire Blvd area folks utilize the Brighton line & the Fulton line over the Eastern Pkwy line.... Why that is so, I don't know...

Every community has their preferences when it comes to public transportation.....

(Quite frankly, I'd agree w/ their choice of taking either of those lines, over the IRT......)

 

Man, I am not about to debate what a nook & cranny entails, but yeah - As long as this zero cost mentality crap (which is nothing more than an excuse to not consider increases/additions in service) is apparent, the status quo will remain in this city.... Delving into the likes of frugality with this current trend of suburbanizing service in urban areas simply won't fly (which is what these dinky shuttles to rail service resemble to me).....

--------------

 

I called this shit years ago, that that's what we're heading towards.... Superroutes & dinky shuttles.... 

We're already having the dinky shuttles being implemented into our bus system (one of which BrooklynIRT brought up, the 84), I shudder to think what ridiculously long route the MTA has in store for us suckers commuters.... A mu-ha ha ha moment if I could ever think of one..... 

[BrooklynBus]

The reason the B43 has more riders than the B48 is because B48 riders have the alternative of the Franklin Shuttle in the same corridor. But I still doubt that someone near the terminal would choose the B43 over the B48 to get to the Fulton Subway which seems to be what you are implying,

 

Anyway, you would need to do an O/D study before undertaking any major reroutes like I am suggesting to determine if you would be causing any major incoveniences which you are also implying if the southern terminal were changed. You can't make such changes by simply relying on traffic counts as the MTA does. You need to know where people are going and transferring to. Can you get this from MetroCard data? If so, that would be great.

[BrooklynIRT]

Does anyone know why Livonia Ave has never had a bus line?

 

Also I actually think the southbound B49 should use Brooklyn Ave north of Winthrop St, not ENY Ave. (NY Ave b/w Winthrop and Foster.)

[TeeLow]

The discussion has really taken off since I last posted. No need for me to jump back into it. All view points have pretty much been adequately defended. I just wanted to make one point:

I know they're what if scenarios & none of it will probably come to pass, but I still decided to comment on said scenarios.....

That's what we do on these discussion forums, whether in agreement or disagreement..... What's the problem?

What problem? We're having a discussion. I have absolutely no problem with anything you said. You joined the conversation and defended your position very well. I thought my points were valid and I stand by them. So what problem? There is none.

 

Enjoy

[TeeLow]

Does anyone know why Livonia Ave has never had a bus line?

Probably because of the New Lots line overhead and because Livonia ends at Junius St where the goes under the forcing the bus to make a right turn to find the next street that goes under the which would be New Lots Ave then head back to Livonia...

 

Probably don't really need a bus on Livonia.

[BrooklynIRT]

Livonia ends at Junius St where the goes under the forcing the bus to make a right turn to find the next street that goes under the which would be New Lots Ave then head back to Livonia...

Good grief; thank you for pointing that out.

 

But I was thinking that the B84 should be extended westward so it would serve a greater purpose by filling in a service gap on Empire Blvd and not just being a dinky shuttle with 30 minute headways. I thought the B84 would be the best route to send across Empire if the B49 were to serve NY/Brooklyn Aves and remain at Franklin-Fulton.

 

They could send the B84 via Blake Ave or Sutter Ave b/w E 98 and Pennsylvania Ave since neither Blake nor Sutter gets interrupted by Van Sinderen. Or Blake or Sutter b/w Penn and Gaston and Livonia b/w Gaston and E 98, and b/w Penn and New Lots.

 

I am trying to tackle two main problems by extending the B84 to Prospect Park via Empire Blvd:

 

-The fact that the B84 is a dinky shuttle with 30 minute headways; if it were extended all the way to Prospect Park perhaps they could run it at better headways.

 

-The service gap on Empire Blvd.

 

-Also this is assuming the B49 would not be available to serve Empire.

 

I wonder what BrooklynBus thinks about running a service other than the B49 across Empire while putting the B49 on NY/Brooklyn to replace the B44 local, and if he or anybody else has an opinion about which route should do it. (I say B84 for the aforementioned reasons.)