Improving the B44 Select Bus Service

[trainfan22]

Maybe it is because the B49 doesn't go north of Fulton Street, so it doesn't get the Bed-Stuy element that the B44 gets.

 

So if they have a problem with the people that ride the B44, they can take the train, and then take a crosstown bus (B3, B36, etc) to get home.

 

Personally, if riders feel that they have to deal with the worse riders on the B44, they can consider it a tradeoff: A faster, but slightly more unpleasant ride.

 

The entire B49 route from Fulton Street to Foster Ave is in the hood, so you can get this "element" you speak of on the B49.

 

I would imagine the via dude must ride on the 49 somewhere east of foster and KB College as mostly jews and Russians ride on that part of the route, except for school days when you'll see blacks on there during the rush.

[Nova RTS 9147]

That's also another problem with your detour, plus you have to different kinds of folks IMO on the (B44) and (B49). I always found the (B49) to be a bit more civilized and nicer than the (B44). Could have something to do with the college types and the areas it goes through.

 

Yes and no. It depends on the time of day. The B44 is only a block over from Brooklyn College, and both service Medgar Evers College so you do have that base. The B49 can get rowdy during the midday (Public School kids), but it also goes through a more middle class part of Brooklyn. The B44 on the other hand does go through a more well to do area, but not for as long of a stretch as the B49.

 

Believe it or not, both routes see relatively the same demographics, though the B49 runs through more middle class, more "mixed" areas and well to do areas, while the B44 mostly goes through the hood.

[Shortline Bus]

FYI. New York Avenue is already 1-way between Winthrop Street(northern end of Kings County Hosp.) and Fulton.

It's the area of NY Ave between Winthrop and south of that, that residents are angry about that strecth becoming 1-way.

 

 

Still await what B35 proposes for the B44 SBS routing knowing that NY Ave would have the same elements as now?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Very simple....

 

After the B49 transports KCC students to/from the subway (Sheepshead Bay), guess what... most the riders on the B49 tend to be more, the elderly folk... on both halves of the route (Ocean av portion), (Bedford/Rogers portion)....

 

The B44, you get all kinds... the hood crowd, the middle aged folk, the rowdy schoolkids, the (crankier) elderly folks, etc etc....

 

The entire B49 route from Fulton Street to Foster Ave is in the hood, so you can get this "element" you speak of on the B49.

 

I would imagine the via dude must ride on the 49 somewhere east of foster and KB College as mostly jews and Russians ride on that part of the route, except for school days when you'll see blacks on there during the rush.

 

I haven't used the (B49) since my days back in Midwood and even then it was sparingly, riding it from maybe Ave M or so or Ave R I was coming over from the Marine Park?Kings Plaza area. I used it a bit more when I was high school though around Ave Z or Ave U area sometimes during the weekends or during off hours during the week when the crowds are basically gone and such.

 

Now what I do is I take the BM3 down to Emmons, make my stops to my barber, etc. down there like the old days and then I just walk up Sheepshead Bay Road. The area has sort of undergone a rebirth of sorts with the new vacant condos everywhere, so I tend to want to walk around more and see how things have changed from when I lived there. Thus I take Sheepshead Bay Road up so far and then finish running making my stops and then walk over to the BM3 on Ave X and Ocean, so I get to see the (B49) usually on Saturdays and of course then it is quiet with mainly the folks from the neighbourhood riding. I have to say yesterday, the wind in Sheepshead Bay brought back some memories of when I went to the former IS 43 there on Emmons Ave and Shore Blvd.

 

Yes and no. It depends on the time of day. The B44 is only a block over from Brooklyn College, and both service Medgar Evers College so you do have that base. The B49 can get rowdy during the midday (Public School kids), but it also goes through a more middle class part of Brooklyn. The B44 on the other hand does go through a more well to do area, but not for as long of a stretch as the B49.

 

Believe it or not, both routes see relatively the same demographics, though the B49 runs through more middle class, more "mixed" areas and well to do areas, while the B44 mostly goes through the hood.

 

Yes, believe me I'm aware of that. I lived in Brooklyn for almost 20 years, mainly Sheepshead Bay and the Midwood for a short while leaving to Staten Island. The further south you go, particularly along Ocean Avenue past Ave J, it becomes very nice on the (B49) outside of the rush hours and such. I had a friend that lived down in Manhattan Beach and I'd take the (B49) to get back home to Sheepshead Bay.

[B35 via Church]

FYI. New York Avenue is already 1-way between Winthrop Street(northern end of Kings County Hosp.) and Fulton.

It's the area of NY Ave between Winthrop and south of that, that residents are angry about that strecth becoming 1-way.

 

 

Still await what B35 proposes for the B44 SBS routing knowing that NY Ave would have the same elements as now?

 

What I propose...

I don't even want this B44 SBS here....

 

But I will say, if the southbound M15 SBS can make that slight turn on Houston st, I see no reason for that turn on Fulton st to be revoked from/for this B44 SBS.....

 

Not that I even want artics in Brooklyn anyway, but I defiantly and adamantly disapprove of removing ANY type of B44 service off New York av & onto Rogers.... You keep buses where the riders are... and the riders aren't on Rogers, nor do they want Rogers....

 

 

part in bold, answers your little question there...

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Trainmaster5]

The entire B49 route from Fulton Street to Foster Ave is in the hood, so you can get this "element" you speak of on the B49.

 

I would imagine the via dude must ride on the 49 somewhere east of foster and KB College as mostly jews and Russians ride on that part of the route, except for school days when you'll see blacks on there during the rush.

 

Since when is Prospect-Lefferts Garden part of the "hood"?

[trainfan22]

Since when is Prospect-Lefferts Garden part of the "hood"?

 

That neighborhood does have the hood element to it. There's the usual hood related crime there, Its certainty not no ENY or South Bronx but it ain't exactly the Upper West Side either.

 

People opinion varies on that area, some think its the hood some think its not, IMO, its the hood.

[Q43LTD]

I don't mean to be a downer, but the B44 is long enough already. Why make it go into Manhattan? If people really need to access the Lower East Side from the B44, they can take the one stop into the city. I don't see how making it longer would improve it's reliability. Also, the B44 SBS has not even started yet, so I think it's a little early for possible extensions.

Or just revive the B39

['89 Liberty MCI]

I just call the whole neighborhood Flatbush from Flatbush Avenue/Empire Boulevard to Flatbush Avenue/Nostrand Avenue, roughly. My parents used to live in "Prospect Park South" (Church Av/E 18 St), yet we have always just called it Flatbush.

 

But what trainfan said can be said for all of Flatbush. Better to be in FB than to be in the South Bronx or ENY, but it's not the Upper West Side either.

 

Since the subject has shifted to dealing with the B44 project within Brooklyn, any of the following solutions could work on New York Avenue:

 

-Run more local B44s between the Junction and Fulton Street (at least, maybe just send them all the way up to Flushing Avenue). The problem here is that there may be an excess number of southbound local buses coming back down Nostrand with the SBS buses. A maximum of 18 local/limited buses per hour pass New York/Church Avenues. Matching this with 18 locals per hour works going up New York Avenue but 18 local buses with 20 SBS buses an hour going down Nostrand could cause a big mess. Whether it's traffic flow or extra buses that aren't needed. Please don't jump down my throat for saying that last part and tell me I sound like some crazy stingy management person; I'm just trying to look at this rationally. If the authority doesn't make up for the loss of the B44 limited on New York Avenue, the likely result is that people will be left in the street because there will be too few buses on New York Avenue. Assuming the local keeps its 10-minute headway during the rush there will only be 6 BPH as opposed to 18. No question that's gonna be a disaster.

 

-Now let's discuss the B49. The one problem I see with sending it up New York Avenue is that it would be running on the "outside" of another route with its north/south streets being so far away. It would be like the M5 and I'm sure somebody will say that this is Brooklyn and not Manhattan, so what's wrong with this picture. However I don't see a problem because it would still provide the service on NY Avenue that people need to go from there to Fulton Street (this is what most of them want, correct?). Also it might help because it'll cause more people making a quick stop at Fulton to go up on the B49 and come back on the B44 (people from Nostrand & NY Avs) and vice-versa for people from Bedford & Rogers Avs. So the round trip costs less. Now if somebody using the SBS from the Nostrand side of the Bay or Midwood has to access NY Avenue directly, they can either transfer to the new B49 limited at Newkirk Avenue or the B44 local at the Junction. It's true that it involves a transfer but if this operation is executed properly I don't see how the authority could screw up these lines. If worse comes to worse there is also the and at the Junction plus a walk.

 

I propose to run the northbound B49 limited like this:

 

Regular until Foster/Rogers, then east on Foster, north on New York Avenue, west on Fulton, south on Franklin to the terminal. The southbound route will be the same.

 

Northbound stops will be the same as the southbound limited until Foster/Flatbush, then stop at Rogers, Nostrand, and then New York/D like the B44 limited. Then make the same stops as the B44 limited with the possible exceptions of New York/Bergen and Fulton/New York if this helps keep costs down. On Fulton, stops will be at Nostrand and Rogers, then the last stop (and first stop) will be at Franklin/Fulton. Passengers will be entitled to loop privileges, so if they came from north of Fulton on a B44 they can transfer to the B49 and ride it to Franklin. If there is another B49 that will leave before theirs, they can transfer to it at Franklin. This is nice because this will create a direct/more convenient transfer that nobody can make now.

 

So the service pattern would have the B44 local and B49 limited on NY Avenue, B44 SBS and B44 local on Nostrand, B44 SBS and B49 local on Rogers, B49 local and B49 limited on Bedford. All this service 7 days a week would be nice but some of it may have to be trimmed down because of excess. At the very least this should all run from morning to night 7 days a week except the B49 limited on Bedford. They can easily have at least 15 BPH on NY Avenue during the AM rush and it wouldn't be a huge loss. If there's no demand for an Ocean Avenue limited 7 days a week then they could just run this B49 limited between Foster/Flatbush and Fulton Street at the times when it's needed. Actually that would improve reliability and keep everybody happy since people transferring from a N/B B44 on Rogers could see the B49 buses laying over right there.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Or just revive the B39

 

"Low ridership and extremely high cost per passenger"

 

If they just continue another bus route over the bridge, that bus route will recover a good portion of its operating costs. The B39 can't because in order for it to get decent ridership people would have to transfer from the other Washington Plaza buses, which they barely did and never will.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

"Low ridership and extremely high cost per passenger"

 

If they just continue another bus route over the bridge, that bus route will recover a good portion of its operating costs. The B39 can't because in order for it to get decent ridership people would have to transfer from the other Washington Plaza buses, which they barely did and never will.

 

All of those packed (B39)s that I saw are from what?? Transfers??

[B35 via Church]

I propose to run the northbound B49 limited like this:

So you think there's a need for a northbound B49 LTD ?

 

....b/c the current B49 LTD only runs in the southbound direction (towards Kingsborough), during the morning rush.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So you think there's a need for a northbound B49 LTD ?

 

....b/c the current B49 LTD only runs in the southbound direction (towards Kingsborough), during the morning rush.....

 

I mean it runs from Northern Brooklyn all the way to Southern Brooklyn too, so why not have a limited stop (B49)? Perhaps it would take some of the load off of the (B44).

[B35 via Church]

I mean it runs from Northern Brooklyn all the way to Southern Brooklyn too, so why not have a limited stop (B49)? Perhaps it would take some of the load off of the (B44).

 

The B49 itself (meaning, no LTD's) will take the load off the B44 SBS when that gets diverted onto Rogers.....

 

hell, I don't think the 49 should've ever gotten a LTD to begin with.....

The overall daily ridership doesn't support it... similar situation to the Q36 LTD, but that's neither here, nor there....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The B49 itself (meaning, no LTD's) will take the load off the B44 SBS when that gets diverted onto Rogers.....

 

hell, I don't think the 49 should've ever gotten a LTD to begin with.....

The overall daily ridership doesn't support it... similar situation to the Q36 LTD, but that's neither here, nor there....

 

I disagree there... There is certainly enough demand to warrant some limited stop service. I've seen plenty of crushloaded (B49)s and LTD stop service would be welcomed. Granted, it isn't the (B41) or the (B44), but going from Manhattan Beach up to Northern Brooklyn is not exactly a cake walk either.

[checkmatechamp13]

The B49 itself (meaning, no LTD's) will take the load off the B44 SBS when that gets diverted onto Rogers.....

 

hell, I don't think the 49 should've ever gotten a LTD to begin with.....

The overall daily ridership doesn't support it... similar situation to the Q36 LTD, but that's neither here, nor there....

 

The B49 gets way more riders than the Q36. The B49 gets 19,930 riders at a cost of $1.40 per passenger, whereas the Q36 gets 5,920 riders at a cost of $1.92 per passenger.

 

The difference is that the Q36 goes nowhere near the subway (as far as paralleling it), whereas the B49 does.

 

I disagree there... There is certainly enough demand to warrant some limited stop service. I've seen plenty of crushloaded (B49)s and LTD stop service would be welcomed. Granted, it isn't the (B41) or the (B44), but going from Manhattan Beach up to Northern Brooklyn is not exactly a cake walk either.

 

I'm sure 99% of people making a trip from Bed-Stuy to Manhattan Bridge will be taking the subway, and not the B49, but I think the number of people traveling between major points on the route (basically, points that would be limited stops) is enough to warrant a limited.

[B35 via Church]

I disagree there... There is certainly enough demand to warrant some limited stop service. I've seen plenty of crushloaded (B49)s and LTD stop service would be welcomed. Granted, it isn't the (B41) or the (B44), but going from Manhattan Beach up to Northern Brooklyn is not exactly a cake walk either.

 

You're placing too much emphasis on the distance it travels....

I mean, Franklin/Fulton isn't THAT far north w/i Brooklyn...

 

Reason B49's take as long as they do to get from end to end, really doesn't have to do w/ how painstakingly long it is... b/o's have been notorious for crawling the route since god knows when....

 

I've seen B49's that were crushloaded too...

Question is, how often do they get crushloaded during the day...

 

Outside of its end terminals, & Sheepshead Bay , what are the major trip generators on the route.... and please don't tell me ridership is (approximately) equally distributed on the B49, b/c from what I see, that is far from the case....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You're placing too much emphasis on the distance it travels....

I mean, Franklin/Fulton isn't THAT far north w/i Brooklyn...

 

Reason B49's take as long as they do to get from end to end, really doesn't have to do w/ how painstakingly long it is... b/o's have been notorious for crawling the route since god knows when....

 

I've seen B49's that were crushloaded too...

Question is, how often do they get crushloaded during the day...

 

Outside of its end terminals, & Sheepshead Bay , what are the major trip generators on the route.... and please don't tell me ridership is equally distributed on the B49....

 

From the times that I've used the (B49) back in the old days, I know that in Southern Brooklyn, it picks up passengers steadily along the way, and outside of Sheepshead Bay train station and KCC, other big stops are Ave. Z, Ave. U, Kings Highway, Ave. M., Ave. J, and Ave. R (somewhat) and Ocean Ave., so there should be some LTD service at least during the weekday. I think this would help out with bunching too along the line. You argue that the ridership isn't that high, but if you had the (B44), which has LTD and you didn't care about the hooligans and such on the line, I'm sure you'd jump on the (B44) too over the (B49).

 

Also, seeing how many elderly folks use the line, it would be great for them since they obviously aren't going to use the subway.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Garibaldi: I stand corrected if it was used that much. But if it was used that much, then why were the headways so bad when it was running? The ridership had decreased by 40% from 2004 to 2009. It seems logical that the ridership wasn't that stable since the Manhattan-bound Williamsburg bridge traffic is so bad and the and do exactly the same thing as the B39. Now it's true that the disabled lost a connection. However bringing back that little B39 all by itself, especially without putting a bus or bus/HOV lane on the bridge, would be bringing back a mode of transportation that doesn't have stable ridership. I guarantee that the ridership would either remain the same or continue to fall with those headways and that bridge traffic. On the other hand, you take the B44 or the B46, both of which have good headways and stable ridership, and send it over the bridge (with the dedicated lane), then the authority won't be as quick to do away with the new portion of the route because the ridership on the new section will always be stable. Especially on the B44, which doesn't parallel the and for a minute like the B46. Even if ridership subsequently fell just a little because the people don't want to ride that new section anymore it wouldn't matter since those routes have a better farebox recovery ratio and lower cost per passenger than the B39. Additionally there would be more passenger capacity to work with if the B44 did it thanks to the Artics.

 

B35: If they sent the B49 limited up New York Avenue it would serve a new purpose once they take the B44 limited away, as many people are crying foul over the loss of the B44 limited, including yourself. I hope I am not being rude; I am just stating facts.

 

As for the service span being increased on the B49 limited in general, this can be accounted for by the fact that ridership will increase once they make the B44 SBS, so ridership could increase on other routes that connect to it like the B49. Additionally the authority would save money by cutting local B49 service and adding limited B49 service. This limited-stop service could also increase ridership somewhat. It's harsh to those who live far from the limited stops or cannot walk to the stops, but it helps people at heavier stops. If it didn't, then the heavy stops would cease to be heavy stops upon implementation of a limited stop service.

 

And if it's an overall improvement in the service and saves time, there is nothing wrong with forcing people to get off the locals and use the limited. I do it and any other able-bodied person can do it. Right now they run the local B49 every 7-8 minutes in the AM rush. They could cut the local B49 to every 12 minutes (I don't advocate being so cutthroat, but I would even do 15 if I had to) and have the B49 limited running every 5 minutes. Follow a similar service pattern during the midday and PM rush as well when it matters the most and the current local headway is also about 7-8 minutes. On the weekend the B49 local only runs every 12-15 minutes so something else may have to be done, something that doesn't involve a limited B49. But only on the weekend.

 

This is a solution that would work because it would cover all the "victim" areas and lower operating costs. And more people would benefit than not. They would have to as the whole solution involves implementation of a faster service and has the faster service running more frequently than the slower one.......

[B35 via Church]

From the times that I've used the (B49) back in the old days, I know that in Southern Brooklyn, it picks up passengers steadily along the way, and outside of Sheepshead Bay train station and KCC, other big stops are Ave. Z, Ave. U, Kings Highway, Ave. M., Ave. J, and Ave. R (somewhat) and Ocean Ave., so there should be some LTD service at least during the weekday. I think this would help out with bunching too along the line. You argue that the ridership isn't that high, but if you had the (B44), which has LTD and you didn't care about the hooligans and such on the line, I'm sure you'd jump on the (B44) too over the (B49).

 

Also, seeing how many elderly folks use the line, it would be great for them since they obviously aren't going to use the subway.

LTD's are often scheduled to run close to its local counterparts.... that would increase bunching, not deter it....

 

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you think service should actually be increased on that route....

^^ rhetorical, but you can answer if it you want...

 

The part of your statement I bolded there, I don't see what point you're trying to make with that.... I would jump on the B44 anyway; it's has more frequent service; even if the B49 had LTD service (in either/both directions)...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

LTD's are often scheduled to run close to its local counterparts.... that would increase bunching, not deter it....

 

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you think service should actually be increased on that route....

^^ rhetorical, but you can answer if it you want...

 

The part of your statement I bolded there, I don't see what point you're trying to make with that.... I would jump on the B44 anyway; it's has more frequent service; even if the B49 had LTD service (in either/both directions)...

 

That's exactly the point... Why would folks use the (B49) if they have the (B44), which not only has limited stops, but more frequent service? Now me, I admit I did avoid the (B44) and would opt for the more civil (B49) when I had to use it, but surely the commute was longer since it doesn't have LTD service. I think the would be wise in trying to find ways to make the (B49) more attractive to take the load off of the (B44). Sure there's frequent service, but there is also tons of bunching and the line can be very unreliable as well. The frequent service adds more traffic by way of more buses, so it isn't all great news for the (B44). Compared to Nostrand Ave, which the (B44) uses for most of the time, Ocean Ave is far more accomodating in terms of traffic and is less congested overall. I think the (B49) isn't used as much as the (B44) because of where it travels overall. In Mid and Southern Brooklyn where it goes, more folks will either drive or can walk to the lines, but I think the line has a lot of potential. At some point you have to wonder how many more (B44)s can they put on that line?

 

The only solution I see is artics and getting folks to use other lines like the (B49) and thus that would justify the service increase as well as limited stop service during the week at least. Weekends is another story, but if ridership justified it then it could be put in, but from what I see at least in Southern Brooklyn it isn't justified.

 

Also, I think it is a question of how the buses are spaced. Having LTD service could help the locals move along quicker. I see how they utilize the (M2) along Madison and it certainly helps the (M1) and (M3) tremendously.

 

Garibaldi: I stand corrected if it was used that much. But if it was used that much, then why were the headways so bad when it was running? The ridership had decreased by 40% from 2004 to 2009. It seems logical that the ridership wasn't that stable since the Manhattan-bound Williamsburg bridge traffic is so bad and the and do exactly the same thing as the B39. Now it's true that the disabled lost a connection. However bringing back that little B39 all by itself, especially without putting a bus or bus/HOV lane on the bridge, would be bringing back a mode of transportation that doesn't have stable ridership. I guarantee that the ridership would either remain the same or continue to fall with those headways and that bridge traffic. On the other hand, you take the B44 or the B46, both of which have good headways and stable ridership, and send it over the bridge (with the dedicated lane), then the authority won't be as quick to do away with the new portion of the route because the ridership on the new section will always be stable. Especially on the B44, which doesn't parallel the and for a minute like the B46. Even if ridership subsequently fell just a little because the people don't want to ride that new section anymore it wouldn't matter since those routes have a better farebox recovery ratio and lower cost per passenger than the B39. Additionally there would be more passenger capacity to work with if the B44 did it thanks to the Artics.

 

That's interesting... I haven't used the (B39) in a longggg time. I only used it a few times when I was bus fanning back in the day as a kid with those paper school passes. :cool: If service declined the way that you say it did, the question is why? If you notice, the has basically tried to kill out all of the short run lines (i.e. (B39), (B51), etc.) and the only reason that the (B2) and (B31) haven't been significantly reduced is because representatives of those areas fought the tooth and nail to keep the service.

[Nova RTS 9147]

That's exactly the point... Why would folks use the (B49) if they have the (B44), which not only has limited stops, but more frequent service? Now me, I admit I did avoid the (B44) and would opt for the more civil (B49) when I had to use it, but surely the commute was longer since it doesn't have LTD service. I think the would be wise in trying to find ways to make the (B49) more attractive to take the load off of the (B44). Sure there's frequent service, but there is also tons of bunching and the line can be very unreliable as well. The frequent service adds more traffic by way of more buses, so it isn't all great news for the (B44). Compared to Nostrand Ave, which the (B44) uses for most of the time, Ocean Ave is far more accomodating in terms of traffic and is less congested overall. I think the (B49) isn't used as much as the (B44) because of where it travels overall. In Mid and Southern Brooklyn where it goes, more folks will either drive or can walk to the lines, but I think the line has a lot of potential. At some point you have to wonder how many more (B44)s can they put on that line?

 

The only solution I see is artics and getting folks to use other lines like the (B49) and thus that would justify the service increase as well as limited stop service during the week at least. Weekends is another story, but if ridership justified it then it could be put in, but from what I see at least in Southern Brooklyn it isn't justified.

 

 

But asides from Artics, what can really be done to make the B49 a more attractive option? There's no place to reroute without causing a huge ruckus (Abandoning the Southern end would turn the B1 into a madhouse, there's no way in hell the B49 is going to Williamsburg, and any mid route change won't do much good).

['89 Liberty MCI]

There would at least be a demand in the northbound direction if there were a re-routed B49 limited replacing the B44 limited on NY Avenue. High demand on one part of the line can balance out low demand on another part and keep the line sustainable. For example from what I've seen the B44 is packed from Flushing Avenue to Church Avenue (maybe the Junction sometimes, though I haven't seen it), but everybody is seated on the rest of the route. Except when school is in session, then there can be standing loads until Avenue X.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Garibaldi: It's not so much a question of the length of the route. It's also the necessity. The B39 paralleled the and . Ridership was low and cost per passenger (CPP) was high. The B51 paralleled the and . Ridership was low and CPP was high. In other words not completely necessary, except perhaps for the disabled. So find other ways to bring back such connections. Especially if the replacement connections can do more than just help the disabled. I never saw the B39 and B51 much but they were always empty when I did see them.

 

The B2 and B31 aren't just politically connected (some of that clout failed as they have cut the night bus on the B31 and weekend service on the B2), they also go to areas in which they are needed. The B2 goes to Kings Plaza and the trains and another commercial hub at Kings Highway station. The B31 goes to an area served by no other public transportation, and to Kings Highway station. Compared to these lines you have to ask yourself, what did the B39 do? What did the B51 do?