Improving the B44 Select Bus Service

[B35 via Church]

The (Q36) and countless other routes, but that's for another topic

 

tell me about it....

 

 

I think you're catching on to my earlier postings about this SBS charade. I still think the long range agenda is to eliminate the B49 route from Flatbush Avenue to Fulton St and substitute some form of B44 service on the route. We'll throw the people on New York Avenue a bone in the beginning, but after a few years of declining service and ridership we can pull the plug on this service, too. BTW we can screw the riders on the overnight B48s while we're at it. We've gotten away with truncating the route already so why not leave them stranded at Franklin and Fulton Streets in the midnight hours, so with NO S/B B49 service while we promote the Franklin Shuttle as an alternative at that time. This, my friends, is how the operations planning department thinks in (MTA)land. As someone pointed out earlier, it's only affecting the "hood", not working people. They're not in the business of giving the public any benefit(SBS) at no cost so something or somebody is going to get screwed.

 

That's exactly what I was tryna point out to checkmatechamp, I believe it was, about moving the 49 over to the nostrand av station.... all of a sudden, they're indirectly pushing people to take the shuttle, hard... guess they feel that... ay yo... see how we renovated this entire mahf***a - all this hard work - now you people goin ride this thing goddammit !

[checkmatechamp13]

Those (S98)s were used so I don't see the problem. The point they gave more (S96)s later for quite some time before they added those later (S98)s. The is quicker to yank express and local bus service for more affluent areas then they are from poorer ones. They must be on a guilt trip or something. I just think it's disgusting. I mean who do they think is going to pay the fare with them running more services to poorer areas??

 

The majority of the people in poorer areas pay the fare. There are only certain times when you'll see large groups of farebeaters, and they are usually teenagers/young adults. Ride the S46 or any bus route that goes through "poor neighborhoods" (which, like I said, aren't that poor when compared to the rest of the city) at an off-peak time (say, 10PM) and you'll see that the number of farebeaters is close to zero.

 

In any case, the argument that the S46 passes through poorer areas than the S48 doesn't work. The areas east of Bard Avenue are basically the same on both routes, and, while the S46 passes through the poorer parts of West Brighton and Port Richmond it avoids passing through Arlington like the S48.

 

You're "disenchanted" w/Riverdale, the same Riverdale with three express buses and MetroNorth?? Now that's funny... In any event, what your previous post did do is give my argument plausibility in noting how affluent areas like Riverdale had their service slashed heavily while the poorer areas get to keep most of theirs. You see you may argue that the poorer areas have higher ridership, but on the same token, it is the more affluent areas whose taxes go to support the in order to provide the service to begin with, so the notion that somehow the poorer areas are helping the so much with their budget is just preposterous.

 

But the part of the purpose of taxes is to redistribute the wealth. If riders in wealthy neighborhoods get service that they don't use, is it really helping fullfilling that purpose?

 

You have to consider that the MTA makes its decisions based on ridership and farebox recovery, not based on who provides the most tax revenue. If the MTA followed your advice, we'd have a bunch of empty buses traveling in wealthy neighborhoods while poorer neighborhoods have infrequent, overcrowded buses.

 

This is why I will always defend express bus service and any other service for the middle class and upper middle class. People say "OH NO IT'S A WASTE", but it is us working folks whose tax dollars subsidize transit, so as far as I'm concerned, for what we pay in taxes to the state, the city, the , etc. providing express bus service and more service in general to the suburbs is the least they can do when they rob us to support welfare and other programs for the poor.

 

The fact is the MTA receives tremendous amounts of money from New York State taxpayers. Those taxpayers like myself aren't getting anything for free, but rather what is due to us for the taxes that we pay.

 

See my post above about redistribution of wealth.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The majority of the people in poorer areas pay the fare. There are only certain times when you'll see large groups of farebeaters, and they are usually teenagers/young adults. Ride the S46 or any bus route that goes through "poor neighborhoods" (which, like I said, aren't that poor when compared to the rest of the city) at an off-peak time (say, 10PM) and you'll see that the number of farebeaters is close to zero.

 

In any case, the argument that the S46 passes through poorer areas than the S48 doesn't work. The areas east of Bard Avenue are basically the same on both routes, and, while the S46 passes through the poorer parts of West Brighton and Port Richmond it avoids passing through Arlington like the S48.

 

 

 

But the part of the purpose of taxes is to redistribute the wealth. If riders in wealthy neighborhoods get service that they don't use, is it really helping fullfilling that purpose?

 

You have to consider that the MTA makes its decisions based on ridership and farebox recovery, not based on who provides the most tax revenue. If the MTA followed your advice, we'd have a bunch of empty buses traveling in wealthy neighborhoods while poorer neighborhoods have infrequent, overcrowded buses.

 

 

 

See my post above about redistribution of wealth.

 

 

I totally disagree. We who are paying the brunt of the taxers should be getting the services that we need. I'm not saying all of the service, but adequate service. For what I pay in taxes, I am certainly in the right to expect express bus service in Midtown on the X14 and X30 past 18:00. The problem is that the needs to better analyze ridership patterns and stop using these stupid averages to determine where exactly more service is needed. They run an excess of service on both the local and express lines when that service could be put to better use later on in the morning from 08:00 to 09:30 when a fair amount of riders are using both services.

 

If those paying the most taxes can't even get adequate services to get to work then I don't see the point of giving poorer neighborhoods an abundance of service. You have folks of the X1 backed like herd while the (S46) has buses running practically empty. If you're telling me that's okay, then clearly you don't see the big problem/picture.

[checkmatechamp13]

Try telling that to the people I take the S46 with in the morning. They'd sure love a good laugh.

 

And that is why I feel that there should be a major redistribution in the number of buses running throughout Staten Island. The times when the S46 runs practically empty are during school dismissal times (and I think this holds true for all school trippers going to all neighborhoods, both rich and poor).

 

I wouldn't mind some of those buses being used to beef up service on routes like need extra buses for one reason or another (routes like the S53 that need a higher frequency in order to run limited-stop service at a reasonable frequency, and routes like the S89 and S93 that could use off-peak service), though I'm sure a lot of the students riding on the buses would feel differently.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Try telling that to the people I take the S46 with in the morning. They'd sure love a good laugh.

 

And that is why I feel that there should be a major redistribution in the number of buses running throughout Staten Island. The times when the S46 runs practically empty are during school dismissal times (and I think this holds true for all school trippers going to all neighborhoods, both rich and poor).

 

I wouldn't mind some of those buses being used to beef up service on routes like need extra buses for one reason or another (routes like the S53 that need a higher frequency in order to run limited-stop service at a reasonable frequency, and routes like the S89 and S93 that could use off-peak service), though I'm sure a lot of the students riding on the buses would feel differently.

 

 

I just e-mailed Mike Grimm about a few things and am about to write to a few other representatives, including Senator Golden since he represents Sheepshead Bay, Gerritsen Beach and Marine Park, amongst other parts of South Brooklyn about the BM buses and the (B4), as well as my support for reviving the X27/X28 weekend service.

[B35 via Church]

The problem is that the needs to better analyze ridership patterns and stop using these stupid averages to determine where exactly more service is needed.

 

quoted for emphasis.

 

It's one of the many reasons I decided to join this internet transit community... some of the BS I was reading on Straphangers' bus section, I felt like I had to come & open people's eyes to some shit... seemed to me that lots there were running on solely the figures....

[checkmatechamp13]

Could you send him an email regarding the limited-stop S53? Maybe since the MTA is going to approve some low-cost or no-cost improvements, this could be thrown on top. (Maybe you could mention the excess school trippers and buses running down Richmond Avenue as sources for any additional resources this route would require)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Could you send him an email regarding the limited-stop S53? Maybe since the MTA is going to approve some low-cost or no-cost improvements, this could be thrown on top. (Maybe you could mention the excess school trippers and buses running down Richmond Avenue as sources for any additional resources this route would require)

 

I mentioned several things in my e-mail to him and getting limited stop service on the S53 was one of them, along with longer service in the morning and evening on the X14 and X30. I told him how these changes could be made with little to no cost accrued by having runs with little ridership be moved and utilized to serve during times where the buses are really needed. I also discussed the need for the X16 to be revived as well along Forest Avenue. I should hear something back in 2-4 weeks.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Of course SBS B44's would get its riders... What I'm sayin is, it wouldn't be near as many, or as prevalent an amt. of riders like on the current B44 LTD, that would embark on SBS B44's going down Rogers.... Buses won't be empty, not implying that.....

 

What major trip generator is on NY av outside Kings County, none....

But you're neglecting those that embark at/around the junction; What good does B49 LTD service panning up NY av do, for those coming from the junction? The area around Newkirk b/w Nostrand & say, Brooklyn av is dense enough (flatbush gardens)... that entire area will be skipped over by B44 SBS', b/c it'll be too busy straggling along a portion of flatbush av whose riders will all be lookin for B41's for the most part..... The people you see bombard the Foster/Flatbush stop aren't waiting for B49's; they're waiting for B8's....

 

There is virtually nothing you can do w/ the upper half of the B49 to make it more appealing; not adding LTD's, not adding artics, none of that... especially when you have the B44 to the east (that serves the junction, and the more residential areas of this part of Brooklyn), and the B41 along flatbush to the west (which also serves the junction, and "the" commercial sector in this general area here).... Regardless if the B41 or the B44 has LTD service.... people in this general area aren't looking to head to that part of south brooklyn (areas along Ocean av); unless we're talking about the KCC students - and these (and erasmus kids) are the riders that bombard that B49 LTD in the morning... yeah, kids from other schools too, but these are the main ones.....

 

# of New York av riders > # of Rogers av riders.... I don't mean that to be "better than".... I mean that to be, literally, more than....

New York av (and the area around it), is more residential (meaning, more riders emanating from their homes, as opposed to other buses).... there is nothing (in terms of bus service) east of NY av around here, up until you get to Utica... it isn't about what x-fers can be found on NY av, that aren't on Rogers.... By that remark, you're implying that people are only looking to take the (LTD) bus to x-fer to another bus....

 

Furthermore, there's a reason why Rogers av is the weakest stop of all the LTD stops along Church av... people aint lookin for the B49 like that.... the Bedford stop on the B35 is bombarded w/ E-Hall kids... You'd be hard pressed to see a crowd on the B49 waiting @ the church av (SB) stop.... I'm telling you, that's how it is over here....

You cannot get me to believe, havin lived in this area for almost 3 decades, that just b/c the MTA is gonna throw artics along Rogers av in the form of the B44, means that all of a sudden, riders are gonna start fallin from the sky (lol) & embark with open arms on this SBS service, in droves.... I don't see it happening...

 

....and if the MTA is fool enough to decrease service on the local routes (which I feel will end up happening in the longrun), you'll really hear it from riders out in these parts.....

 

I highly... highly doubt the MTA is opting to move buses along rogers in hopes for more riders....

they're moving buses along Rogers b/c it provides for a straighter path, on up to Williamsburg....

 

as for Fulton st.... well lemme tell you, south of Crown Heights, people aint lookin for the lines.... they either want the IRT, or the Brighton....

 

The MTA will come to find out all this soon enough.... Don't fix what isn't broken..... and I hope one of their "spies"/lurkers is reading this comment too !!

 

For the most part I agree with you. However I'm still not sold on the idea that Rogers Avenue ridership will never surpass or equal NY Avenue ridership. Merchants and other business folk (landlords?) would be crazy not to further develop the area later on if there is so little going on back there (compared to the other blocks, Nostrand/NY Avenues).

 

I know technically only a new rail line is supposed to bring all that good stuff, but a new BRT line and everything that comes with it has the potential to do the same thing even if it can't make as much of a statement. It's a direct connection between the Rogers Avenue areas, the Junction, the and trains, and Williamsburg; any business person should catch wind of that. But anyway, we'll see.

 

New idea: Don't mess with the B49. After SBS is implemented, continue sending B44 LTDs from the Junction to Bedford Avenue-Fulton Street via Farragut Road/NY Avenue/Fulton at the same frequency that currently exists (3-5 minutes AM, 5-6 minutes PM, 7-8 minutes mid-day, and whatever it is at all the other times I didn't mention here). The locals keep their current frequency from Flushing to U, only now it applies to the full Willy B-Belt Pkwy route.

 

The B44 LTD starts at Flatbush Avenue, runs northbound only, and makes all the stops the current LTD makes until Fulton-Nostrand, with the possible exceptions of Bergen and Fulton-New York and with the addition of Bedford-Fulton as the last stop for the connection to the SBS. Now it becomes a question of which option suits a rider close to NY Avenue, who wants to go north of Fulton, the best: the LTD on New York to the SBS at Bedford-Fulton, or a crosstown bus to the SBS anywhere else along Rogers/Bedford.

 

After dropping off the last passenger at Bedford-Fulton, these buses will deadhead back to the Junction via Bedford, Halsey, Nostrand, Flatbush, H, and Nostrand to start the next trip. If there's a demand for more local service on Nostrand (than the buses they have coming out of Williamsburg), some of these buses will go into southbound local service. If they want to minimize dead mileage, let them come up with ways to do so as long as these buses do their job on NY Avenue. If you have an idea on this, I'd like to hear it.

 

I kept the same number of buses on the road between the Junction and Fulton Street, the busiest and most important part of the route. And I kept the Limited since it lowers operating costs and people would rightfully cry foul over its loss. A slight change of stance, my reasoning is that those who travel to points north of Fulton Street would have too much time added to their trip, and this time could not be saved by riding the SBS for that little distance from Fulton to wherever. Also when some catastrophe happens to the locals, the limited saves more time in reality than it does on paper. I'll curb my use of numbers from now on, now that you brought it up...........

 

I don't know how many people currently travel from NY Avenue and points east to transfer to crosstown buses north of Fulton, or the trains, but if it turns out to be an issue then there should be a three-point transfer encoded on the Metro Card for those who transfer from a B44 LTD to a B44 SBS.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For the most part I agree with you. However I'm still not sold on the idea that Rogers Avenue ridership will never surpass or equal NY Avenue ridership. Merchants and other business folk (landlords?) would be crazy not to further develop the area later on if there is so little going on back there (compared to the other blocks, Nostrand/NY Avenues).

 

I know technically only a new rail line is supposed to bring all that good stuff, but a new BRT line and everything that comes with it has the potential to do the same thing even if it can't make as much of a statement. It's a direct connection between the Rogers Avenue areas, the Junction, the and trains, and Williamsburg; any business person should catch wind of that. But anyway, we'll see.

 

New idea: Don't mess with the B49. After SBS is implemented, continue sending B44 LTDs from the Junction to Bedford Avenue-Fulton Street via Farragut Road/NY Avenue/Fulton at the same frequency that currently exists (3-5 minutes AM, 5-6 minutes PM, 7-8 minutes mid-day, and whatever it is at all the other times I didn't mention here). The locals keep their current frequency from Flushing to U, only now it applies to the full Willy B-Belt Pkwy route.

 

The B44 LTD starts at Flatbush Avenue, runs northbound only, and makes all the stops the current LTD makes until Fulton-Nostrand, with the possible exceptions of Bergen and Fulton-New York and with the addition of Bedford-Fulton as the last stop for the connection to the SBS. Now it becomes a question of which option suits a rider close to NY Avenue, who wants to go north of Fulton, the best: the LTD on New York to the SBS at Bedford-Fulton, or a crosstown bus to the SBS anywhere else along Rogers/Bedford.

 

After dropping off the last passenger at Bedford-Fulton, these buses will deadhead back to the Junction via Bedford, Halsey, Nostrand, Flatbush, H, and Nostrand to start the next trip. If there's a demand for more local service on Nostrand (than the buses they have coming out of Williamsburg), some of these buses will go into southbound local service. If they want to minimize dead mileage, let them come up with ways to do so as long as these buses do their job on NY Avenue. If you have an idea on this, I'd like to hear it.

 

I kept the same number of buses on the road between the Junction and Fulton Street, the busiest and most important part of the route. And I kept the Limited since it lowers operating costs and people would rightfully cry foul over its loss. A slight change of stance, my reasoning is that those who travel to points north of Fulton Street would have too much time added to their trip, and this time could not be saved by riding the SBS for that little distance from Fulton to wherever. Also when some catastrophe happens to the locals, the limited saves more time in reality than it does on paper. I'll curb my use of numbers from now on, now that you brought it up...........

 

I don't know how many people currently travel from NY Avenue and points east to transfer to crosstown buses north of Fulton, or the trains, but if it turns out to be an issue then there should be a three-point transfer encoded on the Metro Card for those who transfer from a B44 LTD to a B44 SBS.

 

How much service do you want to give these folks??? SBS is enough. There are areas in Southern Brooklyn with NO service and they're getting SBS service with local service AND they have to get LTD service?? Talk about overkill. :tdown:

['89 Liberty MCI]

LOL. Try telling that to B35. He brings up good points including the fact that there are no north-south buses between New York Avenue and Utica Avenue. I mean, when people cry foul over loss of service or lack of compensation when they live in areas that are better-served by public transportation than mine, I also argue that they should be grateful since I already deal with similar circumstances. However that never worked and only produced lots of angry people. B35 is correct because that East Flatbush area between New York and Utica Avenues is arguably just as poorly-served as southern Brooklyn. There should at least be something to make up for the loss of the B44LTD on NY Avenue.

 

See what happens when someone have such a loud voice protesting these things, and I'm sure you perceive, just as much as I do, the loudness of B35's voice, that's why I came up with what I did in post #84. I am one for trying to make it work for everybody. Obviously running all this service *does* have a cost, which controls whether all this service is implemented, but you can't let the authority off the hook for that. Otherwise nothing is done and we all twist in the wind. Or B35 and his crew in East Flatbush twists in the wind and we never hear the end of it. I get funny ideas about becoming a politician/community organizer in various areas; controversy is amazing............

 

Let's make a deal. No three-point transfer and the maximum service level would have limited-stop service every 5 or 6 minutes (from Junction to Bedford-Fulton and deadheads back the other way) with local service every 10 or 12. Sorry if the numbers startle anybody but hey, there is always the limited. Now B35 will yell at me for this, but I look at it as creating an incentive for NY Avenue people to use SBS. Besides it's not like we would be cutting it down to 10 minutes for the LTD. Well, at least I wouldn't and I hope the authority doesn't. NY Avenue service will always be in high demand because there is no north-south bus until Utica and it's not good to just screw them over. NY Avenue should always be decently-supplied. Maybe a 3-point transfer could be instituted for those taking crosstown buses south of Fulton to the N/B SBS at Rogers. This would be another incentive to use it.

 

Just to clarify B35 has an incredibly loud voice but he also has a voice of reason. Respect.

[BrooklynBus]

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).

 

So you're basically saying the B49 has the potential to gain enough ridership to warrant a LTD....

 

I'm saying, right this second, the route doesn't have the ridership to warrant LTD service.... The fact that the B44 has LTD service, has nothin to do with why I feel the B49 doesn't get (enough) riders to warrant a LTD of its own... it's an apples & oranges argument AFAIC.....

 

From what I long have felt, nothing...

 

although BrooklynBus will tell you that it should be extended east, along Empire Blvd....

 

I'm going to get in on this one now. Artics would make the B49 less attractive, not more attractive. As someone who is quite familiar with usage on the B49 especially in the southern portion, I can tell you the biggest problem with the B49 is that it is extremely slow due to heavy turnover at every stop where an average of six people get on or off. It seldom skips a stop on Ocean Avenue. This is because most of the riders use unless they are elderly or infirm or are riding to Kinbgsborough College or the beach in the summer use the bus for short trips of about a mile. It takes 45 minutes just to get from Manhattan Beach to Avenue J. For longer trips most people take the Brighton Line since it is so close for much of the route.

 

To suggest what would happen if the southern part of the route were abandoned shows that you think that the route is just a feeder to the subway. Only about half the passengers get off to take the train. Half ride through. And sending it to Williamsburg makes no sense either since the B44 already goes there.

 

I also would not support extending the limited service to make it more attractive because that would draw people from the subway to a more inefficient mode of travel. I would support rerouting it straight up Ocean to Empire and turning right to Utica Avenue. Someone here even suggested extending it up Utica to Eastern Parkway but I'm not sure that expense would be justified. That would open up the B49 to a whole new clientele in East Flatbush where I lived for 25 years as well as filling a service gap along Empire Blvd.

 

Paralleling the Brighton line for a greater length would also come in handy when there is a service disruption. This idea would necessitate rerouting the B43 past Wingate HS to Kings County Hospital instead of turning west on Empire to Prospect Park which it only did because Ebbets Field was once located there. Also if the B49 was eliminated north of Empire Blvd, the B48 would have to be re-extended to its former terminus or rerouted to cover the eliminated portion of the B49.

 

A less disruptive option would be as someone suggested, to reroute the B49 north of Foster Avenue to New York Avenue. I could support that if the route then turned east on Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue filling that service gap. Either way, pressure would be taken off the B12 which is pretty heavily utilized.

 

I like my option better because it provides more direct routing than at present. For example, someone traveling up Ocean Avenue wanting to go west on Church Avenue would no longer have to travel out of his way by first traveling east to Rogers and then back west. Similarly, someone coming from East NY Avenue wanting to take the B44 north, would no longer have to first travel south to Clarkson Avenue, then back north again. He could take the B49 at Empire and Utica straight to NY Ave to get the B44. (Actually both alternatives provide this option, but the other one requires a one block walk from Nostrand to NY Ave in the reverse direction for someone traveling south and east.)

 

Either option would be an improvement to what the MTA is proposing to operate both the B49 and the B44 SBS on Rogers Ave Northbound.

 

Another improvement, could be at school dismissal time at Kingsborough, to operate some buses non-stop from the College to Avenue Z or even further, bypassing the Sheepshead Bay Station using the pre-1978 routing straight up Ocean Avenue for through riders. That alone could save at least 15 minutes, almost as much as the entire B44 SBS is projected to save for its entire route.

 

Still another option for the B49 is to have a separate Friday School Open schedule with fewer buses. KCC only has a half day on Friday and there is too much service at 3PM. Those savings could be applied to providing additional service Monday through Thursday when the buses are very crowded making the buses go a little faster.

[Nova RTS 9147]

I was actually going to wait for B35 to respond, but I had enough time to read through this and analyze it. Responses in red

 

I'm going to get in on this one now. Artics would make the B49 less attractive, not more attractive. As someone who is quite familiar with usage on the B49 especially in the southern portion, I can tell you the biggest problem with the B49 is that it is extremely slow due to heavy turnover at every stop where an average of six people get on or off. It seldom skips a stop on Ocean Avenue. This is because most of the riders use unless they are elderly or infirm or are riding to Kinbgsborough College or the beach in the summer use the bus for short trips of about a mile. It takes 45 minutes just to get from Manhattan Beach to Avenue J. For longer trips most people take the Brighton Line since it is so close for much of the route.

 

To suggest what would happen if the southern part of the route were abandoned shows that you think that the route is just a feeder to the subway. Only about half the passengers get off to take the train. Half ride through. And sending it to Williamsburg makes no sense either since the B44 already goes there.

 

I actually said both would be a bad idea. Which is why its difficult to do anything to the route without messing up the natural order of things.

 

I also would not support extending the limited service to make it more attractive because that would draw people from the subway to a more inefficient mode of travel. I would support rerouting it straight up Ocean to Empire and turning right to Utica Avenue. Someone here even suggested extending it up Utica to Eastern Parkway but I'm not sure that expense would be justified. That would open up the B49 to a whole new clientele in East Flatbush where I lived for 25 years as well as filling a service gap along Empire Blvd.

 

But would it be justified? Empire Boulevard has satisfactory service as is, and I'm not sure if people from that part of Utica Avenue would need to travel along the B49. While I do see the logic of rerouting the bus up Ocean Avenue all the way, its a flawed logic. The purpose of the B49 shouldn't just to be an option for Brighton Passengers who don't want to travel up and down stairs, but I'll get into that later on.

 

Paralleling the Brighton line for a greater length would also come in handy when there is a service disruption. This idea would necessitate rerouting the B43 past Wingate HS to Kings County Hospital instead of turning west on Empire to Prospect Park which it only did because Ebbets Field was once located there. Also if the B49 was eliminated north of Empire Blvd, the B48 would have to be re-extended to its former terminus or rerouted to cover the eliminated portion of the B49.

 

A less disruptive option would be as someone suggested, to reroute the B49 north of Foster Avenue to New York Avenue. I could support that if the route then turned east on Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue filling that service gap. Either way, pressure would be taken off the B12 which is pretty heavily utilized.

 

You're not really taking away pressure. If anything you're adding more pressure to the B44 which has to pick up the extra passengers so a two block section of Empire Boulevard can have a bus line until Utica Avenue.

 

I like my option better because it provides more direct routing than at present. For example, someone traveling up Ocean Avenue wanting to go west on Church Avenue would no longer have to travel out of his way by first traveling east to Rogers and then back west. Similarly, someone coming from East NY Avenue wanting to take the B44 north, would no longer have to first travel south to Clarkson Avenue, then back north again. He could take the B49 at Empire and Utica straight to NY Ave to get the B44. (Actually both alternatives provide this option, but the other one requires a one block walk from Nostrand to NY Ave in the reverse direction for someone traveling south and east.)

 

This is what I don't agree with. Again, I see the logic in and of itself, but you're forgetting one fundamental fact about Ocean Avenue in this part of Brooklyn: You're not going more than two blocks without running into a bus line. Your B35 example, yea you're backtracking east for two blocks until you reach the B41. I'm honestly hard pressed to say that residents north of Foster Avenue on Ocean Avenue are suffering without this service. Also, who would walk south for ten blocks to Clarkson Avenue, when they can just walk two blocks to New York Avenue and not have to transfer? Lets say I'm at Kingston and Empire and I need the B44. Walking to Clarkson means I have to walk ten blocks south, find a way to go to the other side of Kings County hospital to get to Clarkson, as opposed to walking two blocks west straight to the B44.

 

Either option would be an improvement to what the MTA is proposing to operate both the B49 and the B44 SBS on Rogers Ave Northbound.

 

Another improvement, could be at school dismissal time at Kingsborough, to operate some buses non-stop from the College to Avenue Z or even further, bypassing the Sheepshead Bay Station using the pre-1978 routing straight up Ocean Avenue for through riders. That alone could save at least 15 minutes, almost as much as the entire B44 SBS is projected to save for its entire route.

 

According to your earlier statement, that 15 minutes shaft 50% of B49 riders. Especially given all buses have to go through that segment of Sheapshed Bay regardless.

 

Still another option for the B49 is to have a separate Friday School Open schedule with fewer buses. KCC only has a half day on Friday and there is too much service at 3PM. Those savings could be applied to providing additional service Monday through Thursday when the buses are very crowded making the buses go a little faster.

 

I don't understand how that will offset Monday through Thursday scheduling since you're still using the same buses those days.

 

 

Like I said, messing up the route just distorts too many other things for it to be successful.

[B35 via Church]

I see & acknowledge 89 Liberty's attempt at a compromise.... I mean, none of this should even be a discussion, if the MTA didn't have to resort to moving the SBS' up Rogers.....

 

Nova, I didn't respond to him b/c we already had a lenghty debate over his B49/"B50" proposal in the past.....

http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10703&page=3

(the whole page, basically)

 

 

He is dead set that, that part of Ocean (north of Foster) needs bus service...

The same points you're makin about the proximity of the B41, and the adequacy of service along Empire, I already made to him.... but it is what it is.....

[Nova RTS 9147]

I see & acknowledge 89 Liberty's attempt at a compromise.... I mean, none of this should even be a discussion, if the MTA didn't have to resort to moving the SBS' up Rogers.....

 

Nova, I didn't respond to that post of his b/c we already had a lenghty debate over his B49/"B50" proposal in the past.....

http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10703&page=3

(the whole page, basically)

 

Coolies. Btw, I'm happy I'm not the only one who saw the B41 more deserving of SBS service.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

LOL. Try telling that to B35. He brings up good points including the fact that there are no north-south buses between New York Avenue and Utica Avenue. I mean, when people cry foul over loss of service or lack of compensation when they live in areas that are better-served by public transportation than mine, I also argue that they should be grateful since I already deal with similar circumstances. However that never worked and only produced lots of angry people. B35 is correct because that East Flatbush area between New York and Utica Avenues is arguably just as poorly-served as southern Brooklyn. There should at least be something to make up for the loss of the B44LTD on NY Avenue.

 

See what happens when someone have such a loud voice protesting these things, and I'm sure you perceive, just as much as I do, the loudness of B35's voice, that's why I came up with what I did in post #84. I am one for trying to make it work for everybody. Obviously running all this service *does* have a cost, which controls whether all this service is implemented, but you can't let the authority off the hook for that. Otherwise nothing is done and we all twist in the wind. Or B35 and his crew in East Flatbush twists in the wind and we never hear the end of it. I get funny ideas about becoming a politician/community organizer in various areas; controversy is amazing............

 

Let's make a deal. No three-point transfer and the maximum service level would have limited-stop service every 5 or 6 minutes (from Junction to Bedford-Fulton and deadheads back the other way) with local service every 10 or 12. Sorry if the numbers startle anybody but hey, there is always the limited. Now B35 will yell at me for this, but I look at it as creating an incentive for NY Avenue people to use SBS. Besides it's not like we would be cutting it down to 10 minutes for the LTD. Well, at least I wouldn't and I hope the authority doesn't. NY Avenue service will always be in high demand because there is no north-south bus until Utica and it's not good to just screw them over. NY Avenue should always be decently-supplied. Maybe a 3-point transfer could be instituted for those taking crosstown buses south of Fulton to the N/B SBS at Rogers. This would be another incentive to use it.

 

Just to clarify B35 has an incredibly loud voice but he also has a voice of reason. Respect.

 

I certainly agree with some of the points that you have made. This is why I debate back and forth with checkmate because he likes to argue that things can be worse, but that is not acceptable. Communities throughout NYC must fight to improve their service or the will be allowed to skirt along and provide the bare minimum if anything at all. This city has always been about public transportation and we cannot get away from that. We have to continue to improve services where possible instead trying to pack as many people as possible on the bus, which does nothing but deter people from using the service.

 

I'm going to get in on this one now. Artics would make the B49 less attractive, not more attractive. As someone who is quite familiar with usage on the B49 especially in the southern portion, I can tell you the biggest problem with the B49 is that it is extremely slow due to heavy turnover at every stop where an average of six people get on or off. It seldom skips a stop on Ocean Avenue. This is because most of the riders use unless they are elderly or infirm or are riding to Kinbgsborough College or the beach in the summer use the bus for short trips of about a mile. It takes 45 minutes just to get from Manhattan Beach to Avenue J. For longer trips most people take the Brighton Line since it is so close for much of the route.

 

To suggest what would happen if the southern part of the route were abandoned shows that you think that the route is just a feeder to the subway. Only about half the passengers get off to take the train. Half ride through. And sending it to Williamsburg makes no sense either since the B44 already goes there.

 

I also would not support extending the limited service to make it more attractive because that would draw people from the subway to a more inefficient mode of travel. I would support rerouting it straight up Ocean to Empire and turning right to Utica Avenue. Someone here even suggested extending it up Utica to Eastern Parkway but I'm not sure that expense would be justified. That would open up the B49 to a whole new clientele in East Flatbush where I lived for 25 years as well as filling a service gap along Empire Blvd.

 

Paralleling the Brighton line for a greater length would also come in handy when there is a service disruption. This idea would necessitate rerouting the B43 past Wingate HS to Kings County Hospital instead of turning west on Empire to Prospect Park which it only did because Ebbets Field was once located there. Also if the B49 was eliminated north of Empire Blvd, the B48 would have to be re-extended to its former terminus or rerouted to cover the eliminated portion of the B49.

 

A less disruptive option would be as someone suggested, to reroute the B49 north of Foster Avenue to New York Avenue. I could support that if the route then turned east on Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue filling that service gap. Either way, pressure would be taken off the B12 which is pretty heavily utilized.

 

I like my option better because it provides more direct routing than at present. For example, someone traveling up Ocean Avenue wanting to go west on Church Avenue would no longer have to travel out of his way by first traveling east to Rogers and then back west. Similarly, someone coming from East NY Avenue wanting to take the B44 north, would no longer have to first travel south to Clarkson Avenue, then back north again. He could take the B49 at Empire and Utica straight to NY Ave to get the B44. (Actually both alternatives provide this option, but the other one requires a one block walk from Nostrand to NY Ave in the reverse direction for someone traveling south and east.)

 

Either option would be an improvement to what the MTA is proposing to operate both the B49 and the B44 SBS on Rogers Ave Northbound.

 

Another improvement, could be at school dismissal time at Kingsborough, to operate some buses non-stop from the College to Avenue Z or even further, bypassing the Sheepshead Bay Station using the pre-1978 routing straight up Ocean Avenue for through riders. That alone could save at least 15 minutes, almost as much as the entire B44 SBS is projected to save for its entire route.

 

Still another option for the B49 is to have a separate Friday School Open schedule with fewer buses. KCC only has a half day on Friday and there is too much service at 3PM. Those savings could be applied to providing additional service Monday through Thursday when the buses are very crowded making the buses go a little faster.

 

You admit that it can take 45 minutes to get from Manhattan Beach to Ave. J, which I certainly can imagine since I lived near Manhattan Beach and also lived in Midwood, but yet you don't support extending limited stop service for it?? The bus has always had the stigma of being slow when compared to the train, and extending LTD stop service on the (B49) is exactly what is needed. The communities that use the line need and deserve a quicker commute. 45 minutes is a damn long time from Manhattan Beach to Ave J. It can take me about that amount of time on the BM3 from Ave X. and Ocean to 23rd and Park Ave South on a Saturday and I am traveling into another borough to do that.

[BrooklynBus]

"I also would not support extending the limited service to make it more attractive because that would draw people from the subway to a more inefficient mode of travel. I would support rerouting it straight up Ocean to Empire and turning right to Utica Avenue. Someone here even suggested extending it up Utica to Eastern Parkway but I'm not sure that expense would be justified. That would open up the B49 to a whole new clientele in East Flatbush where I lived for 25 years as well as filling a service gap along Empire Blvd."

 

But would it be justified? Empire Boulevard has satisfactory service as is, and I'm not sure if people from that part of Utica Avenue would need to travel along the B49. While I do see the logic of rerouting the bus up Ocean Avenue all the way, its a flawed logic. The purpose of the B49 shouldn't just to be an option for Brighton Passengers who don't want to travel up and down stairs, but I'll get into that later on.

 

I didn't say that the purpose of a straight route up Ocean Avenue would be just to be an option for Brighton Passengers. I said it would be a side benefit. The purpose of a straight route would be to lessen indirect travel and make the system less complicated. Also, I do not agree that Empire Blvd has satisfactory service. How could it be satisfactory when almost half the street is without service without a way for people coming from East NY Avenue to transfer directly to Empire Blvd? You are not sure if people from "that part of Utica Avenue" would need to travel along the B49. Well I lived there for 25 years and I feel there is. It would provide easier access to Kingsborough Community College and Manhattan Beach as well as a way to get to the 71st Precinct on Empire and NY Ave which is impossible to access. Whenever I needed to go there I would just walk the mile and a half because it wasn't much quicker to take the B12 to the B44 because it was so indirect. A 49 along Empire would have made it direct one bus trip.

 

You're not really taking away pressure. If anything you're adding more pressure to the B44 which has to pick up the extra passengers so a two block section of Empire Boulevard can have a bus line until Utica Avenue.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If you are saying that removing the B49 from Rogers and Ocean would place an undue burden on the B44, perhaps you would have less of a problem with my other proposal to split the B49 into two services, the existing B49 and through Ocean Avenue Service (B50) that B35 via Church referred to and linked.

 

"I like my option better because it provides more direct routing than at present. ... (Actually both alternatives provide this option, but the other one requires a one block walk from Nostrand to NY Ave in the reverse direction for someone traveling south and east.)"

 

This is what I don't agree with. Again, I see the logic in and of itself, but you're forgetting one fundamental fact about Ocean Avenue in this part of Brooklyn: You're not going more than two blocks without running into a bus line.

 

I realize the B41 would only be one block away but due to the high concentration of 6-story apartment houses in that area that doesn't have high auto ownership, I don't think it would be overkill.

 

Your B35 example, yea you're backtracking east for two blocks until you reach the B41.

 

You are backtracking about 3/8ths of a mile in each direction, and those distances are where traffic is very congested and the buses travel slowly. It can easily add 15 minutes to your trip compared to traveling straight up Ocean Avenue.

 

Also, who would walk south for ten blocks to Clarkson Avenue, when they can just walk two blocks to New York Avenue and not have to transfer? Lets say I'm at Kingston and Empire and I need the B44. Walking to Clarkson means I have to walk ten blocks south, find a way to go to the other side of Kings County hospital to get to Clarkson, as opposed to walking two blocks west straight to the B44.

 

I have no understanding about what you are trying to say here. Who said anything about having to walk ten blocks south to Clarkson Ave? Someone at Kingston And Empire needing the B44 southbound would either walk three long blocks to Nostrand to get the B44 or one block east to Albany and several short blocks south to East NY Av to get the B12 and then change for the B44. Three long blocks is more than most people would walk to get a bus. They are more likely to use car service. A bus along Empire to Nostrand where one could transfer to the B44, in your example. would involve no walking and be far more convenient than what exists now.

 

According to your earlier statement, that 15 minutes shaft 50% of B49 riders. Especially given all buses have to go through that segment of Sheapshed Bay regardless.

 

So what is your point? In my B49/B50 proposal, I would have the B50 bypass the Station. When I rerouted the B49 to serve Sheepshead Bay Station 33 years ago, traffic near the station was not as heavy as it is today and the bus used Sheepshead Bay Road, not E 14th Street. The detour to the station took only an additional 5 to 7 minutes and enabled the elimination of the entire pre-1978 B1. Today it can take an extra 10 to 15 minutes to go to the station when traffic is heavy and makes a slow route even slower which is why I think some buses at school dismissal time should bypass the station altogether.

 

"Still another option for the B49 is to have a separate Friday School Open schedule with fewer buses. KCC only has a half day on Friday and there is too much service at 3PM. Those savings could be applied to providing additional service Monday through Thursday when the buses are very crowded making the buses go a little faster."

 

I don't understand how that will offset Monday through Thursday scheduling since you're still using the same buses those days.

 

What I'm saying is that the savings from operating fewer buses on Fridays when they are not needed, could go to providing additional buses on Mondays through Thursdays. If not there, the savings could be used to add service on other routes in the area, e.g. extending the times the B4 operates to Knapp Street. I'm not sure how to make myself any clearer.

[CTK246]

multiquoting one post to prove a point is serious business

[Via Garibaldi 8]

multiquoting one post to prove a point is serious business

 

lol

[BrooklynBus]

 

You admit that it can take 45 minutes to get from Manhattan Beach to Ave. J, which I certainly can imagine since I lived near Manhattan Beach and also lived in Midwood, but yet you don't support extending limited stop service for it??

 

The only way I would consider supporting LTD for Ocean Avenue service is if the route were split into a B49 (unchanged route) and a B50 straight up Ocean Avenue and turn into Empire Blvd. The B50 would bypass Sheepshead Bay Station going straight from Emmons into Ocean Avenue and possibly could operate LTD during the hours the bus was heaviest whenever that it is, possibly 7AM to 7PM Mon-Fri when school is open.

[checkmatechamp13]

How is the ridership spread out along the B49? Are there a lot of riders boarding at major transfer points, or is it completely spread out?

 

I don't think drawing riders from the subway is a good reason not to implement the service. Any additional costs incurred by having to use extra buses would be negated by the time (and therefore cost) savings of the limited.

 

And there are some people making short trips, and would benefit from having limited-stop service, who are forced to use the regular B49. For example, a person making a trip from Avenue J to Avenue U doesn't (currently) save any time by making the trip on the subway rather than using the B49, and adding a limited would speed their trip.

 

Via Garibaldi: A limited generally works best if ridership is concentrated at specific stops (like on the S53), so it saves a busload of people from having to slow their trip down to let off one or two people. If the stops are all heavily used, the benefits are lessened.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The only way I would consider supporting LTD for Ocean Avenue service is if the route were split into a B49 (unchanged route) and a B50 straight up Ocean Avenue and turn into Empire Blvd. The B50 would bypass Sheepshead Bay Station going straight from Emmons into Ocean Avenue and possibly could operate LTD during the hours the bus was heaviest whenever that it is, possibly 7AM to 7PM Mon-Fri when school is open.

 

Why would you split the route like that AND not have it stop at a major transferring point???

 

 

How is the ridership spread out along the B49? Are there a lot of riders boarding at major transfer points, or is it completely spread out?

 

I don't think drawing riders from the subway is a good reason not to implement the service. Any additional costs incurred by having to use extra buses would be negated by the time (and therefore cost) savings of the limited.

 

And there are some people making short trips, and would benefit from having limited-stop service, who are forced to use the regular B49. For example, a person making a trip from Avenue J to Avenue U doesn't (currently) save any time by making the trip on the subway rather than using the B49, and adding a limited would speed their trip.

 

Via Garibaldi: A limited generally works best if ridership is concentrated at specific stops (like on the S53), so it saves a busload of people from having to slow their trip down to let off one or two people. If the stops are all heavily used, the benefits are lessened.

 

Yes I know that. I'm not exactly new to using limited stop buses you know... What I am confused on is why are you're asking about how ridership is spread out anyway? Didn't you use the (B49) when you were in Brooklyn? From my observations and years of having used the line, there is enough folks getting on at the main stops to warrant an expansion of LTD on the (B49). Whether or not weekends are warranted is another story, as I don't see the usage being heavy enough to implement then.

[checkmatechamp13]

Why would you split the route like that AND not have it stop at a major transferring point???

 

 

 

 

Yes I know that. I'm not exactly new to using limited stop buses you know... What I am confused on is why are you're asking about how ridership is spread out anyway? Didn't you use the (B49) when you were in Brooklyn? From my observations and years of having used the line, there is enough folks getting on at the main stops to warrant an expansion of LTD on the (B49). Whether or not weekends are warranted is another story, as I don't see the usage being heavy enough to implement then.

 

C'mon man. You know how I feel about buses vs. trains.

 

Seriously, the only part I used it in was in the Manhattan Beach/Sheepshead Bay area. Anything longer than that, and I would be taking the subway.

 

But are there many more people getting on at the major stops than at the minor stops? Because if a limited-stop bus passes a whole bunch of people waiting, it isn't really doing much good.

 

According to the schedule, it barely makes the frequency level that can sustain both a local and a limited. Maybe, if the B44 +SBS+ is traveling on Rogers Avenue, some B49 trips can be truncated to Foster Avenue (unless the DOT changes its mind and makes NY Avenue one-way, so the local and +SBS+ can stay together).

 

Weekends, I don't think the limited is needed.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

C'mon man. You know how I feel about buses vs. trains.

 

Seriously, the only part I used it in was in the Manhattan Beach/Sheepshead Bay area. Anything longer than that, and I would be taking the subway.

 

But are there many more people getting on at the major stops than at the minor stops? Because if a limited-stop bus passes a whole bunch of people waiting, it isn't really doing much good.

 

According to the schedule, it barely makes the frequency level that can sustain both a local and a limited. Maybe, if the B44 +SBS+ is traveling on Rogers Avenue, some B49 trips can be truncated to Foster Avenue (unless the DOT changes its mind and makes NY Avenue one-way, so the local and +SBS+ can stay together).

 

Weekends, I don't think the limited is needed.

 

LOL, stupid me... Of course you'd use the subway more. IMO I'd compare it to the (S53) which has decent loads at the major stops and then picks up folks here and there at the minor stops. During the weekends I would not put LTD on the (B49) because there is no need for it, but during the week is another story.

[checkmatechamp13]

LOL, stupid me... Of course you'd use the subway more. IMO I'd compare it to the (S53) which has decent loads at the major stops and then picks up folks here and there at the minor stops. During the weekends I would not put LTD on the (B49) because there is no need for it, but during the week is another story.

 

I'm a train person and don't you forget it!

 

In that case, the B49 would be a good candidate for a limited. It might take a couple of riders away from the subway and B44 +SBS+, but I think in the end, the MTA should break even on this, and B49 passengers overall will benefit.