Improving the B44 Select Bus Service

[BrooklynBus]

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?

 

When I used to use it, I would say that boardings and departures at transfer points were about twice as heavy as regular stops.

 

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.

 

I disagree. Even if only a few riders shift from subway to bus, it might warrant additional buses which cost money and you still would need the same amount of train service. And the more buses you add, the more people you encourage to shift modes. Buses are just less efficient than trains and it always makes more sense to have people use trains instead whenever possible.

 

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.

 

Fully agree with you on that one.

 

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

 

 

Because most everyone getting on the B49 along Oriental Blvd (there are relatively few who board after that) who need the subway couldn't care if they go to Sheepshead Bay or Brighton Beach Station. They just take the first bus that comes, the B1 or the B49. The ones not getting off at Sheepshead Bay Station are considerable, about half the ridership. When it was only an additional 5 minutes to make the diversion, it wasn't much of a problem, but 15 minutes can be a real pain in the neck, especially if your entire trip is 45 minutes. That would be a 33% time savings for the passenger if you could cut it to 30 minutes, and save money in operations too.

I think it would be still cheaper even if you have to add a shuttle from the College to the Station during the heaviest hours, if you could cut the run time by 10 or 15 minutes for half the buses.

 

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.

 

And most people would agree with you. I think there are many KCC students who use the B49 from places like East Flatbush or Bed-Stuy who would rather take the train but can't since it would cost them an extra fare if they are transferring from the B35 for example, because they are not permitted second transfer back to the bus. Those people could save 15 minutes by taking bus-train-bus rather than two buses. Change that policy and I bet B49 usage would drop at least 25 during school times, speeding the route and making a limited totally unnecessary.

 

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.

 

I would tend to agree, which is why I stated if you do have a limited. it need only run during certain hours.

 

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.

 

It might also be beneficial during beach season, but I'd rather see a second bus transfer instead.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It might also be beneficial during beach season, but I'd rather see a second bus transfer instead.

 

I'm down there in Sheepshead Bay all year around using the BM3 and I am always along Ocean Ave or by Manhattan Beach and the (B49)s are never packed enough to warrant weekend LTD service at any time.

[checkmatechamp13]

Replies in bold

 

When I used to use it, I would say that boardings and departures at transfer points were about twice as heavy as regular stops.

 

Alright

 

I disagree. Even if only a few riders shift from subway to bus, it might warrant additional buses which cost money and you still would need the same amount of train service. And the more buses you add, the more people you encourage to shift modes. Buses are just less efficient than trains and it always makes more sense to have people use trains instead whenever possible.

 

But if the buses travel faster as a result of being limited, wouldn't most of the additional costs be negated?

 

Fully agree with you on that one.

 

 

 

Because most everyone getting on the B49 along Oriental Blvd (there are relatively few who board after that) who need the subway couldn't care if they go to Sheepshead Bay or Brighton Beach Station. They just take the first bus that comes, the B1 or the B49. The ones not getting off at Sheepshead Bay Station are considerable, about half the ridership. When it was only an additional 5 minutes to make the diversion, it wasn't much of a problem, but 15 minutes can be a real pain in the neck, especially if your entire trip is 45 minutes. That would be a 33% time savings for the passenger if you could cut it to 30 minutes, and save money in operations too.

I think it would be still cheaper even if you have to add a shuttle from the College to the Station during the heaviest hours, if you could cut the run time by 10 or 15 minutes for half the buses.

 

I still don't fully agree with it, but I see the logic. B36 riders can still transfer at Ocean Avenue, and most, if not all of the people who come from the Brighton Line are coming from the northbound direction. You'd still run some buses to the station, wouldn't you?

 

And most people would agree with you. I think there are many KCC students who use the B49 from places like East Flatbush or Bed-Stuy who would rather take the train but can't since it would cost them an extra fare if they are transferring from the B35 for example, because they are not permitted second transfer back to the bus. Those people could save 15 minutes by taking bus-train-bus rather than two buses. Change that policy and I bet B49 usage would drop at least 25 during school times, speeding the route and making a limited totally unnecessary.

 

That would work. However, if the frequency still makes it feasable to warrant a limited after that, I still think it should be implemented.

 

I would tend to agree, which is why I stated if you do have a limited. it need only run during certain hours.

 

 

 

It might also be beneficial during beach season, but I'd rather see a second bus transfer instead.

[BrooklynBus]

I'm down there in Sheepshead Bay all year around using the BM3 and I am always along Ocean Ave or by Manhattan Beach and the (B49)s are never packed enough to warrant weekend LTD service at any time.

 

You may be right. Beach usage is way down over the past 10 or 20 years. More people are taking short vacations more frequently instead of going to the beach.

[BrooklynBus]

But if the buses travel faster as a result of being limited, wouldn't most of the additional costs be negated?

 

I would think that a LTD would save one or the most two buses at the most. But if you have to add service due to increased ridership, you would have to put those buses back and save nothing. Long distance riders would save some time but short distance riders using the local would wait longer for buses and have longer trips. Because the Brighton Line is so close, I don't think a large percentage of the riders ride long distances other than the College students. LTDs may only make sense for a school open schedule, if at all.

 

The other thing I don't like about limiteds is the fact that you can't take a local, transfer to a limited and transfer again to a crosstown route. People who don't want to walk one or two extra long blocks to a limited on both ends, will still find it advantageous to take the local even of they are riding a good percentage of the route. That is another policy that needs to be changed. You don't get penalized if you get on a bus that doesn't go all the way, and changing between a local and LTD shouldn't count as a transfer either.

 

You'd still run some buses to the station, wouldn't you?

 

At least half and during off hours, all of them.

 

That would work. However, if the frequency still makes it feasable to warrant a limited after that, I still think it should be implemented.

 

 

Don't disagree except not sure if it would be warranted when school is closed.

[B35 via Church]

And most people would agree with you. I think there are many KCC students who use the B49 from places like East Flatbush or Bed-Stuy who would rather take the train but can't since it would cost them an extra fare if they are transferring from the B35 for example, because they are not permitted second transfer back to the bus. Those people could save 15 minutes by taking bus-train-bus rather than two buses. Change that policy and I bet B49 usage would drop at least 25 during school times, speeding the route and making a limited totally unnecessary.

 

yeh, and those are the main sets of riders filling up those LTD's...

['89 Liberty MCI]

B35 is the man.

 

Anyway, since BrooklynBus has brought up some issues, I want to put my two cents in.

 

Empire Blvd does have an annoying situation with the bus routing. Changing it would have to take some pressure off the B12 since an Empire Blvd thru route would transfer to the same north/south buses as the B12. It would in fact be even more attractive east of Kingston since it would service the and at Prospect Park compared to the B12, which only services the at Parkside & Ocean. I think the Empire Blvd issue should be dealt with using one of these methods:

 

1: New route B50 (not that Ocean Avenue bus) from Empire Blvd-Utica Avenue to Flatbush Avenue-Empire Blvd via Empire Blvd.

 

2: Bring the B48 back to Prospect Park and send this route via Empire Blvd and Washington Avenue/Classon Avenue northbound, via Franklin Avenue and Empire Blvd southbound, then follow Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. Would like BrooklynBus to assess this to determine whether the B48 should be brought back paralleling the shuttle.

 

3: Out of left field. Can we bring back the B71? Only instead of it terminating at Eastern Pkwy, it comes across the Pkwy, south on Franklin, east on Empire to Utica. Going the other way, west on Empire, north on Washington, west on Eastern Pkwy back to Carroll Gardens. I ask because the B71 looks like it would work with this extension, given the fact that its ridership had increased by 30% from 2004 to 2009. Its problem seemed to be the cost per passenger. However if these figures are distorting my angle on this issue please stop me. Aside from the statistics, it would replace the B48's southern end for a couple of blocks. More convenient than the shuttle.

 

Also after reading everything I want to go back to the B49. I want to go back to my idea of sending a limited up NY Avenue, across Fulton, and down Franklin. Maybe it would work if all B49s run local to Foster & Flatbush, then real locals run up Rogers and the limiteds make the limited-stop service on NY Avenue. This is after restoring the pre-1978 B49 route.

 

However, to deal with the headways meriting the limited, I might just go ahead and make limited stops up and down Ocean. To get people to use it, start off (beware of pain) by cutting down the B49 local to every 12 minutes as the maximum local service level. Run the limited every 5-6 minutes as the maximum limited service level.

 

Now here it gets interesting since BrooklynBus said this would take people out of trains in Sheepshead Bay and Midwood, but this level of service is what people need over on New York Avenue. See now I want to mess with the B49 again since I'd rather do that than deal with the dead mileage incurred by B44 deadheads from Fulton to the Junction. Maybe the limited every 5-6 minutes should just operate north of Foster & Flatbush. No local stops south of Foster & Flatbush followed by limited stops made by the same bus, but Foster & Flatbush is the limited terminal.

 

But it seems justifiable to send this limited all the way down Ocean since the B49 local would be cut so much. Also the B49 limited doesn't duplicate subway stops. And running the B49 limited every 5-6 minutes up NY Avenue would allow for the local B44 to be cut to 12 minutes maximum like the local B49. For the B44 local I would just make it 12 all across: rush, midday, evening, weekends because of the Junction.

 

Painful I know, but on the other hand at least the NY Avenue riders would still have a frequent limited and can rejoice when they get to St. John's Place, knowing the next stop is right there at the and trains. No more Bergen Street since the SBS won't stop there and the B45 goes to the same major destinations as the B65, and no more Fulton Street/NY Avenue. Passengers get loop privileges at Fulton Street and a direct SBS connection from Williamsburg.

 

The B49 limited plan will be a weekday-only thing for now, but I would like to have it run 7 days since the B44 limited on NY Avenue does the same thing. And no less B49LT service than every 10 minutes (which the B44LT does on Sundays now), 12 is only for Sunday evening when it really dies down. 7-8 mins middays, 7-9 mins Saturdays, etc. Maybe in order for the B49LT to run at these headways the B49 local should be cut down to as little as 20 mins middays, evenings, and weekends. Sucks, but it'll get a body to use the faster mode of transportation on the same exact corridor.........

['89 Liberty MCI]

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

 

Get rid of all parking on all Flatbush Avenue from bridge to Kings Plaza in order to create SBS empire! Bwahahahahaha!

 

Literally an empire since they service Empire Blvd (B44 and B41). Throw in the B46 since it too services Empire and could use SBS.

[checkmatechamp13]

B35 is the man.

 

Anyway, since BrooklynBus has brought up some issues, I want to put my two cents in.

 

Empire Blvd does have an annoying situation with the bus routing. Changing it would have to take some pressure off the B12 since an Empire Blvd thru route would transfer to the same north/south buses as the B12. It would in fact be even more attractive east of Kingston since it would service the and at Prospect Park compared to the B12, which only services the at Parkside & Ocean. I think the Empire Blvd issue should be dealt with using one of these methods:

 

1: New route B50 (not that Ocean Avenue bus) from Empire Blvd-Utica Avenue to Flatbush Avenue-Empire Blvd via Empire Blvd.

 

2: Bring the B48 back to Prospect Park and send this route via Empire Blvd and Washington Avenue/Classon Avenue northbound, via Franklin Avenue and Empire Blvd southbound, then follow Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. Would like BrooklynBus to assess this to determine whether the B48 should be brought back paralleling the shuttle.

 

3: Out of left field. Can we bring back the B71? Only instead of it terminating at Eastern Pkwy, it comes across the Pkwy, south on Franklin, east on Empire to Utica. Going the other way, west on Empire, north on Washington, west on Eastern Pkwy back to Carroll Gardens. I ask because the B71 looks like it would work with this extension, given the fact that its ridership had increased by 30% from 2004 to 2009. Its problem seemed to be the cost per passenger. However if these figures are distorting my angle on this issue please stop me. Aside from the statistics, it would replace the B48's southern end for a couple of blocks. More convenient than the shuttle.

 

Also after reading everything I want to go back to the B49. I want to go back to my idea of sending a limited up NY Avenue, across Fulton, and down Franklin. Maybe it would work if all B49s run local to Foster & Flatbush, then real locals run up Rogers and the limiteds make the limited-stop service on NY Avenue. This is after restoring the pre-1978 B49 route.

 

However, to deal with the headways meriting the limited, I might just go ahead and make limited stops up and down Ocean. To get people to use it, start off (beware of pain) by cutting down the B49 local to every 12 minutes as the maximum local service level. Run the limited every 5-6 minutes as the maximum limited service level.

 

Now here it gets interesting since BrooklynBus said this would take people out of trains in Sheepshead Bay and Midwood, but this level of service is what people need over on New York Avenue. See now I want to mess with the B49 again since I'd rather do that than deal with the dead mileage incurred by B44 deadheads from Fulton to the Junction. Maybe the limited every 5-6 minutes should just operate north of Foster & Flatbush. No local stops south of Foster & Flatbush followed by limited stops made by the same bus, but Foster & Flatbush is the limited terminal.

 

But it seems justifiable to send this limited all the way down Ocean since the B49 local would be cut so much. Also the B49 limited doesn't duplicate subway stops. And running the B49 limited every 5-6 minutes up NY Avenue would allow for the local B44 to be cut to 12 minutes maximum like the local B49. For the B44 local I would just make it 12 all across: rush, midday, evening, weekends because of the Junction.

 

Painful I know, but on the other hand at least the NY Avenue riders would still have a frequent limited and can rejoice when they get to St. John's Place, knowing the next stop is right there at the and trains. No more Bergen Street since the SBS won't stop there and the B45 goes to the same major destinations as the B65, and no more Fulton Street/NY Avenue. Passengers get loop privileges at Fulton Street and a direct SBS connection from Williamsburg.

 

The B49 limited plan will be a weekday-only thing for now, but I would like to have it run 7 days since the B44 limited on NY Avenue does the same thing. And no less B49LT service than every 10 minutes (which the B44LT does on Sundays now), 12 is only for Sunday evening when it really dies down. 7-8 mins middays, 7-9 mins Saturdays, etc. Maybe in order for the B49LT to run at these headways the B49 local should be cut down to as little as 20 mins middays, evenings, and weekends. Sucks, but it'll get a body to use the faster mode of transportation on the same exact corridor.........

 

I'll comment on the B49 plan some other time. But would one option to consider be rerouting the B17 down Empire Blvd to the Prospect Park ( subway station? It would increase the trip time (by about 5-8 minutes), but it would still connect with the IRT at Sterling Street, and it would be almost cost-neutral.

 

In addition, B17 riders would be able to avoid any delays at Rogers Junction.

 

Either that, or the B16 could be extended down Empire Blvd from the Prospect Park station.

 

The B71 proposal is good too, but it would probably be the least frequent out of all of the other choices.

[cotb16]

I'll comment on the B49 plan some other time. But would one option to consider be rerouting the B17 down Empire Blvd to the Prospect Park subway station? It would increase the trip time (by about 5-8 minutes), but it would still connect with the IRT at Sterling Street, and it would be almost cost-neutral.

 

In addition, B17 riders would be able to avoid any delays at Rogers Junction.

 

Either that, or the B16 could be extended down Empire Blvd from the Prospect Park station.

 

The B71 proposal is good too, but it would probably be the least frequent out of all of the other choices.

 

The only downside would be that Canarsie riders would lose direct access to the at Utica Avenue. The B17 going down Empire would mean a longer ride to the IRT for those coming from Canarsie.

[BrooklynBus]

B35 is the man.

 

Anyway, since BrooklynBus has brought up some issues, I want to put my two cents in.

 

Empire Blvd does have an annoying situation with the bus routing. Changing it would have to take some pressure off the B12 since an Empire Blvd thru route would transfer to the same north/south buses as the B12. It would in fact be even more attractive east of Kingston since it would service the and at Prospect Park compared to the B12, which only services the at Parkside & Ocean. I think the Empire Blvd issue should be dealt with using one of these methods:

 

1: New route B50 (not that Ocean Avenue bus) from Empire Blvd-Utica Avenue to Flatbush Avenue-Empire Blvd via Empire Blvd.

 

2: Bring the B48 back to Prospect Park and send this route via Empire Blvd and Washington Avenue/Classon Avenue northbound, via Franklin Avenue and Empire Blvd southbound, then follow Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. Would like BrooklynBus to assess this to determine whether the B48 should be brought back paralleling the shuttle.

 

3: Out of left field. Can we bring back the B71? Only instead of it terminating at Eastern Pkwy, it comes across the Pkwy, south on Franklin, east on Empire to Utica. Going the other way, west on Empire, north on Washington, west on Eastern Pkwy back to Carroll Gardens. I ask because the B71 looks like it would work with this extension, given the fact that its ridership had increased by 30% from 2004 to 2009. Its problem seemed to be the cost per passenger. However if these figures are distorting my angle on this issue please stop me. Aside from the statistics, it would replace the B48's southern end for a couple of blocks. More convenient than the shuttle.

 

Also after reading everything I want to go back to the B49. I want to go back to my idea of sending a limited up NY Avenue, across Fulton, and down Franklin. Maybe it would work if all B49s run local to Foster & Flatbush, then real locals run up Rogers and the limiteds make the limited-stop service on NY Avenue. This is after restoring the pre-1978 B49 route.

 

However, to deal with the headways meriting the limited, I might just go ahead and make limited stops up and down Ocean. To get people to use it, start off (beware of pain) by cutting down the B49 local to every 12 minutes as the maximum local service level. Run the limited every 5-6 minutes as the maximum limited service level.

 

Now here it gets interesting since BrooklynBus said this would take people out of trains in Sheepshead Bay and Midwood, but this level of service is what people need over on New York Avenue. See now I want to mess with the B49 again since I'd rather do that than deal with the dead mileage incurred by B44 deadheads from Fulton to the Junction. Maybe the limited every 5-6 minutes should just operate north of Foster & Flatbush. No local stops south of Foster & Flatbush followed by limited stops made by the same bus, but Foster & Flatbush is the limited terminal.

 

But it seems justifiable to send this limited all the way down Ocean since the B49 local would be cut so much. Also the B49 limited doesn't duplicate subway stops. And running the B49 limited every 5-6 minutes up NY Avenue would allow for the local B44 to be cut to 12 minutes maximum like the local B49. For the B44 local I would just make it 12 all across: rush, midday, evening, weekends because of the Junction.

 

Painful I know, but on the other hand at least the NY Avenue riders would still have a frequent limited and can rejoice when they get to St. John's Place, knowing the next stop is right there at the and trains. No more Bergen Street since the SBS won't stop there and the B45 goes to the same major destinations as the B65, and no more Fulton Street/NY Avenue. Passengers get loop privileges at Fulton Street and a direct SBS connection from Williamsburg.

 

The B49 limited plan will be a weekday-only thing for now, but I would like to have it run 7 days since the B44 limited on NY Avenue does the same thing. And no less B49LT service than every 10 minutes (which the B44LT does on Sundays now), 12 is only for Sunday evening when it really dies down. 7-8 mins middays, 7-9 mins Saturdays, etc. Maybe in order for the B49LT to run at these headways the B49 local should be cut down to as little as 20 mins middays, evenings, and weekends. Sucks, but it'll get a body to use the faster mode of transportation on the same exact corridor.........

 

I can't follow your 49 proposal so just let me make a few points. I think a route just along the length of Empire is too short of a route to attract many riders. My feeling is that such a route would only justify 20 or 30 minute headways and would attract only about a half dozen riders per bus not counting school kids. It would be no more successful than the B71.

 

That said I like the idea of bringing back the B71 and sending it down Empire. It could use Flatbush or Franklin / Classon with the B48 extended from Atlantic Avenue to Eastern Parkway, almost as good as bringing the route back except for the loss of a transfer with the B41. My suggestion for the B71 was to extend it east on St Johns Place to Utica utilizing half the B45 service. With the rerouting of the B65 to Downtown Brooklyn, I don't see why you also need so many 45s going there also. But I could live with the 71 Empire route also. It would definitely be better than a route only on Empire. My proposal for the B16 had it going down Clarkson, but I could live with it going down Empire if you don't run my B50 up Ocean. I don't think both the B16 and B50 on Ocean would be a good idea.

 

But one question no one addressed is what would you do with the B43. People seem to have a problem with my B50 along Ocean Avenue because it is so close to Flatbush, but yet no one seems to mind two routes along half of Empire. I don' think Empire can justify two routes. The housing density is no where as great as between Ocean and Flatbush. It is mostly low rise housing with some apartment buildings thrown in and some blocks are just industrial. You have Ebbets Field Apartments, but I don't think that is enough.

 

I totally disagree with your proposed 20 min local service for the B49. You are unduly penalizing people making short trips on the B49 who do not have a choice of using the subway, and other than the college students and beachgoers, most trips are short.

[Nova RTS 9147]

Get rid of all parking on all Flatbush Avenue from bridge to Kings Plaza in order to create SBS empire! Bwahahahahaha!

 

Literally an empire since they service Empire Blvd (B44 and B41). Throw in the B46 since it too services Empire and could use SBS.

 

I agree with you, but those Midwood/Flatbush people will have the bitch fit to end all bitch fits, which is ironic since half of them can't obey basic traffic laws.

[Trainmaster5]

I'll leave the SBS routing(s) alone for a minute, if I may? I have 2 questions about the other lines mentioned in this thread. What about running the B12 as an East New York-Empire Blvd route only? What about running the B43 on it's regular route to Empire Blvd and then via Albany Ave and the present route of the B12 via KCHC and on to Ocean Ave? Have the B12 and B43 switch terminals and routes on that end. Back to the SBS routing. I keep noticing the term "deadheading" mentioned. Coming from a subway mentality this bothers me. Surely it's not meant the same way because I can't picture a bus running out of service from one terminal to the other end unless it has some sort of mechanical defect. Someone please clarify this for me. BTW I can already hear the howls of protest coming from the present riders of the B12 but the TA has done this many times before when it serves THEIR interests. Remember the(Mx)/(M) or the many other bus cuts/re-routes in the last quarter century or more? Heck, in my lifetime the B40 (Ralph) and B65 ( Bergen) served Brownsville and East New York. Carry on.

[checkmatechamp13]

The only downside would be that Canarsie riders would lose direct access to the at Utica Avenue. The B17 going down Empire would mean a longer ride to the IRT for those coming from Canarsie.

 

It wouldn't be that much longer: They would still be able to access the at Sterling Street.

 

I'll leave the SBS routing(s) alone for a minute, if I may? I have 2 questions about the other lines mentioned in this thread. What about running the B12 as an East New York-Empire Blvd route only? What about running the B43 on it's regular route to Empire Blvd and then via Albany Ave and the present route of the B12 via KCHC and on to Ocean Ave? Have the B12 and B43 switch terminals and routes on that end. Back to the SBS routing. I keep noticing the term "deadheading" mentioned. Coming from a subway mentality this bothers me. Surely it's not meant the same way because I can't picture a bus running out of service from one terminal to the other end unless it has some sort of mechanical defect. Someone please clarify this for me. BTW I can already hear the howls of protest coming from the present riders of the B12 but the TA has done this many times before when it serves THEIR interests. Remember the(Mx)/(M) or the many other bus cuts/re-routes in the last quarter century or more? Heck, in my lifetime the B40 (Ralph) and B65 ( Bergen) served Brownsville and East New York. Carry on.

 

I thought it was only the B40 that served Liberty Avenue.

 

In any case, I recall a while back that B35 via Church was talking about the need for more east-west routes in the East Flatbush area, since the only routes are the B8, B12, and B35. Removing the B12 from that area would remove one of those east-west routes.

 

I thought of that idea before (I didn't post it over here), but after I saw his post, I realized that the B12 needs to stay on Clarkson Avenue.

[Trainmaster5]

@checkmate B12 via Empire Blvd IS East- West. Can't be any straighter.

Before B35's time....... B40 Ralph/Rockaway to Hegeman and B65 Bergen ran to East New York instead of St. Johns and Ralph, it's present terminus. The B40 to Liberty Ave came after the B65 was truncated when I was a kid almost 60 years ago. The changing demographics in that part of Brooklyn in the mid '50's early '60's era caused many changes to bus service back then. Overhead wires and old trolley tracks were still part of the landscape in Brownsville when I grew up back then and Pitkin Ave was considered a major shopping destination in those ancient times, but I digress, carry on.

[checkmatechamp13]

But it doesn't serve as much of East Flatbush as it does by staying on Clarkson Avenue (though, admittedly, riders could just take a north-south bus to Empire Blvd)

[BrooklynBus]

What about running the B12 as an East New York-Empire Blvd route only? What about running the B43 on it's regular route to Empire Blvd and then via Albany Ave and the present route of the B12 via KCHC and on to Ocean Ave? Have the B12 and B43 switch terminals and routes on that end.

 

Looks good on I paper but I think it would be too disruptive. The B12 is heavily used to get to Kings County Hospital. Taking it away from there will make a lot of one bus trips into two-bus trips.

 

 

In any case, I recall a while back that B35 via Church was talking about the need for more east-west routes in the East Flatbush area, since the only routes are the B8, B12, and B35. Removing the B12 from that area would remove one of those east-west routes.

 

I thought of that idea before (I didn't post it over here), but after I saw his post, I realized that the B12 needs to stay on Clarkson Avenue.

 

B35 is correct. I may have mentioned it also. East Flatbush needs more east -west service. A through route on Clarkson Avenue would relieve some pressure from the B35.

['89 Liberty MCI]

I can't follow your 49 proposal so just let me make a few points. I think a route just along the length of Empire is too short of a route to attract many riders. My feeling is that such a route would only justify 20 or 30 minute headways and would attract only about a half dozen riders per bus not counting school kids. It would be no more successful than the B71.

 

That said I like the idea of bringing back the B71 and sending it down Empire. It could use Flatbush or Franklin / Classon with the B48 extended from Atlantic Avenue to Eastern Parkway, almost as good as bringing the route back except for the loss of a transfer with the B41. My suggestion for the B71 was to extend it east on St Johns Place to Utica utilizing half the B45 service. With the rerouting of the B65 to Downtown Brooklyn, I don't see why you also need so many 45s going there also. But I could live with the 71 Empire route also. It would definitely be better than a route only on Empire. My proposal for the B16 had it going down Clarkson, but I could live with it going down Empire if you don't run my B50 up Ocean. I don't think both the B16 and B50 on Ocean would be a good idea.

 

But one question no one addressed is what would you do with the B43. People seem to have a problem with my B50 along Ocean Avenue because it is so close to Flatbush, but yet no one seems to mind two routes along half of Empire. I don' think Empire can justify two routes. The housing density is no where as great as between Ocean and Flatbush. It is mostly low rise housing with some apartment buildings thrown in and some blocks are just industrial. You have Ebbets Field Apartments, but I don't think that is enough.

 

I totally disagree with your proposed 20 min local service for the B49. You are unduly penalizing people making short trips on the B49 who do not have a choice of using the subway, and other than the college students and beachgoers, most trips are short.

 

Sorry if I confused you. And no 20 minute local service; that's too much reduction. So forget about that. My original idea was to have the B49 limited running N/B via Ocean, Foster, New York, and Fulton to the last stop at Franklin and making limited stops all the way up Ocean and New York Avenues. Now I think differently since the limited on Ocean may not be warranted after the pre-1978 route is reinstated: Have every B49 bus run local up Ocean Avenue and Foster Avenue until Rogers Avenue.

 

After Rogers Avenue, some B49s go north on Rogers making local stops while others head east on Foster and north on New York Avenue, making limited stops on New York Avenue like the B44LTD. This B49LTD should stop on Foster at: Flatbush, Rogers, and Nostrand. Then it should stop on New York at: Foster, Avenue D, Church, Clarkson, Empire, St. John's Place. Then it should stop on Fulton at: Nostrand and Bedford. Franklin & Fulton should be the last stop like it is now. The objective of this is to compensate for the loss of the B44LTD on New York Avenue.

 

If it makes any sense to expand the hours of the southbound B49LTD, it would stop at Franklin & Fulton, then on Bedford at St. John's Place, Empire Blvd, and then the same stops currently made by the B49LTD until Foster & Flatbush. Then it would run local down Ocean to KCC, unless it's one of the AM rush hour limited buses, in which case it would make the limited stops down Ocean like it does now. I would think there should be a southbound B49LTD after making a northbound B49LTD since the B49LTDs going north to Franklin & Fulton need to go back south to KCC. Sending them back as locals would mean excess local service down Bedford Avenue since I think the headway going up New York Avenue should be 5-6 minutes rush hours while you still have B49 locals going up Rogers.

 

On the other hand it may just be easier to have this B49LTD start at Flatbush & Foster, run east on Foster, north on NY Avenue, west on Fulton, south on Franklin (Franklin/Fulton terminal), then the current southbound route to Flatbush & Foster (this will be the southern terminal). Again, the goal is to have the northbound limited on NY Avenue. Southbound buses on Bedford could run local but I fear excess. But they may even be excess if they are limited-stop buses. Then the other option is to deadhead southbound, which we don't want. At that point it would be best to continue running the northbound B44LTD on NY Avenue to Bedford & Fulton and have it deadhead down Nostrand from Fulton to the Junction, leaving the B49 alone altogether.

 

At the end of the day the goal is to put compensatory northbound service on NY Avenue between the Junction or Glenwood Rd or Farragut Rd or Foster Av, and Fulton Street. It can't be as frequent as the current B44LTD because of cost but something needs to go there.

 

The B43 on Empire Blvd...should some or all of the buses terminate at Empire Blvd-Brooklyn Avenue after the Empire Blvd thru route is created? What about sending the B43 further south and then over to Winthrop St-Nostrand Av? It would run via Brooklyn-Winthrop-Nostrand (terminal here)-Parkside-New York-Winthrop-Kingston and then same northbound route.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Trainmaster: A deadhead is just running not in service from one terminal to another. DOB already does it with the Bx13 Plimpton shuttle in the Bronx for example. They run from Yankee Stadium to Plimpton Av-Grant Hwy, deadhead back to Yankee Stadium, and do a new trip to either Plimpton or GW Bridge.

 

My idea for keeping the B44LTD on NY Avenue involved running the B44LTD north from the Junction to Bedford & Fulton, then not in service (deadheading) to the Junction for a new N/B trip. Lots of dead mileage though, so not a super idea...

[Trainmaster5]

Trainmaster: A deadhead is just running not in service from one terminal to another. DOB already does it with the Bx13 Plimpton shuttle in the Bronx for example. They run from Yankee Stadium to Plimpton Av-Grant Hwy, deadhead back to Yankee Stadium, and do a new trip to either Plimpton or GW Bridge.

 

My idea for keeping the B44LTD on NY Avenue involved running the B44LTD north from the Junction to Bedford & Fulton, then not in service (deadheading) to the Junction for a new N/B trip. Lots of dead mileage though, so not a super idea...

 

That's what I thought you meant. The next question is why not run "in service" s/b instead of leaving people waiting at bus stops ? Every dollar counts, right? So you're right about it not being a super idea.

[BrooklynBus]

That's what I thought you meant. The next question is why not run "in service" s/b instead of leaving people waiting at bus stops ? Every dollar counts, right? So you're right about it not being a super idea.

 

During the last ten years the MTA has dramatically increased the number of deadhead mileage believing it is more productive than revenue mileage. On routes where the depot is in the middle of the route, more and more trips are running deadhead from the beginning of the route two miles or more to the depot when they could carry passengers for most of that trip. The rationale the MTA is using is that the bus can save 5 or 10 minutes by not carrying passengers even if the remaining buses are more crowded as long as the crowding and waiting times are within guidelines.

 

I believe this thinking is ridiculous since they are still spending money for labor and gas and not getting any revenue for it. It may look okay on paper. But in practice it does not work well since buses do not run on schedule at least half the time, so the bus that passes you by not in service means there is a 50% chance you will have to wait another 20 minutes for a bus although the schedule says 10.

 

I don't think deadheading with the 44 LTD on New York Avenue makes sense but here is one instance when it did. When I was a kid in the 1960s, the TA ran six extra buses between Avenue H and Eastern Parkway during the morning rush hour. They returned to Avenue H deadheading down Schenectady Avenue, East NY and Utica Avenue to Avenue H where they made another northbound trip. By deadheading they made the trip in the non-peak direction in half the time allowing them to make extra trips in the peak direction which carried about 400% more passengers.

[BrooklynBus]

Sorry if I confused you. And no 20 minute local service; that's too much reduction. So forget about that. My original idea was to have the B49 limited running N/B via Ocean, Foster, New York, and Fulton to the last stop at Franklin and making limited stops all the way up Ocean and New York Avenues. Now I think differently since the limited on Ocean may not be warranted after the pre-1978 route is reinstated: Have every B49 bus run local up Ocean Avenue and Foster Avenue until Rogers Avenue.

 

After Rogers Avenue, some B49s go north on Rogers making local stops while others head east on Foster and north on New York Avenue, making limited stops on New York Avenue like the B44LTD. This B49LTD should stop on Foster at: Flatbush, Rogers, and Nostrand. Then it should stop on New York at: Foster, Avenue D, Church, Clarkson, Empire, St. John's Place. Then it should stop on Fulton at: Nostrand and Bedford. Franklin & Fulton should be the last stop like it is now. The objective of this is to compensate for the loss of the B44LTD on New York Avenue.

 

If it makes any sense to expand the hours of the southbound B49LTD, it would stop at Franklin & Fulton, then on Bedford at St. John's Place, Empire Blvd, and then the same stops currently made by the B49LTD until Foster & Flatbush. Then it would run local down Ocean to KCC, unless it's one of the AM rush hour limited buses, in which case it would make the limited stops down Ocean like it does now. I would think there should be a southbound B49LTD after making a northbound B49LTD since the B49LTDs going north to Franklin & Fulton need to go back south to KCC. Sending them back as locals would mean excess local service down Bedford Avenue since I think the headway going up New York Avenue should be 5-6 minutes rush hours while you still have B49 locals going up Rogers.

 

On the other hand it may just be easier to have this B49LTD start at Flatbush & Foster, run east on Foster, north on NY Avenue, west on Fulton, south on Franklin (Franklin/Fulton terminal), then the current southbound route to Flatbush & Foster (this will be the southern terminal). Again, the goal is to have the northbound limited on NY Avenue. Southbound buses on Bedford could run local but I fear excess. But they may even be excess if they are limited-stop buses. Then the other option is to deadhead southbound, which we don't want. At that point it would be best to continue running the northbound B44LTD on NY Avenue to Bedford & Fulton and have it deadhead down Nostrand from Fulton to the Junction, leaving the B49 alone altogether.

 

At the end of the day the goal is to put compensatory northbound service on NY Avenue between the Junction or Glenwood Rd or Farragut Rd or Foster Av, and Fulton Street. It can't be as frequent as the current B44LTD because of cost but something needs to go there.

 

The B43 on Empire Blvd...should some or all of the buses terminate at Empire Blvd-Brooklyn Avenue after the Empire Blvd thru route is created? What about sending the B43 further south and then over to Winthrop St-Nostrand Av? It would run via Brooklyn-Winthrop-Nostrand (terminal here)-Parkside-New York-Winthrop-Kingston and then same northbound route.

 

I think I understand everything you are saying now and I think your goals of equalizing service are admirable but there are several problems:

 

#1 - All your proposals are excessively complicated greatly confusing passengers. New York and Rogers Avenue passengers would constantly be getting on the wrong bus. Someone running for a bus won't have time to wait for the "via Rogers" or via NY Ave" to start flashing. Yes you could have different numbers, but that also would be confusing. Also it's the Nostrand Avenue passengers who want the NY Avenue service not the Ocean Avenue passengers. I guess you would expect B44 passengers to change at Foster and New York for the Limited. That wouldn't happen because the time they would save by the LTD, they would lose by changing buses. They might as well take the SBS and change for the B12, e.g. to get to Kings County Hospital.

#2 - Turning the B43 at Empire does not make sense since there is nothing much going on there. You also suggest sending it south to Winthrop and Nostrand, but your routing does not pass any of the entrances to Kings County Hospital.

#3 The right turn from NY Av to Winthrop would be extremely difficult for a bus.

 

You should remember that a bus was never planned for New York Avenue. When Nostrand and Rogers were made one way streets in the mid-1960s, the TA had no choice but to move buses to Bedford and NY Avenue. The only reason there were two routes a block apart in the first place, one on Rogers and one on Nostrand, is that there were once operated by two different private companies competing for the same clientele. Eventually, both routes were folded into the BMT bus system.

 

Actually, today it would make more sense to have one route on Rogers / Nostrand and another one operating on Albany, Clarendon. Brooklyn, Church and Albany, possible connecting or incorporating the B43, or B12. The southern terminus would be open to discussion. At least that way the routes in East Flatbush would be equally spaced. I think that would make more sense than a route on NY Avenue.

['89 Liberty MCI]

I think I understand everything you are saying now and I think your goals of equalizing service are admirable but there are several problems:

 

#1 - All your proposals are excessively complicated greatly confusing passengers. New York and Rogers Avenue passengers would constantly be getting on the wrong bus. Someone running for a bus won't have time to wait for the "via Rogers" or via NY Ave" to start flashing. Yes you could have different numbers, but that also would be confusing. Also it's the Nostrand Avenue passengers who want the NY Avenue service not the Ocean Avenue passengers. I guess you would expect B44 passengers to change at Foster and New York for the Limited. That wouldn't happen because the time they would save by the LTD, they would lose by changing buses. They might as well take the SBS and change for the B12, e.g. to get to Kings County Hospital.

 

I wouldn't expect B44 local passengers to transfer at Foster & New York. I would expect these passengers to just stay on the local until their stop. If they're traveling long distances it makes more sense to either use the train (south of President Street area) or SBS.

 

Also my expectation was that those traveling east of Nostrand between Foster and Fulton would take a limited (or local, whichever arrives first) northbound and the SBS southbound, on the return trip. Most of the confusion would be eliminated if these buses started at Flatbush Av-Foster Av. Only people there at the first stop would have to look at the sign that hard. It should be "B49" via Rogers, "B49N LIMITED" via New York so people can just judge from the rear route sign. Now those traveling between Foster and Fulton can take anything (if they want to travel to a limited stop).

 

Another idea is to send it from the Junction, up Nostrand/Farragut/New York, across Fulton (terminal), down Franklin/Dean/Bedford/Flatbush to the Junction or down some other southbound corridor where the bus is needed. Which plays right into your idea about a new Albany Avenue bus...

 

#2 - Turning the B43 at Empire does not make sense since there is nothing much going on there. You also suggest sending it south to Winthrop and Nostrand, but your routing does not pass any of the entrances to Kings County Hospital.

#3 The right turn from NY Av to Winthrop would be extremely difficult for a bus.

 

Would it work if it ran east on Empire and south on Utica to either Winthop Street or Church Avenue?

 

You should remember that a bus was never planned for New York Avenue. When Nostrand and Rogers were made one way streets in the mid-1960s, the TA had no choice but to move buses to Bedford and NY Avenue. The only reason there were two routes a block apart in the first place, one on Rogers and one on Nostrand, is that there were once operated by two different private companies competing for the same clientele. Eventually, both routes were folded into the BMT bus system.

 

Actually, today it would make more sense to have one route on Rogers / Nostrand and another one operating on Albany, Clarendon. Brooklyn, Church and Albany, possible connecting or incorporating the B43, or B12. The southern terminus would be open to discussion. At least that way the routes in East Flatbush would be equally spaced. I think that would make more sense than a route on NY Avenue.

 

That's very much what I started to think about. We want to take care of all the people east of NY Avenue. What about this: A southbound route beginning on Fulton at either Nostrand or Kingston, running east on Fulton then south via that route you just described but in reverse. Albany-Church-Brooklyn-Clarendon-Albany. I would then send it via Foster or Farragut to Nostrand and south to the Junction as the southern terminal.

 

On the northbound I would send it via Nostrand, Farragut (should it be Farragut-New York-Foster?), Albany, Clarendon, Brooklyn, Church, Albany, west on ENY Avenue, north on NY Avenue. If the northern terminal is Fulton St-Kingston Av, turn east on Fulton. This is a more direct route but would miss the SBS, the train, and the big commercial area. If we want to connect to all that, then it should instead run up NY Avenue, west on Atlantic, north on Bedford, east on Fulton with the northern terminal at Nostrand. Loop privileges included.

[BrooklynBus]

I wouldn't expect B44 local passengers to transfer at Foster & New York.

 

So if they would now make their trip entirely by B44 local when they used to take the limited, I really don't understand how splitting the B49 onto NY Ave would help them. Yes, there would be more buses on NY Av to replace the ones lost, but who would be using them?

 

Now those traveling between Foster and Fulton can take anything (if they want to travel to a limited stop).

 

How can they take anything if some are going up Rogers and some are going up NY Ave?

 

Would it work if it ran east on Empire and south on Utica to either Winthop Street or Church Avenue?

 

Yes, but you are talking about a lot of extra mileage which the MTA would never go for.

 

That's very much what I started to think about. We want to take care of all the people east of NY Avenue. What about this: A southbound route beginning on Fulton at either Nostrand or Kingston, running east on Fulton then south via that route you just described but in reverse. Albany-Church-Brooklyn-Clarendon-Albany. I would then send it via Foster or Farragut to Nostrand and south to the Junction as the southern terminal.

 

On the northbound I would send it via Nostrand, Farragut (should it be Farragut-New York-Foster?), Albany, Clarendon, Brooklyn, Church, Albany, west on ENY Avenue, north on NY Avenue. If the northern terminal is Fulton St-Kingston Av, turn east on Fulton. This is a more direct route but would miss the SBS, the train, and the big commercial area. If we want to connect to all that, then it should instead run up NY Avenue, west on Atlantic, north on Bedford, east on Fulton with the northern terminal at Nostrand. Loop privileges included.

 

I commend you for all the thought you are giving to solving a longstanding problem that almost no one had thought about before. I wish someone at the MTA would also give it some thought how to solve these types of problems instead of "where can we cut" which is all they think about.

 

Specifically, I would stick with Farragut - Albany, the fewer turns the better, but if NY - Foster serves the housing better, perhaps that should be the route as you suggest. I would also opt for the big commercial area.

 

But the real question is politically, how to get the MTA into a mode where they want to start solving problems like this, otherwise all this speculation is just useless.

[B35 via Church]

Empire Blvd does have an annoying situation with the bus routing. Changing it would have to take some pressure off the B12 since an Empire Blvd thru route would transfer to the same north/south buses as the B12. It would in fact be even more attractive east of Kingston since it would service the ( and at Prospect Park compared to the B12, which only services the at Parkside & Ocean. I think the Empire Blvd issue should be dealt with using one of these methods:

 

1: New route B50 (not that Ocean Avenue bus) from Empire Blvd-Utica Avenue to Flatbush Avenue-Empire Blvd via Empire Blvd.

 

2: Bring the B48 back to Prospect Park and send this route via Empire Blvd and Washington Avenue/Classon Avenue northbound, via Franklin Avenue and Empire Blvd southbound, then follow Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. Would like BrooklynBus to assess this to determine whether the B48 should be brought back paralleling the shuttle.

 

3: Out of left field. Can we bring back the B71? Only instead of it terminating at Eastern Pkwy, it comes across the Pkwy, south on Franklin, east on Empire to Utica. Going the other way, west on Empire, north on Washington, west on Eastern Pkwy back to Carroll Gardens. I ask because the B71 looks like it would work with this extension, given the fact that its ridership had increased by 30% from 2004 to 2009. Its problem seemed to be the cost per passenger. However if these figures are distorting my angle on this issue please stop me. Aside from the statistics, it would replace the B48's southern end for a couple of blocks. More convenient than the shuttle.

 

I would keep the B43 right where it is & be done with it... I don't feel that gap w/ which Empire blvd doesn't have service, needs service..... but I'll respond to your ideas anyway bro....

 

 

1) Waste of resources... This wouldn't generate enough ridership to keep it afloat... I mean, it wouldn't be like say, the B74 & the B42 (short routes that generate high ridership for the distance it travels), due to the fact that Empire Blvd isn't densely populated... and there's nothin along empire itself that's of real interest....

 

I'm not even sure you'd get as many riders at each of its (would be) endpoints; as most the riders on the current B12 (WB) waiting @ utica/empire tend to ride at & past KCH... and I see no evidence that riders coming off @ prospect park subway are lookin to get to that part of crown heights, heading back easterly on empire.... these would be your major trip generators.....

 

even B43 usage along empire (past flatbush) is weak... in regards to your idea here, you may get some riders that'll wish to xfer off the B44, but it still won't be enough AFAIC....

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

 

2) Yup, the 48 should be brought back, south of fulton... I still say the MTA effed up w/ that move

 

Even though there's quite a bit of transit options around Franklin/Fulton, it isn't a hub, nor should it be treated as such.... Outside of cutting costs, I sincerely do think that was the thinking behind this.... It wasn't like the masses were all disembarking along Fulton on the 48; matter fact, you saw more people disembarking @ prospect park.... But of course, that was their way of forcing people onto the shuttle - look how well that worked out....

 

IMO, the current 48 shouldn't even exist north of Metropolitan.... that is B43, B62, & country up there in Williamsburg/Greenpoint...they don't give the 48 a second thought up there, and the usage of those buses clearly shows it... as far as the industrial (and lowly, densely populated) area, just send a B43 over there every 40 mins (which is ~ every 4th bus) & be done with it...

 

I wouldn't bother sending the B48 across empire.... right there @ the prospect park subway station would be more than sufficient enough.... I'd rather bring the old B48 routing back south of fulton, and send the route elsewhere on it's northern end, possibly to terminate in Sunnyside up there in Queens...

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

 

3) I'd bring back (a modified version of) the B71... it'd go from prospect park ((Q) to South Ferry .... if you want to look at a map of my idea here:

 

B71 revival & extension idea

(manhattan bound)

 

 

Anyway, Problem w/ the old 71 was that it was too infrequent, didn't take people where they ultimately wanted/needed to go (or try to get to), and the areas it predominantly ran in (meaning, east of Grand Army Plz.), all had better transit options (bus & subway)....

 

Of the 3 options you present though, this does sound like the better off one to me.....