Improving the B44 Select Bus Service

[B35 via Church]

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.

 

- B16 has its own problems... if it didn't meander up/down 13th/14th av & shot across ft hamilton pkwy over there instead, then maybe I could possibly see sending buses across empire, as the total runtime of the route would easily be at least 10 mins less than what it currently is....

 

hell, if you ask me, I don't think it's coincidence as to why the 12 ends where it does on ocean, 'front that mcdonalds (& starts on flatbush one block down), and the 16 pans up ocean like that & stops dead on flatbush... the demographics of the riders that take the 16 & the 12 are like night & day... this is one reason why I think the 16 will never pan east of flatbush.... it's another reason as to why I think the 16 doesn't end w/ the 12... those people that live in those apartments on that side of prospect park, either walk to prospect park (subway sta), or down to parkside...

 

 

- far as the B17, you'll hear it from canarsie-ans if you send that past the Utica av subway station.... shifting those riders to taking the subway @ Sterling st solves nothing - you're making those ppl's commutes LONGER by doing that, on both fronts (on the bus end of the commute as well as the subway portion of the commute)... avoiding any delays at Rogers Junction? bwoy, ya maad, they WOULD have to deal w/ the hangup's the & the experience at @ President st, b/c the & the have priority !

Not to mention the unreliability & sluggishness of the current route itself....

 

Of all the routes in that general vicinity around Empire, the 17 is the worst possible choice/candidate......

 

 

- agree w/ what you say about the B71 part of his idea there; catch-22 really... you'd have to increase service to appeal to the riders this would possibly benefit on the eastern half of the route... but the increase in service would be overkill for the western half of the route......

[Via Garibaldi 8]

- B16 has its own problems... if it didn't meander up/down 13th/14th av & shot across ft hamilton pkwy over there instead, then maybe I could possibly see sending buses across empire, as the total runtime of the route would easily be at least 10 mins less than what it currently is....

 

hell, if you ask me, I don't think it's coincidence as to why the 12 ends where it does on ocean, 'front that mcdonalds (& starts on flatbush one block down), and the 16 pans up ocean like that & stops dead on flatbush... the demographics of the riders that take the 16 & the 12 are like night & day... this is one reason why I think the 16 will never pan east of flatbush.... it's another reason as to why I think the 16 doesn't end w/ the 12... those people that live in those apartments on that side of prospect park, either walk to prospect park (subway sta), or down to parkside...

 

I agree about the (B16). Totally different demographics that it serves... I've used the (B16) on Shore Road down in the 90s in Bay Ridge. I personally don't think it should be extended because it spends most of its time serving Southern and Mid Brooklyn, more specifically the Western areas of Brooklyn.

[checkmatechamp13]

- B16 has its own problems... if it didn't meander up/down 13th/14th av & shot across ft hamilton pkwy over there instead, then maybe I could possibly see sending buses across empire, as the total runtime of the route would easily be at least 10 mins less than what it currently is....

 

hell, if you ask me, I don't think it's coincidence as to why the 12 ends where it does on ocean, 'front that mcdonalds (& starts on flatbush one block down), and the 16 pans up ocean like that & stops dead on flatbush... the demographics of the riders that take the 16 & the 12 are like night & day... this is one reason why I think the 16 will never pan east of flatbush.... it's another reason as to why I think the 16 doesn't end w/ the 12... those people that live in those apartments on that side of prospect park, either walk to prospect park (subway sta), or down to parkside...

 

 

- far as the B17, you'll hear it from canarsie-ans if you send that past the Utica av subway station.... shifting those riders to taking the subway @ Sterling st solves nothing - you're making those ppl's commutes LONGER by doing that, on both fronts (on the bus end of the commute as well as the subway portion of the commute)... avoiding any delays at Rogers Junction? bwoy, ya maad, they WOULD have to deal w/ the hangup's the & the experience at @ President st, b/c the & the have priority !

Not to mention the unreliability & sluggishness of the current route itself....

 

Of all the routes in that general vicinity around Empire, the 17 is the worst possible choice/candidate......

 

 

- agree w/ what you say about the B71 part of his idea there; catch-22 really... you'd have to increase service to appeal to the riders this would possibly benefit on the eastern half of the route... but the increase in service would be overkill for the western half of the route......

 

The idea of avoiding the delays at Rogers Junction was to avoid the IRT altogether, and just ride to Prospect Park. I just noted that, if they did want the IRT, they would be able to get it at Sterling Street.

 

By the way, there used to be a route traveling from Prospect Park to Manhattan called the B33. I believe it went down Prospect and Hamilton Avenues and ended just before the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. Maybe that would be a better idea to connect that area to Lower Manhattan than a route traveling along Union Street (your modified version of the B71). If it has more ridership potential than the B71, it might be able to warrant a higher frequency.

 

The reason I think it might be better is because that part of Park Slope doesn't have an easy connection to Lower Manhattan. Brighton Line riders can go to DeKalb Avenue and then take the , but people in Park Slope would have a more direct route to Lower Manhattan (rather than take the to the , they could take the B33 directly to the bottom of Lower Manhattan.

[B35 via Church]

By the way, there used to be a route traveling from Prospect Park to Manhattan called the B33. I believe it went down Prospect and Hamilton Avenues and ended just before the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. Maybe that would be a better idea to connect that area to Lower Manhattan than a route traveling along Union Street (your modified version of the B71). If it has more ridership potential than the B71, it might be able to warrant a higher frequency.

 

The reason I think it might be better is because that part of Park Slope doesn't have an easy connection to Lower Manhattan. Brighton Line riders can go to DeKalb Avenue and then take the , but people in Park Slope would have a more direct route to Lower Manhattan (rather than take the to the , they could take the B33 directly to the bottom of Lower Manhattan.

 

lol...

 

the B33 avoided most of park slope.... not sure where you think Hamilton av is, but it parallels the expressway leading up to the BBT... the route went from prospect pk subway, down ocean, across parkside, paralleled the 68 til it got to greenwood, took that til prospect (which later turns into hamilton), and over there adjacent the BBT toll booth, to terminate.... Hamilton itself is mostly industrial, and too far out of the way; can't see anyone wanting to wait for a bus around that area; which is why I say, good luck if you can get anyone in 2011 to take a route like that into manhattan....

 

Everything else you're talking about, about those riders having an easier commute to lower manhattan.... that's exactly my reasoning for coming up w/ a routing like this... my focus was more on that general region of current riders on that side of Brooklyn (Carroll, Bergen, Smith/9th)... not that union itself it the most ideal of streets to have a bus trek along, but it would serve a portion of park slope that's far easier to trek to.....

 

 

* Only other alternative that would better serve park slope riders, would be a revival of the 77 (minus its red hook portion) & extend that to manhattan... but to me, that would basically resemble a park slope-lower manhattan shuttle...

['89 Liberty MCI]

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.

 

This, to me, is the most important issue in the whole thread. The problem I see with not putting compensatory service on or east of NY Avenue is that for the AM rush those people will go from seeing a bus every 2 minutes to seeing a bus every 10-12 minutes. If there's a bus every 2 minutes over there now, it seems like a lot of people are going to get left in the street by overcrowded buses. These are people that can't take the northbound SBS because it's too far (if they came from east of NY Avenue).

 

In order to get this Albany Avenue bus going (call it route B40), some political/community [board] action will have to be taken and logic will have to be used. The wait time should be no longer than 7 minutes rush hours. We could argue that money is being saved with the SBS, some of which should be invested in the B40. It would serve a dense, under-served area with a long distance between buses (NY Avenue to Utica Avenue), would go to commercial hubs where its presence would be welcome, and it would serve KCH, etc.

 

I won't be on for a while since I will be busy. If you or anybody has anything special to report, please PM me as I would like to follow up with this. The day they introduce the B44 SBS, they should introduce the B40 as well.

[Trainmaster5]

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.

 

Were you talking about the B46 deadheads?

[BrooklynBus]

Were you talking about the B46 deadheads?

 

 

I'm not familiar with what is happening on the B46, but wouldn't be surprised. They've done it on the B49 and B1, so I am assuming they are doing it all over. On another forum someone once reported that they run deadheads from Manhatan Valley to Abingdon Square at 4:30 in the morning. Really makes a lot of sense when buses are running hourly and no time is saved by deadheading.

 

They used to have to report deadhead mileage separately so that it could be minimized. Today, they are trying to maximize it, and only the MTA knows the extent buses are deadheading. I've seen as many as 6 deadheads to one in service bus, not to say that some of them could deadhead efficiently, but I believe they have gone overboard on this practice.

[BrooklynBus]

This, to me, is the most important issue in the whole thread. The problem I see with not putting compensatory service on or east of NY Avenue is that for the AM rush those people will go from seeing a bus every 2 minutes to seeing a bus every 10-12 minutes. If there's a bus every 2 minutes over there now, it seems like a lot of people are going to get left in the street by overcrowded buses. These are people that can't take the northbound SBS because it's too far (if they came from east of NY Avenue).

 

In order to get this Albany Avenue bus going (call it route B40), some political/community [board] action will have to be taken and logic will have to be used. The wait time should be no longer than 7 minutes rush hours. We could argue that money is being saved with the SBS, some of which should be invested in the B40. It would serve a dense, under-served area with a long distance between buses (NY Avenue to Utica Avenue), would go to commercial hubs where its presence would be welcome, and it would serve KCH, etc.

 

I won't be on for a while since I will be busy. If you or anybody has anything special to report, please PM me as I would like to follow up with this. The day they introduce the B44 SBS, they should introduce the B40 as well.

 

I don't know where you live but I would suggest if you really care, now is the time to contact local Community Board(s) who can in turn contact their local officials before a problem occurs. B35 via Church may be willing to help since he also sees a problem here.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Sorry for the false alarm (about being away for a while). I am back, briefly because something important popped into my head. Albany Avenue south of the cemetery is dominated by houses and has few apartment buildings, and since the B40 would go over to Albany Avenue just to come back to Brooklyn Avenue, it would not be very attractive to those who want to go from the Junction or Flatbush Gardens to KCH. It's good for people going from Crown Heights area to Fulton Street, but not for those going from dense areas along NY Avenue, to KCH.

 

Would it be asking too much to make two new routes (B32 and B40)? I'm thinking each one could run at 12 minute headways (as the maximum service level). Each one would use the same streets for half the route so that on these streets where they run together, the headway should be 6 minutes. At less busy hours each one could do like 14/7, 15/7.5 or whatever is deemed appropriate. Here it goes:

 

-Route B32 northbound starts at the Junction, and runs via: Nostrand, Farragut, New York, Church, Albany, East New York, New York, Atlantic, Bedford, Fulton last stop.

 

-Route B40 runs northbound via: Nostrand, Farragut, New York, Foster, Albany, Clarendon, Schenectady, Church, Albany, and then via B32 above.

 

-B40 southbound via: Fulton, Albany, Church, Schenectady, Clarendon, Albany, Foster, Nostrand, Flatbush last stop.

 

-B32 southbound via B40 above until Church/Albany Avs. Then: Church, Brooklyn, Foster, Nostrand, Flatbush last stop.

 

The B32 northbound should be synchronized with the B44 northbound until Church/NY Avs. So 12 minutes for a B32 and 12 minutes for a B44 means a bus every 6 minutes between the Junction and Church/NY Avs. Also people wanting to go to KCH can take any bus. A bit of an extra walk if they take the B32 to Albany/Clarkson, but shouldn't be too bad.

 

The B40 northbound should be synchronized with the B32 northbound from Albany/Church to Fulton Street. So a B32 and a B40 should leave the Junction such that they end up running at an even headway north of the cemetery.

 

The B40 southbound and B32 southbound should be synchronized from Fulton down to Church/Albany. This is easy since they share the same corridor between these points.

 

This is also helpful for those who currently take the B46 from south of Empire, to Empire, and take the B12 to KCH. Right now they have to go north just to go back south. The B40 via Schenectady would take them straight to KCH.

 

If this is a sound idea I would still like to get it going. But I'm gonna have to deal with school until about the end of May so I'm not gonna log in to the forums until then.

 

BrooklynBus, I saw your visitor message so in order to make it easier to contact me (this is especially for anybody that's interested in the B32/B40 idea), my e-mail is detroitkbdieselfb@gmail.com.

 

On hiatus from the forums as of now.