Q43LTD Posted July 13, 2011 Share #26 Posted July 13, 2011 I'm gonna say this until I'm blue in the face. The used that card of, "we're cutting service where not too many people will be affected." So you mean to tell me that "not too many people" used the (B64) from Bensonhurst to CI? Give me a damn break. I guess "not too many people" used the (B4) from CI Hospital to Sheepshead Bay off peak and weekends? Hell, "not too many people" rode the past Court Sq. I mean damn, how many times can you use that excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #27 Posted July 13, 2011 So why wouldn't you take the B82 to the Q instead? From Bay Ridge?? Obviously not possible. Aside from that, I always found the B82 to be slow and crowded. I don't go that way anymore. I have to restrict my travel to Sheepshead Bay to Saturdays and I use the BM3 in the city to get to and from Sheepshead Bay and of course they keep cutting back the BM3s to the city too. Last one from Sheepshead Bay is now 18:20, down 4 runs from 22:20. Freaking pricks. :mad: I'm gonna say this until I'm blue in the face. The used that card of, "we're cutting service where not too many people will be affected." So you mean to tell me that "not too many people" used the (B64) from Bensonhurst to CI? Give me a damn break. I guess "not too many people" used the (B4) from CI Hospital to Sheepshead Bay off peak and weekends? Hell, "not too many people" rode the past Court Sq. I mean damn, how many times can you use that excuse? The B4 is another route that the has f*cked over during the years. I went to I.S. 43 there on Emmons and Shore Blvd before it became a gifted school and that was back in the 90s and the B4 sucked horribly then even with 15 minute frequencies. Buses would be MIA and occasionally you'd get two B4s showing up together. Service got better once Jackie Gleason took over from Ulmer Park and then I saw an increase in ridership in the Sheepshead Bay area and then with the rebirth of Emmons Avenue in terms of restaurants and shopping areas, folks were using the line even more and of course they cut right as things were looking up. Typical... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 13, 2011 Share #28 Posted July 13, 2011 Assuming this master plan by the is to true to still reduce dozens of more bus lines, than it's time IMO for the agency to get out of the bus business and let a private company take over.B) I don't think MTA will keep b67 for long either basically any rte that duplicates the subway and other rtes is in danger of elimination. Buses with unique purposes are harder to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 13, 2011 Share #29 Posted July 13, 2011 I'm gonna say this until I'm blue in the face. The used that card of, "we're cutting service where not too many people will be affected." So you mean to tell me that "not too many people" used the (B64) from Bensonhurst to CI? Give me a damn break. I guess "not too many people" used the (B4) from CI Hospital to Sheepshead Bay off peak and weekends? Hell, "not too many people" rode the past Court Sq. I mean damn, how many times can you use that excuse? sometimes the excuse is valid sometimes it's WAY OFF!!!! The B4 days after it was cut I saw 30 to 40 ppl waiting to use it outside the subway station so that excuse is bullshit. However when I used the B64 to coney island cause it just showed up and I was lazy it didn't carry much on that old segment. To tell you the truth if you bitch hard then you will see B6 absorb or B74 absorb that old segment before they even think of restoring the B64 there cause again extending B74 is "cost neutral"!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share #30 Posted July 14, 2011 BrooklynBus had an idea that involved service along 13th/14th avs & cortelyou rd... sounds like the perfect remedy right about now w/ the B23 gone, but of course.... if it aint about so-called cost-neutrality (quote-unquote), the MTA aint havin it... convenient excuse right? I think so..... The thing is the more they cut, they harder it becomes to find the fat to propose a cost-neutral improvement, since that becomes the new baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share #31 Posted July 14, 2011 via, I got this one.... 1) Yeah, the "option" is there, but you do realize riders want the quickest commute possible.... hell, you'd think a route going from a major subway station to a mall would flourish.... B3's have always saw the ridership that it does get (b/w KP & the Brighton), b/c the B2 is so infrequent.... few ppl. resort to taking the B9 from Av M to Kings plz... what's even funnier about that is, I actually see ppl get off B9's for B41's.... the B100 is a route that connects Mill Basin folks to the subway... the B2 route better serves Marine Park... if you ask me, I think the B2 & the 31 should be combined to run somethin like the B42.... This way, you connect the Gerritsen folks to the subway, the Marine park folks to the subway, and w/e shoppers you have @ Kings Plaza to the subway.... hell, FWIW, I think you may get some Gerritsen folks that may ride the route end to end (kings plz) also.... and of course, weekend service would be restored.... either that, or bring back the B3K & extend it to kings plaza (rename it to w/e ya want)..... but killing off the B2 doesn't solve anything, since the B100 doesn't serve kings plz in any capacity..... 2) if you're "ajedrez", this part of your post on his blog, is exactly what came to mind, when I made that comment (on here) you're referring to of mine about the B34... The B34 failed, but was made successful through a combination with other routes, but this time, the MTA seems to be doing the reverse. ....they're doing the reverse b/c the MTA eventually ended up w/ an 86th st route (as AE Moreira over there pointed out).... thing is though, the MTA derived by such a routing for all the wrong reasons (i.e, budget cuts).... 3) That goes back to what I posted in response to jacsnyy, about B67 service before 6/2010.... B67 service was better then, than havin both the B67 & the B69 on 7th av right now.... See my comments on Sheepsheadbites. In the article next Monday, I talk all about the B2. You've mentioned some of the same points I mentioned. (I already submitted the article three days ago.) Assuming this master plan by the is to true to still reduce dozens of more bus lines, than it's time IMO for the agency to get out of the bus business and let a private company take over.B) Yes, they want to get rid of all their low performers thinking that is the way to fix the system. A bunch of idiots. That philosophy may work if you own a bunch of stores where one doesn't affect the other, but it sure doesn't work when dealing with bus routes. I'm gonna say this until I'm blue in the face. The used that card of, "we're cutting service where not too many people will be affected." So you mean to tell me that "not too many people" used the (B64) from Bensonhurst to CI? Give me a damn break. I guess "not too many people" used the (B4) from CI Hospital to Sheepshead Bay off peak and weekends? Hell, "not too many people" rode the past Court Sq. I mean damn, how many times can you use that excuse? They eliminated the eastern part of the B64 to have the funds to add Limited service on the B82. It was no coincidence that both were done at the same time. It had nothing to do with low ridership. You want to hear a funny story? When I was at City Planning making my bus route proposals, some of which became reality in 1978, the MTA gave us so many excuses why changes could not be made that I decided to write them all down. I think there were around 50 that they used over and over again. Then I added another 50 that I made up myself to get an even 100. Soon I noticed that they were giving us some not from the original 50 but some of the ones I just made up. When I became head of Bus Planning for NYCT in 1981, I showed the list to one of my employees. Do you know what he said to me? "Could I have a copy of this? It sure would save me a lot of time?" Of course, he didn't get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 14, 2011 Share #32 Posted July 14, 2011 The thing is the more they cut, they harder it becomes to find the fat to propose a cost-neutral improvement, since that becomes the new baseline. To tell you the truth my ideas part of them in LI and hudson valley were inspired by the so called "cost neutral" lingo so I will be able to kill any opposing argument relating to cost. So my plans look harder to oppose I came here to find flaws in my logic and then learn to correct those flaws I figured out why some of them were left field after looking at the whole area and region and figured out better ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 14, 2011 Share #33 Posted July 14, 2011 The thing is the more they cut, they harder it becomes to find the fat to propose a cost-neutral improvement, since that becomes the new baseline. yep... nothin from nothin leaves nothin..... It's convenient to hide behind cost-neutrality whenever a proposed change (usually a positive one for the betterment of the riders) is blurted out, b/c it's a reason as to why they don't have to consider said change.... I mean explain to me how in the world can you extend a route, or create a new route w/o spending more than you would have, if you simply left things alone/ as is.... Talk about automatic dismissal.... This is why I sincerely think we're gonna have a bunch of super routes all over the place when it's all said & done... it's not in their interest to find ways to make better use (if possible) of the underperforming, or even the average route..... every route can't, and isn't designed to carry like the B46, M15, Bx12, etc.... Apparently not to the MTA, but for the rest of us.... Coverage matters. See my comments on Sheepsheadbites. In the article next Monday, I talk all about the B2. You've mentioned some of the same points I mentioned. (I already submitted the article three days ago.) So there's no way we could've piggybacked off each other.... cool beans... Anyway, I'll check out the article when it releases. Yes, they want to get rid of all their low performers thinking that is the way to fix the system. A bunch of idiots. That philosophy may work if you own a bunch of stores where one doesn't affect the other, but it sure doesn't work when dealing with bus routes. Yeh, I mean, you can't save every fish in the sea, but there's always that one crab in the barrel..... It's the same perpetual BS.... cut cut cut, force riders to take alternative bus routes (regardless of the proximity the nearest bus is).... People are only gonna put up w/ alternate means of travel but for so long.... Public transportation (or lack thereof) is a very valid complaint/reason to consider moving out of an entire city; but what does the MTA care about any of that..... somehow this state of mind (gettin rid of the low performers) is supposed to give off the illusion that "Look at how well our buses are performing... each bus in each direction run carries @ max capacity... ridership has really grown over the past couple years"..... ^^ And my response to a comment like that would be, GFY.... What other options have you left us when entire routes (plural) in my community have been discontinued.... when the route you left us with, runs so damn infrequent, riders are forced to cram on the things...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 14, 2011 Share #34 Posted July 14, 2011 via, I got this one.... 1) Yeah, the "option" is there, but you do realize riders want the quickest commute possible.... hell, you'd think a route going from a major subway station to a mall would flourish.... B3's have always saw the ridership that it does get (b/w KP & the Brighton), b/c the B2 is so infrequent.... few ppl. resort to taking the B9 from Av M to Kings plz... what's even funnier about that is, I actually see ppl get off B9's for B41's.... the B100 is a route that connects Mill Basin folks to the subway... the B2 route better serves Marine Park... if you ask me, I think the B2 & the 31 should be combined to run somethin like the B42.... This way, you connect the Gerritsen folks to the subway, the Marine park folks to the subway, and w/e shoppers you have @ Kings Plaza to the subway.... hell, FWIW, I think you may get some Gerritsen folks that may ride the route end to end (kings plz) also.... and of course, weekend service would be restored.... either that, or bring back the B3K & extend it to kings plaza (rename it to w/e ya want)..... but killing off the B2 doesn't solve anything, since the B100 doesn't serve kings plz in any capacity..... 2) if you're "ajedrez", this part of your post on his blog, is exactly what came to mind, when I made that comment (on here) you're referring to of mine about the B34... The B34 failed, but was made successful through a combination with other routes, but this time, the MTA seems to be doing the reverse. ....they're doing the reverse b/c the MTA eventually ended up w/ an 86th st route (as AE Moreira over there pointed out).... thing is though, the MTA derived by such a routing for all the wrong reasons (i.e, budget cuts).... 3) That goes back to what I posted in response to jacsnyy, about B67 service before 6/2010.... B67 service was better then, than havin both the B67 & the B69 on 7th av right now.... Bold #1: So what would be the routing of the route? Bold #2: Yes, I'm "ajedrez", and I agree with your comment. The B64 could've still been saved, maybe by traveling along Cropsey Avenue and maintaining the connection to the (since the MTA cut back the B8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 14, 2011 Share #35 Posted July 14, 2011 via, I got this one.... 1) Yeah, the "option" is there, but you do realize riders want the quickest commute possible.... hell, you'd think a route going from a major subway station to a mall would flourish.... B3's have always saw the ridership that it does get (b/w KP & the Brighton), b/c the B2 is so infrequent.... few ppl. resort to taking the B9 from Av M to Kings plz... what's even funnier about that is, I actually see ppl get off B9's for B41's.... the B100 is a route that connects Mill Basin folks to the subway... the B2 route better serves Marine Park... if you ask me, I think the B2 & the 31 should be combined to run somethin like the B42.... This way, you connect the Gerritsen folks to the subway, the Marine park folks to the subway, and w/e shoppers you have @ Kings Plaza to the subway.... hell, FWIW, I think you may get some Gerritsen folks that may ride the route end to end (kings plz) also.... and of course, weekend service would be restored.... either that, or bring back the B3K & extend it to kings plaza (rename it to w/e ya want)..... but killing off the B2 doesn't solve anything, since the B100 doesn't serve kings plz in any capacity..... That's actually not a bad idea, but the question is how in the world would you combine the two routes so that the bus isn't literally meandering about? I mean you can't really have it come through Gerritsen Beach anyway but to go down Gerritsen Avenue and then come back up Gerritsen Avenue and over to Avenue U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted July 14, 2011 Share #36 Posted July 14, 2011 The B64 could've still been saved, maybe by traveling along Cropsey Avenue and maintaining the connection to the (since the MTA cut back the B8) Running the B64 via V.A. Hospital to 95th Station, eh? Ya know, the guy who made that Proposal for better Brooklyn Bus Service proposed merging the B64 and B70 to make a B66 route. Except now, if the B64 and B70 were merged, service on 13th Av, and on Bay Ridge Av between 8th Ave and 13th Ave would be lost (ironically, the B70 itself provides service on Bay Ridge Ave between 8th Ave and 3rd Ave.) The B9 would at least cover Bay Ridge Av service between the train and Shore Road. In addition, a B64/B70 merger would get rid of the direct transfer to the B1. Granted, the B1 would only be a block or two away from the B64/B70 merger (from Bath Av to 86th St.) Of course, merging the current B64/B70 would be more extending the B70 down Bath Ave than an actual merger With the B64 off 13th Ave, There would be no North-South line in Dyker Heights from the B16 on Fort Hamilition Parkway all the way to the B8 on 18th Av. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted July 14, 2011 Share #37 Posted July 14, 2011 They eliminated the eastern part of the B64 to have the funds to add Limited service on the B82. It was no coincidence that both were done at the same time. It had nothing to do with low ridership. You want to hear a funny story? When I was at City Planning making my bus route proposals, some of which became reality in 1978, the MTA gave us so many excuses why changes could not be made that I decided to write them all down. I think there were around 50 that they used over and over again. Then I added another 50 that I made up myself to get an even 100. Soon I noticed that they were giving us some not from the original 50 but some of the ones I just made up. When I became head of Bus Planning for NYCT in 1981, I showed the list to one of my employees. Do you know what he said to me? "Could I have a copy of this? It sure would save me a lot of time?" Of course, he didn't get one. I would like a copy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 14, 2011 Share #38 Posted July 14, 2011 Bold #1: So what would be the routing of the route? That's actually not a bad idea, but the question is how in the world would you combine the two routes so that the bus isn't literally meandering about? I mean you can't really have it come through Gerritsen Beach anyway but to go down Gerritsen Avenue and then come back up Gerritsen Avenue and over to Avenue U. ** to the both of you: The two terminals of the combined route would be Kings Plaza and Gerritsen Beach.... Kings Hwy ( would no longer be a terminal (well, except for the B100).... The routing it would take is very simple... - from kings plz: current B2 route to kings hwy subway, then current B31 route to lois/gerritsen.... - from gerritsen beach: current B31 route to kings hwy subway, then current B2 route to kings plz... * to checkmate: when I said "to run somethin like the B42", I was talkin about in terms of scheduling.... * to Via: the B3k thing was separate, I didn't mention combining that w/ anything.... the two options I presented were: - bringing back the B3k & extending that to kings plaza... - combining the B2 & the B31... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 14, 2011 Share #39 Posted July 14, 2011 ** to the both of you:The two terminals of the combined route would be Kings Plaza and Gerritsen Beach.... Kings Hwy ( would no longer be a terminal (well, except for the B100).... The routing it would take is very simple... - from kings plz: current B2 route to kings hwy subway, then current B31 route to lois/gerritsen.... - from gerritsen beach: current B31 route to kings hwy subway, then current B2 route to kings plz... * to checkmate: when I said "to run somethin like the B42", I was talkin about in terms of scheduling.... * to Via: the B3k thing was separate, I didn't mention combining that w/ anything.... the two options I presented were: - bringing back the B3k & extending that to kings plaza... - combining the B2 & the B31... I wasn't referring to the B3K at all. Perhaps you thought that because I mentioned Avenue U, but that's not the case. I still don't get the combined set up at all. How is it combined if it does the B2 from Kings Plaza to Kings Hwy subway station and then the current B31 route to Lois Avenue/Gerritsen Beach?? In other words it would do the B2 run via Ave R, make the turns to get to Kings Hwy and then come back around and then go back down Ave R and do the B31 run to Gerritsen Beach?? If that's the case what exactly does that do??? It's literally just a combination that goes around in circles. :confused: In your defense though it's a tough set up. Now that I've thought about it, I would make a compromise. I would keep the B31 as is combine the B2 and the B100 so that it could serve Kings Plaza and Mill Basin in order to keep weekend service. I think that would be a better solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 14, 2011 Share #40 Posted July 14, 2011 I wasn't referring to the B3K at all. Perhaps you thought that because I mentioned Avenue U, but that's not the case. I still don't get the combined set up at all. How is it combined if it does the B2 from Kings Plaza to Kings Hwy subway station and then the current B31 route to Lois Avenue/Gerritsen Beach?? In other words it would do the B2 run via Ave R, make the turns to get to Kings Hwy and then come back around and then go back down Ave R and do the B31 run to Gerritsen Beach?? If that's the case what exactly does that do??? It's literally just a combination that goes around in circles. :confused: In your defense though it's a tough set up. Now that I've thought about it, I would make a compromise. I would keep the B31 as is combine the B2 and the B100 so that it could serve Kings Plaza and Mill Basin in order to keep weekend service. I think that would be a better solution. You don't have to agree w/ the idea itself, but I don't see what it is you're not getting.... What do you mean what exactly does that do? It's combined because it would be ONE route carrying out the function of both the current B2 & the current B31... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 14, 2011 Share #41 Posted July 14, 2011 You don't have to agree w/ the idea itself, but I don't see what it is you're not getting.... What do you mean what exactly does that do? It's combined because it would be ONE route carrying out the function of both the current B2 & the current B31... I'm not disagreeing per se, but rather making sure that I understand proposal. In other words you would make it function more as a "Loop" so to speak is that the idea?? If the goal of that would be to increase ridership, I'm not sure it would that. I think the better idea is to combine the B2 and B100 and re-route it slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 14, 2011 Share #42 Posted July 14, 2011 I'm not disagreeing per se, but rather making sure that I understand proposal. In other words you would make it function more as a "Loop" so to speak is that the idea?? If the goal of that would be to increase ridership, I'm not sure it would that. yes, via... that's the whole point... it would act as a loop. The goal isn't to increase ridership... It's to increase service overall (including restoring weekend service on the B2 "portion").... IMO, the future of the current B2 is lookin real bleak.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 14, 2011 Share #43 Posted July 14, 2011 You don't have to agree w/ the idea itself, but I don't see what it is you're not getting.... What do you mean what exactly does that do? It's combined because it would be ONE route carrying out the function of both the current B2 & the current B31... wouldn't that just make the route unreliable you do realize this can be done by simply interlining B2 runs with B31 right???? at kings hwy the B2 becomes B31 and vice versa. That rte would actually hurt the route as it would look super slow inspite of that not being the case. That's heavy backtracking. I used B31 and B2 those ppl will NOT go for it. The B2 would be better off extending over ave p to at least attrack a new ridership group. And have the line head directly to bay ridge or similar areas have the rte add service to underserved areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 14, 2011 Share #44 Posted July 14, 2011 wouldn't that just make the route unreliable you do realize this can be done by simply interlining B2 runs with B31 right???? at kings hwy the B2 becomes B31 and vice versa. That rte would actually hurt the route as it would look super slow inspite of that not being the case. That's heavy backtracking. I used B31 and B2 those ppl will NOT go for it. The B2 would be better off extending over ave p to at least attrack a new ridership group. And have the line head directly to bay ridge or similar areas have the rte add service to underserved areas. I wouldn't have the combined route run at current B2 levels.... that would be a service decrease for the Gerritsen folk.... Extending the B2 along Av P. would hurt those folks (B2 riders) even further, as it would go outside the confines of kings hwy on the brighton.... The idea is to make the subway station (and the general shopping strip along kings hwy really) the central/centric point..... I can name a couple routes off the top of my head that looks "super slow", despite it not being the case.... As far as "heavy" backtracking, neither the B2 or the B31 stalls b/w the subway & gerritsen/av R... so I don't see where a great amt. of time would be lost, or the idea of it being such a longgg distance..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 14, 2011 Share #45 Posted July 14, 2011 I wouldn't have the combined route run at current B2 levels.... that would be a service decrease for the Gerritsen folk.... Extending the B2 along Av P. would hurt those folks even further, as it would go outside the confines of kings hwy on the brighton.... nope it would continue via E17th en rte to kings hwy station rather than remain on quinten rd then it can go to ave P. Again the B2 can't merge with the B31 they take completely different routes they aren't compatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 14, 2011 Share #46 Posted July 14, 2011 nope it would continue via E17th en rte to kings hwy station rather than remain on quinten rd then it can go to ave P. Again the B2 can't merge with the B31 they take completely different routes they aren't compatible. lol... nope to what? you mention that the route should travel on av P... telling me how it would get to av P doesn't refute anything there.... ....and They don't have to be "compatible", they just have to take people from point A to point B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
553 Bridgeton Posted July 14, 2011 Share #47 Posted July 14, 2011 They don't have to be "compatible", they just have to take people from point A to point B. And thats what he doesnt get! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 15, 2011 Share #48 Posted July 15, 2011 lol... nope to what? you mention that the route should travel on av P... telling me how it would get to av P doesn't refute anything there.... ....and They don't have to be "compatible", they just have to take people from point A to point B. again the B2 and B31 have completely different routes I know I threw out similar ideas. I know those ppl they won't stand for it. The B31 and B2 leave kings hwy minutes apart from each other they can't combine. Any 2 routes that merge can't have a backtracking segment in the new route otherwise ppl will bitch and moan. The B31 and B2 already do a good job of taking ppl from point a to point B. You can't have the route go from point A to B then back to B and C that's inefficient. B31 and B2 can't merge B31 ppl who want kings plaza transfer to B3 and B2 ppl from kings plaza who want B31 transfer at gerritsen ave for B31. Or from kings plaza they use B3 to B31 rather than meander through kings hwy subway just to get to gerritsen that makes no sense. Again B2 and B31 can't merge cause then you would be better off just simply interlining the select runs. That one seat ride no one will use you are putting 2 ridership groups together without adding new riders. That is costly you are better off interlining plus then you will be killing off the free transfer between B31 and B2 for their unique segments of course. This is not a good merger It will confuse ppl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 15, 2011 Share #49 Posted July 15, 2011 And thats what he doesnt get! that means nothing if the route is hard to understand as the B31 merging with B2 will distrupt the travel patterns of the routes it will end up a flop. It's similar to merging B70 with B1 if the route has to backtrack to merge with a route then they can't efficiently merge. Ave R rush hour = HELL the new route would just get burned and piss off too many ppl. similar to X13 X14 merger again slowing down a route isn't cool ppl won't have it. And no none of these examples are like the idea but the concept is the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 15, 2011 Share #50 Posted July 15, 2011 I would extend B2 to the lutheren medical center via ave R and ocean parkway to ave P to 65th street then bay parkway to bay ridge ave and 68th street then meets with the B64 before going to 4th ave then serving 59th street station before going to lutheren medical center like a variant of B9 sort of. The B31 over ave P to bay ridge parkway or 79th and 80th to bay ridge 86th street station via fort hamilton parkway or to 14th ave via VA hospital then to bay ridge 95th street station. B31 may also try and indirectly help B82 then go on cropsey ave en route to bay ridge if that is more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.