Why are Queens and Bronx so connected to Manhattan by bus, but not Brooklyn?

[Eric B]

Bronx: (Bx7)(Bx29)(Bx12)(Bx11)(Bx13)(Bx36)(Bx3)(Bx35)(Bx6)(Bx19)(Bx33)(Bx15) Across 7 bridges (Willis and 3rd Av. counted together, since the cover opposite directions)

Queens (M60)(M35)(Q101)(Q60)(Q32) across two bridges.

 

Brooklyn only had two shuttles (one on one bridge each), and one of them was discontinued for a long time, came back, but both are now discontinued.

 

It should also be noted the the Queensboro is in the midst of a major multi-line subway corridor. The Williamsburg only has the the (which are far from mainstream in the system), and the Manhattan has ( which are more mainstream, but nowhere near all the traffic in the Queensboro area.

 

Is it because the service in Queens is so concentrated, so it needs help by the buses (like a (Q32) that follows the )?

 

Or, perhaps, because Brooklyn has its own downtown, while Midtown serves as the "CBD" for Western Queens, and upper Manhattan is sort of a business district for the Bronx? (In that case, then Brooklyn really is still like its own city)

 

I had been thinking, it would be nice if there had been more bridges and tunnels to Brooklyn. when I'm around Union Sq. and see the (M14)'s heading east, I wish they went straight across to Ridgewood (which is pretty straight across from there) following the , as an alternative. (Like if I'm carrying stuff, and don't feel like going down stairs, struggling with the crowds, and then have to come back up). I would then feel more connected to the city.

 

I guess because the river is so much wider down there; that's why there aren't more bridges.

 

I also thought it would be interesting if the Flatbush Ave. corridor was connected, as it always did remind me of a miniature midtown, and is aligned sort of like an extension of Manhattan. (Plus, you have a whole busy and densely populated pocket between the Brighton and Nostrand lines that is not conveniently close to either trains. And the LTD's even pass by this area!)

Wouldn't it be interesting if we had like a new (M6) from 67th St. to Nostrand Junction via 5th/Madison, Bowery, Manhattan Br. (stay on Flatbush extension bypassing the Borough Hall area). It would still be slightly shorter than the (M5).

(I choose 67th because it could turn back there, and wouldn't be too long, yet still have the stops next to part of Central Park. Or, if you send it to 110th, it would be slightly longer than the (M5). I had always imagined a "(NYC100)" tour route using refurbished batwinged fishbowls, that would travel this route, and it would be a great swath of the city, like those double-decker lines

A shorter option is to 34th to join the (M4)(Q32) loop to Penn Sta).

 

Not seriously suggesting this, but you wonder why it wouldn't be a popular alternative, being that those Queens-Manhattan [local] routes are.

[Mysterious2train]

There was the planned B71/B77, but the B71 is gone and the B61 in the tunnel wouldn't really work out. There was also the planned B62 route (no relation to the current B62) that would have gone from Williamsburg to Long Island City and then across the Queens-Midtown Tunnel to Midtown. Would've been an interesting 3-boro route, like the BM5.

 

The probably figures that with all the subway lines we have to Manhattan we don't need lots of bus service to Manhattan and I agree with that to a certain extent but not to the point where we have NO local bus service to Manahttan.

 

The Downtown Brooklyn CBD might have something to do with it, but there's still lots of demand to Manhattan too.

 

Another bridge from 14th St or 23rd St, it probably would have helped out the . And a Flatbush Av route to Manhattan would be great, but it can't really be too long, then Bridge traffic would make it troublesome (the Bx15 and Bx19 suffer from this to a degree)

 

And when you typed the Bx29, I'm guessing you mean the Bx20, right?

[LRG]

I'd like to see the B44 go over the Williamsburg Bridge to Essex/Delancey (old B39's terminal) once +SBS is up and running. The Flushing Avenue short-turns would be eliminated, with the short-turn trips operating to the plaza instead. The full route would be between the Lower East Side and Sheepshead Bay, whereas the short-turns would run between Williamsburg and Avenue U.

[Grand Concourse]

I dunno, I really don't like the idea of extending an already long line over something as long as a bridge that has really narrow roads and congested. They would've been better off bringing the B39 back or extend some underused Manhattan route over the bridge to Brooklyn.

[LRG]

There aren't really any routes from Manhattan that the MTA can take into sending it into Brooklyn. I looked into every possibility and there aren't any routes justified for a revamped pattern. The M9, M14A/D, M21 and M22 are the only routes within the vicinity of the bridge but their terminals are too far from the bridge. As for the M8, it runs okay (takes 20-30 minutes to get from one end of the line to the other), but it would have to be rerouted to get to the bridge approach at Clinton Street so that's a bit of a gamble.

[Mysterious2train]

I always liked the idea of the B39 to Union Square or some other major trip generator in the area below Midtown. To Union Square could help out the M14, and it wouldn't be too long either.

[Gorgor]

You have to remember, even if there was a bus route that ran from Brooklyn over a bridge to Union Square, taking the subway would still be by far much faster. Think like a regular New Yorker for a second, would they rather spend 15 minutes on a train or half an hour on a bus?

[Mysterious2train]

Only on weekdays would a subway trip from Williamsburg to Union Square be 'far faster', via ---> (SB only now, but both ways in the future) On the weekend, you'd have to settle for ---> or (Q)/®/(6) which isn't that bad, but it wouldn't be all that much faster then the B39 the way the above transfer above would be, and I imagine people wouldn't really want to make the transfer, compared to a one-seat ride.

 

But now that I think about it, the B39 would kinda just be ---> M14A except without a transfer, and B62 ---> is probably the best way to get to Union Square on the weekend, so the B39 extended isn't the best idea. And as for as intra-Manhattan trips, I guess you're better off adding M14A service. That was also in my thought process, that an extended B39 could partially replace the M9 to Union Square to help out the 14A.

 

Still, the B39 and B51 got good ridership despite paralleling the subway. The B71 to South Ferry would do good as well, even with the ---> transfer at Jay St.

[Eric B]

There was the planned B71/B77, but the B71 is gone and the B61 in the tunnel wouldn't really work out.

Yeah, and that was originally a Manhattan Bridge Alternative option; for the case the the bridge completely lost subway service).

Wonder what they would o now if there was a shutdown. All of these ideas would probably be good, then.

There was also the planned B62 route (no relation to the current B62) that would have gone from Williamsburg to Long Island City and then across the Queens-Midtown Tunnel to Midtown. Would've been an interesting 3-boro route, like the BM5.

I remember that. Wasn't that apart of all the service increases they were proposing, until the economy crashed and it became cuts again?

The probably figures that with all the subway lines we have to Manhattan we don't need lots of bus service to Manhattan and I agree with that to a certain extent but not to the point where we have NO local bus service to Manahttan.

And again; Queens has so much more subway service right under all the bus service on the QB bridge.

 

The Downtown Brooklyn CBD might have something to do with it, but there's still lots of demand to Manhattan too.

But then wasn't ridership rather low, leading them to cut it (at least on the 51)?

 

And when you typed the Bx29, I'm guessing you mean the Bx20, right?

Yes, I needed to zoom in to the map more. I wasn't sure what the last digit was, and forgot to double check.

 

There aren't really any routes from Manhattan that the MTA can take into sending it into Brooklyn. I looked into every possibility and there aren't any routes justified for a revamped pattern. The M9, M14A/D, M21 and M22 are the only routes within the vicinity of the bridge but their terminals are too far from the bridge. As for the M8, it runs okay (takes 20-30 minutes to get from one end of the line to the other), but it would have to be rerouted to get to the bridge approach at Clinton Street so that's a bit of a gamble.

That's why I used the (M6). That was actually the route I used to consider when I first thought of the idea years ago, and it was still running, 59th St-South Ferry or wherever down there, via 6th and 7th; so it wouldn't be so long.

However, that would take it off its route to Lower Manhattan at the time; and I thought of extending the (M5) down there; which they've now done anyway, upon replacement of the 6.

[Shortline Bus]

Only on weekdays would a subway trip from Williamsburg to Union Square be 'far faster', via ---> (SB only now, but both ways in the future) On the weekend, you'd have to settle for ---> or (Q)/®/(6) which isn't that bad, but it wouldn't be all that much faster then the B39 the way the above transfer above would be, and I imagine people wouldn't really want to make the transfer, compared to a one-seat ride.

 

But now that I think about it, the B39 would kinda just be ---> M14A except without a transfer, and B62 ---> is probably the best way to get to Union Square on the weekend, so the B39 extended isn't the best idea.

 

Still, the B39 and B51 got good ridership despite paralleling the subway. The B71 to South Ferry would do good as well, even with the ---> transfer at Jay St.

 

Yes the (B39) and (B51) both got good ridership. Even with the doomsday cuts/fiscal crisis the could have reduced the (B39) from a 24/7 line to at least an all day weekday route running (similar to the "B51")IMO appx. from 530am-9pm. I say it till i am blue in the face, the Essex station was ADA accessible(I don't see it in any future ADA station upgrades) then The "B39" elimantion might have been more justified.

The "B39" to gain more ridership could been extended to the Grand St ( station as someone as Cait suggested. However I don't agree with some posters here suggesting the "M15" Local be extended to WBP as it's already a very long and busy route. So in sense the "B39" and "B51" could have been miantained as weekday only routes.

 

Back to oringal question. Again I do agree there could be a couple of more Brooklyn-Manhattan routes. One was the proposed "B71" extension to South Ferry and the other a new route (before the current fiscal crisis)between Greenpoint-East Midtown(Grand Central Terminal area)via the Midtown area.

The is not thinking 'outside' the box in growing neighborhoods near the East River, i.e Brooklyn Heights, Carroll Gardens, Ft. Greene, Williamsburg and Bushwick for added transit options. The during rush hours are at or near overcrowded conditions. Even running a bus between South Ferry-Prospect Park (via Battery Tunnel) or Greenpoint-East Midtown(via Queens Midtown Tunnel)during at least weekday peak periods could be a help.

[Grand Concourse]

You have to remember, even if there was a bus route that ran from Brooklyn over a bridge to Union Square, taking the subway would still be by far much faster. Think like a regular New Yorker for a second, would they rather spend 15 minutes on a train or half an hour on a bus?

 

Of course the average able bodied person is going to take the subway, the problem is on the Brooklyn side, there are no elevators. Those would be major obstacles for the elderly and the handicapped. It is cheaper to run the B39 than to install elevators at the Marcy station.

[Shortline Bus]

Of course the average able bodied person is going to take the subway, the problem is on the Brooklyn side, there are no elevators. Those would be major obstacles for the elderly and the handicapped. It is cheaper to run the B39 than to install elevators at the Marcy station.

 

Concourse Marcy already has had elevators for years now. It's the essex station that still not ADA accessible.

[Grand Concourse]

Oh, well then nm, would suck if they were broken though.

[B35 via Church]

didn't read anyone else's posts upon replying.... but simply reacting/replying to the thread title, simply put, I think it's b/c of all the subway lines that run b/w Brooklyn & Manhattan....

 

Don't like the fact that they willingly rid themselves of the B39 & B51 though....

 

I always thought the 51 should have served BMCC & the 71 have served South Ferry....

Another route I think that'd catch on, is a route that'd run straight from Greenpoint to midtown manhattan via the QMT....

 

In general, there is a need for interconnectivity b/w boroughs by way of the bus.... in laymens, more interborough local bus routes....

[checkmatechamp13]

Basically, I think it has to do with geography:

 

In Upper Manhattan, you have more crosstown streets to route the buses on (125th Street, 135th Street, 145th Street, 155th Street), so the buses serve a dual purpose: Get people into Manhattan, and within Manhattan, they can be used as a crosstown (and there's no crosstown subway routes in that part of Manhattan). There are some hilly areas in Upper Manhattan where the distance from river to river is short, but it's not unreasonable to expect some crosstown service.

 

For the 181st Street routes, the answer is simple: There's no subway route over the Washington Bridge.

 

In Lower Manhattan, there really aren't any streets that need crosstown service, because it's so narrow. (I mean, maybe the B39 could've been an extension of another crosstown route, but the thing is that it, the M8, and the M21 are infrequent, so the delays on the bridge would screw up the route)

 

But that being said, I think the B71 should've definitely gone to South Ferry. It doesn't really parallel any route (maybe the and , but even that's a stretch). The problem would be its infrequency (for Brooklyn riders) so something would have to be done about that.

[Interested Rider]

I think that the problem is that the routes in Queens extend for some distance beyond the bridge while in Brooklyn, the bridge routes were looked at as more as a "Shuttle" (and shuttles are usually considered expendable i.e: Q44B and the the Q44VP (later known as the Q/74) are just two examples) in terms of fiscal crisis. Interestingly, when trolleys ran over the Williamsburgh Bridge, the service was part of routes like the Nostrand Avenue which operated from Sheepshead Bay to Delancey Street. (For further information check out Stan Fischler's excellent book "Confessions of a Trolley Dodger in Brooklyn") If my memory serves me correctly, one of the agencies came out for retention of bus service over the Williamsburgh Bridge in 2007 even though it was eliminated two and a half years later

.

This was also a point I have been advocating for the B/44 Select Bus Service that it should be extended to 34th Street and 1st Avenue from the Bridge Plaza as it will generate ridership and most importantly revenue. I believe that the ridership is there especially from Williamsburgh as well as from other portions of the line and will generate additional revenue.

 

As far as extending service over the Manhattan Bridge, it could be done by extending a route such as the B/41 Flatbush Avenue or the B/67 Seventh Avenue to either City Hall or 14th Street. By adding the Bridge portion to another route (not like it was when it was either the B/15 Manhattan Bridge or B/51 Manhattan Bridge), it is no longer considered similiar to a shuttle and therefore has a constituency that will support the route.

[Grand Concourse]

Whoa,whoa, much as I'm in favor of direct Brooklyn to Manhattan routes, I still think the 'shuttle' routes makes more sense than to extend the existing routes. Going over the bridge may not seem like that much of a big deal, but that's additional distance on top of what is an already long route (B41, B44). I don't want service to become too stretched out because of the distance they must cover.

[LRG]

Even if the B44 were to go to Manhattan, the bus lanes as well as the outside ticket machines would speed up the trip somewhat.

[Grand Concourse]

Yeah, but bridge traffic can be pretty bad, B41 shows how bad bunching can be on just the street. I still am pretty leery on making long routes longer. Just bring the shuttles back and offer a free transfer or 3rd leg transfer. The shuttles, you can extend them further into Manhattan without impacting things on the Brooklyn end.

[B35 via Church]

I have no reason to believe that sending the B41 or the 44 into manhattan would be viable options, at all....

 

May have slightly more of a better case w/ the 67 over those two aforementioned routes... still though, as far as comm. district 6 goes, having a route go into manhattan via the BBT would make more sense for those folks than having a route go over the manhattan bridge....

[Gorgor]

The bridges connecting Manhattan to the Bronx are significantly smaller and shorter compared to those connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn. The Bx buses that come to Manhattan are pretty much just traveling along a road that happens to be above water, rather than making their way up an entrance ramp and ending up hundreds of feet above water that takes time to cross that a bus from Brooklyn would have to do.

[qjtransitmaster]

There aren't really any routes from Manhattan that the MTA can take into sending it into Brooklyn. I looked into every possibility and there aren't any routes justified for a revamped pattern. The M9, M14A/D, M21 and M22 are the only routes within the vicinity of the bridge but their terminals are too far from the bridge. As for the M8, it runs okay (takes 20-30 minutes to get from one end of the line to the other), but it would have to be rerouted to get to the bridge approach at Clinton Street so that's a bit of a gamble.

M8 needs the boost take the gamble!!!!!

 

Yes the (B39) and (B51) both got good ridership. Even with the doomsday cuts/fiscal crisis the could have reduced the (B39) from a 24/7 line to at least an all day weekday route running (similar to the "B51")IMO appx. from 530am-9pm. I say it till i am blue in the face, the Essex station was ADA accessible(I don't see it in any future ADA station upgrades) then The "B39" elimantion might have been more justified.

The "B39" to gain more ridership could been extended to the Grand St ( station as someone as Cait suggested. However I don't agree with some posters here suggesting the "M15" Local be extended to WBP as it's already a very long and busy route. So in sense the "B39" and "B51" could have been miantained as weekday only routes.

 

Back to oringal question. Again I do agree there could be a couple of more Brooklyn-Manhattan routes. One was the proposed "B71" extension to South Ferry and the other a new route (before the current fiscal crisis)between Greenpoint-East Midtown(Grand Central Terminal area)via the Midtown area.

The is not thinking 'outside' the box in growing neighborhoods near the East River, i.e Brooklyn Heights, Carroll Gardens, Ft. Greene, Williamsburg and Bushwick for added transit options. The during rush hours are at or near overcrowded conditions. Even running a bus between South Ferry-Prospect Park (via Battery Tunnel) or Greenpoint-East Midtown(via Queens Midtown Tunnel)during at least weekday peak periods could be a help.

No need for prospect park to south ferry that is what the BM1,2,3,&4 are for!!! Plus I think the B51 could have been restructured as a canal street crosstown. Changing it's manhattan routing completely. BMCC kids will NOT use a bus to brooklyn that is what the and are for!!! It would be way too slow. Canal street could use a crosstown.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

Yeah, but bridge traffic can be pretty bad, B41 shows how bad bunching can be on just the street. I still am pretty leery on making long routes longer. Just bring the shuttles back and offer a free transfer or 3rd leg transfer. The shuttles, you can extend them further into Manhattan without impacting things on the Brooklyn end.

I think B51 would have done better if it went to atlantic terminal well at least after the nets stadium is built B51 might be able to return

[B35 via Church]

No need for prospect park to south ferry that is what the BM1,2,3,&4 are for!!!

 

None of those routes don't go NEAR prospect park...

 

Try again.

 

 

It would be way too slow. Canal street could use a crosstown.

 

Plus I think the B51 could have been restructured as a canal street crosstown.

 

I think B51 would have done better if it went to atlantic terminal well at least after the nets stadium is built B51 might be able to return

 

But a route running from Atlantic Terminal & clear along Canal street wouldn't....

[Grand Concourse]

I think B51 would have done better if it went to atlantic terminal well at least after the nets stadium is built B51 might be able to return

And where will you turn the bus? that area is pretty congested and will only be worse when there are home games.

 

As for the tunnel - not everyone wants to pay 2x the fare if they just want to get into Manhattan as opposed to taking the subway. So that point is not a reason why there can't be a local bus service via the tunnel.