Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[JeremiahC99]

6 minutes ago, lara8710 said:

Your holding lights proposal certainly sounds like an excellent idea, as it discourages missed transfers and gives commuters more time to connect.

For your new Bay Ridge-Kings Plaza bus proposal, would you run all buses along the full route? (The B9 short-turns at Avenue L/Flatbush Avenue during early morning and late evening hours).

Whether or not the B9 will go to Bergen Beach, I  would still operate short turns during the early morning and late evening hours. However, I would extend them from Avenue L/Flatbush Avenue to Flatbush Avenue/Avenue P so that during those times, B41 passengers can have a safer place to transfer between the B41 and B9.

Prior to May 2014, I would take the B41 to the B9 to get to school. During the early days, I would wait at Avenue P for around 40 minutes for the B9 since the short turns did not serve Flatbush Avenue. After a while, I started to transfer at Kings Hwy, crossing the very dangerous intersection of Kings Hwy/Flatbush Avenue. Both options were very painful to endure during the very cold winter months. By extending those short turns to Avenue P, turning around via East 45th Street and Flatbush Avenue, transfers are very seamless, eliminating very long waits in the cold and crossing dangerous intersections. Very conviene for all riders.

Thanks for the feedback for the holding lights proposal. It can even help me when I have to stay out late, like for parties at the house of my friends girlfriend. In fact, they should’ve done this a long time ago.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

While I agree with extending the B66 to Canarsie Plaza, I honestly don't feel that the B79 should terminate at Kings Hwy , since it would connect to three low performing subway feeder routes (B2, B31, B100). All three routes have the ability to do better and gain more ridership, so here's what I would do (Note this will evolve into multiple proposals affecting multiple lines in multiple neighborhoods beyond the B79 service areas):

• The B79 would be combined with the B2 along Avenue R and Avenue S to Kings Plaza, providing for new Bay Ridge-Kings Plaza service from areas of Bensonhurst far from bus and subway service. The route should also travel along 65th Street instead of the narrow Bay Ridge Avenue and 70th between Bay Pkwy and 13th Avenue to provide for alternative service to the train for disabled passengers. Service would operate every 8 minutes during the weekdays and 12 minutes during the weekends. Overnight service would operate every 20 minutes.
• The B9 would be rerouted via Avenue N to Veterans Av/East 71st Street, replacing midday, evening, and weekend B41 Avenue N service. B41 Avenue N service would operate during rush hours (10 minutes) and overnights (20 minutes) only. B9 service would operate every 6 minutes during weekdays and 8 minutes during weekends. Bay Ridge - Kings Plaza service would be provided by combined B2/B79 service, while a three-legged transfer would be provided for the B9 and B41 to Kings Plaza for Bergen Beach.
• The B11 would be extended along Avenue K to Ralph Avenue and Avenue L to provide new service to Georgetown Shopping Center, and replace lost B41 service by providing new service to both the Nostrand Avenue station and the Brighton line, which would help with redundancies if one of those lines is delayed or unavailable. Weekday frequencies may not change, but weekend service would operate every 12 minutes during the weekend, a big improvement over the current B41 Bergen Beach headways during that time.

Also, do you have any idea on how frequent your services would be running, if you were to make your own schedule for your routes?

 

In addition, to make transferring between bus and subway routes easier during the overnight hours (1:00 AM and 5:00 PM), new holding lights would be installed at key subway-bus hubs to facilitate at connections. This system is being used at Coney Island hold Coney Island-bound B36 buses at Stillwell Avenue and Surf Avenue and Spring Creek-bound B82 Local buses at the Mermaid Bus Loop for connecting with arriving trains. This will be expanded to several locations, such as:

• Flatbush/Nostrand . Connection with Shespshead Bay-bound B44 Local, Kings Plaza-bound B41 Local, and Rockaway Park-bound Q35 buses. Connections with the B6 are under consideration due to its location at Glenwood Road/Nostrand Av rather than in front of station entrances, which could affect the hold times.
• Utica Avenue . Connection with Spring Creek-bound B14, Canarsie-bound B17, and Kings Plaza-bound B46 Local buses.
• Kings Hwy to connect with B82 Local buses in both directions (coordinated with arrival of Coney Island-bound trains)
• Sheepshead Bay . Connection with B36 buses in both directions in coordination with Coney Island-bound trains
• Brighton Beach . Connection with Manhattan Beach-bound B1 buses in coordination with Coney Island-bound trains
• Rockaway Parkway . Connection with Pier-bound B42, and Spring Creek-bound B82 Local buses.

This proposal, while not related to bus route changes in any way, will make commuting by bus and train easier during the overnight hours, especially in areas with no subway service. To further compliment this, all overnight bus service would run every 20 minutes, just like the subway, benefitting those who live along the routes at that time.

I haven't really looked at your proposals in detail so I will refrain from commenting now about them. As far as the holding lights proposal at key subway stations which would be great for riders when bus service is infrequent, it was first proposed to me by my transportation professor at Columbia University is 1972, so the technology even existed back then to do that and overnight bus service was much more frequent. Why the MTA never did this in the last 46 years is beyond me if they at all cared about their bus riders. It could not be that expensive. 

[JeremiahC99]

Just now, BrooklynBus said:

As far as the holding lights proposal at key subway stations which would be great for riders when bus service is infrequent, it was first proposed to me by my transportation professor at Columbia University is 1972, so the technology even existed back then to do that and overnight bus service was much more frequent. Why the MTA never did this in the last 46 years is beyond me if they at all cared about their bus riders. It could not be that expensive. 

They better do this for the Bus Network Redesign. I also have no idea why its taking so long since its been nearly 5 years since they installed the ones at Coney Island, and its still going strong. Making that connection can actually save time for the customers who take the bus heading home from their activities. If they accompanied that with bus service running every 20 minutes like the subway, that would be a big game changer for the passengers. A little goes a long way.

[Armandito]

43 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Whether or not the B9 will go to Bergen Beach, I  would still operate short turns during the early morning and late evening hours. However, I would extend them from Avenue L/Flatbush Avenue to Flatbush Avenue/Avenue P so that during those times, B41 passengers can have a safer place to transfer between the B41 and B9.

Prior to May 2014, I would take the B41 to the B9 to get to school. During the early days, I would wait at Avenue P for around 40 minutes for the B9 since the short turns did not serve Flatbush Avenue. After a while, I started to transfer at Kings Hwy, crossing the very dangerous intersection of Kings Hwy/Flatbush Avenue. Both options were very painful to endure during the very cold winter months. By extending those short turns to Avenue P, turning around via East 45th Street and Flatbush Avenue, transfers are very seamless, eliminating very long waits in the cold and crossing dangerous intersections. Very conviene for all riders.

Thanks for the feedback for the holding lights proposal. It can even help me when I have to stay out late, like for parties at the house of my friends girlfriend. In fact, they should’ve done this a long time ago.

For my revised B79 route, the schedule would more or less follow the same frame as the present-day B64, albeit with slightly more frequent service (every 4-6 minutes during rush hours, every 12-15 minutes during midday and evening hours, and every 15-20 minutes on weekends). I personally wouldn't suggest running overnight service since there wouldn't be enough demand to justify it.

Edited January 30, 2019 by lara8710

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

43 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

Thanks for the feedback for the holding lights proposal. It can even help me when I have to stay out late, like for parties at the house of my friends girlfriend. In fact, they should’ve done this a long time ago.

Why do I feel like virtually all of these proposal are for your benefit only (in disguise).

[JeremiahC99]

23 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Why do I feel like virtually all of these proposal are for your benefit only (in disguise).

They don’t. That was a coincidence. I was just stating why I would benefit from these proposals. All proposals are made to benefit all passengers (creating new connections, reducing transfers, closing service gaps). Never in a million years would I make bus route proposals that benefit one single person. That’s the MTAs job

31 minutes ago, lara8710 said:

For my revised B79 route, the schedule would more or less follow the same frame as the present-day B64, albeit with slightly more frequent service (every 4-6 minutes during rush hours, every 12-15 minutes during midday and evening hours, and every 15-20 minutes on weekends). I personally wouldn't suggest running overnight service since there wouldn't be enough demand to justify it.

Not bad, but it’s better than the headway’s for the MTAs newest local routes (B84, B32). 30 minute headway’s my ass, that ain’t working for me, and same for anyone else. 

[Armandito]

23 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

They don’t. That was a coincidence. I was just stating why I would benefit from these proposals. All proposals are made to benefit all passengers (creating new connections, reducing transfers, closing service gaps). Never in a million years would I make bus route proposals that benefit one single person. That’s the MTAs job

Not bad, but it’s better than the headway’s for the MTAs newest local routes (B84, B32). 30 minute headway’s my ass, that ain’t working for me, and same for anyone else. 

Here are my proposed schedules and frequencies for my other route ideas borrowed from BrooklynBus:

B66: follows more or less the current B16 schedule. Rush hours: every 8-10 minutes; middays, evenings, and weekends: every 15-20 minutes

B72: similar to the current B64 schedule, with frequencies closely mirroring the current B70.

Edited January 30, 2019 by lara8710

[BrooklynBus]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

They don’t. That was a coincidence. I was just stating why I would benefit from these proposals. All proposals are made to benefit all passengers (creating new connections, reducing transfers, closing service gaps). Never in a million years would I make bus route proposals that benefit one single person. That’s the MTAs job

What you wrote can actually be read two ways. In 1982 and 1983 when it was my job to develop a new bus system for Brooklyn while at the MTA, my boss insisted I include a proposal that would benefit just him. Of course I refused which didn't sit to well with him. 

[B35 via Church]

10 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Why do I feel like virtually all of these proposal are for your benefit only (in disguise).

I clearly see what's going on here.... It ain't that..... These two aren't coming up with suggestions to benefit anyone (including themselves) that actually need them.... It's worse than that & it's quite sad....

One guy's trying to gain acceptance on here & the other's trying his damnedest to kowtow to his perceived ancient, savant, sage-like, all-knowing grandmaster.....

 

 

....with the kung-fu grip

[Armandito]

14 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Not bad, but it’s better than the headway’s for the MTAs newest local routes (B84, B32). 30 minute headway’s my ass, that ain’t working for me, and same for anyone else. 

I forgot to mention that I'm also considering short-turns at Bay Ridge Avenue/Fifth Avenue (near the station) during early morning hours to allow buses from the Jackie Gleason Depot to run straight to Kings Plaza as opposed to deadheading westward toward Shore Road. (Some early morning B9 buses already do this at 60th Street/Fifth Avenue.)

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, lara8710 said:

I forgot to mention that I'm also considering short-turns at Bay Ridge Avenue/Fifth Avenue (near the station) during early morning hours to allow buses from the Jackie Gleason Depot to run straight to Kings Plaza as opposed to deadheading westward toward Shore Road. (Some early morning B9 buses already do this at 60th Street/Fifth Avenue.)

That too. All short turns will be applied where and when applicable, such as near depots before and after the rush. Bus route interlining (a certain leaves service on one route to operate on another) will also be used here. In fact, anything that can be done to improve bus operations for all passengers will be applied to new route proposals.

 

13 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

What you wrote can actually be read two ways. In 1982 and 1983 when it was my job to develop a new bus system for Brooklyn while at the MTA, my boss insisted I include a proposal that would benefit just him. Of course I refused which didn't sit to well with him. 

If I would be in the same position you were, I would probably do the same thing you did (not do it). It would be absurd for anyone to benefit one person, and I do not have any intention to do so. What am I, a politician?

[Around the Horn]

23 hours ago, lara8710 said:

I forgot to mention that I'm also considering short-turns at Bay Ridge Avenue/Fifth Avenue (near the station) during early morning hours to allow buses from the Jackie Gleason Depot to run straight to Kings Plaza as opposed to deadheading westward toward Shore Road. (Some early morning B9 buses already do this at 60th Street/Fifth Avenue.)

Absolutely not. We need those deadhead buses starting at Shore Road.

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Absolutely not. We need those deadhead buses starting at Shore Road.

Some morning buses going east already start at 5th Avenue, specifically the 5:47, 6:03, 6:18, 6:31, 6:43, 6:56, 7:06, 7:18, 7:28, and 7:38 trips. That will remain to make operations efficient near the beginning and end of service.

[Around the Horn]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Some morning buses going east already start at 5th Avenue, specifically the 5:47, 6:03, 6:18, 6:31, 6:43, 6:56, 7:06, 7:18, 7:28, and 7:38 trips. That will remain to make operations efficient near the beginning and end of service.

Ridership in the 7 AM hour is too high west of 5th Avenue to justify the existing level of service and those buses should start at Shore Road instead.

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, Around the Horn said:

Ridership in the 7 AM hour is too high west of 5th Avenue to justify the existing level of service and those buses should start at Shore Road instead.

Okay, but what about the 5 AM and 6 AM hours? Do those short turns need to remain?

[B35 via Church]

What is this obsession with tinkering with the B9?

 The B9 is not the B4.... That route carries clearly more than some of you all think, west of the subway station....

If you wanted to cater to the core of the AM ridership, you'd run all trips heading due east at Xaverian & have some number of trips in the morning short turning at Flatbush/Av L.... Looking at the schedule, they still do that - but not as much as they used to in years past......

[Future ENY OP]

Low key. Leave the B9 alone. Let alone. Leave South Brooklyn alone. All these drawn up proposals are only for benefit and convenience instead of actually addressing the main issues of Brooklyn service.  

Most of Gleason’s Bay Ridge routes start in Bay ridge for one reason only. Scheduling and deadhead purposes. 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

Low key. Leave the B9 alone. Let alone. Leave South Brooklyn alone. All these drawn up proposals are only for benefit and convenience instead of actually addressing the main issues of Brooklyn service.  

Most of Gleason’s Bay Ridge routes start in Bay ridge for one reason only. Scheduling and deadhead purposes. 

South Brooklyn's got some issues, sure enough.... Quite frankly though, the same suggestions have been

a] over the years & b] (especially) as of late

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What is this obsession with tinkering with the B9?

 The B9 is not the B4.... That route carries clearly more than some of you all think, west of the subway station....

If you wanted to cater to the core of the AM ridership, you'd run all trips heading due east at Xaverian & have some number of trips in the morning short turning at Flatbush/Av L.... Looking at the schedule, they still do that - but not as much as they used to in years past......

Thank you. *exasperated hand movement* 

People really need to ride these routes at these times before they start making ridiculous proposals. I used to take the eastbound B9 or B64 at 7 AM every day for 2 and a half years (I leave later now that I go to a different college) and I know first hand that this idea won't fly.

 

[Bay Ridge Express]

Main problems with the B9 I see (weekends) are poor scheduling and too much bus bunching

[Armandito]

4 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Low key. Leave the B9 alone. Let alone. Leave South Brooklyn alone. All these drawn up proposals are only for benefit and convenience instead of actually addressing the main issues of Brooklyn service.  

Most of Gleason’s Bay Ridge routes start in Bay ridge for one reason only. Scheduling and deadhead purposes. 

When buses are not in service deadheading all the way to the end of the route, that's time unnecessarily wasted for certain commuters who could benefit from what could otherwise be more frequent trips. From personal experience I can tell that it's very intimidating to be waiting for a bus in below-zero weather when all of a sudden you see one coming, only to feel disgusted to view the dreaded "NOT IN SERVICE" sign at the front. A decade ago when I lived along Cross Bay Boulevard it was quite common to see four, even five out-of-service buses passing by my stop when I'd already be waiting well over half an hour--isn't that insane!

Edited February 1, 2019 by lara8710

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, lara8710 said:

When buses are not in service deadheading all the way to the end of the route, that's time unnecessarily wasted for certain commuters who could benefit from what could otherwise be more frequent trips. From personal experience I can tell that it's very intimidating to be waiting for a bus in below-zero weather when all of a sudden you see one coming, only to feel disgusted to view the dreaded "NOT IN SERVICE" sign at the front. A decade ago when I lived along Cross Bay Boulevard it was quite common to see four, even five out-of-service buses passing by my stop when I'd already be waiting well over half an hour--isn't that insane!

Oh for the love of god... It's not wasted because the whole point of the deadhead is to serve the area west of 4th Avenue.

No one on the B9 is dreading a bus with "NOT IN SERVICE" up, because it's going to come around and take them to the subway like they want.

Please stop with this nonsense already...

[B35 via Church]

16 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Main problems with the B9 I see (weekends) are poor scheduling and too much bus bunching

Ever since they shortened the service span on weekends (I believe that was part of the 2010 cuts), weekend service has been rather awkward on the B9....

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Ever since they shortened the service span on weekends (I believe that was part of the 2010 cuts), weekend service has been rather awkward on the B9...

But despite those cuts, the B9 recently saw a spike in ridership as a consequence of the closing of stations along the line. Now this rather becomes a question of how much service would be needed, as existing bus service has failed to address this growth.

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, lara8710 said:

But despite those cuts, the B9 recently saw a spike in ridership as a consequence of the closing of stations along the line. Now this rather becomes a question of how much service would be needed, as existing bus service has failed to address this growth.

The point of whether the route should have a service increase is completely separate to that of whether its span should be expanded (back).....