Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Grand Concourse]

It was just last week... I'd say other posters feel very annoyed with all the times they have to keep correcting you. Plus you've also mentioned you don't ride some of the lines. So who's to say all these ideas you get are just from looking at a map?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Grand Concourse

[qjtransitmaster]

It was just last week... I'd say other posters feel very annoyed with all the times they have to keep correcting you. Plus you've also mentioned you don't ride some of the lines. So who's to say all these ideas you get are just from looking at a map?

To be honest I am always changing initial ones. All I am doing is getting rid of the weak ones while keeping the strong. Many times I ride the lines or attempt a certain trip to come to conclusions. So I can actually refine the ones that are backed by evidence. I will say the new routes are based on traffic patterns and are designed at linking major transfer or travel hubs but in a short amount of time intended to speed up commutes. The Q104 one was partially based on traffic patterns and lack of transfers to the and . While using frequent lines like that Flushing-LGA-Greenpoint line to put pressure on connecting lines like Q104 to improve.service levels this improves access to LGA for several communities. This attracts new ridership allowing the new line to outgrow it's weak headways thus improving service and reducing wait times. Also others are meant to speed up travel time between outer boroughs for people not going to and from Manhattan. You have to realize it's just a piece of a greater puzzle. 

[qjtransitmaster]

I was thinking how reliable will B13 or a simalar route be if it went via 58th street to woodside LIRR? If B13 went up say forest ave on Q39's route till 58th en rte to LIRR would that reduce reliability too much or would it increase ridership just a question.

[B35 via Church]

I understand your argument BUT Q104 is infrequent this line's frequency will cancel this out. The reason why so many walk is cause the Q104 is infrequent.

 

That was southbound routing to avoid the deadend. Let me guess buses can't turn on queens blvd  from eastbound to northbound under the right? But wouldn't a sharp turn onto queens blvd westbound allow the line to cover most of the Q104's route there? and skip the physical limits in the process?

 

B39 is not involved here dude. Plus due to a more frequent line along 48th street Q104 gets pressured to add service. Thus canceling out lost service. That B39 was not intended for being involved for Q104 reshape. Another option is to leave Q104 as is and this B29 will supplement that 48th street corridor en rte to the airport. Turns out there is more to the area what do you think should be done to improve northern blvd service?

That's your problem right there with a lot of your suggestions... too much guessing & not enough paying attention to what other people are telling you on this forum.....

 

Even if you wanted to draw up some route panning from brooklyn to LGA, the 104's infrequency has squat to do with that....

Your line's frequency will not cancel the 104's infrequency out because:

 

a] your "B29" would only take over the 104 portion b/w queens blvd & northern blvd, and...

b] you have the 104 being diverted to jackson heights...

 

What, you think people are only taking Q104's between northern blvd & queens blvd? smh......

 

Not gonna talk about northern blvd enhancements in the Brooklyn thread ... take that to the Queens thread....

 

Lastly, I don't know why you're telling me the B39 isn't involved here; never said it was.... Don't play dumb now like you don't know what I meant by that statement... all of a sudden you don't know slang terminology, you used it quite well the other day....

 

 

 

I was thinking how reliable will B13 or a simalar route be if it went via 58th street to woodside LIRR?

If B13 went up say forest ave on Q39's route till 58th en rte to LIRR would that reduce reliability too much or would it increase ridership just a question.

What do you mean "or a similar route"....

 

Anyway, since you pose this as a question.... Extending B13's from gates/forest to LIRR Woodside eats up more mileage than current 13's to Wyckoff hospital... And without a doubt, you'd also expose it to more traffic - so reliability would only decrease if you were to do that..... The B13 is indirect as all hell up in Ridgewood, but believe it or not, it works for those folks..... Yeah, there is a bit of a hole in service b/w Ridgewood & Woodside - this is why the Q18 is often suggested to fill that void..... Again, I'm going to stop here because this is more an issue w/ Queens than it is w/ Brooklyn.....

[Guest MTA Bus]

The Q104 dosen't need to be extended to Jackson Heights. They can just transfer to the Q32 or at Queens Blvd. That and how would you route it to Jackson Heights ?

[qjtransitmaster]

 

The Q104 dosen't need to be extended to Jackson Heights. They can just transfer to the Q32 or at Queens Blvd. That and how would you route it to Jackson Heights ?

err it would remain on broadway it was a reroute actually.

[aemoreira81]

This is an offshoot of an idea mentioned on BusChat to speed up the B15, which some may consider too long as it is: what about swapping the B15 and B47 routes north of Saint John's Place, with the B15 continuing up Ralph Avenue and Broadway and the B47 meandering through Bed-Stuy instead? Since St. Mary's closed in 2005, there is no longer a need for the B15 to use Buffalo Avenue. The B47 could serve Interfaith Hospital while the B15 takes a more direct route to Woodhull.

 

In addition, sending the B15 down Ralph could make it easier to launch a B15 Limited Service...as alternating Limited buses on the northern end (and all local buses when Limited buses operate) could be truncated to end at Ralph Avenue and Gates Avenue.

 

The B15 Limited would make the following stops on the realigned service (eastbound, reverse for westbound):

 

All stops to Gates Avenue and Ralph Avenue, then:

1. Ralph Avenue and Halsey Street - B26

2. Sumpter Street (Fulton Street)  - B25 and Brevoort Houses

3. Pacific Street - Kingsborough Houses

4. St. John's Place - B45, B47, B67

5. East New York Avenue - B12

6. Sutter Avenue - 

7. East 98 Street and Lenox Road/Riverdale Avenue - B7

8. Brookdale Hospital - B8, B35, B35 Limited

9. Hegeman Avenue and Rockaway Avenue/Chester Street - B8, B35, B35 Limited, B60

10. New Lots Avenue and Mother Gaston Boulevard - B35, B35 Limited

11. Van Sinderen Avenue - 

12. Pennsylvania Avenue - B20, B83

13. Miller Avenue - B83

14. Ashford Street  - B6, 

15. Dumont Avenue and Fountain Avenue - Cypress Hills Houses

16. Fountain Avenue and Linden Boulevard - B20, Q8

17. Linden Boulevard and Euclid Avenue - B13, B20, Q8

18. Eldert Lane - B13, B14, B15 local, B20

All stops to JFK

Edited January 26, 2013 by aemoreira81

[B35 via Church]

This is an offshoot of an idea mentioned on BusChat to speed up the B15, which some may consider too long as it is:

 

what about swapping the B15 and B47 routes north of Saint John's Place, with the B15 continuing up Ralph Avenue and Broadway and the B47 meandering through Bed-Stuy instead?

 

Since St. Mary's closed in 2005, there is no longer a need for the B15 to use Buffalo Avenue.

The B47 could serve Interfaith Hospital while the B15 takes a more direct route to Woodhull.

Don't agree w/ that at all.... that's basically taking all the NB 47's riders up there & putting them on the 15.....

You're bastardizing the B47 by doing that....

 

You don't have to swap the two routes north of that point.... Just keep the 47 as is & have 15's turn on/off ralph at bergen/st marks....

 

In other words, instead of the NB 15 doing ralph > st. john's > buffalo > bergen > troy....

They could do ralph > bergen > troy - If the issue is having the B15 revoked from serving buffalo av, due to the closing of st. mary's.....

(the SB buses would continue on st. mark's to ralph, instead of doing st. mark's > buffalo > st. john's > ralph like they currently do)

[Culver]

Well, I figure it's about time I got ripped to shreds for proposing a bus route. Here goes.

 

B23. The original got canned. I figure let's extend it to provide more service as a subway feeder for the D and maybe get some transfers going southwest from Prospect Park.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388a0c93da0499d&msa=0&ll=40.630109,-73.982449&spn=0.078558,0.154324

 

B101. An old route number never used (Wikipedia says Pioneer bus lines proposed this number). I'm proposing a different route than the 70s proposal, but using 101 as it shares a terminal with the 100. Anyways, connection to the F train and B/Q for those living along Ave P, and service along Bensonhurst to Lutheran Medical Center.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4387b43710de3a48&msa=0&ll=40.628546,-73.990002&spn=0.07856,0.154324

 

B102. This will get destroyed by comments. Crosstown route, maybe take some pressure off the B35, provide service to Gateway Mall.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388451eefa3aee9&msa=0

 

B110 Limited. Take over the route by MTA Bus. That whole "women sit in the back" routine should've lost PT their franchise months ago. I'm adding one stop in Downtown Brooklyn. Also, extending it to the bus terminal by the bridge in Williamsburg and down to Ave I F-train stop (a few extra blocks) at its southern terminal.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388ef4256f2bb54&msa=0

Edited January 26, 2013 by Culver

[Threxx]

Well, I figure it's about time I got ripped to shreds for proposing a bus route. Here goes.

 

B23. The original got canned. I figure let's extend it to provide more service as a subway feeder for the D and maybe get some transfers going southwest from Prospect Park.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388a0c93da0499d&msa=0&ll=40.630109,-73.982449&spn=0.078558,0.154324

 

B101. An old route number never used (Wikipedia says Pioneer bus lines proposed this number). I'm proposing a different route than the 70s proposal, but using 101 as it shares a terminal with the 100. Anyways, connection to the F train and B/Q for those living along Ave P, and service along Bensonhurst to Lutheran Medical Center.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4387b43710de3a48&msa=0&ll=40.628546,-73.990002&spn=0.07856,0.154324

 

B102. This will get destroyed by comments. Crosstown route, maybe take some pressure off the B35, provide service to Gateway Mall.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388451eefa3aee9&msa=0

 

B110 Limited. Take over the route by MTA Bus. That whole "women sit in the back" routine should've lost PT their franchise months ago. I'm adding one stop in Downtown Brooklyn. Also, extending it to the bus terminal by the bridge in Williamsburg and down to Ave I F-train stop (a few extra blocks) at its southern terminal.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388ef4256f2bb54&msa=0

 

Lets see...

 

B23: I like the idea, but I'd keep the entire route along 16th Avenue rather than shooting over to 20th, as 20th Avenue doesn't really need the coverage, but 16th Avenue does. For a connection with the , people could transfer earlier @ 62nd Street.

 

B101: Another interesting idea, but I'd have it use 68th/69th Streets because of traffic along 65th.

 

B102: No. Way too long, and it won't attract anyone off of the B35, even if it connects to Gateway Center. There's nothing that useful along Linden Blvd, and the traffic will kill the route.

 

B110: If the takes over the B110, they should leave it as is, as it's meant to be a connection between the orthodox Williamsburg and Borough Park. If you're going to add stops, they might as well be in Jewish Crown Heights, any other stops would defeat the point. They won't let the take it over anyway, they prefer having somewhat of a "private" route.

[qjtransitmaster]

Lets see...

 

B23: I like the idea, but I'd keep the entire route along 16th Avenue rather than shooting over to 20th, as 20th Avenue doesn't really need the coverage, but 16th Avenue does. For a connection with the , people could transfer earlier @ 62nd Street.

 

B101: Another interesting idea, but I'd have it use 68th/69th Streets because of traffic along 65th.

 

B102: No. Way too long, and it won't attract anyone off of the B35, even if it connects to Gateway Center. There's nothing that useful along Linden Blvd, and the traffic will kill the route.

 

B110: If the takes over the B110, they should leave it as is, as it's meant to be a connection between the orthodox Williamsburg and Borough Park. If you're going to add stops, they might as well be in Jewish Crown Heights, any other stops would defeat the point. They won't let the take it over anyway, they prefer having somewhat of a "private" route.

Traffic on linden actually freely flows east of kings hwy half truth. But B102 doesn't need to be fully on linden blvd it can go to clarkson ave then bedford ave to prospect park subway.

Edited January 27, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[Culver]

Lets see...

 

B23: I like the idea, but I'd keep the entire route along 16th Avenue rather than shooting over to 20th, as 20th Avenue doesn't really need the coverage, but 16th Avenue does. For a connection with the , people could transfer earlier @ 62nd Street.

 

B101: Another interesting idea, but I'd have it use 68th/69th Streets because of traffic along 65th.

 

B102: No. Way too long, and it won't attract anyone off of the B35, even if it connects to Gateway Center. There's nothing that useful along Linden Blvd, and the traffic will kill the route.

 

B110: If the takes over the B110, they should leave it as is, as it's meant to be a connection between the orthodox Williamsburg and Borough Park. If you're going to add stops, they might as well be in Jewish Crown Heights, any other stops would defeat the point. They won't let the take it over anyway, they prefer having somewhat of a "private" route.

Interesting. An alternative for B110 would be same route but keep the couple-of-blocks extensions to bus terminal in Williasmburg (current route turns on Division Ave), and extension to Ave I station (current route terminates on 18 Ave). I understand they want it "private," but it's an NYCDOT route franchise, and thus they can't enforce religious law on the bus. If they don't behave and continue, I have no sympathy about that route being taken away. The law is the law. Besides, MTA Bus would run it more reliably, if anything, even if they just ran it with the same route.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Interesting. An alternative for B110 would be same route but keep the couple-of-blocks extensions to bus terminal in Williasmburg (current route turns on Division Ave), and extension to Ave I station (current route terminates on 18 Ave). I understand they want it "private," but it's an NYCDOT route franchise, and thus they can't enforce religious law on the bus. If they don't behave and continue, I have no sympathy about that route being taken away. The law is the law. Besides, MTA Bus would run it more reliably, if anything, even if they just ran it with the same route.

Please those religious Jews would throw a fit if they tried to have that route taken over by someone else.

[Culver]

Please those religious Jews would throw a fit if they tried to have that route taken over by someone else.

Segregation is illegal in this country, and the B110 isn't a private club service that requires membership, it's an NYDOT route franchise operated by a private company, as were the Triboro and Command, etc. lines. If they want to keep the route, they can stop telling women to go sit in the back.

[Threxx]

What does the segregation have to do with changing the route?

[Culver]

What does the segregation have to do with changing the route?

That's the reason I'd have the MTA take over the route, not the reason for the changes. My route is about 90% same as the route is now. I just added a stop downtown and extended it a couple of blocks on both ends for better connections to subways and other buses.

[qjtransitmaster]

That's the reason I'd have the MTA take over the route, not the reason for the changes. My route is about 90% same as the route is now. I just added a stop downtown and extended it a couple of blocks on both ends for better connections to subways and other buses.

DROP IT!!!!!!!! NOBODY CARES It is voluntary segregation.

[Culver]

DROP IT!!!!!!!! NOBODY CARES It is voluntary segregation.

 

The reason it got into the news was they told those who didn't want to move to move to the back.

 

Regardless, back on the topic of the route, I would've liked to extend it to Williamsburg bus terminal for better connections to other buses on the north end, so passengers didn't have to walk there. Same for the extension south from 18 Ave to McDonald Ave. I added one downtown stop to provide a connection there from both areas serviced.

[Turbo19]

I have to say I agree with Culver in regard to the B110. It should either by operated by the MTA or privately.

[B35 via Church]

Well, I figure it's about time I got ripped to shreds for proposing a bus route. Here goes.

 

B23. The original got canned. I figure let's extend it to provide more service as a subway feeder for the D and maybe get some transfers going southwest from Prospect Park.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388a0c93da0499d&msa=0&ll=40.630109,-73.982449&spn=0.078558,0.154324

 

B101. An old route number never used (Wikipedia says Pioneer bus lines proposed this number). I'm proposing a different route than the 70s proposal, but using 101 as it shares a terminal with the 100. Anyways, connection to the F train and B/Q for those living along Ave P, and service along Bensonhurst to Lutheran Medical Center.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4387b43710de3a48&msa=0&ll=40.628546,-73.990002&spn=0.07856,0.154324

 

B102. This will get destroyed by comments. Crosstown route, maybe take some pressure off the B35, provide service to Gateway Mall.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388451eefa3aee9&msa=0

 

B110 Limited. Take over the route by MTA Bus. That whole "women sit in the back" routine should've lost PT their franchise months ago. I'm adding one stop in Downtown Brooklyn. Also, extending it to the bus terminal by the bridge in Williamsburg and down to Ave I F-train stop (a few extra blocks) at its southern terminal.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d4388ef4256f2bb54&msa=0

 

- B23 & B102 I question demand/usage....

 

The B23 itself, I'm not seeing what your major ridership generator for such a route is (the old/discontinued B23 had a similar problem)....

Just because you have it ending at Prospect park subway doesn't mean it'd gather a decent riderbase (like w/ the B16 & the B43) - especially considering where you have it going on the opposite end of the route.... People would take 16's over your 23 due to the fact there's simply more demand for ft. hamilton pkwy & the commercial area over there along 13th av.... As far as 20th av service, you have the B8 & the B6 in that vicinity/area - anything more is overkill IMO, and where you have the route terminating down there pretty much illustrates that....

 

The B102 itself, if anything, it'd likely do more for B16 riders moreso than anything it'd do for the B35.... Threxx is right.

I'll tell you this much - Riders are all pissy now w/ this current B35 diversion onto Linden blvd due to construction on church av....

You want to appease B35 riders on that end of the route? you're better off sending it along new lots (w/ the B15) over sending it to gateway itself...

As far as service to Gateway mall, while noble, forget about buses entering inside the mall like that....

 

 

- The principle behind your B101 I don't have a problem with..... Your best idea of the four IMO....

 

 

- B110 I don't see the riderbase changing, nor do I see any real growth in ridership occurring just because you'd add a stop downtown....

As for the other issue you raise.... personally I could care less who runs the thing, so I'm not gonna make an issue out of that.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Segregation is illegal in this country, and the B110 isn't a private club service that requires membership, it's an NYDOT route franchise operated by a private company, as were the Triboro and Command, etc. lines. If they want to keep the route, they can stop telling women to go sit in the back.

lol... As if you're telling me something I don't know... A lot of stuff happens behind the scenes... I'm sure they'd have it taken over privately (run by one of their folks) or ditch the service and get their own service (again run by them) before they let some outsider take the route.  Just telling it like it is from my own personal experiences.

[Turbo19]

lol... As if you're telling me something I don't know... A lot of stuff happens behind the scenes... I'm sure they'd have it taken over privately (run by one of their folks) or ditch the service and get their own service (again run by them) before they let some outsider take the route.  Just telling it like it is from my own personal experiences.

That's the point. If they aren't satisfied with the route being operated by the MTA then they'll get their own service to do whatever they please.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's the point. If they aren't satisfied with the route being operated by the MTA then they'll get their own service to do whatever they please.

No that's the point I was making.  Culver is on this nonsense about how he'd add a stop to the route and this and that.  Without them the route would more than likely die.  Who else uses it besides them??

[B35 via Church]

Who else uses it besides them??

This is more or less my point about that route... The riderbase won't change; his route still runs b/w williamsburg & borough park...... Having it stop downtown & extended on both ends won't change much of anything in that regard....

 

 

I have to say I agree with Culver in regard to the B110. It should either by operated by the MTA or privately.

That's the point. If they aren't satisfied with the route being operated by the MTA then they'll get their own service to do whatever they please.

Your stance is rather conflicting.... You say you agree w/ Culver, but you also say it should either be operated by the MTA (which is Culver's stance) or privately (which the route already is)....

Edited January 27, 2013 by B35 via Church

[Gorgor]

If the MTA took over the route, they would have to run it for the same hours every day regardless of the sabbath or else it would be as if the MTA is appealing to a specific religious group, and there would definitely be some people somewhere getting offended and saying that it's discriminatory to non Jews.  Those empty bus runs would then turn into a net loss for the MTA, which in turn would cut certain runs throughout to save money, which would result in protest throughout the communities the bus serves and then they'd start their own bus service up again or boycott it.