Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[aemoreira81]

Well, I get the feeling that there were some cuts they were planning on restoring anyway (so it would look good if they said "See, we managed to save a few routes"), and having the S66 replace the S60 was one of them. It wasn't like with my current proposal where I was going around speaking at multiple meetings and gathering signatures and everything.

 

I mean, of course, anything's possible, but considering it was just a casual mention, I don't think I should really take credit for that. 

 

 

For starters, Lutheran Hospital isn't on 3rd Avenue. 

 

Second of all, it may be suggested, but the question is: How well-publicized would it be? There are times when it's just one person who comes up with an idea that would improve the route, but nobody else thought about it, and so the media doesn't bother covering it. Maybe coincidentally, the MTA thought of the same idea (like with me and the S66), or maybe the plan falls through because it's missing one crucial component that would've been there had they considered that one person's idea. 

 

 

I should note that I saw a flyer at Lutheran with a restore the B37 on it that caused me to think of a proposal that would revive the B37 via a Second Avenue reroute...now, I could agree with turning the route off 3 Avenue southbound at 52 Street and perhaps having it just be a Sunset Park and Bay Ridge route (ending at the 36 Street station in Sunset Park, permitting an easy run-on and run-off). The real problem is what to do with the route north of 36 Street---is it really warranted?

 

The problem with running the B37 up Smith/9 Streets and then cutting back the B57 is that you then have only one route servicing the Red Hook Houses and IKEA. Perhaps what could happen is: every other bus continues up 3 Avenue to downtown (restoring service to the Gowanus Houses), and then you have the meandering between 36 and 65 Streets to serve the subway and then 2 Avenue? I believe that the southern end of the route would have more ridership...and then the B70 could be rerouted back to Fort Hamilton Parkway with the B37 handling 3 Avenue to the VA.

Edited June 15, 2013 by aemoreira81

[B35 via Church]

I should note that I saw a flyer at Lutheran with a restore the B37 on it that caused me to think of a proposal that would revive the B37 via a Second Avenue reroute...now, I could agree with turning the route off 3 Avenue southbound at 52 Street and perhaps having it just be a Sunset Park and Bay Ridge route (ending at the 36 Street station in Sunset Park, permitting an easy run-on and run-off). The real problem is what to do with the route north of 36 Street---is it really warranted?

 

The problem with running the B37 up Smith/9 Streets and then cutting back the B57 is that you then have only one route servicing the Red Hook Houses and IKEA. Perhaps what could happen is: every other bus continues up 3 Avenue to downtown (restoring service to the Gowanus Houses), and then you have the meandering between 36 and 65 Streets to serve the subway and then 2 Avenue? I believe that the southern end of the route would have more ridership...and then the B70 could be rerouted back to Fort Hamilton Parkway with the B37 handling 3 Avenue to the VA.

not sure why this was directed at Checkmate instead, but....

 

Who said anything about cutting back the B57 to have the B37 run along 9th to get to smith/court? The grunt of what I'm disagreeing with is the amount of meandering you'd have this route doing, especially with as much of 2nd av you would have this route diverted along.... To boot, it doesn't help matters when you would extend the route to VA hospital.... In other words, you're diverting the route all over the place - plus you're adding distance on the southern end of the route as well.... What I'm saying is, perhaps you should cut back on the amount of diversions, and/or scrap the extension to VA hospital..... This particular plan is too ambitious.

[aemoreira81]

not sure why this was directed at Checkmate instead, but....

 

Who said anything about cutting back the B57 to have the B37 run along 9th to get to smith/court? The grunt of what I'm disagreeing with is the amount of meandering you'd have this route doing, especially with as much of 2nd av you would have this route diverted along.... To boot, it doesn't help matters when you would extend the route to VA hospital.... In other words, you're diverting the route all over the place - plus you're adding distance on the southern end of the route as well.... What I'm saying is, perhaps you should cut back on the amount of diversions, and/or scrap the extension to VA hospital..... This particular plan is too ambitious.

 

 

A revised plan:

 

1. Former B37 route to 36/37 Streets (straight down 3 Avenue, then...

2. Run over to 4 Avenue to serve the station. Then switch back to 3 Avenue

3. At 52/53 Streets, switch to 2 Avenue to serve Lutheran.

4. Back to 3 Avenue at 65 Street

5. Leave 3 Avenue at Marine Avenue, have the route travel up to 92 Street via 4/5 Avenues.

6. Run past SUNY Downstate - Bay Ridge and terminate at VA Hospital.

 

The B70 would return to its pre-2010 route, and at least on weekdays, there would likely be more service between 36 Street and the VA.

[checkmatechamp13]

I should note that I saw a flyer at Lutheran with a restore the B37 on it that caused me to think of a proposal that would revive the B37 via a Second Avenue reroute...now, I could agree with turning the route off 3 Avenue southbound at 52 Street and perhaps having it just be a Sunset Park and Bay Ridge route (ending at the 36 Street station in Sunset Park, permitting an easy run-on and run-off). The real problem is what to do with the route north of 36 Street---is it really warranted?

 

The problem with running the B37 up Smith/9 Streets and then cutting back the B57 is that you then have only one route servicing the Red Hook Houses and IKEA. Perhaps what could happen is: every other bus continues up 3 Avenue to downtown (restoring service to the Gowanus Houses), and then you have the meandering between 36 and 65 Streets to serve the subway and then 2 Avenue? I believe that the southern end of the route would have more ridership...and then the B70 could be rerouted back to Fort Hamilton Parkway with the B37 handling 3 Avenue to the VA.

 

I think it would be better to have it serve 59th Street over 36th Street. While there is an advantage in having the direct connection from Lutheran to the , I think it would be better for it to give Bay Ridge residents a direct option to the , as well as provide a connection from the (coming from the south) to Lutheran. (Of course, if the B11 were rerouted by 59th Street, it would still work well as a supplementary route).

 

I know, and that's why I said "the dilemma of using Court/Smith north of 9th Street instead of 3rd Avenue is that if you use Court/Smith, the MTA wouldn't be able to justify that second route serving the Red Hook Houses"

 

not sure why this was directed at Checkmate instead, but....

 

Who said anything about cutting back the B57 to have the B37 run along 9th to get to smith/court? The grunt of what I'm disagreeing with is the amount of meandering you'd have this route doing, especially with as much of 2nd av you would have this route diverted along.... To boot, it doesn't help matters when you would extend the route to VA hospital.... In other words, you're diverting the route all over the place - plus you're adding distance on the southern end of the route as well.... What I'm saying is, perhaps you should cut back on the amount of diversions, and/or scrap the extension to VA hospital..... This particular plan is too ambitious.

 

I was the one who said the B57 would likely have to be cut back if you were to have the B37 along Smith/Court (since the part along Court/Smith itself is just for coverage and doesn't get much ridership), so that's why he directed it at me.

[aemoreira81]

The reason why I chose 36 Street over 59 Street is because no streets cross 3 Avenue between 67 Street and 56 Street (exclusive) except for 65 Street (westbound only) and 60 Street (bidirectional)...it would not be easy to then get back to 2 Avenue from 4 Avenue there. The traffic patterns underneath the Gowanus force that issue.

Edited June 16, 2013 by aemoreira81

[B35 via Church]

I was the one who said the B57 would likely have to be cut back if you were to have the B37 along Smith/Court (since the part along Court/Smith itself is just for coverage and doesn't get much ridership), so that's why he directed it at me.

Alright.....

 

Well if it were to come down to cutting the B57 back (to downtown) to have the B37 utilize smith/court, then we can forget about having 37's run on smith/court..... They're not gonna cut back 57's from Red Hook to have 37's use smith/court.... Outside of one of route duration, this was one reason I wasn't all too thrilled when they extended the 57 to take the place of the old 75 along smith/court.....

 

Goes back to the MTA providing solutions for problems they themselves created.

 

A revised plan:

 

1. Former B37 route to 36/37 Streets (straight down 3 Avenue, then...

2. Run over to 4 Avenue to serve the station. Then switch back to 3 Avenue

3. At 52/53 Streets, switch to 2 Avenue to serve Lutheran.

4. Back to 3 Avenue at 65 Street

5. Leave 3 Avenue at Marine Avenue, have the route travel up to 92 Street via 4/5 Avenues.

6. Run past SUNY Downstate - Bay Ridge and terminate at VA Hospital.

 

The B70 would return to its pre-2010 route, and at least on weekdays, there would likely be more service between 36 Street and the VA.

Well at least that's better than what you originally proposed....

[aemoreira81]

With the introduction of the B84, I wonder if a tweaking of the BM5 is in order to provide express service currently enjoyed by Spring Creek Towers to midtown Manhattan. This is how I would reroute the line:

 

Start point: Vandalia Avenue and Van Siclen Avenue...then travel via the B83 route to Gateway (this would reverse the drop-off and pick-up points in Spring Creek Towers, with pickups southbound and dropoffs northbound), followed by a trip on the Belt and up Erskine Street. Then, follow the B84 route up to Ashford and Linden, and then the current BM5 line. This would incur an increased cost because of travel distance, but I wonder if it should be considered.

[qjtransitmaster]

With the introduction of the B84, I wonder if a tweaking of the BM5 is in order to provide express service currently enjoyed by Spring Creek Towers to midtown Manhattan. This is how I would reroute the line:

 

Start point: Vandalia Avenue and Van Siclen Avenue...then travel via the B83 route to Gateway (this would reverse the drop-off and pick-up points in Spring Creek Towers, with pickups southbound and dropoffs northbound), followed by a trip on the Belt and up Erskine Street. Then, follow the B84 route up to Ashford and Linden, and then the current BM5 line. This would incur an increased cost because of travel distance, but I wonder if it should be considered.

BM5 riders would RIOT if that happened you are making it meander for no good reason. if you want to make it serve more people have it go via cozine and elton to vandalia to serve those new houses there then via B13's routing to linden blvd picking people up closer to their homes that is the point of an express bus you know to get people from their homes clustered that are not near subways to manhattan quick. This way you serve more people and can potentially get more usage for the BM5. Then we shall see if service levels can be adjusted later on with more service or not.

[B35 via Church]

With the introduction of the B84, I wonder if a tweaking of the BM5 is in order to provide express service currently enjoyed by Spring Creek Towers to midtown Manhattan. This is how I would reroute the line:

 

Start point: Vandalia Avenue and Van Siclen Avenue...then travel via the B83 route to Gateway (this would reverse the drop-off and pick-up points in Spring Creek Towers, with pickups southbound and dropoffs northbound), followed by a trip on the Belt and up Erskine Street. Then, follow the B84 route up to Ashford and Linden, and then the current BM5 line. This would incur an increased cost because of travel distance, but I wonder if it should be considered.

Lol..... This BM5 suggestion reminds me of the ridiculous meandering you would have BM1's do within Georgetown....

 

BM5 riders would RIOT if that happened you are making it meander for no good reason.

 

if you want to make it serve more people have it go via cozine and elton to vandalia to serve those new houses there then via B13's routing to linden blvd picking people up closer to their homes that is the point of an express bus you know to get people from their homes clustered that are not near subways to manhattan quick. This way you serve more people and can potentially get more usage for the BM5. Then we shall see if service levels can be adjusted later on with more service or not.

You were good with that very first sentence.

 

The rest of the post, ehh..... Your suggestion (in bold) isn't much better though..... 

Sure, you would gain however many amt. of riders that would use the express down along Vandalia in that new housing community there, but you would lose the people that utilize the route along Ashford - All to have it serve an area that hardly warrants express service (the area the B13 serves b/w flatlands & linden).... You would likely lose time as well (compared to what the current BM5 does).....

 

In other words, both your & A.E. Moreira's suggestions would result in a time loss... His suggestion wouldn't result in a loss of riders - yours would.... He's sacrificing mileage & duration for increased ridership... You're sacrificing mileage to at best break even with duration & ridership.....

 

^^ Which is why I can't c/s either of the 2 presented suggestions....

If the riders in that new housing community along Vandalia want the BM5, they're simply gonna have to have someone drive them to a nearby BM5 stop, or take a local bus to get to the BM5..... I can't see any scenario where the BM5 would be altered to serve those folks

Edited June 20, 2013 by B35 via Church

[Q43LTD]

What's up with the B1? In the random thoughts thread, there was quite a bit of complaining about it. How was it before the switch with the B64?

[B35 via Church]

What's up with the B1?

 

In the random thoughts thread, there was quite a bit of complaining about it. How was it before the switch with the B64?

I don't know of whatever complaining there was in the bus random thoughts thread, but I'll say this much......

 

- What's up w/ the B1 is that buses are more crowded now, than they were before the terminal swap.....

- As far as reliability, I would actually say they're a little more reliable now than before.....

- As far as SPEED (lol), well from its respective routings end to end, I have to say it's no more a slow crawl on the route now than before.... But again, with the current B1, it's due to the influx of people it garnered (moreso than before) - thanks to the fact that it serves commercial 86th st & everything else that's goin on around 86th/4th-5th.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What's up with the B1? In the random thoughts thread, there was quite a bit of complaining about it. How was it before the switch with the B64?

For starters, there are those in Bay Ridge that want the B64 to return BACK to its original terminal so that it could flip flop back with the B1 and I agree with that.  The B1 is PAINFULLY slow now.

[Q43LTD]

I don't know of whatever complaining there was in the bus random thoughts thread, but I'll say this much......

 

- What's up w/ the B1 is that buses are more crowded now, than they were before the terminal swap.....

- As far as reliability, I would actually say they're a little more reliable now than before.....

- As far as SPEED (lol), well from its respective routings end to end, I have to say it's no more a slow crawl on the route now than before.... But again, with the current B1, it's due to the influx of people it garnered (moreso than before) - thanks to the fact that it serves commercial 86th st & everything else that's goin on around 86th/4th-5th.....

 

 

For starters, there are those in Bay Ridge that want the B64 to return BACK to its original terminal so that it could flip flop back with the B1 and I agree with that.  The B1 is PAINFULLY slow now.

Thank you both for your inputs. I admit I only rode the B1 once and I know it's in the top 10 heaviest used routes in Brooklyn. IMO I didn't mind the Bay Ridge swap, my gripe was the B64 getting cut off from Coney Island, but that's another story.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Thank you both for your inputs. I admit I only rode the B1 once and I know it's in the top 10 heaviest used routes in Brooklyn. IMO I didn't mind the Bay Ridge swap, my gripe was the B64 getting cut off from Coney Island, but that's another story.

I do because the 4th Avenue and 86th street stop was one of its main generators.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Lol..... This BM5 suggestion reminds me of the ridiculous meandering you would have BM1's do within Georgetown....

 

You were good with that very first sentence.

 

The rest of the post, ehh..... Your suggestion (in bold) isn't much better though.....

Sure, you would gain however many amt. of riders that would use the express down along Vandalia in that new housing community there, but you would lose the people that utilize the route along Ashford - All to have it serve an area that hardly warrants express service (the area the B13 serves b/w flatlands & linden).... You would likely lose time as well (compared to what the current BM5 does).....

 

In other words, both your & A.E. Moreira's suggestions would result in a time loss... His suggestion wouldn't result in a loss of riders - yours would.... He's sacrificing mileage & duration for increased ridership... You're sacrificing mileage to at best break even with duration & ridership.....

 

^^ Which is why I can't c/s either of the 2 presented suggestions....

If the riders in that new housing community along Vandalia want the BM5, they're simply gonna have to have someone drive them to a nearby BM5 stop, or take a local bus to get to the BM5..... I can't see any scenario where the BM5 would be altered to serve those folks

Not to mention it already gets delayed on its current route.

 

Since I take the BM5 by the last stop in Queens (63 Drive) most Saturdays, I'll just say this. Buses (especially te last few inbound) tend to be late by as much as 10 minutes in Queens, and late in Manhattan by as much as 20-135 minutes (yes I said 135 minutes) just by it being late by 10 minutes in Queens, depending on road conditions on the LIE. The QM15 is another one, however this can be a whopping 30 minutes late and can be late in Manhattan as much as 25-165 minutes (again depending on the LIE conditions). I remember one time the BM5 arriving 63 Drive at 1:56 PM (the last one 10 minutes late). By the time I figure it, we were racing the QM15 like snails on the LIE (our bus had 12, the QM15 had 2). By the time I knew it, the time was 4:11 PM, and we were on Madison and 54th. Now that happens once in a blue moon, but that's what can happens if you increase run time.

[B35 via Church]

Thank you both for your inputs. I admit I only rode the B1 once and I know it's in the top 10 heaviest used routes in Brooklyn. IMO I didn't mind the Bay Ridge swap, my gripe was the B64 getting cut off from Coney Island, but that's another story.

I hear you.... and no problem.

 

When that change happened, I was looking at it from a wider scale..... My gripe was more the fact that the B64 was getting bastardized to put even more riders on the B1 (basically, trying to revisit that old B86 proposal)....

[Q43LTD]

I hear you.... and no problem.

 

When that change happened, I was looking at it from a wider scale..... My gripe was more the fact that the B64 was getting bastardized to put even more riders on the B1 (basically, trying to revisit that old B86 proposal)....

I thought it was to force riders on the 82?

[B35 via Church]

I thought it was to force riders on the 82?

Nah man, the MTA attempted to do that w/ the 64 cut (they claimed that the 64 duplicated the 82)...

 

My gripe involving the B1 & B64 swap, was always that they were tryna bastardize (and eventually cut) the B64.....

(of course, this was before they sent the 64 back to CI.... I'm still a bit worried about that route's future though)

[Q43LTD]

Nah man, the MTA attempted to do that w/ the 64 cut (they claimed that the 64 duplicated the 82)...

 

My gripe involving the B1 & B64 swap, was always that they were tryna bastardize (and eventually cut) the B64.....

(of course, this was before they sent the 64 back to CI.... I'm still a bit worried about that route's future though)

A little O/T, do you feel the same way about the B48?

[Q90]

How about an extension of the B13 to the Williamsburg Bridge. This could be done by resuming the path the B13 took to go towards it's former Williamsburg terminus (by continuing down Wyckoff Avenue until it reached Flushing Avenue, then made a left turn on Flushing and then a right on Bushwick Avenue and then terminating at Metropolitan Avenue) before it was shortened to Wyckoff Hospital during the 2010 cuts except it turns off Bushwick Avenue at Grand Street and follows the Q54 route towards Williamsburg. I wonder why the B13 doesn't go to the Williamsburg Bridge in the first place.

[Q43LTD]

How about an extension of the B13 to the Williamsburg Bridge. This could be done by resuming the path the B13 took to go towards it's former Williamsburg terminus (by continuing down Wyckoff Avenue until it reached Flushing Avenue, then made a left turn on Flushing and then a right on Bushwick Avenue and then terminating at Metropolitan Avenue) before it was shortened to Wyckoff Hospital during the 2010 cuts except it turns off Bushwick Avenue at Grand Street and follows the Q54 route towards Williamsburg. I wonder why the B13 doesn't go to the Williamsburg Bridge in the

first place.

If you extend the B13 to Willie B, which lane would it occupy since the B32 is supposed to start up this fall?

[Eric B]

Apparently, there wasn't a lot of ridership on that (it does somewhat parallel the . The only reason it goes past Ridgewood Terminal at all is because of the hospital.

[B35 via Church]

How about an extension of the B13 to the Williamsburg Bridge. This could be done by resuming the path the B13 took to go towards it's former Williamsburg terminus (by continuing down Wyckoff Avenue until it reached Flushing Avenue, then made a left turn on Flushing and then a right on Bushwick Avenue and then terminating at Metropolitan Avenue) before it was shortened to Wyckoff Hospital during the 2010 cuts except it turns off Bushwick Avenue at Grand Street and follows the Q54 route towards Williamsburg. I wonder why the B13 doesn't go to the Williamsburg Bridge in the first place.

With as indirect as the B13 is, the last thing that route needs is a further extension from where it used to terminate due to the B13/B18 merge.... When it terminated there at Graham av , that was long enough..... Flushing av itself has gotten worse w/ traffic over the years..... Grand st b/w Union & Bushwick is prone to hangups in its own right.... I wouldn't subject the B13 to that.....

 

.....The only reason it goes past Ridgewood Terminal at all is because of the hospital.

Exactly.

 

 

A little O/T, do you feel the same way about the B48?

short answer: To an extent, yes.....

 

long(er) answer: With +SBS+ coming on the 44, I think something's gonna happen with the 49 (which'll involve the 48).....

 

It would be nothing for the MTA to bastardize the 49 to have it run b/w [flatbush av or newkirk plz subway] & KCC.... The question would then become - Would they just say to hell w/ it and leave bedford w/ no service (I say bedford only b/c at some point, 44 local service will be moved off NY av onto rogers), or would they send 48's part-time south of prospect park subway (as some sort of compromise to cutting back 49's)......

 

Some kind of funky 48/49 merge in the future I think is coming - just not the quote-unquote superroute version b/w KCC & north brooklyn....

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the 48 were to be cut back to the (Nassau av) either, because they've been flirting with the idea of cutting the 48 b/w the & Meeker/Stewart for as long as I can remember - And it started w/ the (MTA)'s suggestion of cutting service on that portion of the route on weekday nights & all throughout the weekend..... That didn't happen, due to the fact that the 48 ended up getting cut south of fulton instead......

Edited June 28, 2013 by B35 via Church

[Fresh Pond]

If you extend the B13 to Willie B, which lane would it occupy since the B32 is supposed to start up this fall?

It doesn't necessarily have to occupy a lane. The Q59 doesn't use a lane (very short lived when it did) as it picks up right outside the terminal

[Q90]

Apparently, there wasn't a lot of ridership on that (it does somewhat parallel the . The only reason it goes past Ridgewood Terminal at all is because of the hospital.

Apparently, there wasn't a lot of ridership on that (it does somewhat parallel the . The only reason it goes past Ridgewood Terminal at all is because of the hospital.

Probably due to the fact that the B13 terminated at Metropolitan and Graham so it completely overlapped the L train. It's much more efficient to take the L there than the B13 from the Ridgewood Terminal but if the B13 was sent to Williamsburg Bridge, it would most likely get more riders since it doesn't overlap the L after it would turn off Bushwick Avenue at Grand Street.