Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Future ENY OP]

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

It isn't about the number of routes, per se - It's about the "combined" serviced provided on the corridor..... Current B67/B69 service along 7th is the furthest thing from overkill...

Also, have you seen PPW (Prospect Park West) nowadays? It's bogged down with traffic pretty much the whole length now; from Grand Army Plz. to 9th st, minimum... The bike lanes have definitely played a part in that; B69's wouldn't be no where near as fast along 8th/PPW here in 2018 as they were pre-2010..... Also, let's face it - the demand for bus service along PPW was never great & it isn't even an issue of coverage; running it on 7th helped that route out (as far as patronage goes) a lot.... There really isn't much of a reason to revert the pre-2010 B69 routing.....

It's pretty much the current B69 routing, or bust......

Literally everytime I'm in Park Slope now, I say to myself, I abhor what they did to the B67 (and I'm not even talking about the extension through the Navy Yard, although I can easily include it)..... They could have kept current service levels on the B67 & still had B69's shifted over to 7th - but being cheap, of course they had to dig into B67 service to justify (the way they saw fit) having both the B67/B69 running along 7th.... What I've noticed ever since the B69 was shifted over to 7th, is that less people are taking B67's into Downtown & both the B67 & the B69 pretty much tank at Flatbush (7th av ).....

That answers your question btw, nobody in Park Slope takes the B69 to RAMBO....

I took a brief drive through 8th Avenue during Friday morning's rush and from what I notice is 2 things.

A) The back end of 8th Avenue has B61 service to which I find very weird, but hey it has a direct stop to the train stop.

B) I think that 8th Avenue does deserve full time bus service again via the B69. I agree with you @B35 via Church in regards to PPW. No bus service on that corridor.

 

[JeremiahC99]

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well 30 minute headways for local buses is indeed abysmal. The agency IMO has used BusTime as a way to justify such headways, and quite frankly more times than not those buses are delayed, thus leading to waits well over 30 minutes. The M50 is a perfect example. 9 times out of 10 unless you're going really far, you're better off walking. We can run more frequent service if operating costs are kept lower because then each trip isn't astronomical to run. The longer the trips take, the more expensive they are the deer trips the can afford to operate.

Well BusTime indeed helped me NOT ride some bus routes. One time, I was waiting for a Bergen Beach B41 at Nostrand Juction (Flatbush Avenue  station) with my dad and when I checked BusTime, it said the next one was 28 minutes away, and this was in the middle of the PM Rush Hour. I then though, “F**** this, I ain’t waiting for that bus.” Instead, I took the Kings Plaza B41 to Avenue P and walked the rest of the way home. 10 blocks later, NOT one bus passed me I’m my direction. Then they wonder why ridership is declining.

 

If they want to build ridership, they need to stop providing crap service, and using BusTime to justify not improving service. Start by improving service. Example: B41 on Avenue N is nearly empty, except during rush hours. Solution: replace all B41 non-rush and late night service on Avenue N with a rerouted B9, which frankly has no business going to Kings Plaza. This route has better headways and goes to Bay Ridge and the Brighton Line Subway at Avenue M , where everybody is going to. Desiring service to the Junction, extend the B11, which also has better headways via Avenue K to Ralph Avenue. B11 service runs with 12 minutes during the most of the weekend, so this would be better for Flatlands and Georgetown residents. This service change is better than the current garbage pattern of 30-minute B41 service to Downtown Brooklyn and the Junction, and no one-seat ride crosstown to better parts of Brooklyn, where everyone in the area is driving to.

[JeremiahC99]

14 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I agree. Providing a new service at 10 minute headways just can't be afforded, and 30 minutes is miserable. New routes should preferably start at every 15 minutes, and then be cut back to every 20 minutes after three months if the ridership is low. Or else start it at every 20 minutes if you absolutely have to. But every 30 minutes for NYC is ridiculous but probably perfectly acceptable elsewhere. You also have to give the route six months to a year to build ridership before you think about discontinuing it.

So do I. I’d rather wait 15-20 minutes for a bus than every 30 or more minutes for a bus, especially if it’s one that takes me home from the subway. Also, bus holding lights should be installed at major subway transfer points (preferably at terminals like Flatbush Avenue ) like what was done at Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue  to hold the buses when trains arrive so passengers can make their connection to the buses and not miss it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

43 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I agree. Providing a new service at 10 minute headways just can't be afforded, and 30 minutes is miserable. New routes should preferably start at every 15 minutes, and then be cut back to every 20 minutes after three months if the ridership is low. Or else start it at every 20 minutes if you absolutely have to. But every 30 minutes for NYC is ridiculous but probably perfectly acceptable elsewhere. You also have to give the route six months to a year to build ridership before you think about discontinuing it.

I actually was thinking about 15 because that was sort of the standard back in the day when I was a teenager growing up in Brooklyn. One of may main lines was the B4. Only problem was the route had horrible reliability issues, so that 15 minutes was often 30-45 minutes for a bus.

[Around the Horn]

Let's not act like the old B69 was crush loaded on PPW...

I remember riding it pre-2010, and there was not much patronage on that route. As much as I may not like it on 7th, I feel like that's the best routing for it (frequency notwithstanding). That being said every 30 minutes is inexcusable... It has to be every 15 or 20.

As for the B67, it has no business serving the Navy Yard...

[Orion6025]

With the navy yard shuttles,the b67 is pretty redundant north of downtown brooklyn. The only folks I see riding it are a few families who need to get to southern williamsburg...

[B35 via Church]

43 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Let's not act like the old B69 was crush loaded on PPW...

I remember riding it pre-2010, and there was not much patronage on that route. As much as I may not like it on 7th, I feel like that's the best routing for it (frequency notwithstanding). That being said every 30 minutes is inexcusable... It has to be every 15 or 20.

As for the B67, it has no business serving the Navy Yard...

I'm not sure where this is coming from either.... I used to fan that route quite a bit back in the 90's; the thing carried air after it served Vanderbilt for large chunks of the day.... Separate from the ones that entailed buses running up to WBP, I remember the proposals on the differing transit boards talking about cut the B69 back to Grand Army Plaza.... I later brought up combining the northern portion of the B69 with the western portion of the B71.... Those proposals back then would have been vociferously shot down with the quickness on the transit boards if 8th/PPW was this ideal routing......

I've said this for the longest.... My problem isn't that the B69 no longer serves 8th/PPW, it's that service was taken away from the B67 to have it (the B69) moved onto 7th.... That robbing peter to pay paul bit was straight up BS.....

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

I took a brief drive through 8th Avenue during Friday morning's rush and from what I notice is 2 things.

A) The back end of 8th Avenue has B61 service to which I find very weird, but hey it has a direct stop to the train stop.....

It's simple really....

The stint on 8th av [south of the expwy.] is for turnaround/layover purposes (buses usually layover along 19th st, just short of PPW)....

The other stint on 8th av [b/w 9th st & 15th st] is as such, because PPW ceases being a 2-way street at Pritchard Sq. (PPW, north of Pritchard sq. as you know, is one way SB)....

Edited September 25, 2018 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

6 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I agree. Providing a new service at 10 minute headways just can't be afforded, and 30 minutes is miserable. New routes should preferably start at every 15 minutes, and then be cut back to every 20 minutes after three months if the ridership is low. Or else start it at every 20 minutes if you absolutely have to. But every 30 minutes for NYC is ridiculous but probably perfectly acceptable elsewhere. You also have to give the route six months to a year to build ridership before you think about discontinuing it.

They did it on the Q70, but then again, that was more of a Q33 restructuring than an actual new route.

[BrooklynBus]

17 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

It isn't about the number of routes, per se - It's about the "combined" service provided on the corridor..... Current B67/B69 service along 7th is the furthest thing from overkill... Park Slope patrons didn't get duped by that shit (they were quite vocal about the loss of B67 service when that change happened) & neither should you.....

Also, have you seen PPW (Prospect Park West) nowadays? It's bogged down with traffic pretty much the whole length now; from Grand Army Plz. to 9th st, minimum... The bike lanes have definitely played a part in that; B69's wouldn't be no where near as fast along 8th/PPW here in 2018 as they were pre-2010..... Also, let's face it - the demand for bus service along PPW was never great & it isn't even an issue of coverage; running it on 7th helped that route out (as far as patronage goes) a lot.... There really isn't much of a reason to revert the pre-2010 B69 routing.....

Within Park Slope, it's pretty much the current B69 routing, or bust......

Literally everytime I'm in Park Slope now, I say to myself, I abhor what they did to the B67 (and I'm not even talking about the extension through the Navy Yard, although I can easily include it)..... They could have kept current service levels on the B67 & still had B69's shifted over to 7th - but being cheap, of course they had to dig into B67 service to justify (the way they saw fit) having both the B67/B69 running along 7th.... What I've noticed ever since the B69 was shifted over to 7th, is that less people are taking B67's into Downtown & both the B67 & the B69 pretty much tank at Flatbush (7th av )..... The ridership trend on the B67 wasn't always for the masses in the neighborhood to catch the Brighton line.... I remember when 7th av on the Brighton line used to be a pretty quiet station... Not so much anymore.

That answers your question btw, nobody in Park Slope takes the B69 to RAMBO....

Your point about the traffic congestion because of the bike lanes on PPW is very valid. 

[BrooklynBus]

16 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I actually was thinking about 15 because that was sort of the standard back in the day when I was a teenager growing up in Brooklyn. One of may main lines was the B4. Only problem was the route had horrible reliability issues, so that 15 minutes was often 30-45 minutes for a bus.

I don't know if you remember back in the 70s when then councilperson Carol Bellamy forced the MTA to create service standards to prevent them from arbitrarily reducing service past a certain level. The standard was no greater than every 20 minutes during the off hours and no greater than every 30 minutes at night. But no one ever introduced legislation in Albany that required legislative approval for them to change those standards. So when they introduced overnight 60 minute headways, the just changed to the standard to every 60 minutes. When they chanted service levels to every 30 minutes during the day, they just changed the standards again. So all these standards have done is provide an excuse for when the MTA wants to reduce service with occasional service increases. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, BrooklynBus said:

I don't know if you remember back in the 70s when then councilperson Carol Bellamy forced the MTA to create service standards to prevent them from arbitrarily reducing service past a certain level. The standard was no greater than every 20 minutes during the off hours and no greater than every 30 minutes at night. But no one ever introduced legislation in Albany that required legislative approval for them to change those standards. So when they introduced overnight 60 minute headways, the just changed to the standard to every 60 minutes. When they chanted service levels to every 30 minutes during the day, they just changed the standards again. So all these standards have done is provide an excuse for when the MTA wants to reduce service with occasional service increases. 

Interesting... 

[NewFlyer 230]

I find it weird how the Q59 takes that indirect routing on Metropolitan Ave and Grand St and Wythe Ave to get to Williamburg Bridge Plaza. From my experience riding the Q59 in Williamsburg the route starts to empty out on Grand Street especially after the Grand Street  station. Then for the most part after the  stop it almost carries air. In the reverse direction it does see more usage but not by a whole lot from what I remember. 

So I would reroute the Q59 to follow the Q54 to WBP which would speed things up and it could then attract new riders who may be coming from Queens for example. Also it would helped the Q54 which isn't the most reliable in Brooklyn. 

The B32 can definitely handle Kent and Wythe Ave's alone, it's ridership is definitely growing but I still feel that it needs to connect to the  and  trains. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

4 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I find it weird how the Q59 takes that indirect routing on Metropolitan Ave and Grand St and Wythe Ave to get to Williamburg Bridge Plaza. From my experience riding the Q59 in Williamsburg the route starts to empty out on Grand Street especially after the Grand Street  station. Then for the most part after the  stop it almost carries air. In the reverse direction it does see more usage but not by a whole lot from what I remember. 

So I would reroute the Q59 to follow the Q54 to WBP which would speed things up and it could then attract new riders who may be coming from Queens for example. Also it would helped the Q54 which isn't the most reliable in Brooklyn. 

The B32 can definitely handle Kent and Wythe Ave's alone, it's ridership is definitely growing but I still feel that it needs to connect to the  and  trains. 

Streamlining is a must, because the Q59 can get boggled down along with the traffic along Broadway near the bridge exit. 

IDK about following the Q54 all the way, but I would still have it serve the (G). Although the ridership in that specific area is pravelent around the (G), there are other surrounding areas which also get riders. Perhaps it can follow the B24 route from the station. When I used to take the Q59 regularly, I would always notice people getting on at or near Bedford, and then some people getting on at the (G). There is a difference in ridership patterns on Williamsburg buses compared to Rego Park buses. Williamsburg buses tend to empty out at the , but the Rego Park buses do pick up more along Grand Street. Not sure if it's because people are walking from the to catch the bus earlier, Q54 service, or anything else. 

Ideally, I would have it go down Driggs (to WBP) , and have it go go Havemeyer (to Rego Park). That way it retains some of the portions in that section where people use the bus. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 9/24/2018 at 7:06 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

This is why the B67 service should run every 10 minutes at least to build ridership.

The budget-mongers would never allow that.  ("We lose money on every passenger, so we must shrink ridership to lose less money.")

[Via Garibaldi 8]

15 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

The budget-mongers would never allow that.  ("We lose money on every passenger, so we must shrink ridership to lose less money.")

If you run efficient service, then you can run it more frequently since the trips would cost less with run times being down.

[Future ENY OP]

20 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The B32 can definitely handle Kent and Wythe Ave's alone, it's ridership is definitely growing but I still feel that it needs to connect to the  and  trains. 

A good suggestion for this is extend the 32 to Queensboro Plaza // 27th Street

Continue down 11th Street to Queens Plaza South than terminate at 27th Street- Queensboro Plaza. Return trip 27th Street to Hunter Street to 44th Drive for  at Court Square. 

[BrooklynBus]

4 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

The budget-mongers would never allow that.  ("We lose money on every passenger, so we must shrink ridership to lose less money.")

I hope you are kidding because that really is the MTA philosophy. I assume you are because of the quotes. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by BrooklynBus

[JeremiahC99]

7 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I hope you are kidding because that really is the MTA philosophy. I assume you are because of the quotes. 

I don’t like that philosophy they have. It just makes service worse, and it just repeats itself. If they want to lose less money, they must improve the service they have to get people back on the buses.

[B35 via Church]

 

On 9/26/2018 at 12:44 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I find it weird how the Q59 takes that indirect routing on Metropolitan Ave and Grand St and Wythe Ave to get to Williamburg Bridge Plaza. From my experience riding the Q59 in Williamsburg the route starts to empty out on Grand Street especially after the Grand Street  station. Then for the most part after the  stop it almost carries air. In the reverse direction it does see more usage but not by a whole lot from what I remember. 

So I would reroute the Q59 to follow the Q54 to WBP which would speed things up and it could then attract new riders who may be coming from Queens for example. Also it would helped the Q54 which isn't the most reliable in Brooklyn. 

The B32 can definitely handle Kent and Wythe Ave's alone, it's ridership is definitely growing but I still feel that it needs to connect to the  and  trains. 

The Q59 terminating at WBP is really as simple as having been an extension of an antiquated routing (it used to terminate over there on Kent & Broadway)..... Here in 2018, nothing should be back-dooring its way into WBP like that.... The ridership patterns of Brooklyn bound buses emptying out at Grand st (Lol) & the ridership patterns of Queens bound buses picking up moderately along Grand st (west of the ) tells you all you need to know....

Not just the Brooklyn routing, but the Q59 in its totality is a route I would completely transform (the Q58 does not need a supplement along Grand, I'm sorry).... As for the B32, I think the thing has potential - Just not as is, from A to Z...... I mean, as long as the B62 is still in existence, the Williamsburg portion of the route (B32) will always be significantly inferior & sorely lacking - even when the area "fully" develops IMO.... From Queens, I'd turn the thing (B32) off along Grand & basically do the Q59 routing, ending at Lorimer/Metropolitan ..... I'd also have it serve much more of Queens than it does now too.... Nobody won't analyze it like this, but I can tell you that those in the Williamsburg portion of the waterfront community are too busy taking cabs, bikes - basically ignoring the bus (this includes the B62 to an extent as well).... Whereas those in the Greenpoint portion of the waterfront community simply patronize their buses more... Consider the makeups (the types of communities) that Greenpoint proper is, and what the (waterfront portion of) Williamsburg is... Two separate animals....

On 9/26/2018 at 5:21 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Streamlining is a must, because the Q59 can get boggled down along with the traffic along Broadway near the bridge exit. 

IDK about following the Q54 all the way, but I would still have it serve the (G). Although the ridership in that specific area is pravelent around the (G), there are other surrounding areas which also get riders. Perhaps it can follow the B24 route from the station. When I used to take the Q59 regularly, I would always notice people getting on at or near Bedford, and then some people getting on at the (G). There is a difference in ridership patterns on Williamsburg buses compared to Rego Park buses. Williamsburg buses tend to empty out at the , but the Rego Park buses do pick up more along Grand Street. Not sure if it's because people are walking from the to catch the bus earlier, Q54 service, or anything else. 

Ideally, I would have it go down Driggs (to WBP) , and have it go go Havemeyer (to Rego Park). That way it retains some of the portions in that section where people use the bus. 

See post above....

To add to it & tailor it more to your post here, the fact of the matter is, is that (even with its shit service), folks tend to shoot for the B24 over the Q59 for service to QB.... Putting that another way, if the B24 did the Q59 routing west of Lorimer/Metropolitan (and had more service), it would garner a] more & b] consistent usage than the Q59 over on that specific portion of the route..... Q59 riders in Brooklyn if you notice, are not traveling too far past industrial Maspeth - Hell, I know - I used to be one of them (taking the B46 or B44 to the Q59, to then take that walk from Grand av, up towards the RR trackage)....

[Around the Horn]

On 9/29/2018 at 6:43 PM, B35 via Church said:

To add to it & tailor it more to your post here, the fact of the matter is, is that (even with its shit service), folks tend to shoot for the B24 over the Q59 for service to QB.... Putting that another way, if the B24 did the Q59 routing west of Lorimer/Metropolitan (and had more service), it would garner a] more & b] consistent usage than the Q59 over on that specific portion of the route...

Didn't the B24 do that routing at some point? I remember seeing it on a map around 2005-ish

[B35 via Church]

26 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Didn't the B24 do that routing at some point? I remember seeing it on a map around 2005-ish

Nope...

What you're referring to is when both the B24 & Q59 both ended at Broadway/Kent, where the Williamsburg bound buses (B24's) went Metropolitan > Marcy > Broadway (passing by WBP) > Bedford > Grand > Kent > back on Broadway, to stand.....

Williamsburg bound buses never did Metropolitan > Roebling > Grand > Wythe > Broadway > to terminate inside WBP (which is what that post of mine is saying, would have people consistently utilizing B24's in that area west of Union more than they do the current Q59's)

[Yankees4life]

The B84 is such a short route. I think it can extend to at least Broadway Junction Station...

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, Yankees4life said:

The B84 is such a short route. I think it can extend to at least Broadway Junction Station...

I'd rather discontinue the thing & give the 2 BPH (or whatever) to some other ENY route that's in need of it.

[JeremiahC99]

3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I'd rather discontinue the thing & give the 2 BPH (or whatever) to some other ENY route that's in need of it.

I rather disagree. To better serve the area, the route should be extended to the Euclid Avenue  station to provide service to an ADA-Accesible station, although in that case, we might as well just extend the Q7 via Fountain Avenue, New Lots Av, and the current B84 routing to the Gateway Center Bus terminal at the western end of the property. This means better service for everyone.

If that is unfeasible, the routes can mainting their current routing and the B84 would run every 15 minutes during the day.

[Future ENY OP]

9 hours ago, Yankees4life said:

The B84 is such a short route. I think it can extend to at least Broadway Junction Station...

Im going to be straight up honest. The purpose of the B84 is to serve the farthest point of East New York and Spring Creek. It already serves as a feeder to the  train station.  I don’t know extending the 84 to serve the   is the right choice. 

I’ve mentioned this and even moving the 84 at least to Canarsie to help out the B6 and terminate at Rockaway. Again, you gotta look at ridership patterns in the area plus existing B20 service in East New York. 

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I rather disagree. To better serve the area, the route should be extended to the Euclid Avenue  station to provide service to an ADA-Accesible station, although in that case, we might as well just extend the Q7 via Fountain Avenue, New Lots Av, and the current B84 routing to the Gateway Center Bus terminal at the western end of the property. This means better service for everyone.

If that is unfeasible, the routes can mainting their current routing and the B84 would run every 15 minutes during the day.

 I don’t know extending the 84 to serve the    on Euclid is the right choice. You dont need the Q7 and Q8 stopping at the same place. If anything the 84 should serve Grant Avenue since there’s no current terminal since the B12 no longer serves city line.