B35 via Church Posted March 28, 2015 Share #3576 Posted March 28, 2015 Anybody knows how the construction at Willy B terminal is going? Yeah... Slow. I take the B32 there from Queens at least once a week now, and it doesn't seem as if anything's progressing.... I just smh at the B39's waiting for the Q54's to get a move on... Back on monday, the B39 op' at the time just sat with his elbows on his lap, with his hands on his head... You could see the frustration... B46's still pulling into the B44 lane (in other words, you get B46's that leave from its "normal" lane & B46's leaving from the B44 lane)... Although the B60 shares a lane with the B24, I have yet to see a B24 & a B60 in the lane at the same time.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 28, 2015 Share #3577 Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Damn. This is how I would do it after it's all said and done: B24/32/39-Lane 1 B41-Lane 2 B44 LCL/SBS-Lane 3 B46-Lane 4 B60-Lane 5 B62-Lane 6 Q54/59-Lane 7 Edited March 28, 2015 by Q43LTD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B22viaAtlanticAv Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3578 Posted March 29, 2015 Damn. This is how I would do it after it's all said and done: B24/32/39-Lane 1 B41-Lane 2 B44 LCL/SBS-Lane 3 B46-Lane 4 B60-Lane 5 B62-Lane 6 Q54/59-Lane 7 I think Lane 2 should go to the B24 since the B41 doesn't go to WBP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3579 Posted March 29, 2015 I think Lane 2 should go to the B24 since the B41 doesn't go to WBP My mistake 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3580 Posted March 29, 2015 I'll reply to this post without any route proposals of mine in mind... Damn. This is how I would do it after it's all said and done: B24/32/39-Lane 1 B41-Lane 2 B44 LCL/SBS-Lane 3 B46-Lane 4 B60-Lane 5 B62-Lane 6 Q54/59-Lane 7 - Lane 1 is the furthest away from Broadway.... Lane 6 is the closest to Broadway... - Lane 7.... Are there plans for a 7th lane? (Serious question) That said, the B32 & the B24 couldn't run out of lane 1 - since it would involve running clear across the inside of the terminal to get back to Broadway.... I'd only have the Downtown Brooklyn bound B62 run inside of the terminal... Queens bound B62 can remain stopping outside of the terminal (along Broadway, directly adjacent to the terminal).... It's the only thing I'd have serving that current stop... --------------------------------------- The setup I'd have would go like this: Lane 6: B24, B32, Q59, B62 (Downtown Bklyn. bound) Lane 5: B44 Lane 4: B46 Lane 3: Q54 Lane 2: B60 Lane 1: B39 * if there is to be a lane 7, the downtown bound B62 can stop in it..... The B24/32/Q59 would end up in lane 6. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3581 Posted March 29, 2015 I'll reply to this post without any route proposals of mine in mind... - Lane 1 is the furthest away from Broadway.... Lane 6 is the closest to Broadway... - Lane 7.... Are there plans for a 7th lane? (Serious question) That said, the B32 & the B24 couldn't run out of lane 1 - since it would involve running clear across the inside of the terminal to get back to Broadway.... I'd only have the Downtown Brooklyn bound B62 run inside of the terminal... Queens bound B62 can remain stopping outside of the terminal (along Broadway, directly adjacent to the terminal).... It's the only thing I'd have serving that current stop... --------------------------------------- The setup I'd have would go like this: Lane 6: B24, B32, Q59, B62 (Downtown Bklyn. bound) Lane 5: B44 Lane 4: B46 Lane 3: Q54 Lane 2: B60 Lane 1: B39 * if there is to be a lane 7, the downtown bound B62 can stop in it..... The B24/32/Q59 would end up in lane 6. I don't think there are plans for a 7th lane, I was just adding one hypothetically. The reason I had the B24/32/39 stopping in lane 1 because they don't run frequent enough to warrant their own lane. This setup is just as good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3582 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I don't think there are plans for a 7th lane, I was just adding one hypothetically. The reason I had the B24/32/39 stopping in lane 1 because they don't run frequent enough to warrant their own lane. This setup is just as good. That part I got (about the infrequent routes all in 1 lane)... What I didn't/don't understand is, why you'd have the B24 & the B32 stop on the opposite side of broadway (lane 1).... The B24 & the B32 has to swing back onto broadway, which would be infeasible (and somewhat unsafe) from that end of the terminal... (to analogize, it would be like having the Hillside routes end where the Q6/8/9/41 does, way in the back end of 165th st terminal) If the B39 were to be shared with anything, it'd have to be with the B60 or the Q54... You could have the Q54 & 59 share a lane again in lane 3, which would leave the B24, B32, and B62 in lane 6.... Edited March 29, 2015 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3583 Posted March 29, 2015 That part I got (about the infrequent routes all in 1 lane)... What I didn't/don't understand is, why you'd have the B24 & the B32 stop on the opposite side of broadway (lane 1).... The B24 & the B32 has to swing back onto broadway, which would be infeasible (and somewhat unsafe) from that end of the terminal... (to analogize, it would be like having the Hillside routes end where the Q6/8/9/41 does, way in the back end of 165th st terminal) If the B39 were to be shared with anything, it'd have to be with the B60 or the Q54... You could have the Q54 & 59 share a lane again in lane 3, which would leave the B24, B32, and B62 in lane 6.... I thought lane 1 was closest to Broadway not the furthest away from Broadway... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3584 Posted March 29, 2015 I thought lane 1 was closest to Broadway not the furthest away from Broadway... Nah... Check BM5's picture thread again: More Nudes (and some fails and whatnot)! (as of 3/14/15) Lane 1 is also closed (for some other reason IDK about; has nothing to do with the ongoing construction on the Broadway side)... That's why the B39 is in lane 2 (which is the B60 lane)... The street closest to lane 2 is definitely not Broadway... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted April 4, 2015 Share #3585 Posted April 4, 2015 I have a few ideas that may help out Williamsburg a bit. For starters, I think the B67 should be cut back to it's DUMBO terminal at all times. In the Brooklyn Navy Yard, a new service, the B102 (mta bus) would run in a clockwise loop between Downtown Brooklyn (Borough hall Station) and around the Williamsburg terminal, replacing the B67 (I know, there might be conflicts with the agencies, but this is a thought). Also, I would open a new "Williamsburg" depot and put the B102 and move the B110 there. Speaking of the B110, it too would extend around the Williamsburg Terminal and be slightly altered to include service to Fort Greene, Barclays Center, and Boerum Hill. The B110 would become a LTD and have the following route: Downtown: Start at Williamsburg Terminal, onto Roebling Street, left on Lee Avenue, right Middleson Street, right on Wallabout Street, left on Kent Avenue, right on Flushing Avenue, left on Gold Street, right on Tillary Street, left on Flatbush Avenue, right on 4 Avenue, left onto Prospect Expressway, and regular route to Borough Park. Uptown: Regular route from Borough Park to Prospect Expressway, right on 4 Avenue, left on Flatbush Avenue, Right on Concord Street, left on Navy Street, right on Flushing Avenue, left on Classon Avenue, right on Wallabout Street, right on Lynch Street, left on Bedford Avenue, right on Roebling Street, into Williamsburg Terminal. Thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted April 4, 2015 Share #3586 Posted April 4, 2015 Also, I would open a new "Williamsburg" depot and put the B102 and move the B110 there. does not operate the B110. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted April 4, 2015 Share #3587 Posted April 4, 2015 does not operate the B110.Oh yeahn forgot to add that mta bus would now operate the B110. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotham Bus Co. Posted April 4, 2015 Share #3588 Posted April 4, 2015 Oh yeahn forgot to add that mta bus would now operate the B110. I'm not sure how practical that would be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted April 5, 2015 Share #3589 Posted April 5, 2015 I have a few ideas that may help out Williamsburg a bit. For starters, I think the B67 should be cut back to it's DUMBO terminal at all times. In the Brooklyn Navy Yard, a new service, the B102 (mta bus) would run in a clockwise loop between Downtown Brooklyn (Borough hall Station) and around the Williamsburg terminal, replacing the B67 (I know, there might be conflicts with the agencies, but this is a thought). Also, I would open a new "Williamsburg" depot and put the B102 and move the B110 there. Speaking of the B110, it too would extend around the Williamsburg Terminal and be slightly altered to include service to Fort Greene, Barclays Center, and Boerum Hill. The B110 would become a LTD and have the following route: Downtown: Start at Williamsburg Terminal, onto Roebling Street, left on Lee Avenue, right Middleson Street, right on Wallabout Street, left on Kent Avenue, right on Flushing Avenue, left on Gold Street, right on Tillary Street, left on Flatbush Avenue, right on 4 Avenue, left onto Prospect Expressway, and regular route to Borough Park. Uptown: Regular route from Borough Park to Prospect Expressway, right on 4 Avenue, left on Flatbush Avenue, Right on Concord Street, left on Navy Street, right on Flushing Avenue, left on Classon Avenue, right on Wallabout Street, right on Lynch Street, left on Bedford Avenue, right on Roebling Street, into Williamsburg Terminal. Thoughts? - I also think the B67 should be reverted to ending at Jay/Sands full time.... It's the B69 that needs to run to Williamsburg (and to Bridge Plaza at that, NOT through the damn Navy Yard either) & completely away from Jay/Sands.... For whatever the reason, the MTA continues to remain stubborn about this.... I mean, for the sake of cutting costs, they resort to cutting B4's from the west to CIH (to later revert service to Sheepshead), but (wastefully) extend B67's through the Navy Yard to end it (abruptly) at Division/Wythe? The inconsistency is outstanding; it's BS like that why you have riders so disgruntled (f**k it, pissed off) with this agency... Never mind fare increases.... - That "B102" of yours is something the MTA shouldn't involve itself with.... If one of (or a collective of) those companies inside the Navy Yard wants to run a private shuttle doing that, let them have a happy - But I can't side with the MTA wasting resources with some shuttle b/w Downtown Brooklyn & Williamsburg through the Navy Yard.... The riderbase would be way too narrow; that would be like the MTA having buses looping, solely running between QBP & Roosevelt Island (when Cornell opens up out there) or something.... - This keeps coming up from time to time on the forums... I don't see the point of the MTA taking over the B110; let the Jews have their private little neighborhood to neighborhood shuttle as is... First off, they would reject the publicizing of the route wholesale... On top of it, the alterations you're making to the route (as far as the Jewish ridership from Borough Park is concerned), forget it....The Jews that use the current route will not sit through that time waste through Downtown to get to Williamsburg - you'd lose 100% of that ridership INSTANTLY... Your best hope to attain some transferable ridership (meaning from the current B110 to your publicized B110) would be those that'd use it within Williamsburg... But judging by how so miniscule an amount of them use the B44, I don't see how anyone could be hopeful that some respectable level of usage would either remain, or increase up there..... Those are my thoughts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3590 Posted June 20, 2015 what could we get out of extending the b103 to spring creek towers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3591 Posted June 20, 2015 what could we get out of extending the b103 to spring creek towers?Do people from spring creek even want to go anywhere else besides Gateway Mall, Canarsie and Bway Junction? (Not pointing anything out, just asking in general) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3592 Posted June 20, 2015 - I also think the B67 should be reverted to ending at Jay/Sands full time.... It's the B69 that needs to run to Williamsburg (and to Bridge Plaza at that, NOT through the damn Navy Yard either) & completely away from Jay/Sands.... For whatever the reason, the MTA continues to remain stubborn about this.... I mean, for the sake of cutting costs, they resort to cutting B4's from the west to CIH (to later revert service to Sheepshead), but (wastefully) extend B67's through the Navy Yard to end it (abruptly) at Division/Wythe? The inconsistency is outstanding; it's BS like that why you have riders so disgruntled (f**k it, pissed off) with this agency... Never mind fare increases.... - That "B102" of yours is something the MTA shouldn't involve itself with.... If one of (or a collective of) those companies inside the Navy Yard wants to run a private shuttle doing that, let them have a happy - But I can't side with the MTA wasting resources with some shuttle b/w Downtown Brooklyn & Williamsburg through the Navy Yard.... The riderbase would be way too narrow; that would be like the MTA having buses looping, solely running between QBP & Roosevelt Island (when Cornell opens up out there) or something.... - This keeps coming up from time to time on the forums... I don't see the point of the MTA taking over the B110; let the Jews have their private little neighborhood to neighborhood shuttle as is... First off, they would reject the publicizing of the route wholesale... On top of it, the alterations you're making to the route (as far as the Jewish ridership from Borough Park is concerned), forget it....The Jews that use the current route will not sit through that time waste through Downtown to get to Williamsburg - you'd lose 100% of that ridership INSTANTLY... Your best hope to attain some transferable ridership (meaning from the current B110 to your publicized B110) would be those that'd use it within Williamsburg... But judging by how so miniscule an amount of them use the B44, I don't see how anyone could be hopeful that some respectable level of usage would either remain, or increase up there..... Those are my thoughts. I fully agree with you about the B67 and B69. You talk about inconsistency. Inconsistency is the MTA's middle name. You say riders are pissed off because of inconsistencies. How do you think I feel? During my last year working there. I submitted like 40 route change ideas through the Employee Suggestion Program. I have several hundred pages of responses which I never got around to posting on the web just to show those inconsistencies. Any route extension proposal received the response that reliability would be compromised. Any route truncation suggestion received a response that customers depend on this route and it can't be cut. A shift of streets for a route was rejected with a response that no bus route currently operates note street and residents might not welcome it. Adding service would cost extra that couldn't be afforded with the assumption that no additional riders would be attracted to the route. In other words, there was always a reason why your suggestion was impractical. If a reason could not be thought of, they would respond to a suggestion you were not making by reinterpreting your suggestion and then dismissing it. In the rare chance they liked a suggestion, they would give you a reason why it could not be done then spend three to five years studying it, and call it their own or else modify it to ruin it. However when they proposed to extend a route, the additional cost could always be afforded or they would make another neighborhood suffer by cutting service there to make it a zero cost proposal. Compromising service reliability was never an issue because the route was longer. When service was cut, there was either no negative effect, the negative effects were dismissed as affecting few riders or minimized, or an alternative service was available even if it made no sense to use that service. Any suggestion you send in through the normal email process now merely receives a response that they cannot respond to customer suggestions for route changes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3593 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) what could we get out of extending the b103 to spring creek towers? Wasn't that done during the Command era? Edited June 20, 2015 by Q43LTD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future ENY OP Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3594 Posted June 20, 2015 Wasn't that done during the Command era? During the command era buses went to Flatlands & E.94th. Since then it pretty much streamlined over to Williams Ave. what could we get out of extending the b103 to spring creek towers? No.. Absolutely no need to extend the B103 to Spring Creek Towers. The B82/83/84 do just fine servicing Spring Creek and the towers. If anything B84 needs extension to Canarsie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3595 Posted June 20, 2015 During the command era buses went to Flatlands & E.94th. Since then it pretty much streamlined over to Williams Ave. No.. Absolutely no need to extend the B103 to Spring Creek Towers. The B82/83/84 do just fine servicing Spring Creek and the towers. If anything B84 needs extension to Canarsie. I'm pretty sure it went to Ashford, during the Command days. I checked the wayback website 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 20, 2015 Share #3596 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) I'm pretty sure it went to Ashford, during the Command days. I checked the wayback website Yep. The B103 and BM2 operated to Cozine Ave/ Ashford Street on the current BM2 routing to Spring Creek, then the BM5. It was by request only, and I believe the the B103 & BM2 had a designated time frame in which it happened. Edited June 20, 2015 by BM5 via Woodhaven 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q101 E Midtown Posted June 21, 2015 Share #3597 Posted June 21, 2015 During the command era buses went to Flatlands & E.94th. Since then it pretty much streamlined over to Williams Ave. No.. Absolutely no need to extend the B103 to Spring Creek Towers. The B82/83/84 do just fine servicing Spring Creek and the towers. If anything B84 needs extension to Canarsie. Would you put the B84 within subway-fare control as with the B42? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted June 21, 2015 Share #3598 Posted June 21, 2015 Would you put the B84 within subway-fare control as with the B42?The B42 has that special transfer because it replaced the trolley that was part of the Canarsie line. Why should a 2 year old route go inside the station when you have a metrocard that can do pretty much the same thing?I don't even like the B42 going into the station. How about extending it (B42) to the B84 terminal and let the B84 be "the shuttle to the (3)"? If anything, at Rockaway parkway, there can be a special 3 way transfer between the B42, Rockaway Pkwy , and any other bus in NYC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 21, 2015 Share #3599 Posted June 21, 2015 The B42 has that special transfer because it replaced the trolley that was part of the Canarsie line. Why should a 2 year old route go inside the station when you have a metrocard that can do pretty much the same thing? I don't even like the B42 going into the station. How about extending it (B42) to the B84 terminal and let the B84 be "the shuttle to the (3)"? If anything, at Rockaway parkway, there can be a special 3 way transfer between the B42, Rockaway Pkwy , and any other bus in NYC. The primary purpose of the B42 is what you mentioned: replace the old trolley. The thing is, extending would hurt reliability, in addition, the B84 and B42 are not that close together, and have distinct purposes of running. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrianQ60 Posted June 21, 2015 Share #3600 Posted June 21, 2015 Yea they not close. What do you think of extend the B62 to east midtown 2 ave and east 60st. It can share the same terminal as the Q60 or the Q101 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.