B35 via Church Posted July 16, 2017 Share #4401 Posted July 16, 2017 Most of the service changes I proposed above are in response to what I think are issues within the Brooklyn bus network. Most of the changes fall under more than one reason, but here are the reasons below (and respective route changes with relation to this). 1. Low Ridership Inefficiency (B16, B33, B58, B61, B67, B68, B69) 2. Connectivity Issues (B24, B33, B36, B57, B58, B67, B69) 3. Opportunity to offer faster alternatives (B33, B58, B62) 4. Improve Reliability (B16, B57, B61, B67, B69) 5. Increase Ridership (B24, B33, B58, B67, B69) I have explained my rationale behind some of these changes on my earlier post, and I will address some of the others below: What exactly is "low ridership inefficiency" though? Do you mean low ridership & inefficient? In fairness to you, I won't comment on any of the routes listed under this point until I get further clarification... 2] Connectivity issues.... Alright, getting rid of the B24 to run your B33 & your B58 over portions of the B24 I don't see an as issue of addressing connectivity.... That's implicating that there is a void that your B33 & B58 fills that the current B24 doesn't..... Or better yet, a clamoring for B43 & B48 riders from points more southerly from Greenpoint, that are seeking access to Queens..... I would put your B58 in category #5 (increase ridership) - which you have there, as that's the reason I'd run the B48 to Sunnyside..... I don't see your B33 as really necessary... B36 to (buses that serve) Kings plaza (incl. the Q35) isn't the issue... Much as I hated that old B36 to the junction idea, it would address connectivity issues; B36-B44 xfers are highly common.... Outside of getting to the actual mall itself, folks from off the B36 aren't widely trying to get to areas on the B41/46/2/9/47/Q35..... B57 idea you're 100% spot on; current terminal is a stub/ends in the middle of nothing in-particular & people clearly want access to areas along Grand, NW of 61st..... Lastly, you're not improving connectivity w/ the B67/B69 as a whole by running them to DUMBO - when you're cutting them both back from Church av... At best, it's a wash, so those 2 routes don't belong in this category.... 3] Faster Alternatives.... I don't see where your B33 or B58 applies here, unless this is your way of conveying the simple notion of a 1 seat ride is faster than a 2 seat ride (B33 > B43-B24, B58 > B48-B24).... Your B62 I agree with for this category, but not wholly for your reason (being a faster alternative to the B61)..... I see it being a faster alternative to the B57 along Flushing..... To me, the real B57 b/w Red Hook & Downtown & the real B61 b/w Red Hook & Downtown during the rush at least, are a wash (even though Smith/Court are much more direct) - which is saying a Lot..... Your B62 south of downtown is the same as the current B57 south of downtown.... The MTA's running of the B57 down Smith & Court to benefit the few riders that it does, to get stuck in the traffic that it does, is severely wasteful..... Flushing av traffic, that is, traffic from motorists trying to beat BQE traffic, on top of it exacerbates matters.... At least w/ the B62, Park av is more free-flowing.... 4] Improving Reliability... Yes for the B16, but I don't think it's worth the cost of losing the amt. of riders that it would...... Yes for the B57, and agree as such, for reasons I just mentioned in the above paragraph.... For the B61, not necessarily - while the speed limit is 25 inside the Navy Yard, buses go like what, 10? This is a reason I don't want the B67 going through there - It's reliability was already worsened when the B69 got diverted along 7th.... Then we fast-forward some years later to having some trips run to Wms'burg, slow crawling through the Navy Yard.... That's not just an opinion of my own (about the Navy Yard), it's an issue I'm actually parroting from B67 riders..... For the B67/B69, probably, but a minor improvement at best - the time saved by not having buses run south of 20th comes too close to the amount of time getting stuck getting out of DUMBO.... Too many yellow/green cabs, double decker buses, delivery vans/small trucks infiltrating & congesting much too tight of an area..... 5] Increase Ridership... Again, don't see ridership as an issue on the B43 to create a branch that runs over the Greenpoint av leg of the B24... Your B58, yeah agreed - low ridership is an issue for the B48.... B67 & B69, I strongly disagree - there is no way you're gonna get more riders in DUMBO, than you would taking (real) B67's/B69's to/from Church av.... Truncating B67's/B69's on the south end won't necessarily garner more ridership in Park Slope either.... WYSIWY(gonna)G as far as that goes.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 16, 2017 Share #4402 Posted July 16, 2017 They do have short-turns at 7 Avenue & 18 Street... The only thing is, those buses originate from Cortelyou Road. 1) With regards to the B16, perhaps the route should utilize Parkside instead of Caton Avenue, in order to increase reliability. As for terminating the route at Prospect Park, I'm indifferent about that. I wouldn't leave the route as it is though. 2) I don't believe the MTA would leave it with nothing, but knowing them, they would reduce service to run every 20 minutes at least during the AM rush, and every 30 minutes all other times, in addition to reducing the span of service on the route. The B33 would serve for more destinations than either B24 leg, and would have roughly the same frequencies as the current B24 (service would be a tad more frequent during shoulder periods and the PM rush), however it would less frequent (40 minute headways) during late evenings instead of the current coverage headways. At the very least, it would allow riders to take the bus instead of the subway to/from those areas the B43 serves. There would be no short-turn in the north, because it would be infeasible to do so. If you look it, the B33 is the full route, while the B43 is the short-turn (going towards Box Street instead of terminating at Greenpoint Avenue). If service was more frequent than what it is, then maybe it would work out. On weekdays and Saturdays, every other B43 during daytime and evening hours would become the B33, with a boost during weekday midday periods and saturday mornings on the combined route to not have 40 minute headways during the day on either route). The route wouldn't be much frequent to begin with for short-turns. It's not like I'm adding B33 service on top of existing B43 service. 3) Well, the combined B48/B58 frequencies would be more frequent throughout the day over the current B48 route, so perhaps that would entice riders to utilize the route more than it currently does. If the Nassau Avenue portion doesn't do too well, then the B48 would suffice with the proposed headways. I have only serving the B58 serving the projects in my proposal, but if it was rerouted via someway where it didn't serve the projects, the Q59 would serve it instead. I don't necessarily agree with having the Q59 serving it though. The B58 would serve more areas where riders would likely go compared to that leg of the B24, while providing a one-seat ride. The route also resembles B24 frequencies, with the exception of evening headways. 4) I never had buses so late like that, so it's likely more people are indeed taking the B57 from Maspeth then compared when you frequented the B57. I was on a bus yesterday towards Maspeth during the afternoon which had 12 (includes me) riding past Metropolitan Avenue. 7 of those riders got off at 61 Street (Fresh Pond Road), and there were 4 which continued to the last stop. It was fairly on time, a few minutes late though (like 2-3 minutes). The morning bus I took was lighter though (6 riders from 61 Street, with one getting off at Metropolitan Avenue). Not saying that all the increases are due to riders getting from Maspeth, but the B57 has had continuous increases from 2011 in ridership. Weekday ridership increases spiked when service was extended to Red Hook (January 2013), and still continued to grow every year following that. Weekend ridership follows a similar trend, but increased at a greater rate than weekday ridership during the same periods. Regarding the B57 onto Park Avenue, would that mean the B62 runs along Flushing Avenue instead? IDK about the section between Broadway & Classon Avenue, but the section within Clinton Hill I would support having the B57 via Park Avenue (while having the B62 running via Flushing Avenue). Regarding the B45 terminal, perhaps on the weekend (since all three routes aren't too frequent to begin with during those periods), although IDK about weekdays (more specifically, rush hours). Even though service isn't insanely frequent on the B45 or B57, the B62 is a little more frequent, so that may be an issue regarding the turnaround. 1] I believe you when you say you're indifferent regarding Prospect Park - b/c to be quite honest, you seem to be unaware of / not all that privy to / underestimating the B16's usage from folks coming off the .... It's too great a disservice to cut it back to the , even though there's a significant amt. of folks from the west that xfer over for the B35.... Traffic woes on Caton doesn't justify a cutback.... 2] Alright, so as far my point regarding short turns, there's no issue then.... 3] Maybe for the folks north of Bed Stuy, yes (which is what I'd bank on w/ my B48 idea)..... But I don't think there's anything that can be done to entice more usage out of Bed Stuy or Crown Heights folks; they're too content with other modes & you can't really blame them... Being honest, if I lived along/around the , I'd take the B45 to Atlantic/Barclays for the subway connections there also (which is the current ridership habit/pattern down there).... Unless you're actually heading more south (reverse peak commute), there's no real reason to ride down to Prospect Park to then ride back north..... As far as the Cooper houses, that's the thing.... I never considered having Q59's encircle (or otherwise serve) them; I'm more concerned with how much of a supplement the Q59 is to other bus routes in the network.... I wouldn't want to completely phase it out though.... I don't think it's worth having my B48 Sunnyside leg do Lorimer > Metropolitan > Kingsland > Meeker, etc. to get to Queens, just to serve those projects.... Metropolitan (another truck route) is already a PITA that the B24 has to deal with..... The idea of having those trips do Lorimer > Meeker (with stops along Meeker btw) > straight to the bridge is to not introduce anymore unreliability that trips already'll be introduced to, by dealing w/ unfortunate bridge traffic.... 4] Oh, there's been plenty of times where I've waited 20+ mins. for a B57 on that end... Some of the times I ended up walking in frustration, some of the times I've waited it out..... Each time, thinking that the time before was just an anomaly.... Hopefully, things have gotten better on that end of the route, because it certainly could not have gotten any worse.... I still think the connectivity gap needs to get eradicated by either cutting the route back to Met, or your idea of running it up to 69th.... I'm not doubting increases on the B57; hell, I've been pulling for the B57 ever since the consensus on these parts were hyperfocused on the split of the old B61 Red Hook-QBP.... Like I stated in the last paragraph of the reply to Future FLA B/O, there's more usage on the B57 well before it hits the hospital from the west now.... Caught me for a surprise in a good way.... If there's more usage in Maspeth on top of it, well then that's even better..... I've always said the MTA was sitting on a bit of a gold mine w/ the B57; problem is they're treating it like a throwaway route or something (headways were only improved as a compromise of running it to Red Hook.... If that extension never happened, we'd still be here talking about the B57 being underserved)..... --------------------- Regarding the B57 on Park.... Nah, I wouldn't swap the B57/B62 in Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill... I'd leave them both on Park.... The Downtown bound B57 (I would also cut it back downtown btw; never sided w/ the current extension down Smith/Court) would utilize Flushing av from the east up until Tompkins & the Maspeth bound B57 (since I'm siding with your idea over my own) would run along Park up until Throop..... Regarding Court/Livingston, that's exactly what I said to myself upon typing that question (about the B62 possibly being too frequent).... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees4life Posted July 17, 2017 Share #4403 Posted July 17, 2017 Maybe this has never been brought up before but how about a B47 limited. It takes forever for those buses to get to Broadway from the mall. I can't fathom why they even merged the old B78 and the B40 in the first place... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future ENY OP Posted July 17, 2017 Share #4404 Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) Maybe this has never been brought up before but how about a B47 limited. It takes forever for those buses to get to Broadway from the mall. I can't fathom why they even merged the old B78 and the B40 in the first place... DEAD. ON. ARRIVAL. No need for a B47 limited. Plainly mis-management going on with that line. What the really need to do is re-instate the B78 and let it work the southern most part of the route. Kings Plaza to Rutland Road . Let the B47 work the northern part of the route. St.Johns Place to WoodHull Hospital or Graham Avenue station. Edited July 17, 2017 by Future ENY OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 17, 2017 Share #4405 Posted July 17, 2017 Why can't the B36 bus be extended to Kings Plaza, is there room at Kings Plaza to add another bus there. There is too much buses terminating at Avenue U & Nostrand Av, with the B36 bus extended to Kings Plaza, this would reduce the bus terminal congestion there. A better question is why are you suggesting an extension? Based off of what? The B36 has run horrendous service for years even with buses terminating at Nostrand and Avenue U. Why would an extension make service any better? The B3 already has its own problems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees4life Posted July 18, 2017 Share #4406 Posted July 18, 2017 DEAD. ON. ARRIVAL. No need for a B47 limited. Plainly mis-management going on with that line. What the really need to do is re-instate the B78 and let it work the southern most part of the route. Kings Plaza to Rutland Road . Let the B47 work the northern part of the route. St.Johns Place to WoodHull Hospital or Graham Avenue station. Hell, I might as well propose a resurrection of the B78 and the B40 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future ENY OP Posted July 18, 2017 Share #4407 Posted July 18, 2017 Hell, I might as well propose a resurrection of the B78 and the B40 I don't know how I would feel about the B40 returning from the dead. However, there needs to be options between Broadway-East New York and Crown Heights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 18, 2017 Share #4408 Posted July 18, 2017 What exactly is "low ridership inefficiency" though? Do you mean low ridership & inefficient? In fairness to you, I won't comment on any of the routes listed under this point until I get further clarification... 2] Connectivity issues.... Alright, getting rid of the B24 to run your B33 & your B58 over portions of the B24 I don't see an as issue of addressing connectivity.... That's implicating that there is a void that your B33 & B58 fills that the current B24 doesn't..... Or better yet, a clamoring for B43 & B48 riders from points more southerly from Greenpoint, that are seeking access to Queens..... I would put your B58 in category #5 (increase ridership) - which you have there, as that's the reason I'd run the B48 to Sunnyside..... I don't see your B33 as really necessary... B36 to (buses that serve) Kings plaza (incl. the Q35) isn't the issue... Much as I hated that old B36 to the junction idea, it would address connectivity issues; B36-B44 xfers are highly common.... Outside of getting to the actual mall itself, folks from off the B36 aren't widely trying to get to areas on the B41/46/2/9/47/Q35..... B57 idea you're 100% spot on; current terminal is a stub/ends in the middle of nothing in-particular & people clearly want access to areas along Grand, NW of 61st..... Lastly, you're not improving connectivity w/ the B67/B69 as a whole by running them to DUMBO - when you're cutting them both back from Church av... At best, it's a wash, so those 2 routes don't belong in this category.... 3] Faster Alternatives.... I don't see where your B33 or B58 applies here, unless this is your way of conveying the simple notion of a 1 seat ride is faster than a 2 seat ride (B33 > B43-B24, B58 > B48-B24).... Your B62 I agree with for this category, but not wholly for your reason (being a faster alternative to the B61)..... I see it being a faster alternative to the B57 along Flushing..... To me, the real B57 b/w Red Hook & Downtown & the real B61 b/w Red Hook & Downtown during the rush at least, are a wash (even though Smith/Court are much more direct) - which is saying a Lot..... Your B62 south of downtown is the same as the current B57 south of downtown.... The MTA's running of the B57 down Smith & Court to benefit the few riders that it does, to get stuck in the traffic that it does, is severely wasteful..... Flushing av traffic, that is, traffic from motorists trying to beat BQE traffic, on top of it exacerbates matters.... At least w/ the B62, Park av is more free-flowing.... 4] Improving Reliability... Yes for the B16, but I don't think it's worth the cost of losing the amt. of riders that it would...... Yes for the B57, and agree as such, for reasons I just mentioned in the above paragraph.... For the B61, not necessarily - while the speed limit is 25 inside the Navy Yard, buses go like what, 10? This is a reason I don't want the B67 going through there - It's reliability was already worsened when the B69 got diverted along 7th.... Then we fast-forward some years later to having some trips run to Wms'burg, slow crawling through the Navy Yard.... That's not just an opinion of my own (about the Navy Yard), it's an issue I'm actually parroting from B67 riders..... For the B67/B69, probably, but a minor improvement at best - the time saved by not having buses run south of 20th comes too close to the amount of time getting stuck getting out of DUMBO.... Too many yellow/green cabs, double decker buses, delivery vans/small trucks infiltrating & congesting much too tight of an area..... 5] Increase Ridership... Again, don't see ridership as an issue on the B43 to create a branch that runs over the Greenpoint av leg of the B24... Your B58, yeah agreed - low ridership is an issue for the B48.... B67 & B69, I strongly disagree - there is no way you're gonna get more riders in DUMBO, than you would taking (real) B67's/B69's to/from Church av.... Truncating B67's/B69's on the south end won't necessarily garner more ridership in Park Slope either.... WYSIWY(gonna)G as far as that goes.... 1) Low Ridership Inefficiencies is basically over serving a corridor. There isn't enough ridership to support the amount of buses needed on a section (or sections) of a route. 5) The extension of the B67 to DUMBO is also to increase attempt to increase ridership on that portion of the route. Virtually no one rides past Willoughby, and if it isn't extended, I would also look into terminating it with the B45 during the weekends. Ridership on the B43 may not be issue, but the increasing ridership bit relates to the Greenpoint Avenue leg of the B24. By giving more destinations (under one trip), it would hopefully allow more people to take the bus directly instead of taking/transferring to the + whatever east-west service. 1] I believe you when you say you're indifferent regarding Prospect Park - b/c to be quite honest, you seem to be unaware of / not all that privy to / underestimating the B16's usage from folks coming off the .... It's too great a disservice to cut it back to the , even though there's a significant amt. of folks from the west that xfer over for the B35.... Traffic woes on Caton doesn't justify a cutback.... 2] Alright, so as far my point regarding short turns, there's no issue then.... 3] Maybe for the folks north of Bed Stuy, yes (which is what I'd bank on w/ my B48 idea)..... But I don't think there's anything that can be done to entice more usage out of Bed Stuy or Crown Heights folks; they're too content with other modes & you can't really blame them... Being honest, if I lived along/around the , I'd take the B45 to Atlantic/Barclays for the subway connections there also (which is the current ridership habit/pattern down there).... Unless you're actually heading more south (reverse peak commute), there's no real reason to ride down to Prospect Park to then ride back north..... As far as the Cooper houses, that's the thing.... I never considered having Q59's encircle (or otherwise serve) them; I'm more concerned with how much of a supplement the Q59 is to other bus routes in the network.... I wouldn't want to completely phase it out though.... I don't think it's worth having my B48 Sunnyside leg do Lorimer > Metropolitan > Kingsland > Meeker, etc. to get to Queens, just to serve those projects.... Metropolitan (another truck route) is already a PITA that the B24 has to deal with..... The idea of having those trips do Lorimer > Meeker (with stops along Meeker btw) > straight to the bridge is to not introduce anymore unreliability that trips already'll be introduced to, by dealing w/ unfortunate bridge traffic.... 4] Oh, there's been plenty of times where I've waited 20+ mins. for a B57 on that end... Some of the times I ended up walking in frustration, some of the times I've waited it out..... Each time, thinking that the time before was just an anomaly.... Hopefully, things have gotten better on that end of the route, because it certainly could not have gotten any worse.... I still think the connectivity gap needs to get eradicated by either cutting the route back to Met, or your idea of running it up to 69th.... I'm not doubting increases on the B57; hell, I've been pulling for the B57 ever since the consensus on these parts were hyperfocused on the split of the old B61 Red Hook-QBP.... Like I stated in the last paragraph of the reply to Future FLA B/O, there's more usage on the B57 well before it hits the hospital from the west now.... Caught me for a surprise in a good way.... If there's more usage in Maspeth on top of it, well then that's even better..... I've always said the MTA was sitting on a bit of a gold mine w/ the B57; problem is they're treating it like a throwaway route or something (headways were only improved as a compromise of running it to Red Hook.... If that extension never happened, we'd still be here talking about the B57 being underserved)..... --------------------- Regarding the B57 on Park.... Nah, I wouldn't swap the B57/B62 in Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill... I'd leave them both on Park.... The Downtown bound B57 (I would also cut it back downtown btw; never sided w/ the current extension down Smith/Court) would utilize Flushing av from the east up until Tompkins & the Maspeth bound B57 (since I'm siding with your idea over my own) would run along Park up until Throop..... Regarding Court/Livingston, that's exactly what I said to myself upon typing that question (about the B62 possibly being too frequent).... 1) Like I said before, I would not keep the B16 along Caton Avenue. The B16 can be rerouted along Parkside instead, while still serving Parkside Avenue and Prospect Park , and directly serving the at Church Avenue. Parkside isn't free from periods of high traffic, but it is not as bad as Caton Avenue. The only reason I'm saying I'm indifferent to the B16 being cut to Parkside is because there wouldn't be much savings from truncating the route, but it would help improve recovery time and reliability. 3) My reason towards increasing ridership in Bed Stuy and surrounding area would only go for increasing North-South travel, but not for the purposes of feeding people into the subway in those areas. You also do have a point regarding Metropolitan Avenue (and Grand Street isn't any better). I guess since the Gowanus Houses don't have a bus running around the area, you can make an argument for those projects as well, although the Gowanus Houses is not that far from the bus (the B57). Perhaps the B48 can use Frost and Richardson Streets to Kingsland Avenue, to pass close by (on the north end). With these routes, I would like to see supervisors monitoring the route well. If there's bunching, the bus which is late the most should be turned at Meeker and Kingsland Avenue, and then being sent out at an even interval to not have uneven loads on the reverse commute (well, the loads will be uneven until it passes Williamsburg at the very least). However, considering where the route comes from, that's probably asking for too much. 4) Agree with the MTA not realizing the potential of the B57. I use the B57 even though I don't live in Maspeth (it's a 30 minute walk from me or so) because it's so much easier to use that then the notorious to Downtown Brooklyn + train/bus to a further destination. When taking the from southern Brooklyn, I now get off at Downtown to take the B57 (especially given the current trackwork on the QBL this month) home. IMO, it's much more convenient. That's not to say it isn't without its problems. I have had a no-show once (not even late), but otherwise, it was decent, not more than a few minutes late. BTW, I have also seen the NIS buses on Flushing Avenue on the Maspeth end once it pulls into the last stop. This is especially true during the evening. I guess the B57/B62 on Park Avenue can work (since Flushing is not too far). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 19, 2017 Share #4409 Posted July 19, 2017 1) Low Ridership Inefficiencies is basically over serving a corridor. There isn't enough ridership to support the amount of buses needed on a section (or sections) of a route. 1. Low Ridership Inefficiency (B16, B33, B58, B61, B67, B68, B69) 5) The extension of the B67 to DUMBO is also to increase attempt to increase ridership on that portion of the route. Virtually no one rides past Willoughby, and if it isn't extended, I would also look into terminating it with the B45 during the weekends. Ridership on the B43 may not be issue, but the increasing ridership bit relates to the Greenpoint Avenue leg of the B24. By giving more destinations (under one trip), it would hopefully allow more people to take the bus directly instead of taking/transferring to the + whatever east-west service. - Never heard of it, but anyway, If there's any part of the B16 that's over served, it's its stint in Borough Park..... Rather sad to see as many people getting off Lefferts bound B16's when it turns on 56th.... I wouldn't exactly say the B61 is over serving that pocket of Park Slope east of 7th..... I have to believe it terminating where it currently does is an issue of layover feasibility; you aint ending B61's & B68's @ Pritchard Sq, so they run buses over to 20th..... While a plausible argument can be made regarding the B67/69's inefficiency south of Park Slope, IMO, the better fix is cut the amt. of BPH running to Kensington - not outright cutback both routes on that end.... That's taking it too far (same deal with having the B68 fill that void)..... - I get that running buses to DUMBO is an attempt at a ridership grab, but you can't really claim you're trying to increase ridership on a route when you extend it somewhere on one end & cut it back on the other..... To your points about the B33, well I'm responding to this whole thing, according to those 5 bullet points you made to what you believe certain issues are (and your corresponding fixes to them)... So if you list your B33 as a change/fix under the category of increase ridership, and your B33 (separate from the Greenpoint leg of the B24) is a B43 minus the portion north of Greenpoint av, that's leads me to raise the question - just what is wrong with the B43's ridership exactly? That's not farfetched to expect..... But in any case, the first point about the B33 is obvious - if there's no "B24" running along Greenpoint, they're gonna take your "B33".... The 2nd part of the point is reasonable; I do think people would take advantage..... Not saying your B33 is a bad idea, it's that I don't see it as all too necessary.... Outside of anything ridership related, the B43 is one of the better ran routes in the borough & I wouldn't risk jeopardizing that.... What I think Sunnyside would benefit most from, is better access to more of Queens - outside of what taking the can do for them....Something like what the B61, B63, and B67/69 does for Park Slope..... (Sunnyside is a) Nice quiet, but vivrant in spots (at the same time.. Lol) neighborhood; could easily be "Astoria light" if they had better transit options (well that & eradicating/converting those old warehouses to more places of residence, parkland, and storefronts).... B24 (inadequate), Q39 (consistently inconsistent), Q32 & Q60 (both with serious bunching issues & prone to serious delays).... #thizzface 1) Like I said before, I would not keep the B16 along Caton Avenue. The B16 can be rerouted along Parkside instead, while still serving Parkside Avenue and Prospect Park , and directly serving the at Church Avenue. Parkside isn't free from periods of high traffic, but it is not as bad as Caton Avenue. The only reason I'm saying I'm indifferent to the B16 being cut to Parkside is because there wouldn't be much savings from truncating the route, but it would help improve recovery time and reliability. 3) My reason towards increasing ridership in Bed Stuy and surrounding area would only go for increasing North-South travel, but not for the purposes of feeding people into the subway in those areas. You also do have a point regarding Metropolitan Avenue (and Grand Street isn't any better). I guess since the Gowanus Houses don't have a bus running around the area, you can make an argument for those projects as well, although the Gowanus Houses is not that far from the bus (the B57). Perhaps the B48 can use Frost and Richardson Streets to Kingsland Avenue, to pass close by (on the north end). With these routes, I would like to see supervisors monitoring the route well. If there's bunching, the bus which is late the most should be turned at Meeker and Kingsland Avenue, and then being sent out at an even interval to not have uneven loads on the reverse commute (well, the loads will be uneven until it passes Williamsburg at the very least). However, considering where the route comes from, that's probably asking for too much. 4) Agree with the MTA not realizing the potential of the B57. I use the B57 even though I don't live in Maspeth (it's a 30 minute walk from me or so) because it's so much easier to use that then the notorious to Downtown Brooklyn + train/bus to a further destination. When taking the from southern Brooklyn, I now get off at Downtown to take the B57 (especially given the current trackwork on the QBL this month) home. IMO, it's much more convenient. That's not to say it isn't without its problems. I have had a no-show once (not even late), but otherwise, it was decent, not more than a few minutes late. BTW, I have also seen the NIS buses on Flushing Avenue on the Maspeth end once it pulls into the last stop. This is especially true during the evening. I guess the B57/B62 on Park Avenue can work (since Flushing is not too far). 1) ...and Parkside isn't a better draw for the riders that live in that pocket of Brooklyn than Caton is.... It amounts to inconveniencing riders on that end of the route, just so that it could serve the .... I'm not concerned with getting you to change anything you drew up, but what I do find concerning here is the thought process on display - Cutting a route back large in part because a portion of a route is plagued with traffic to the point of a standstill at its worst, regardless of how it's used, is just plain crazy to me.... The running of the B48 to McDonald as a compromise illustrates to me that you haven't utilized that side of the B16 enough... I could understand if the route is shunned in the area (and/or few people use it to get to/from the ), but that's not the case.... 3) Sucks, but can't really entice people to take a bus route if other alternatives around it meets their needs better... Worse than that, you can't get em to do so if the route doesn't take them to any real point of interest along the way.... Which sums up the B48 more or less (the B41 is the very antithesis of this, for contrasting purposes), I mean you have routes like that across the boroughs.... The B48 from the north has a tendency to tank at Fulton (hence that cutback the MTA did to the route a couple years ago) & the B48 stops being any sort of useful for most folks in Bed-Stuy @ Myrtle due north.... Once buses make that turn onto Wallabout, forget it - it is like night & day... Every other north-south route that cuts through Bed-Stuy has a mass amt. of people taking it to the except for the B48..... I'm not condoning this at all, but running B49's deeper into Bed-Stuy I can almost guarantee would have those folks utilizing it for north-south travel more.... It's why you had some in this (NYC transit online forum) community clamoring for a B48/B49 combo.... I mean, I'm not saying running it to Queens is the answer necessarily, but something has to give (if they give enough of a shit to spur usage on that route).... It's not a route I want to see phased out, and/or (riders) directed to other routes as if to say "not too many will be affected", or w/e that infamous quotable of the MTA's when it comes to bus cuts, is.... Your point about supervision is a good one - I'll hone it to say that there needs to be better supervision across the board.... Express bus, local bus, SBS (as much as I abhor the things).... But of course, this agency is too concerned with putting lipstick on a pig in slop w/ providing amenities & aesthetics.... ...I'll stop here, because that's another rant for another time. 4) Outside of fanning, the only real use I have for the B57 is for getting b/w the eastern side of Williamsburg (Broadway b/w Myrtle & Graham, that general area) & Downtown... I flat out refuse to take the damn B54, f*** that (too crowded, too slow, too many unsynchronized lights along Myrtle, I just can't).... Sometimes I do the B43 to the B38 thing (which moves better than the B54), but my luck w/ the B38 tends to suck - almost always some nzzzz shit when I ride that route; either a fight's about to break out b/w some thots, or 2 old men bojangling & uncle ben-ing (arguing) over stupid shit, or people not wanting to get off the (crowded) bus when a wheelchair passenger needs to get on; delaying shit... A ride on the B57 (or the B62) from the east, avoids a lot of that crap... Don't know what took Clinton Hill patrons so long to discover the bus routes north of Myrtle.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 19, 2017 Share #4410 Posted July 19, 2017 Maybe this has never been brought up before but how about a B47 limited. It takes forever for those buses to get to Broadway from the mall. I can't fathom why they even merged the old B78 and the B40 in the first place... DEAD. ON. ARRIVAL. No need for a B47 limited. Plainly mis-management going on with that line. What the really need to do is re-instate the B78 and let it work the southern most part of the route. Kings Plaza to Rutland Road . Let the B47 work the northern part of the route. St.Johns Place to WoodHull Hospital or Graham Avenue station. A B47 LTD would create even bigger gaps in service than what's going on w/ having the B47 all local.... It doesn't have the headways for LTD service anyway.... The fact of the matter is that the B78 should've never been merged with a struggling route like the B40.... Do you know what the best part of that merger was? The fact that the old B40 portion of the route ends at Woodhull, instead of running to WBP..... Just like with the B5 (which would do pretty well for itself here in 2017 - although it would have to run to Mermaid Loop [instead of ending at the Pathmark - Canal av] full time, but they don't want buses ending full time at F'bush/Kings Hwy), the B40 was merged with a route that never really had much of any problems.... That is, before they "tinkered" with it riiiiight around the general timeframe of the route being merged.... I remember what the MTA did to the B78 like it was yesterday.... Practically grew up on the route, as it was my go to route to Kings Plaza (yes, even over the B46).... The route went from being efficient as hell, to having buses no show/show up in 30-40 minute intervals (not exaggerating) practically overnight..... A ton of people here in E. Flatbush ditched it for the B17 to the subway (the B17 wasn't as popular up here as it is now)... That BS woke me up to the underhanded antics that this agency is capable of trying to pull off, unnoticed..... A LTD isn't the answer for the B47.... The portions north & south of the need to be 2 separate routes. Why can't the B36 bus be extended to Kings Plaza, is there room at Kings Plaza to add another bus there. There is too much buses terminating at Avenue U & Nostrand Av, with the B36 bus extended to Kings Plaza, this would reduce the bus terminal congestion there. There isn't, but terminal space at Kings Plaza is besides the point.... If you think there are too many buses turning at Av. U & Nostrand, you should see the amount of BPH that currently make that U-turn from Flatbush av southbound, to get to the Kings Plaza bound side of Flatbush!!! Hell, I might as well propose a resurrection of the B78 and the B40 I don't know how I would feel about the B40 returning from the dead. However, there needs to be options between Broadway-East New York and Crown Heights. Either the B45 or the B65 needs to fill that gap on St. Johns b/w Ralph & ENY av on over to Alabama ... Bringing back the B40 to fill that same gap (like it used to), to have it end on the side of Atlantic av that the masses have no use for, is pointless.... This isn't aimed at either of you, but generally speaking.... Who the f*** wants to cross Atlantic av to get to the subway - when the 45 or 65 can continue along ENY av & drop pax off right at the station.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future ENY OP Posted July 19, 2017 Share #4411 Posted July 19, 2017 A B47 LTD would create even bigger gaps in service than what's going on w/ having the B47 all local.... It doesn't have the headways for LTD service anyway.... The fact of the matter is that the B78 should've never been merged with a struggling route like the B40.... Do you know what the best part of that merger was? The fact that the old B40 portion of the route ends at Woodhull, instead of running to WBP..... Just like with the B5 (which would do pretty well for itself here in 2017 - although it would have to run to Mermaid Loop [instead of ending at the Pathmark - Canal av] full time, but they don't want buses ending full time at F'bush/Kings Hwy), the B40 was merged with a route that never really had much of any problems.... That is, before they "tinkered" with it riiiiight around the general timeframe of the route being merged.... I remember what the MTA did to the B78 like it was yesterday.... Practically grew up on the route, as it was my go to route to Kings Plaza (yes, even over the B46).... The route went from being efficient as hell, to having buses no show/show up in 30-40 minute intervals (not exaggerating) practically overnight..... A ton of people here in E. Flatbush ditched it for the B17 to the subway (the B17 wasn't as popular up here as it is now)... That BS woke me up to the underhanded antics that this agency is capable of trying to pull off, unnoticed..... A LTD isn't the answer for the B47.... The portions north & south of the need to be 2 separate routes. Either the B45 or the B65 needs to fill that gap on St. Johns b/w Ralph & ENY av on over to Alabama ... Bringing back the B40 to fill that same gap (like it used to), to have it end on the side of Atlantic av that the masses have no use for, is pointless.... This isn't aimed at either of you, but generally speaking.... Who the f*** wants to cross Atlantic av to get to the subway - when the 45 or 65 can continue along ENY av & drop pax off right at the station.... First things first: Let's remind ourselves that the B45 and B65 both run pretty decent routes and end blocks from each other Downtown and end at the same stop- Ralph Avenue and St Johns/Crown Heights. If I were to pick to have the Broadway-East New York or Alabama to Downtown, let it be the B45. Although the B65 is a very quick deadhead from the depot to St. Johns Place I'd put the B65 to Broadway-East New York for rush hour purposes only, but B45 at all times, plus its a straight route via St. Johns. Preferably- B45 over the 65 for Bway-East NY-Alabama (Full Time). HOWEVER, B65 to East New York during rush hours. What makes me so pissed off about Ralph Avenue service is that these buses really bunch, and I mean bunch. When you notice that the grid is a total mess in that area, any restructure of the route will have people fuming. However, what needs to be addressed is that you can't have one part of the schedule doing good and the other part doing absurdly shit. I used to remember that the B78 was very reliable for YEARS with good management with Flatbush. Very few times you saw buses bunching unless there was a legitimate accident or detour that made impossible for the route to operate effectively. The highlight I made in red: In full agreement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted July 19, 2017 Share #4412 Posted July 19, 2017 Let me ask a couple of questions here; When is a route too long? It seems that the combination of routes which in some cases have made two shorter routes into one long one when the two routes ran efficiently and on time in reality made the combined route totally unreliable.When the routes are combined to save money and make the route more efficient and the dispatchers are dropped from the route to keep the buses on time (which is happening all over the system) is a bigger problem being created as now there is bus bunching which did not exist before on the two shorter routes? One last question involving bus service in general and that is will a route be more efficient if the driver does both halves on the same route or is it better working the two halves on two routes? I ask these questions as we constantly hear the complaints about bus service and yet is the MTA looking at it the wrong way here in Brooklyn (or for that matter anywhere else or do we have to look at why the system used to work and if change for change sake is worth it. I read all the suggestions about route changes and are both sides looking at the proposals from different perspectives which I think is the problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 19, 2017 Share #4413 Posted July 19, 2017 Let me ask a couple of questions here; When is a route too long? It seems that the combination of routes which in some cases have made two shorter routes into one long one when the two routes ran efficiently and on time in reality made the combined route totally unreliable.When the routes are combined to save money and make the route more efficient and the dispatchers are dropped from the route to keep the buses on time (which is happening all over the system) is a bigger problem being created as now there is bus bunching which did not exist before on the two shorter routes? One last question involving bus service in general and that is will a route be more efficient if the driver does both halves on the same route or is it better working the two halves on two routes? I ask these questions as we constantly hear the complaints about bus service and yet is the MTA looking at it the wrong way here in Brooklyn (or for that matter anywhere else or do we have to look at why the system used to work and if change for change sake is worth it. I read all the suggestions about route changes and are both sides looking at the proposals from different perspectives which I think is the problem. I think there's a lot of problems with bus service system wide. I'll lay them out below: -Too many newbies. I've been getting a different driver almost every day. Not having the same driver means fluctuation in service and a lack of consistency. - needs to do more to retain good drivers and get rid of the bad ones. Seems like the best drivers are stuck being fillers while the worse drivers get the most work. There's one guy I've filed numerous complaints about. Last Friday, my bus was a no-show. Next bus finally arrives and when it does it is packed and late. Of the B/O is the one mentioned previously. Given how crowded the bus was, you would think the AC would be on. Nope. I had to go up and ask him to turn it on. Several people thanked me as the bus was quite hot and disgusting. He continuously stops in the middle of the street to pick-up and drop-off creating an unsafe environment unnecessarily, despite numerous complaints. He only stops at the curb now because he knows I'll file a complaint. -Horrible dispatching. Anytime there's a dispatcher out, you can put money it that EVERY bus will be late because all of the drivers know dispatch is there, so they will all leave the terminal 10 - 15 minutes late, which means an extra 20 minutes to your commute if not more. Always works out that way. -If a bus is a no-show, no adjustments will be made. You will wait until the next one comes, even if several buses are on layover, as was the case the other night. Two buses were layover, yet we had people waiting for a bus for over 40 minutes. -Adjustments are only made when communities complain, and even then they are slow to come. -Everything is about cost savings, even at the detriment of riders. -Lack of utilization of technology. It's there but the acts like it's still the late 1990s. -"One-size fits all mentality" for the entire bus system. -Too many stops and extremely slow boarding process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog14 Posted July 19, 2017 Share #4414 Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) I think there's a lot of problems with bus service system wide. I'll lay them out below: I'll add that some other problems include - Bus drivers not picking up people or choosing to not stop at certain stops (go on layover past the bus stop then start the bus and start picking up later in the route) - Buses themselves. Some of these newer buses on the more crowded routes are causing delays because people want to congregate at the rear door (big problem in East Flatbush) Edited July 19, 2017 by Jdog14 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted July 20, 2017 Share #4415 Posted July 20, 2017 I'll add that some other problems include - Bus drivers not picking up people or choosing to not stop at certain stops (go on layover past the bus stop then start the bus and start picking up later in the route) - Buses themselves. Some of these newer buses on the more crowded routes are causing delays because people want to congregate at the rear door (big problem in East Flatbush) I got an RTS on the M42 earlier today that was AWFUL. Absolutely no AC at all, and the bus felt like it was going to break down any minute. Everyone kept checking the air vents to see if anything was coming out. Getting the bus off and going again after each stop was a real chore and it seemed like it was struggling to move. Only rode it a few stops, but boy was it bad. Then the stupid B/O left the doors open at EVERY stop so ALL of the hot air from outside was just hitting you with no relief. I gave up and took the subway for the rest of my commute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 20, 2017 Share #4416 Posted July 20, 2017 B61: I only chose the B61 because it was the only route which I believed would be reliable from Downtown Brooklyn. All the other routes would either double back, become more unreliable, or both. From the Williamsburg side, the Q59 is unreliable, the B44 local intersects plenty of routes going to Downtown anyways, the B60 is unreliable, the B24 would get split up. There is the B32 though I was not aware of the issues at Red Hook IKEA, but I have to ask, why was this an issue in the first place? It's no different than other areas with multiple bus routes terminating there. As far as 9 Street, I have actually seen those ridership loads that you described more or less, but I don't think service should continue on as it is. Perhaps keep it as a 9 Street Crosstown, but the farthest I would have the B61 pickup & dropoff is at Prospect Park West & 14 Street. There's definitely no need to run it south of Bartel-Pritchard Square. You could probably save a bus (at least) or two, depending on the time of day, and use those resources on other lines where needed. B67/B69: The thing is, I extended both routes for two reasons. The first one is to keep interlining on weekdays, as they currently do on the northern end (when the B67 doesn't run to Williamsburg). On weekends, it is a non-issue, because they interline on the Cortelyou Road side only (which would become the 20 Street end with regards to my proposal). The second reason though, is to connect more of the gentrified neighborhoods (and certain parts of said neighborhoods) which the B25 does not serve. The B69 extension into DUMBO was in an effort to increase ridership north & west of Clinton Hill. The cutback to Park Slope... I don't know if it's just me, but I've only been on a B67 (or B69) which had a considerable amount of riders along the McDonald Avenue portion (ironically enough, during the evening hours). However, the stop at McDonald Avenue & Albemarle is where the most activity occurs (pick ups & drop offs; It's true on every B67 or B69 ride I've been on). Maybe it's because too much service is provided along there, but in that case, perhaps short-turning some buses at Park Slope would be sufficient enough (on weekdays only). B68: The B68 is not getting any runtime increases from the B67/B69. Essentially, the B68 to Windsor Terrace gets the same amount of time as the (current) B68 to 15 Street via PPSW. The rest of the time comes from the B61 service which was cut. The cutbacks made on the B67 & B69 were in order to keep runtime the same on the evening and weekend B67 & B69, so they can still interline. The B68 would essentially be the B67/B69 alternative up to 9 Street & 7 Avenue (and the area within a 5 minute walking radius). The rationale for this route was related to the B61. So this would become a 9 Street Crosstown, become the southern portion of the B67/B69 (which I think it could handle), and run it's own route. While Coney Island Avenue is a hassle at times, 9 Street is not much of a problem. PPSW is relatively low in terms of ridership levels. If the B61 remains running along 9 Street, I would just have a part-time B68 branch to 9 Street & 7 Avenue via the route I have (running during evenings, weekends, and overnight hours. B61: When the B77 was still around, the eastbound & the westbound B77 shared a stop at the outer lane (on beard).... The B61 stop (when it only ran b/w downtown & the IKEA) was inside the niche/inner lane.... The confusion came about because: - you had so many people (tourists & natives) that were unfamiliar with Red Hook to begin with, - unused to having a route traveling in either direction stopping at the same exact stop, - the B61 (split) was still relatively new - so you had a ton of people asking "Does this take you to the train" (referring to the ), - B61's (from downtown) dropping pax off at the B77 stop if there was another bus at the actual B61 stop on layover - which meant b/o's picking up pax. for the return trip back downtown at that same spot it previously dropped pax. off at..... Shit was a mess.... Now of course, you have the B57 (which ends there) & the SB B61 that stop along Beard, and the NB B61 that stops in the inner lane.... The difference is that the bus that terminates at IKEA no longer pulls into the inner lane.... Nothing goes on layover in the inner lane, like it did before.... As far as your idea goes... Don't know if I said it already, but I would not take that ridership along 9th away from the B61 to give to an extended B68 to IKEA, because those riders along 9th are riding well past Red Hook.... B67/B69: Amendment noted.... No further comment. B68: It absolutely would..... Before your amendment, you had buses going CI av > Church > McDonald, up to PPW, etc..... You can't just compare the two parallel distances (the real B67/B69 b/w PPW & Church and the real B68 b/w PPW & Church) & conclude that runtime would respectively, essentially be the same... That ignores the time spent on Church & the increase in load factor north of Church.... Please don't tell me you don't expect to see a significant increase of riders north of Church/CI av on your B68 running all the way to Red Hook, compared to the real B68 that stops dead at Pritchard Sq.... Lastly, you're telling me the reason you'd run the B68 there (which I got from jump by looking at your map).... I'm asking, what justifies running the B68 to Red Hook exactly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 20, 2017 Share #4417 Posted July 20, 2017 B61: When the B77 was still around, the eastbound & the westbound B77 shared a stop at the outer lane (on beard).... The B61 stop (when it only ran b/w downtown & the IKEA) was inside the niche/inner lane.... The confusion came about because: - you had so many people (tourists & natives) that were unfamiliar with Red Hook to begin with, - unused to having a route traveling in either direction stopping at the same exact stop, - the B61 (split) was still relatively new - so you had a ton of people asking "Does this take you to the train" (referring to the ), - B61's (from downtown) dropping pax off at the B77 stop if there was another bus at the actual B61 stop on layover - which meant b/o's picking up pax. for the return trip back downtown at that same spot it previously dropped pax. off at..... Shit was a mess.... Now of course, you have the B57 (which ends there) & the SB B61 that stop along Beard, and the NB B61 that stops in the inner lane.... The difference is that the bus that terminates at IKEA no longer pulls into the inner lane.... Nothing goes on layover in the inner lane, like it did before.... As far as your idea goes... Don't know if I said it already, but I would not take that ridership along 9th away from the B61 to give to an extended B68 to IKEA, because those riders along 9th are riding well past Red Hook.... B67/B69: Amendment noted.... No further comment. B68: It absolutely would..... Before your amendment, you had buses going CI av > Church > McDonald, up to PPW, etc..... You can't just compare the two parallel distances (the real B67/B69 b/w PPW & Church and the real B68 b/w PPW & Church) & conclude that runtime would respectively, essentially be the same... That ignores the time spent on Church & the increase in load factor north of Church.... Please don't tell me you don't expect to see a significant increase of riders north of Church/CI av on your B68 running all the way to Red Hook, compared to the real B68 that stops dead at Pritchard Sq.... Lastly, you're telling me the reason you'd run the B68 there (which I got from jump by looking at your map).... I'm asking, what justifies running the B68 to Red Hook exactly? B61/B68: Okay, so some points regarding confusion are understandable. The feeling I have though is that even though I have seen more WB/NB ridership along 9 Street than the opposite direction, there are other options which would take riders to destination near/along the B61 faster than the B61 would (or in a similar amount of time). The B63 serves nearby areas of Cobble Hill (and Downtown Brooklyn with a walk), the B67 and B103 serve Downtown Brooklyn. The Downtown Brooklyn loads can take the B67 & B103. Perhaps the B61 can turnaround at 4th Avenue or 5th Avenue, serving 9 Street west of those areas (and then send every other B68 during the daytime, all B68s overnight to IKEA). I wanted to keep the B61 serving the "core" portion of the route (Red Hook and Cobble Hill), but I didn't want to leave 9 Street without anything. The B68 was extended as it was not only nearby, but it would close a gap where it's impossible even with the to get to Red Hook from destinations such as Kensington and most of Windsor Terrace (since the Prospect slices through Windsor Terrace). There really isn't anything going from areas south of Red Hook into Red Hook, even from the slowly gentrifying areas along the B63 and B68, which are slowly growing. B67/B69: I want to comment on your comment on unreliability on the B67 following the B69 reroute on 7 Avenue. The issue itself is the B69, because they're both interlined, and the B69 has more runtime and less recovery time than the B67. The B69 often runs late, and even the littlest hiccup will cause delays (that little hiccup which I observe just last Saturday; the B69 left 5 minutes late from Sands Street, and ended up running 15 minutes late. It was when I saw the bus crowded as soon as it turned onto 7th Avenue when I noticed what was going on). If the MTA adds time on the B69 (which it should do), then it would have to rewrite the B67 & B69 schedule. Perhaps then, the two services can run more reliability, while still maintaining service on 7 Avenue as it is. I have a proposal for the B69 (which is one that was brought up earlier on, with my tweaks) should that happen, which still retains some of the original proposal. I will get to the rest of your comments at a later time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted July 20, 2017 Share #4418 Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) i think i asked before what merit would it do for splitting the B25 route from dumbo and giving dumbo it's own circulator route from downtown brooklyn and loop around dumbo? it would use 1 bus Edited July 20, 2017 by BreeddekalbL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted July 22, 2017 Share #4419 Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) 1) Never heard of it, but anyway, If there's any part of the B16 that's over served, it's its stint in Borough Park..... Rather sad to see as many people getting off Lefferts bound B16's when it turns on 56th.... I wouldn't exactly say the B61 is over serving that pocket of Park Slope east of 7th..... I have to believe it terminating where it currently does is an issue of layover feasibility; you aint ending B61's & B68's @ Pritchard Sq, so they run buses over to 20th..... While a plausible argument can be made regarding the B67/69's inefficiency south of Park Slope, IMO, the better fix is cut the amt. of BPH running to Kensington - not outright cutback both routes on that end.... That's taking it too far (same deal with having the B68 fill that void)..... 2) I get that running buses to DUMBO is an attempt at a ridership grab, but you can't really claim you're trying to increase ridership on a route when you extend it somewhere on one end & cut it back on the other..... To your points about the B33, well I'm responding to this whole thing, according to those 5 bullet points you made to what you believe certain issues are (and your corresponding fixes to them)... So if you list your B33 as a change/fix under the category of increase ridership, and your B33 (separate from the Greenpoint leg of the B24) is a B43 minus the portion north of Greenpoint av, that's leads me to raise the question - just what is wrong with the B43's ridership exactly? That's not farfetched to expect..... But in any case, the first point about the B33 is obvious - if there's no "B24" running along Greenpoint, they're gonna take your "B33".... The 2nd part of the point is reasonable; I do think people would take advantage..... Not saying your B33 is a bad idea, it's that I don't see it as all too necessary.... Outside of anything ridership related, the B43 is one of the better ran routes in the borough & I wouldn't risk jeopardizing that.... 3)What I think Sunnyside would benefit most from, is better access to more of Queens - outside of what taking the can do for them....Something like what the B61, B63, and B67/69 does for Park Slope..... (Sunnyside is a) Nice quiet, but vivrant in spots (at the same time.. Lol) neighborhood; could easily be "Astoria light" if they had better transit options (well that & eradicating/converting those old warehouses to more places of residence, parkland, and storefronts).... B24 (inadequate), Q39 (consistently inconsistent), Q32 & Q60 (both with serious bunching issues & prone to serious delays).... #thizzface 4) ...and Parkside isn't a better draw for the riders that live in that pocket of Brooklyn than Caton is.... It amounts to inconveniencing riders on that end of the route, just so that it could serve the .... I'm not concerned with getting you to change anything you drew up, but what I do find concerning here is the thought process on display - Cutting a route back large in part because a portion of a route is plagued with traffic to the point of a standstill at its worst, regardless of how it's used, is just plain crazy to me.... The running of the B48 to McDonald as a compromise illustrates to me that you haven't utilized that side of the B16 enough... I could understand if the route is shunned in the area (and/or few people use it to get to/from the ), but that's not the case.... 1) I would keep it for coverage, but at the same time, that part of Brooklyn tends to not use the buses there anyways. The B11 also tends to be lightly used in Borough Park. Many have said before (myself included) that the B16 should serve Maimonides (although the routings tend to be a little different). I have mentioned for the bus to take 49/50 Streets instead of 56/57 Streets (thus covering certain parts of Fort Hamilton, serving Maimonides, and maintaining the connection). Other than that, I don't believe there's much to do. I thought the B61 could terminate at the stop at Pritchard Square, since it has space for what looks like two buses. However, given how the B61 bunches and the somewhat long layover on that end, it may be problematic. Either way, perhaps 4th or 5th Avenue can be a short-turn for the current route during certain periods. That way, the B61 can terminate smoothly at Pritchard Square, and then the B69 can utilize some space to layover along 19 Street or something. As for the B67 & B69, I would have the B67 since it is the more frequent of the two routes. The B69 would originate on 20 Street & Prospect Park West. Essentially, I would just have the B67 running on its current headways (more or less) on weekdays, and interdependent from the B69. There would be some headway adjustments, so here are the service levels for the B67 route as follows: Sample NB Service (from Church Avenue to DUMBO) 4:20 AM-5:00 AM (every 20 minutes) 5:00 AM-6:00 AM (every 15 minutes) 6:00 AM-7:50 AM (every 11 minutes) 7:50 AM-8:56 AM (every 22 minutes) 8:56 AM-1:53 PM (every 33 minutes) 1:53 PM-4:55 PM (every 13 minutes) 4:55 PM-5:59 PM (every 16 minutes) 5:59 PM-12:59 AM (every 30 minutes) Trips departing Church Avenue from 6:00 AM-5:59 PM have generally 64, 65, or 66 minutes after departing to start making the returning trip, hence why the headways are as such. For the return times, they are from 4:50 AM to 1:30 AM. Essentially, the combined portion in Park Slope would have double the service levels listed above. 2) With relation to the B67/B69, I will just cut it back on the southern side up to Church Avenue (B67) or 20 Street (B69). I have a modified proposal for the B69, as it will no longer be heavily interlined with the B67 (so both routes provide more reliable service). 3) Definetly agree with that, and I think a B48 extension would probably help, in the sense that it would connect Sunnyside with parts of southern Greenpoint, Williamsburg, Bed-Stuy, and Lefferts Gardens, where there are some more gentrified establishments, and so on. 4) Is your issue with my B16 proposal based on the route serving the , or the route using Parkside Avenue. Additionally, I would like to add that while I have seen people get off at the , on the weekends, ridership on the segment is not really high (although traffic is higher). On weekdays, I have seen more people along Caton on those B16's, but traffic is an issue, which is why I feel something should be done about the B16 using Caton Avenue. I guess it can still serve (nearby) Fort Hamilton Parkway on the instead of at Church Avenue (since the gives riders access to 6 Avenue anyways). So regarding the B69, I have changed the proposal to where it would now run between Williamsburg and Park Slope/Windsor Terrace/Whatever the area by the B61 layover is called. I will have a route map for the route soon. Originally, I was going to extend the B32 down to Grand Army Plaza while still having B69's run along Vanderbilt to provide more service(and then via Union Street to Columbia Street as a temporary solution until the B71 is brought back), but I ultimately canned that. Edited July 22, 2017 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 23, 2017 Share #4420 Posted July 23, 2017 (edited) First things first: Let's remind ourselves that the B45 and B65 both run pretty decent routes and end blocks from each other Downtown and end at the same stop- Ralph Avenue and St Johns/Crown Heights. If I were to pick to have the Broadway-East New York or Alabama to Downtown, let it be the B45. Although the B65 is a very quick deadhead from the depot to St. Johns Place I'd put the B65 to Broadway-East New York for rush hour purposes only, but B45 at all times, plus its a straight route via St. Johns. Preferably- B45 over the 65 for Bway-East NY-Alabama (Full Time). HOWEVER, B65 to East New York during rush hours. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that first statement about a reminder, but be there as it may..... The B45 routing is pretty smart actually; the problem that has lingered on for DECADES with it, is inadequate service.... It's another one of those routes IMO (like the aforementioned B57) that the MTA hasn't really bothered to tap into its potential - and that is separate from any eastward extension.... They see it is, oh, the IRT is a stones throw away to the south - when the route is majorically used to get to the IRT @ Atlantic av..... The B65 is a coverage route..... Depending on how proximate your place of residence is, if you don't feel like hoofing it out to the B45 or putting up with the B25, you got the B65 just about centrally located b/w the two..... It's more or less used the same way the B45 is (AM rush carrying rather light west of Flatbush, PM rush carrying heavy out of Downtown), except there's more school kid usage getting off well short of Flatbush av... The one advantage the B65 has over the B45 is that it stops (ends) at the Fulton Mall strip - But to be perfectly honest, I personally hate the way the B65 "backdoors" its way into Downtown (subjecting it to that traffic coming off the BQE and the Gowanus - which is why those Cobble Hill routes (B57, 61, 63) are seldom ever on time)... That's one of, if not the main reason I wouldn't run it up to the .... --- As far as filling that gap on St. Johns on up to Alabama , I'd choose the B45.... And on top of it, I'd propose a service increase during the rush that's very similar to that of the B12.... Current peak headways on the route along with (what else....) delays, is what's causing it to lose ridership in droves.... I say all that to say, there's no way in hell I'd bring back the B40 as a remedy to filling said gap on up to the , or to undo the BS the MTA did by even creating this B47.... i think i asked before what merit would it do for splitting the B25 route from dumbo and giving dumbo it's own circulator route from downtown brooklyn and loop around dumbo? it would use 1 bus You asked that question before, because I remember opining on it.... Cutting DUMBO from the B25 would have possibly resulted in that route's termination - it (and Brooklyn Bridge Park) were the factors that kept that from happening..... While DUMBO has certainly progressed, we're still FAR away from the finished product (so to speak).... It's nowhere close to having the MTA run a shuttle b/w it & Downtown.... It would resemble too much of the old N93 Nassau Hub circulator/shuttle.... Edited July 23, 2017 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted July 23, 2017 Share #4421 Posted July 23, 2017 If the B/45 returns to East New York Avenue, it will be a partial return of the B/45 trolley bus route which went up East New York Avenue but then went straight along Liberty Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue (which became part of the B/40). Wednesday is the anniversary of the end of all trolley bus service in our city as on July 26, 1960, the last Trolley bus pulled into the garage and it ended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 23, 2017 Share #4422 Posted July 23, 2017 Let me ask a couple of questions here; When is a route too long? It seems that the combination of routes which in some cases have made two shorter routes into one long one when the two routes ran efficiently and on time in reality made the combined route totally unreliable.When the routes are combined to save money and make the route more efficient and the dispatchers are dropped from the route to keep the buses on time (which is happening all over the system) is a bigger problem being created as now there is bus bunching which did not exist before on the two shorter routes? One last question involving bus service in general and that is will a route be more efficient if the driver does both halves on the same route or is it better working the two halves on two routes? I ask these questions as we constantly hear the complaints about bus service and yet is the MTA looking at it the wrong way here in Brooklyn (or for that matter anywhere else or do we have to look at why the system used to work and if change for change sake is worth it. I read all the suggestions about route changes and are both sides looking at the proposals from different perspectives which I think is the problem. Had to split the post & give it the attention it deserved. The problem I more have, is when the MTA combines a route that was already long (or just long enough to where the route didn't have moderate to severe problems when it came to reliability) with portions of a route whose ridership was too low to justify its existence as part of that standalone route.... The current B47, B82, & B13 all fall into that category... The stupid thing about the latter is, they've done thinned down the original B13/B18 merge over the years to where it's just the small portion along Wyckoff that's left.... I say that to say: The B13 (Spring Creek - Ridgewood Terminal) should've never been touched.... The B18 (Cypress Hills - Graham av ) was an antiquated route that once served the largely industrial East Williamsburg that should've been gotten axed before 2002.... The B78 (Rutland - Kings Plaza) should've never been touched.... The B40 was the (im)perfect storm of antiquatedness & redundancy.... The problem wasn't so much wanting to create a "Ralph av" route (on paper), but moreso showing no respect to/being completely ignorant of the street grid.... To put it another way, they forced the existence of a Ralph av route and it plagues the current B47 to this day..... The B50 (CI av/Quentin - Starrett City [spring crk. Towers] should've never been touched..... The B5 ended up being the odd man out when it came down to addressing the redundancy along Kings Hwy. b/w the Brighton line & Flatbush av.... It's usage wasn't anything to write home about either.... Irrespective of the respective route distances of these 2 possibilities, A B5/B7 combo would've been way more inefficient than today's B82; as it would carry much less total riders/trip in regards to the runtime of such a route (at the same time, I don't exactly give them credit for creating the B82 though).... Also, there was that problem regarding turning around buses full-time at Flatbush/Kings Hwy. that they felt needed addressing (back when Kings Hwy traffic was much heavier then than it is now).... A resurrection of the B5 (if the B82 were to be split, that is) could prosper - as the west-of-Brighton population around Kings Hwy. has seen more people taking mass transit over the years.... But as I said in an earlier post, it would have to run down to Mermaid Loop at minimum.... Cutting it back to Ocean on the eastern end would've sufficed (it didn't have to run to Flatbush).... In any case, I have to believe if the B100 was NYCT instead of a PBL (Command), it would've been combined w/ the B5 instead..... Bus bunching isn't necessarily a symptom of a route that's too long, but delays are almost always a symptom of bus bunching.... No one wants to admit this, but bunching can also occur if service is too frequent during a given time period.... Then of course, you also have the scenario/situation where buses are scheduled to arrive on top of one another (tends to be the case with local routes that have either SBS or LTD counterparts).... But you're right; when you combine two shorter routes whose cumulative delays ends up resulting in bunching (and then no arriving buses for like the next 20+ minutes), it's a serious issue.... How the MTA tends to try to address that, is by tinkering with arrival/departure times of certain trips & slightly increasing headways (by like 1/2 a minute to a full minute or so).... That's also done to address the imbalances with the load factor..... One last question involving bus service in general and that is will a route be more efficient if the driver does both halves on the same route or is it better working the two halves on two routes? To your last question... Well, ignoring such issues like high loading times & high (enough) traffic, the logistics involved with operating one route is easier to deal with, than multiple routes..... Less variables you have to deal with.... But when you throw said aforementioned monkey-wrenches into the equation, there isn't a one size fits all answer..... Compare the B47 with the Q47 (some coincidence huh... Lol) - The Brooklyn one (B47) inherited the traffic mess that goes on along Broadway, which rendered the reliability of the old B78 portion of the route null & void (the MTA's response is to continue running the B47 as is - Like Shit!).... The Queens one (Q47) OTOH saw two routes that had an ~ amount of runtime, had the same issues of navigating along narrow streets, similar usage levels, IINM, service levels were similar also.... It made too much sense from an operational standpoint to combine the two IMO.... What I'm getting at is, you have to weigh & compare the benefits to the detriments & determine if it's worth combining 2 routes, or leaving 2 routes separate.... If you're that hard up on a dollar though, you're definitely looking to combine routes, provide inadequate frequencies, & engage in system-wide interlining all over the place... Sucks to say, but who on the corporate level is going to care about modernization & differing focal points on how to address anything for the better, at that point B35, out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 24, 2017 Share #4423 Posted July 24, 2017 I'm not sure what you're getting at with that first statement about a reminder, but be there as it may..... The B45 routing is pretty smart actually; the problem that has lingered on for DECADES with it, is inadequate service.... It's another one of those routes IMO (like the aforementioned B57) that the MTA hasn't really bothered to tap into its potential - and that is separate from any eastward extension.... They see it is, oh, the IRT is a stones throw away to the south - when the route is majorically used to get to the IRT @ Atlantic av..... The B65 is a coverage route..... Depending on how proximate your place of residence is, if you don't feel like hoofing it out to the B45 or putting up with the B25, you got the B65 just about centrally located b/w the two..... It's more or less used the same way the B45 is (AM rush carrying rather light west of Flatbush, PM rush carrying heavy out of Downtown), except there's more school kid usage getting off well short of Flatbush av... The one advantage the B65 has over the B45 is that it stops (ends) at the Fulton Mall strip - But to be perfectly honest, I personally hate the way the B65 "backdoors" its way into Downtown (subjecting it to that traffic coming off the BQE and the Gowanus - which is why those Cobble Hill routes (B57, 61, 63) are seldom ever on time)... That's one of, if not the main reason I wouldn't run it up to the .... --- As far as filling that gap on St. Johns on up to Alabama , I'd choose the B45.... And on top of it, I'd propose a service increase during the rush that's very similar to that of the B12.... Current peak headways on the route along with (what else....) delays, is what's causing it to lose ridership in droves.... The other advantage the B45 has over the B65 is that it's further from the B25 and Fulton Line, so for riders heading towards Broadway Junction, it provides a direct connection (whereas from most areas along the B65, you can walk over to those lines). Less duplicative if you will. BTW, what would the routing be, just straight across St. Johns to ENY Avenue to help the B12 more, or go across Park Place/Prospect Place to ENY Avenue and provide some more coverage in that part of Ocean Hill? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetroTransitTee Posted July 24, 2017 Share #4424 Posted July 24, 2017 The other advantage the B45 has over the B65 is that it's further from the B25 and Fulton Line, so for riders heading towards Broadway Junction, it provides a direct connection (whereas from most areas along the B65, you can walk over to those lines). Less duplicative if you will. BTW, what would the routing be, just straight across St. Johns to ENY Avenue to help the B12 more, or go across Park Place/Prospect Place to ENY Avenue and provide some more coverage in that part of Ocean Hill? How about having it run along Eastern Parkway? Just a suggestion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future ENY OP Posted July 24, 2017 Share #4425 Posted July 24, 2017 How about having it run along Eastern Parkway? Just a suggestion. East New York Avenue better. Better access to Alabama . The other advantage the B45 has over the B65 is that it's further from the B25 and Fulton Line, so for riders heading towards Broadway Junction, it provides a direct connection (whereas from most areas along the B65, you can walk over to those lines). Less duplicative if you will. BTW, what would the routing be, just straight across St. Johns to ENY Avenue to help the B12 more, or go across Park Place/Prospect Place to ENY Avenue and provide some more coverage in that part of Ocean Hill? For the B45. Straight down East New York to help out the 12. I would also like to see the 65 extend to Junction and let that use Park/Prospect to help out that segment. On the return trip East New York to Rochester than regular via Bergen. 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.