Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[B22viaAtlanticAv]

Gleason will get theirs when the first XN60s show up early next year or whenever.

 

ENY will get theirs whenever they figure out if they getting new XD60s or the used Bronx ones lol.

 

Grand Av is getting some eventually, bottom of the totem pole.

 

Flatbush already has artics.

 

Fresh Pond and Ulmer Park aren't getting any.

 

So they( The MTA) has never considered Artics for the B6? Just a thought...not saying they should put them on said route.

[Kingjunior34]

Gleason will get theirs when the first XN60s show up early next year or whenever.

 

ENY will get theirs whenever they figure out if they getting new XD60s or the used Bronx ones lol.

 

Grand Av is getting some eventually, bottom of the totem pole.

 

Flatbush already has artics.

 

Fresh Pond and Ulmer Park aren't getting any.

Why does Gleason needs artics, which route the 35?

 

Eny will only have xd60 no Lfs ? , what routes would get them besides 15,82 ?

 

Flatbush- aren't the 46 going to get artics eventually?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited August 22, 2017 by Kingjunior34

[Around the Horn]

Why does Gleason needs artics, which route the 35?

 

Eny will only have xd60 no Lfs ? , what routes would get them besides 15,82 ?

 

Flatbush- aren't the 46 going to get artics eventually?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Definitely the B35, with some left over possibly for the B61 and B63.

So they( The MTA) has never considered Artics for the B6? Just a thought...not saying they should put them on said route.

Don't quote me on this... but I don't think artics could fit in Ulmer Park.

[MTA Bus]

Definitely the B35, with some left over possibly for the B61 and B63.

 

Don't quote me on this... but I don't think artics could fit in Ulmer Park.

If the express routes were not there, they could.

 

 

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Fresh Pond]

Why does Gleason needs artics, which route the 35?

 

yes

 

Eny will only have xd60 no Lfs ? , what routes would get them besides 15,82 ?

 

nope, only the B15 and eventual B82 SBS

 

Flatbush- aren't the 46 going to get artics eventually?

 

it's been determined that the B46 doesn't need artics

 

 

[Kingjunior34]

 

Why does Gleason needs artics, which route the 35?

 

yes

 

Eny will only have xd60 no Lfs ? , what routes would get them besides 15,82 ?

 

nope, only the B15 and eventual B82 SBS

 

Flatbush- aren't the 46 going to get artics eventually?

 

it's been determined that the B46 doesn't need artics

 

 

 

If there is artics left after the main routes get the , which secondary routes would get them out of Eny and Gleason ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[B35 via Church]

The B8 can surely need some leftover articulated buses.

Service on the B8 can use a huge dose of consistency..... I'm not fooled by the loads on that route.

 

it's been determined that the B46 doesn't need artics

Probably the only thing the MTA did right when it came to the B46, post SBS....

[aemoreira81]

Someone posted a picture of an XD60 in the blue-and-yellow scheme testing on the B35, apparently looking for areas of tight clearance.

 

As for the B84, I would re-structure the route and merge it with the Q7.

 

The B84 (Q7) would be as follows:

 

From the current stand, north on Erskine, LEFT at Vandalia, right on Elton, left on Cozine, right on Ashford, right at New Lots, left on Elton, right on Pitkin, past Euclid, and onward to JFK Cargo B.

 

New stops added at: Vandalia and: Erskine and Essex, Elton and: Vandalia and Flatlands, Cozine and Elton, Elton and: Dumont, Blake, and Sutter, Pitkin and: Elton, Shepherd, Montauk, Logan (existing Q8 stop) and Crystal (new Q7/Q8 stop)

 

To Gateway from JFK Cargo B: continue along Pitkin to Cleveland, left at Cleveland, right on New Lots, left on Ashford, left on Cozine, right on Elton, left on Vandalia, right on Fountain, right on Seaview, and stand.

 

New stops added at: Pitkin and: Crystal, Fountain, Montauk, Shepherd, and Linwood, Cleveland and: Pitkin, Sutter, Blake, and Dumont, Ashford and Cozine (B6 stop moved to before the turn), Elton and: Cozine and Flatlands: Vandalia at: Elton, Essex, and Erskine

 

There would be no need for the B84 to go to the B13/B83/Q8 terminus because one can walk into Gateway Mall North straight from Elton Street.(which ends inside the mall). The operation would naturally shift from East New York Depot to JFK Depot.  However, interlines could be run where a Q8 bus deadheads to Erskine or vice versa to do the Q7, or a Q7 deadheads across to the other side to run a Q8 trip.

 

As structured currently, the B84 is terribly run with too much reliance on O&D from a rather desloate area along Flatlands, as well as having a bus sit at Gateway for nearly 30 minutes making no revenue. This is completely unlike the B32, which will soon see service increased from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes.

 

As for the B6 getting artics, if Ulmer Park can't fit them, it's really going to be hard to get them on without restructuring the B6 or splitting the upcoming B82 SBS into a north and south route (replacing the B6 LTD with a B82N SBS, which would see the B82 Local moved to Ulmer Park). The problem, however, is that the B6 Local becomes a long slow route, as nothing else is coverage within Bensonhurst.

[Fresh Pond]

Someone posted a picture of an XD60 in the blue-and-yellow scheme testing on the B35, apparently looking for areas of tight clearance.

That was me. 6110 is at Gleason for training and clearance testing on the B35 for when the XN60s actually come in

 

https://flic.kr/p/XRCGrB

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Yeah, I would favor a B69/B71 combo over having the B69 run along 7th...

Concurrently though, I favor a revival of the (western portion of the) B71 over a B69/B71 combo....

 

In saying that, I'd also extend the B71 up Columbia (and away from Van Brunt) to terminate w/ the B63 - now that Brooklyn Bridge Park is a "thing"... This would easily shave minutes off of those in Cobble Hill & Carroll Gardens needing to get to Park Slope by no longer having to take the B61 (unless they specifically need 9th st)..... Carroll Gardens & Park Slope I've always characterized as separate but equal communities; only real difference is that Park Slope's commercial sector are more vivrant/patronized by outsiders.....

 

^^ In saying that (Lol), well, the B69 would have to be cut back to Plaza st/Vanderbilt av (basically, Grand Army Plaza) - as there's no justification for putting buses back along 8th/PPW.... I'd like to have buses layover at the NB plaza st stop, but the sidewalk would have to be narrowed for that to happen.... So as things are right this second, buses would have to layover at that worthless Grand Army Plz/Flatbush av stop on the western side of the traffic circle....

 

To sum all this up, I would:

- Cut back the B69 on the south end to Grand Army Plz & divert-and-extend it to WBP on the northern end...

- Revive the B71 to where it'd run b/w Brooklyn Bridge Park (w/ the B63) & Prospect Park subway..... Sackett/Van Brunt (buses really made their first pickups on Columbia/Union anyway) as a terminal is sorely antiquated here in 2017....

 

1) Short answer: Ft. Hamilton pkwy/86th st (current B16 NB stop)...

 

__Long answer: I wouldn't have the route terminating in Borough Park, as I believe coverage on 13th should pan south of Borough Park..... I wouldn't have buses ending at Flatbush av either (I've BEEN saying on these parts [before the route's discontinuation] that Flatbush/Cortelyou for the route was too abrupt a terminal)... When I came up w/ my B23 proposal, I took the busiest portions of the old B23 (everything west of McDonald) & proceeded to drum up a useful full-fledged route from that snippet of the old route....

 

Since you're only asking about the southern portion of the proposal....

- south of Flatbush av, buses would go: Cortelyou > McDonald > Church > 36th st > 13th av > 86th st > Ft. Hamilton Pkwy (to stand)...

- towards Flatbush av, buses would go: Ft. Hamilton Pkwy > 81st st > 7th av > 86th st > 13th av > 65th st > 14th av > Church > McDonald > Cortelyou, etc...

 

Of course, I'd like to run it 86th/4th - However, the space isn't available for (buses for) another route in the immediate area

(hence the current shifting around of the last drop-off / first pickup stops of the B1 to what it is now)....

Did not forget about this post.

 

1) Regarding the B71, I can agree to everything mentioned in your post. If the B77 gets revived, I would have it cover portions of the old B71 route then (instead of going to Prospect Park), and 7 Avenue. Late night service would likely terminate at Grand Army, daytime services runs to Brooklyn Avenue or to Interfaith. 

 

2) Regarding the B23, that's actually more or less my proposed B23 route. My route goes to Shore Road, because:

 

1. It would act as an alternative to the B1 bus route along 86 Street

2. My proposed B64 route (which also serves 86 Street west of 13 Avenue) would layover via 3 Avenue, 87 Street, and Ridge Boulevard

3. It can cut down on the trippers the B16 needs (ATH mentioned something similar previously)

 

Additionally, I didn't want to not serve 86 Street & 4 Avenue. Now, it could replace the B16 down to Shore Road & 4 Avenue, but I wonder how far people are going from the nursing home on Shore Road & 91 Street. I've always seen them pass the , but in some cases, these people are on well after the bus after it turns off Fort Hamilton Parkway. Don't know if that's always the case. 

 

Now, where would you send it on the eastern end? I originally wanted to send it to Canarsie Plaza during the rush hour (via Avenue D), but I didn't want to create another long route. Therefore, I did extended to the Newkirk Avenue station. I would have sent it to the Junction, but the B103 already does that.

Edited August 26, 2017 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl

[Kingjunior34]

Did not forget about this post.

 

1) Regarding the B71, I can agree to everything mentioned in your post. If the B77 gets revived, I would have it cover portions of the old B71 route then (instead of going to Prospect Park), and 7 Avenue. Late night service would likely terminate at Grand Army, daytime services runs to Brooklyn Avenue or to Interfaith.

 

2) Regarding the B23, that's actually more or less my proposed B23 route. My route goes to Shore Road, because:

 

1. It would act as an alternative to the B1 bus route along 86 Street

2. My proposed B64 route (which also serves 86 Street west of 13 Avenue) would layover via 3 Avenue, 87 Street, and Ridge Boulevard

3. It can cut down on the trippers the B16 needs (ATH mentioned something similar previously)

 

Additionally, I didn't want to not serve 86 Street & 4 Avenue. Now, it could replace the B16 down to Shore Road & 4 Avenue, but I wonder how far people are going from the nursing home on Shore Road & 91 Street. I've always seen them pass the , but in some cases, these people are on well after the bus after it turns off Fort Hamilton Parkway. Don't know if that's always the case.

 

Now, where would you send it on the eastern end? I originally wanted to send it to Canarsie Plaza during the rush hour (via Avenue D), but I didn't want to create another long route. Therefore, I did extended to the Newkirk Avenue station. I would have sent it to the Junction, but the B103 already does that.

Sending it to Canarsie plaza isn't a bad idea , maybe even sending up remsen to church to terminate

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[B35 via Church]

As far as the B66 route, I did make a map several days ago which I forgot to place on here, which revamps the B66 route. Like I said before, under the previous routing, I would have not recommended it. I don't want to just serve Barclays, but also the area around it. The current pedestrianization though makes it hard to do so. 

 

BTW, I'm pretty sure a bus shouldn't have a problem making the turn on Ashland Place onto Hanson Street (or vice versa). The problem is, that's only feasible when there isn't a truck or anything parked on one of the sides, and if there isn't another bus/truck waiting for the bus to make the turn, so I do see that issue. Anyways, I separated the B66 routing from the rest of the other routes, and will explain the routing:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&authuser=0&mid=1ClrH5jdxHExWYSkQjyvsA1fjq98

 

I have modified the B66 route greatly from the original routing. I have the B66 originating in Red Hook at IKEA (although that could be changed to continue to Van Brunt Street). This kicks out the B57 route, and it also allows for the B62 to remain running between Downtown Brooklyn and Queens Plaza at all times. Service turns on Livingston Street (although it can be changed to Fulton instead) to head to Barclays Center. It gives the Red Hook and Carroll Gardens a direct link to Barclays (which would have otherwise resulted in a B61 trip to the B63). At the very least, it eliminates the transferring. 

 

I also want to serve some part of the projects over there, which is why I had it going down Ashland. What I decided to do was to use Carlton/Adelphi instead so it comes close to serving the Projects. I would have routed the SB route via Cumberland, but it would recreate the turning problems in that area (getting from Greene Avenue to Atlantic). It once takes Williamsburg Street East/West because you have way too many local buses going from there to the Greater Downtown Brooklyn Area. It is also to make it a quick link between Northern Brooklyn and south of Park. It serves some areas of Northeast Williamsburg to connect to Union/Metropolitan. 

 

Past Nassau Avenue, it continues north to Manhattan Avenue, then on Greenpoint Avenue towards Sunnyside. For some Sunnyside riders (and for many Brooklyn Riders), the route would hit some areas the current B62 or B43 don't hit in Williamsburg but the B24 does, or some spots the B62 and/or B43 hit, but the B24 doesn't. It would also offer a faster ride towards the Intermediate area around WBP (compared to the current B24). If there was another option instead of Manhattan Avenue, I would have rerouted it there instead of Manhattan Avenue. This routing would also effectively cancel the B69 to Greenpoint (would terminate in Williamsburg via the route you described above), and the B33 proposal from either (essentially everything would remain as B43 service). The same rationale for not routing the B69 into WBP originally would also apply to this route.

I can see (on the map) that you don't want to only serve Barclays..... However, the sticking point that was used as the basis behind such a route, was the difficulty of getting from the northern part of this borough to Barclays..... So I based my commentary around that....

 

Also, what's odd to me about your comment regarding Ashland/Hanson is that on one hand, you expressed a certain certainty of buses not having much of a problem making that turn.... Then go on to state the problem! (curbside parking & subsequent vehicles making said turn)..... What makes that turn rather unsafe is that very thing (with the former of the two issues that would exacerbate any turning of buses at that juncture being very common), combined with the fact that both of those streets are 2-way when they meet..... If they were both 1-way, it wouldn't be an issue - as width wouldn't be an issue..... Think I said this in my last round of replies to you, but turning those streets 1-way and/or banning curbside parking (while keeping their 2-way status intact) is not worth it to have buses running in that specific area.....

 

So I see you've altered the route quite a bit - to the the point where I actually like what you're trying to do w/ the southern portion of the route..... I will say though that instead of having buses take Livingston (or Fulton), you should have buses taking Atlantic (as people that use the current/real B57 at from Red Hook proper or Smith/9th won't use it along Livingston anyway).... As I see it, everything currently drawn b/w Livingston & Fulton on the route would be an immense waste of time..... On top of it, I'm inclined to believe that the route would garner much more usage along Atlantic than it ever would on Livingston....

 

North of Barclays, I'm still not fond of the route, but it is what it is..... Being a little objective though, I can envision decent usage b/w Sunnyside & Met av, carrying stragglers at best between Met. av  & Flushing (w/ much of no overlapping ridership from anyone north of Met.), and garnering a somewhat decent amt. of usage b/w Flushing & Barclays....

 

 

1) The "somewhat" refers to the new routing proposed by residents compared to the old routing (I don't remember the exact proposed routing, but it doesn't use much of Eastern Parkway east of Grand Army, and IIRC serves Brooklyn Children's Museum as well. Given that it runs closer to the more popular areas in that neighborhood, it may garner more ridership than the old route (that, and the western extension to Brooklyn Bridge Park).

 

2)The B68 proposal is dependant if the 9 Street portion would be retained as a Red Hook to Windsor Terrace route. If it is, I don't believe that the frequencies would be maintained as it is, and therefore I would have the B68 running to Red Hook instead of creating a new route. Red Hook riders would likely use the route, but with the B57, there will likely be less of them getting on said buses. There also isn't enough ridership along 9 Street itself to sustain the current headways. I know the B68 isn't too unreliable, but I extended it since 9 Street isn't too heavy for the most part, and wouldn't hurt reliability by much. However, if the route is rerouted out of Windsor Terrace, whether to the north, east, south, or whatever direction and to whatever point where ridership would be significantly more, where current headways can be at worst trimmed a bit, then I would agree with leaving with the B68 as it is and having a B77 running across 9 Street.

1) Misread on my part; thought you were talking about my proposed B71.... My fault.

 

As far as the community's proposed revitalization of the route, I vaguely remember it, but they had buses more or less paralleling the B45 from Washington to get to Brooklyn/Kingston av's on that end..... Having buses run to the Museum is clearly about image; there wouldn't be a reason to suggest running the B71 there otherwise.... It's myopic & rather ignorant to those that are trying to get to CB6 territory (lol) from other parts of Brooklyn.... I can't concur with buses doing that, no more than I could reverting the B71 on that end as was....

 

2) ....Which is why I wouldn't break up the current B61.

 

The trade-off between cutting the B61 back to Red Hook to extend the B68 to Red Hook is poor.... I still say you're trying to fix what isn't all that broken along 9th st, because the ridership isn't all too great on the B61 east of say, 5th, due east...... By extending B68's along 9th, it's implicative of there being this demand from the south (of Prospect Park) that would have overlapping usage through said area (b/w 9th st/5th av & Pritchard Sq..) from the south, trumping the sub-par usage of the current B61 east of 5th.... I don't see that as being the case.... Nor do I see folks in CB6 territory trying to get to areas along CI av like that (which is why I never concurred with diverting/extending B67's along CI av.... nor really, extending the B67 south of Cortelyou rd in any facet)....

 

I'm a proponent of leaving the B61 the way it is, for reasons aforementioned in prior posts.... I wouldn't for a second, cut the B61 back to Red Hook to resurrect & extend the B77 to 19th/20th sts (I know you're not saying that, or asking if I would, but I still want to make that clear)....

 

You didn't respond to this yet, but I have some modifications to the B16 in the Borough Park/Kensington area, in addition to a rendering of what I would do with the B23 (which affects other routes). All the proposals are under the Southern Brooklyn Restructuring layer.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&authuser=0&mid=1XFqE_hL6yPBW4ccBYDuHp1sjicA&ll=40.580395826266866%2C-73.99874039211693&z=13

 

B16: The routing is straightened out onto Fort Hamilton Parkway, serves 12 Avenue, then goes to Church Avenue, before heading towards Prospect Park. 

 

B23: Service runs between Nostrand Avenue and Fort Hamilton High School, daily, via Cortelyou Road, 13/14 Avenues. Service runs every 15 minutes during the rush hour, every 20 minutes during middays and weekend daytimes, every 30 minutes during evenings. Service runs from 5:30 AM-11 PM 

 

B64: Diverted to west of 13 Avenue 86 Street, runs to 86 Street & Ridge Boulevard.

 

B72: Bay Ridge Avenue route, from Xaverian High School to Kings Highway Station. Runs from 5:30 AM to 11 PM, every 15 minutes during the rush, every 20 minutes during middays, Saturday daytime, and Sunday afternoon, every 30 minutes evenings, and Sunday mornings.

 

IDK what these changes will result with regards to B1 service. Since the B23 and the B64 cover the same portion of the B1 west of 13/14 Avenue, perhaps some service may be trimmed (unless B1 service as it is isn't enough).

Yeah, I've been procrastinating with these replies.... Never forgot about them though.

 

B16: Outside of the difference in opinion as far as keeping buses on Caton av, well at least you found a way to keep buses on 12th & have buses serve Church av .... On the other end of the route, I get wanting to speed up the inevitable by turning buses on 99th instead of up 3rd, but I would leave that alone..... As far as bi-directional service along Narrows, theoretically, sure - but realistically, I can't agree w/ BreedDekalb's idea.... I'd want no part of SB buses making that turn off Narrows onto Shore....

 

B23: Your idea is respectable, but I would use the route to supplement the B8 on "that side of the cemetery" (Av. D) & then some...

The B8 flat out runs like shit for as many riders that route accumulates.....

 

B64: I wouldn't want to over-saturate 86th/4th, so putting buses back on 86th is out for me (which is the reason I don't have my "B23" running to the subway).... The B64 dilemma (if a 13th/14th route were to be created) is an interesting one... I'll admit, I'm in limbo between [keeping the current route as is] & [turning buses down 14th to parallel the B8 on over to 95th ].....

 

B72: I'd combine this with the B2... Service west of Kings Hwy would see a little more service during middays & evenings.... 1-2 BPH during the rush would only do the current B2 route; all other trips would run the full gambit (Kings Plz. - Xaverian)... You would easily take riders from off the B9 with a 65th st (or a Bay Ridge av route) that absorbed the B2.... Being quite honest, I would only have the B31 & the B7 ending in that general part of "commercial Kings Hwy."..... I'd look to terminate less routes in that general area, not more....

 

I wouldn't touch service levels or the routing of the B1 with any of your suggestions/changes....

[B35 via Church]

...You ask why it took so long to implement the changes. The simple reason is there never has been anyone other than myself who is qualified at NYCT to understand the way people use buses and why they don't use buses. It is not as simple as looking at data with the answers popping out at you. You need to first have some theories. Then you can use the data to study if your ideas are good or not. Although I know Brooklyn well, my knowledge in the other boroughs is limited. But I can still apply what I know happens in Brooklyn to routes in the other boroughs. I can tell you for sure that B35 via Church knows more about passenger and route usage around the city than the entire MTA combined...

You would think the people that are utilizing the buses/trains/RR's are literally more than just numbers/stats, but I guess common sense isn't so common..... I don't need to tell you specifically, but yes, you actually have to have an original thought in your damn head before using numbers to substantiate if a route would be worth it or not....

 

I would sometimes ask myself, how is it that one MF-er knows what's generally going on with the bus system city-damn-wide moreso than the "experts" that are providing these services..... Obviously I don't/haven't rode every trip on every route currently in existence, but with a little (alright, a lot) of ambition/keenness, you can break it down to how these routes are generally used during the AM rush, midday, PM rush, and later hours/hawk trips (if applicable) & go on from there... Watch where people are generally disembarking an initial bus route & what they're doing after doing so....

 

I don't know how many people on or offline has told me that I should be working for the MTA...

 

"You talk about buses too much... You always did go joyriding all over the city during the summertime... Kept you out of trouble growing up"

- "B35 via Church's" own mother

 

I'll stop here.

 

The only good idea they have had for a new bus route was the Q70 which should have been done 30 years earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if someone suggested it to them.....

Sometime back in the 90's, a couple local Queens politicians at the time had brought up having buses connecting the LIRR (Woodside) & the airport.... Now if they were parroting the MTA with that, IDK, but I sincerely doubt it - for reasons you state....

 

Did not forget about this post.

 

1) Regarding the B71, I can agree to everything mentioned in your post. If the B77 gets revived, I would have it cover portions of the old B71 route then (instead of going to Prospect Park), and 7 Avenue. Late night service would likely terminate at Grand Army, daytime services runs to Brooklyn Avenue or to Interfaith. 

 

2) Regarding the B23, that's actually more or less my proposed B23 route. My route goes to Shore Road, because:

 

1. It would act as an alternative to the B1 bus route along 86 Street

2. My proposed B64 route (which also serves 86 Street west of 13 Avenue) would layover via 3 Avenue, 87 Street, and Ridge Boulevard

3. It can cut down on the trippers the B16 needs (ATH mentioned something similar previously)

 

Additionally, I didn't want to not serve 86 Street & 4 Avenue. Now, it could replace the B16 down to Shore Road & 4 Avenue, but I wonder how far people are going from the nursing home on Shore Road & 91 Street. I've always seen them pass the , but in some cases, these people are on well after the bus after it turns off Fort Hamilton Parkway. Don't know if that's always the case. 

 

Now, where would you send it on the eastern end? I originally wanted to send it to Canarsie Plaza during the rush hour (via Avenue D), but I didn't want to create another long route. Therefore, I did extended to the Newkirk Avenue station. I would have sent it to the Junction, but the B103 already does that.

1) Don't know what to say to this... If the B71 were to be revived, I wouldn't bring back the B77

(unless the idea of directly connecting that general part of Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan were to be revisited)...2

 

2) Your B23 is a shortened form of my B23.... Back in 2011/12, I had buses running to Rockaway Pkwy ...

 

Now that Canarsie Plaza isn't just comprised of BJ's, the Vitamin Shoppe, Dunkin Donuts, and like 2 or 3 other stores (basically, the number of retailers within the shopping plaza has greatly increased since then), I would cut it back to Canarsie Plaza.....

 

I don't have a problem w/ this route being as long as it is, because I don't see [a ton of usage] and [traffic] along 13th/14th really bogging down the route (although it is needed for coverage).... I don't want buses running the distance b/w Flatbush av & 86th st. carrying like 10-20 riders/trip max. consistently during off-peak hours; that's wasteful.... To sum it up, I see ending buses at Flatbush/Cortelyou being a stub.... Ending buses at Nostrand would help, but then there's the issue (I have with) of B8 service (not necessarily its service levels, but how the route performs during the day).... I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is, I'd rather run the B23 supplementally along Av. D, over splitting the B8 (which would probably result in less service for both splits)....

 

The routing east of Flatbush av I primarily thought up to address the void in service in Flatbush (the neighborhood) between Church & Foster... There is a shit ton of walking to get to Beverly rd that shouldn't be.... Just get off at that station & you'll see what I'm talking about (if you don't already know about it, that is)..... West of Flatbush av, you have the B103 - but the problem there is that there are no stops on that route b/w Foster/Flatbush & Cortelyou/E. 18th.... The lion's share of folks are not walking over to that stop on E. 18th for Brighton line service (Why? Because they can't - as there's no B103 bus stop for the subway), they're taking B41's or dollar vans to either Parkside or Prospect Park for the Brighton.... With the B23 running locally, bisecting Flatbush av at Beverly/Cortelyou, that eliminates that problem w/ the B103, and I bet anything the amt. of ppl. taking B41's to the Brighton line would almost evaporate overnight....

 

With that said, it took 2 weeks, but now I'm up to date with these replies.... Lol..

Good discussion... Wish more people were in on it than just us two......

Edited August 27, 2017 by B35 via Church

[Interested Rider]

The first part of the comments given below are in response to an open letter that I wrote to Brooklyn Bus asking what was really a series of questions as to why bus routes in Brooklyn were not changed on a large scale until his proposals were implemented in November 1978.  Listed below is his response  and my response follows afterwards. As I just excerpted some of his response, it should be noted that. the complete text of both my letter and his response can be found on p. 451 of this thread.

 

 

Yes, this November will be 39 years. Let me fill you in on some background you may not know to answer some of your questions.

You ask why it took so long to implement the changes. The simple reason is there never has been anyone other than myself who is qualified at NYCT to understand the way people use buses and why they don't use buses. It is not as simple as looking at data with the answers popping out at you. You need to first have some theories. Then you can use the data to study if your ideas are good or not. Although I know Brooklyn well, my knowledge in the other boroughs is limited. But I can still apply what I know happens in Brooklyn to routes in the other boroughs. I can tell you for sure that B35 via Church knows more about passenger and route usage around the city than the entire MTA combined.

That is not to say the MTA is incompetent. When there were bus dispatchers for each route, they were all the experts on their particular route. But the MTA never had the mechanisms in place to harness all that knowledge and put it in one place so that multiple routes could be studied at the same time like I did.

When I wrote my Masters Thesis in 1972, I simply proposed combining the B1 and B34 as well as extending it to Shore Road and separate 13 Av and Fort Hamilton Parkway routes. It just seemed obvious to me. I also combined the B40 and B78, ended the duplication between the B75 and the F train by extending the B57 to Smith 9th and combining the 9th Street portion with the B77. I also proposed combining the old B47 with the old B62 as well as many other changes which the MTA finally made over the following 45 years. I also proposed extending the B9 to Bergen Beach to takeover the B41 Bergen Beach branch which the MTA is now considering as part of their proposed B41 SBS.

In other words, just because many changes are obvious to you and me and others, they are not obvious to the "experts" at the MTA which also lacks the desire to improve bus routes.

Now when I was doing my study from 1974 to 1978, after collecting data, I thought of a better idea than simply combining the B1 and B34 because I also wanted to straighten the B36 and get rid of the useless B21. That's when I thought up the existing B1.

In 1977 when we were describing the ideas to the community boards, they told us they were asking for a single 86 Street route since the early 1960s and no one was listening. I didn't know that when I came to them with a similar proposal.

The MTA stalled us for two years and still refused to name any changes until they were sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council. So no changes would have ever been made if not for that lawsuit. That's what it took although the community had been requesting the changes for 15 years.

In 1978, I also proposed extending the R7 to 86 Street, the B68 to Coney Island, and the B5 to Coney Island. (They might have also been in my masters thesis too.) Those changes also were made many years later.

 

My response begins here:

There is a reason that I have been posting your response on the many threads involving bus service as a reference as it is the key to understanding how bus routing developed since the city takeover of the BMT in 1940  (The IRT was exclusively an elevated and subway system). Coming from a person that was on the inside, your comments in response to mine were quite refreshing as it finally presents a clear picture of why we have the problems with the bus system throughout the city today and why it is almost impossible to have routes changed based on changes in ridership.

 

What has left me totally speechless was that the data was readily available but no one knew how to interpret it. Between the daily information provided by employees including dispatcher reports, fare box revenue and transfers used, the information was there but it just had to be "mined" as this was the age when computers were in their infancy and data had to be checked by hand. There was data which  gave information on developing neighborhoods throughout the city, new facilities such as schools and hospitals being built but yet what I find totally incredulous was that there was no one who could interpret the data but knowing how a bureaucracy works, I am not surprised at all. It was like someone said, just let it remain the same as it was when it was a trolley route or a shuttle route (for instance like the B/1,B/21, B/2, B/31, B/77 et.. al.) and change it when it was forced upon us such as the one way streets in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Based on what wrote in your response, if and when  data was examined, it was based on one route, not on a group of routes which is the way the data should have been analyzed as one route change impacts on one or more routes when a change  was/is implemented. This gave me an answer as to why it took a virtual act of the almighty to have bus routes changed as you did in November 1978 and why the necessary changes that should have followed what you did have taken another 20 -30 years or more to be implemented. This is what happens "when there is a rigid bureaucratic structure that not only resists change but will do anything in its power to destroy anyone on the inside who dares to propose changes to them. The organization will strike back and that person will be subject to some punishment until he/she either retires or is forced out of the agency".  (Quotes mine). This is how the government operates today and why "our complaints about bus  service (I hate to say it) will be ignored.no matter how meritorious and justified they are and will only be implemented when the MTA  is forced  to do so" (Again quotes mine)

 

As I wrote in my statement, they knew what was going on in the various communities and the need for route extensions and new routes but yet  they did nothing. Here are just some examples which provides additional evidence to support your observations. Take the B/6 as it ran no further than Ralph Avenue on its east end and  while the western portion of Canarsie was being built up in the late 1950's, it took them many years just to extend the B/6 to Rockaway Parkway. If I add, I was living in East New York in the mid 1950's when the Linden and Boulevard Houses opened up., they only had bus service on Linden Boulevard and nothing south of there. The only way to take the New Lots train (as we called it) was to cross Linden Boulevard, a virtual speedway and walk two more blocks to the station. When did the TA finally place a bus on Wortman or Cozine Avenues? It must have been ten years later or more.. It was 60 years ago next month that George Gershwin JHS opened to serve students from these two developments as all the schools in the area including PS 158  had some of their students participate in the celebration in June 1957 and then look at when the TA finally provided bus service to the community.The B/44 extension from Avenue U to Knapp Street did not begin operation until many years after the neighborhood was totally built up is another one that took what seemed to take forever even though it should have been in place as the Sheepshead-Nostrand houses were completed in the early 1950's.

 

While I did not repost your statement here about the B/21, your reference from 1946 reminded me of the year that I spent at Kingsborough Community College from 1967 -1968 and the B/21. The B/21 was a U shaped route that served the beaches, Sheepshead Bay and Coney Island Hospital. It carried very few passengers and it had a headway of approximately 12 minutes during the day. When classes let out at Kingsborough, virtually no one took the B/21 but yet everyone took the B/1 as it connected to the B/49 at Shore Boulevard and Emmons Avenue even though the B/1 headway was 20 minutes or longer. The fact that it lasted another ten years still surprises me no end and that the B/49  was finally extended to the Beach sometime later after the college opened does not surprise me either. An aside as I had a B/1 driver that liked to pull out early so I decided to make a point. Every day for about five consecutive days that I rode his bus, I gave him a dollar bill to change as it was before exact change went into effect . He finally asked me why i was giving him a dollar bill and I told him, it was because he was leaving early. He got the message loud and clear as not only did he leave on time, he picked off the route as fast as he could do so.

 

What really caught my attention was the proposed extension of the B/1 to 86th Street -  4th Avenue being implemented as part of the November 1978 changes instead of waiting until June 2010. I will be posting comments on your suggestion elsewhere on the forum for the R/7 extension to 86th Street and 4th Avenue at that time instead of waiting almost 20 years to do it. This caught my attention as I remember that i had to take the B/63 to either the B/4 or the B/1 from the R/7 on my way home and based on the time of arrival at either the parkway or the avenue, I would take either one to transfer to the B/36 in front of  Coney Island Hospital where you put your life into your hands crossing there (you still do). At that time when the B/1 running over the B/34 route had the Bay Ridge Avenue ridership that it does not have now, so it may have been the best move at that time not  to implement it at least in November 1978. What should have happened though was the B/1/34 combination should have been watched very carefully especially as the ridership continued to drop on the B/34 portion on Bay Ridge Avenue.and that a change should have been made way before the 2010 implementation.

 

I appreciate your refreshingly honest response to my Monday morning quarterbacking (as they say after a football game) and while I plan to do a response concerning the R/7 move on another thread as well as to further delve into the problems of the crazy bus system,  I thank you for providing a great response to the comments that i expressed on this thread. What the two of us have written here applies to all governmental agencies today  and while some are less bureaucratic than others, the lesson here is that change has to come from the outside as it will  not come from the agency itself despite all the hot air that is generated today by the people who have helped to create the problem in the first place..

Edited August 28, 2017 by Interested Rider

[BrooklynBus]

The first part of the comments given below are in response to an open letter that I wrote to Brooklyn Bus asking what was really a series of questions as to why bus routes in Brooklyn were not changed on a large scale until his proposals were implemented in November 1978.  Listed below is his response  and my response follows afterwards. As I just excerpted some of his response, it should be noted that. the complete text of both my letter and his response can be found on p. 451 of this thread.

 

 

Yes, this November will be 39 years. Let me fill you in on some background you may not know to answer some of your questions.

 

You ask why it took so long to implement the changes. The simple reason is there never has been anyone other than myself who is qualified at NYCT to understand the way people use buses and why they don't use buses. It is not as simple as looking at data with the answers popping out at you. You need to first have some theories. Then you can use the data to study if your ideas are good or not. Although I know Brooklyn well, my knowledge in the other boroughs is limited. But I can still apply what I know happens in Brooklyn to routes in the other boroughs. I can tell you for sure that B35 via Church knows more about passenger and route usage around the city than the entire MTA combined.

 

That is not to say the MTA is incompetent. When there were bus dispatchers for each route, they were all the experts on their particular route. But the MTA never had the mechanisms in place to harness all that knowledge and put it in one place so that multiple routes could be studied at the same time like I did.

When I wrote my Masters Thesis in 1972, I simply proposed combining the B1 and B34 as well as extending it to Shore Road and separate 13 Av and Fort Hamilton Parkway routes. It just seemed obvious to me. I also combined the B40 and B78, ended the duplication between the B75 and the F train by extending the B57 to Smith 9th and combining the 9th Street portion with the B77. I also proposed combining the old B47 with the old B62 as well as many other changes which the MTA finally made over the following 45 years. I also proposed extending the B9 to Bergen Beach to takeover the B41 Bergen Beach branch which the MTA is now considering as part of their proposed B41 SBS.

 

In other words, just because many changes are obvious to you and me and others, they are not obvious to the "experts" at the MTA which also lacks the desire to improve bus routes.

 

Now when I was doing my study from 1974 to 1978, after collecting data, I thought of a better idea than simply combining the B1 and B34 because I also wanted to straighten the B36 and get rid of the useless B21. That's when I thought up the existing B1.

In 1977 when we were describing the ideas to the community boards, they told us they were asking for a single 86 Street route since the early 1960s and no one was listening. I didn't know that when I came to them with a similar proposal.

 

The MTA stalled us for two years and still refused to name any changes until they were sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council. So no changes would have ever been made if not for that lawsuit. That's what it took although the community had been requesting the changes for 15 years.

 

In 1978, I also proposed extending the R7 to 86 Street, the B68 to Coney Island, and the B5 to Coney Island. (They might have also been in my masters thesis too.) Those changes also were made many years later.

 

My response begins here:

 

There is a reason that I have been posting your response on the many threads involving bus service as a reference as it is the key to understanding how bus routing developed since the city takeover of the BMT in 1940  (The IRT was exclusively an elevated and subway system). Coming from a person that was on the inside, your comments in response to mine were quite refreshing as it finally presents a clear picture of why we have the problems with the bus system throughout the city today and why it is almost impossible to have routes changed based on changes in ridership.

 

What has left me totally speechless was that the data was readily available but no one knew how to interpret it. Between the daily information provided by employees including dispatcher reports, fare box revenue and transfers used, the information was there but it just had to be "mined" as this was the age when computers were in their infancy and data had to be checked by hand. There was data which  gave information on developing neighborhoods throughout the city, new facilities such as schools and hospitals being built but yet what I find totally incredulous was that there was no one who could interpret the data but knowing how a bureaucracy works, I am not surprised at all. It was like someone said, just let it remain the same as it was when it was a trolley route or a shuttle route (for instance like the B/1,B/21, B/2, B/31, B/77 et.. al.) and change it when it was forced upon us such as the one way streets in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Based on what wrote in your response, if and when  data was examined, it was based on one route, not on a group of routes which is the way the data should have been analyzed as one route change impacts on one or more routes when a change  was/is implemented. This gave me an answer as to why it took a virtual act of the almighty to have bus routes changed as you did in November 1978 and why the necessary changes that should have followed what you did have taken another 20 -30 years or more to be implemented. This is what happens "when there is a rigid bureaucratic structure that not only resists change but will do anything in its power to destroy anyone on the inside who dares to propose changes to them. The organization will strike back and that person will be subject to some punishment until he/she either retires or is forced out of the agency".  (Quotes mine). This is how the government operates today and why "our complaints about bus  service (I hate to say it) will be ignored.no matter how meritorious and justified they are and will only be implemented when the MTA  is forced  to do so" (Again quotes mine)

 

As I wrote in my statement, they knew what was going on in the various communities and the need for route extensions and new routes but yet  they did nothing. Here are just some examples which provides additional evidence to support your observations. Take the B/6 as it ran no further than Ralph Avenue on its east end and  while the western portion of Canarsie was being built up in the late 1950's, it took them many years just to extend the B/6 to Rockaway Parkway. If I add, I was living in East New York in the mid 1950's when the Linden and Boulevard Houses opened up., they only had bus service on Linden Boulevard and nothing south of there. The only way to take the New Lots train (as we called it) was to cross Linden Boulevard, a virtual speedway and walk two more blocks to the station. When did the TA finally place a bus on Wortman or Cozine Avenues? It must have been ten years later or more.. It was 60 years ago next month that George Gershwin JHS opened to serve students from these two developments as all the schools in the area including PS 158  had some of their students participate in the celebration in June 1957 and then look at when the TA finally provided bus service to the community.The B/44 extension from Avenue U to Knapp Street did not begin operation until many years after the neighborhood was totally built up is another one that took what seemed to take forever even though it should have been in place as the Sheepshead-Nostrand houses were completed in the early 1950's.

 

While I did not repost your statement here about the B/21, your reference from 1946 reminded me of the year that I spent at Kingsborough Community College from 1967 -1968 and the B/21. The B/21 was a U shaped route that served the beaches, Sheepshead Bay and Coney Island Hospital. It carried very few passengers and it had a headway of approximately 12 minutes during the day. When classes let out at Kingsborough, virtually no one took the B/21 but yet everyone took the B/1 as it connected to the B/49 at Shore Boulevard and Emmons Avenue even though the B/1 headway was 20 minutes or longer. The fact that it lasted another ten years still surprises me no end and that the B/49  was finally extended to the Beach sometime later after the college opened does not surprise me either. An aside as I had a B/1 driver that liked to pull out early so I decided to make a point. Every day for about five consecutive days that I rode his bus, I gave him a dollar bill to change as it was before exact change went into effect . He finally asked me why i was giving him a dollar bill and I told him, it was because he was leaving early. He got the message loud and clear as not only did he leave on time, he picked off the route as fast as he could do so.

 

What really caught my attention was the proposed extension of the B/1 to 86th Street -  4th Avenue being implemented as part of the November 1978 changes instead of waiting until June 2010. I will be posting comments on your suggestion elsewhere on the forum for the R/7 extension to 86th Street and 4th Avenue at that time instead of waiting almost 20 years to do it. This caught my attention as I remember that i had to take the B/63 to either the B/4 or the B/1 from the R/7 on my way home and based on the time of arrival at either the parkway or the avenue, I would take either one to transfer to the B/36 in front of  Coney Island Hospital where you put your life into your hands crossing there (you still do). At that time when the B/1 running over the B/34 route had the Bay Ridge Avenue ridership that it does not have now, so it may have been the best move at that time not  to implement it at least in November 1978. What should have happened though was the B/1/34 combination should have been watched very carefully especially as the ridership continued to drop on the B/34 portion on Bay Ridge Avenue.and that a change should have been made way before the 2010 implementation.

 

I appreciate your refreshingly honest response to my Monday morning quarterbacking (as they say after a football game) and while I plan to do a response concerning the R/7 move on another thread as well as to further delve into the problems of the crazy bus system,  I thank you for providing a great response to the comments that i expressed on this thread. What the two of us have written here applies to all governmental agencies today  and while some are less bureaucratic than others, the lesson here is that change has to come from the outside as it will  not come from the agency itself despite all the hot air that is generated today by the people who have helped to create the problem in the first place..

Thank you so much for your response. It is refreshing to hear from someone who agrees with me on many principles after years of hearing so many tell me I am crazy. There is so much more I could tell you but time and space are limited. Let me just say a few things I didn't say before. Today Operations Planning calls the shots with Budget's approval. When I was head of Bus Planning for six months when Bus Planning and Rapid Planning (as it was called back then in 1981) it was Bus Transportation who called the shots. The only power I had was where to place bus stops with DOT's approval which usually just a formality. I also could put whatever I wanted on the digital signs which were pretty new back then. So I went to the head of Bus Transportation and explained some of my routing change ideas to him and his questions and responses were always the same. Does it involve safety and has anyone requested this change other than you? After I would say "no" he would then say "if it ain't broke why fix it?" He rose to his position as did everyone else by being a former bus driver which was the only way to move up the ranks. Very few newcomers came in from the outside. I immediately saw what I was up against.

 

When subway and bus planning was combined to form Operations Planning, it wasn't done to improve anything. It was only done because I couldn't work in East NY because of the diesel fumes and my boss was afraid I would sue the MTA over the health conditions. My new boss who headed OP was a nut who was more interested in expanding his empire than he was in making changes so nothing got done there either. After two years I was out of there.

 

So to answer your question why it took so long, it is because there was and still is no desire to make improvements. The new routes at 30 minute intervals are only to give the impression changes are being made. They do not want new successful routes because they will have to spend money to operate them. For example, If they ran local bus service through the Battery Tunnel, it would be so popular that 30 minute headways would not last long and they do not want to spend the operating funds for a ten minute interval service since they still will be losing money. So don't start it to begin with.

 

The B49 was extended to Manhattan Beach in 1969. One of the first things I did was eliminate the old B49 terminal stop because it was 200 feet from the old B1 stop that the 49 now used. So both stops existed for nine years for no reason and if not for me probably both would be still be there today. I also noticed a sign that the escalator at the Brighton Beach Station would open in five days and sent a letter to DOT so the B1 and B68 bus stops would be moved from Brighton 7th to be in front of the escalator on the day it opened. Who knows when that would have happened if ever if not for me.

 

The reason I wanted the R7 extended was because when we did the passenger survey we had at least 8, maybe more, I can't remember now, surveys returned by Staten Island residents who took five buses each way to get to Kingsborough College. Each survey represented like 8 people. This was very unusual since very few even took three buses. Extending the R7 and a through 86 St route cut that to two buses.

 

All that was done because I cared. It wouldn't have been done if my only goal was to cut the budget which is the goal today. There is no desire to improve connections and encourage ridership. They don't want more ridership because that usually means more service and an increase in the budget and more losses if it is not done right and it almost never is. More expensive SBS and more 30 minute headway routes carrying four people per bus mean higher losses.

 

Another thing I did after I was moved to Operations Planning. I noticed on beach weekends when people were leaving the beach between 4 and 6 PM , half the B49 buses were terminating at Avenue U and going to the depot. Those buses were nearly empty and the others were overflowing because virtually everyone traveled past Avenue U so I suggested that those buses travel to Farragut instead and run off from there instead of Avenue U. I had to do this in secret by going directly to Schedules and avoiding my boss because he would have killed the proposal. They changed the schedule, got eleven extra trips, and it costed less!

 

Imagine how many other scheduling inefficiencies there are that could be corrected if someone took the time to look around for them and how much money could be saved. Now that everything is computerized and schedules are no longer done by hand, it should also be that much easier to do. But the idea to try to serve the public better is not what they care about. If they did, they would be much more open to suggestions instead of looking for excuses to deny any ideas they didn't think of themselves.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Thank you so much for your response. It is refreshing to hear from someone who agrees with me on many principles after years of hearing so many tell me I am crazy. There is so much more I could tell you but time and space are limited. Let me just say a few things I didn't say before. Today Operations Planning calls the shots with Budget's approval. When I was head of Bus Planning for six months when Bus Planning and Rapid Planning (as it was called back then in 1981) it was Bus Transportation who called the shots. The only power I had was where to place bus stops with DOT's approval which usually just a formality. I also could put whatever I wanted on the digital signs which were pretty new back then. So I went to the head of Bus Transportation and explained some of my routing change ideas to him and his questions and responses were always the same. Does it involve safety and has anyone requested this change other than you? After I would say "no" he would then say "if it ain't broke why fix it?" He rose to his position as did everyone else by being a former bus driver which was the only way to move up the ranks. Very few newcomers came in from the outside. I immediately saw what I was up against.

 

When subway and bus planning was combined to form Operations Planning, it wasn't done to improve anything. It was only done because I couldn't work in East NY because of the diesel fumes and my boss was afraid I would sue the MTA over the health conditions. My new boss who headed OP was a nut who was more interested in expanding his empire than he was in making changes so nothing got done there either. After two years I was out of there.

 

So to answer your question why it took so long, it is because there was and still is no desire to make improvements. The new routes at 30 minute intervals are only to give the impression changes are being made. They do not want new successful routes because they will have to spend money to operate them. For example, If they ran local bus service through the Battery Tunnel, it would be so popular that 30 minute headways would not last long and they do not want to spend the operating funds for a ten minute interval service since they still will be losing money. So don't start it to begin with.

 

The B49 was extended to Manhattan Beach in 1969. One of the first things I did was eliminate the old B49 terminal stop because it was 200 feet from the old B1 stop that the 49 now used. So both stops existed for nine years for no reason and if not for me probably both would be still be there today. I also noticed a sign that the escalator at the Brighton Beach Station would open in five days and sent a letter to DOT so the B1 and B68 bus stops would be moved from Brighton 7th to be in front of the escalator on the day it opened. Who knows when that would have happened if ever if not for me.

 

The reason I wanted the R7 extended was because when we did the passenger survey we had at least 8, maybe more, I can't remember now, surveys returned by Staten Island residents who took five buses each way to get to Kingsborough College. Each survey represented like 8 people. This was very unusual since very few even took three buses. Extending the R7 and a through 86 St route cut that to two buses.

 

All that was done because I cared. It wouldn't have been done if my only goal was to cut the budget which is the goal today. There is no desire to improve connections and encourage ridership. They don't want more ridership because that usually means more service and an increase in the budget and more losses if it is not done right and it almost never is. More expensive SBS and more 30 minute headway routes carrying four people per bus mean higher losses.

 

Another thing I did after I was moved to Operations Planning. I noticed on beach weekends when people were leaving the beach between 4 and 6 PM , half the B49 buses were terminating at Avenue U and going to the depot. Those buses were nearly empty and the others were overflowing because virtually everyone traveled past Avenue U so I suggested that those buses travel to Farragut instead and run off from there instead of Avenue U. I had to do this in secret by going directly to Schedules and avoiding my boss because he would have killed the proposal. They changed the schedule, got eleven extra trips, and it costed less!

 

Imagine how many other scheduling inefficiencies there are that could be corrected if someone took the time to look around for them and how much money could be saved. Now that everything is computerized and schedules are no longer done by hand, it should also be that much easier to do. But the idea to try to serve the public better is not what they care about. If they did, they would be much more open to suggestions instead of looking for excuses to deny any ideas they didn't think of themselves.

The other thing is despite their claims of working to improve service, there are still lots of missing buses.

[BrooklynBus]

The other thing is despite their claims of working to improve service, there are still lots of missing buses.

Years ago the first priority was to fill all runs. Now it isn't which makes a real difference if there are only 20 minute headways.

[Kingjunior34]

After the B82 Select Bus Service is implemented, what's the future for Brooklyn SBS Routes

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[danielhg121]

After the B82 Select Bus Service is implemented, what's the future for Brooklyn SBS Routes

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I believe B15 was under consideration.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Future ENY OP]

I believe B15 was under consideration.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Also B41 SBS and Ridgewood/Bushwick to Downtown SBS.

[Kingjunior34]

I believe B15 was under consideration.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Don't you think a B15 SBS would be hard to implement

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[danielhg121]

Don't you think a B15 SBS would be hard to implement

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

How so? What type of SBS? One local/SBS or one SBS only type route.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Kingjunior34]

How so? What type of SBS? One local/SBS or one SBS only type route.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I think it would be a SBS only with a fewer stops

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Your B23 is a shortened form of my B23.... Back in 2011/12, I had buses running to Rockaway Pkwy ...

 

Now that Canarsie Plaza isn't just comprised of BJ's, the Vitamin Shoppe, Dunkin Donuts, and like 2 or 3 other stores (basically, the number of retailers within the shopping plaza has greatly increased since then), I would cut it back to Canarsie Plaza.....

 

I don't have a problem w/ this route being as long as it is, because I don't see [a ton of usage] and [traffic] along 13th/14th really bogging down the route (although it is needed for coverage).... I don't want buses running the distance b/w Flatbush av & 86th st. carrying like 10-20 riders/trip max. consistently during off-peak hours; that's wasteful.... To sum it up, I see ending buses at Flatbush/Cortelyou being a stub.... Ending buses at Nostrand would help, but then there's the issue (I have with) of B8 service (not necessarily its service levels, but how the route performs during the day).... I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is, I'd rather run the B23 supplementally along Av. D, over splitting the B8 (which would probably result in less service for both splits)....

 

The routing east of Flatbush av I primarily thought up to address the void in service in Flatbush (the neighborhood) between Church & Foster... There is a shit ton of walking to get to Beverly rd that shouldn't be.... Just get off at that station & you'll see what I'm talking about (if you don't already know about it, that is)..... West of Flatbush av, you have the B103 - but the problem there is that there are no stops on that route b/w Foster/Flatbush & Cortelyou/E. 18th.... The lion's share of folks are not walking over to that stop on E. 18th for Brighton line service (Why? Because they can't - as there's no B103 bus stop for the subway), they're taking B41's or dollar vans to either Parkside or Prospect Park for the Brighton.... With the B23 running locally, bisecting Flatbush av at Beverly/Cortelyou, that eliminates that problem w/ the B103, and I bet anything the amt. of ppl. taking B41's to the Brighton line would almost evaporate overnight....

 

With that said, it took 2 weeks, but now I'm up to date with these replies.... Lol..

Good discussion... Wish more people were in on it than just us two......

Finally responded to this, lol (I have to stop procrastinating too with these replies). 

 

That's a fair argument for having the B23 on Avenue D. I wouldn't want to have the B23 operating with very few passengers at all times of the day (and, sending it to 86 Street & 4 Avenue can only do so much, I guess). I would ask how many former B23 riders would take the route again, but the route is so different compared to the original route (save for a portion on Cortelyou) that I might as well not even ask, lol. I only said Canarsie Plaza as a terminal in order because my intention was to serve Avenue D, and Canarsie Plaza was just a feasible turnaround (although I was thinking on circulating the area, using Ditmas/Clarendon to Kings Highway, then to Avenue D.

 

Anyways, I'm looking at your proposal, and it has the route taking Foster to Rockaway Parkway . Since you say that you would cut it to Canarsie Plaza (and regardless of whether it terminated there or continued on to Rockaway Parkway ), the only thing I would change is to serve Canarsie Plaza more directly. The route does serve Canarsie Plaza, but still somewhat far from the most stores (besides Petsmart). I would have it use Avenue D between Foster/Avenue D and Remsen

 

The B8 is too long for its own good, IMO. It is well used on both segment of the route, and the 18 Avenue segment does see a fair amount of traffic buildups (either because of heavy traffic, or trucks, or whatever else it may be). There are some service level inconsistencies (mainly on weekdays), so that can remedied by having B23 buses serve Avenue D. If that's the case though, I would get rid or redistribute of those B8 short-turns in the PM originating at Nostrand Avenue (which are the source of the inconsistencies during those time periods). 

 

I wouldn't necessarily advocate for splitting the route, but I guess, the route needs to be shortened or something. Ridership tends to dwindle below 86 Street, and once it's on Cropsey Avenue. Don't know what can be done regarding that.

Edited September 2, 2017 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl

[Kingjunior34]

Today I saw a artic from grand st depot

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app