Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Future ENY OP]

8 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

I'm planning a trip to LA and noticed that the silver line bus route is a full-fledged on BRT highway route with separate lanes and stations on the highway. Seeing this, I was thinking if a BRT route via the BQE/Gowanus would be beneficial with its own lanes and stations. Express buses would also use these lanes to speed to Manhattan without car traffic. I was thinking of a route that started in Bay Ridge (with a spur to Grasmere, SI) and took the BRT route via the BQE/Gowanus to Flushing, Queens via LaGuardia Airport. I know that this would take a while to build but I think that it would become beneficial in the long run.

Also in LA they have bigger highways + infrastructure and they can support that.  Forget that notion in New York City where people think they are privileged and the governor can’t get his s*it together with the  

[DetSMART45]

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

Also in LA they have bigger highways + infrastructure and they can support that.  Forget that notion in New York City where people think they are privileged and the governor can’t get his s*it together with the  

True, but for all that infrastructure investment, the Silver Line is not exactly producing a great return. For a route to only average around 16,000 weekday, with MTA-level Peak headways sub-10 minutes, in a place where car-culture is very strong (even though it's populated with those hypocrite 'eco-warriors' that should be using LACMTA instead of exempting themselves) -- not really anything to crow about. Weekends operate 20 minutes on a "BRT" line, and doing a WAG of maybe 8,000 customers riding, that just doesn't add up IMO.

[Lil 57]

17 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

True, but for all that infrastructure investment, the Silver Line is not exactly producing a great return. For a route to only average around 16,000 weekday, with MTA-level Peak headways sub-10 minutes, in a place where car-culture is very strong (even though it's populated with those hypocrite 'eco-warriors' that should be using LACMTA instead of exempting themselves) -- not really anything to crow about. Weekends operate 20 minutes on a "BRT" line, and doing a WAG of maybe 8,000 customers riding, that just doesn't add up IMO.

La has to do a better job promoting public transit. Everyone is so confined to their cars which leads to more traffic and crappy bus service at long headways. New Yorkers however tend to be more open into using public transit.

[aemoreira81]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:10 AM, Lil 57 said:

La has to do a better job promoting public transit. Everyone is so confined to their cars which leads to more traffic and crappy bus service at long headways. New Yorkers however tend to be more open into using public transit.

The metro area appears to be an outlier when it comes to mass transit. You have to realize that unlike most of the rest of the USA, sprawl is not possible in NYC, forcing things to go up instead of out (NYC is a city on islands, except for the Bronx). Heck, a 700-foot building in midtown is being demolished to replace it with a 1,000-foot one (the replacement was approved last week). Because of that, you can only have so many cars, requiring mass transit.

In the USA, outside of Greater New York, the idea is that mass transit is a welfare system and you don't need frequent service into the suburbs.

[Lil 57]

7 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

The metro area appears to be an outlier when it comes to mass transit. You have to realize that unlike most of the rest of the USA, sprawl is not possible in NYC, forcing things to go up instead of out (NYC is a city on islands, except for the Bronx). Heck, a 700-foot building in midtown is being demolished to replace it with a 1,000-foot one (the replacement was approved last week). Because of that, you can only have so many cars, requiring mass transit.

In the USA, outside of Greater New York, the idea is that mass transit is a welfare system and you don't need frequent service into the suburbs.

But remember that all of this car traffic is worsening CO2 emissions Too many cars in society, sitting in traffic is bad for the environment. That's why cities are promoting public transit.

Here's a video that explains more.

[B35 via Church]

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:07 AM, Lil 57 said:

But remember that all of this car traffic is worsening CO2 emissions

Too many cars in society, sitting in traffic is bad for the environment. That's why cities are promoting public transit.......

Quite sure the environmental angle isn't lost on anyone here...

Not to insinuate that you believe the contrary, but to reinforce the point, he's (AEMoreira's) right though - There has long been a knock on public transportation, in that it only exists for those that aren't well off enough to afford "their own" (personal vehicle).... It is that very stigma that has to be shaken; the bus is even seen as more of a welfare wagon than the train is, and that's part of the reason why I'm more vocal when it comes to buses.....

Unpopular opinion #3: Major cities (some more than others, obviously) are doing their part.... While you're not going to get too much of anybody opting to move there to primarily use public transit, it is the Suburbs that need to start promoting public transit.... I mean FFS, Bee line has buses running in one of the richest towns in the nation (Scarsdale) & those folks were/are actually pretty vocal about their BL-63 too.... That's one reason I tend to favor Bee Line & Westchester county in general..... As opposed to out here in Nassau county, pfft..... No reason like places like Syosset & OB (Oyster Bay) shouldn't have bus service (to give a NY Metro area example)....

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by B35 via Church

[Lil 57]

Here is what I have in mind for a BRT network in NYC. Read the Q&A before asking any questions.

Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M727eAhNtP-WXhezdXUclzlJZJzHbbdaIahgg-phSHc/edit?usp=sharing

Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a-Yqrxwr94BX9BUTEF3WRl6vttczMBHz&usp=sharing

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

45 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

Here is what I have in mind for a BRT network in NYC. Read the Q&A before asking any questions.

Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M727eAhNtP-WXhezdXUclzlJZJzHbbdaIahgg-phSHc/edit?usp=sharing

Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a-Yqrxwr94BX9BUTEF3WRl6vttczMBHz&usp=sharing

Without considering the obstacles that would render this impossible, there is WAY too much highway, on all routes. Most of these routes also end up missing ridership generators along the way for that reason alone. I don't see how a bus on Shore Parkway is suppose to get more riders than the B1. 3rd Avenue in Sunset Park is mainly in the industrial zone, so I also fail to see what riders would come from these areas.  Additionally, if your R4 isn't stopping inside (or closer to) Gateway Center, I don't even see the point of stopping there. Realistically, I don't see people trekking with bags to Shore Parkway. 

Yes, the bus network needs to be re-modernized, but this isn't the way to do it. What good are bus lanes if very few people are going to use it? 

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

Here is what I have in mind for a BRT network in NYC. Read the Q&A before asking any questions.

Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M727eAhNtP-WXhezdXUclzlJZJzHbbdaIahgg-phSHc/edit?usp=sharing

Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a-Yqrxwr94BX9BUTEF3WRl6vttczMBHz&usp=sharing

This is basically trying to emulate some other cities without taking their points of success/failure into substantial consideration.

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

Here is what I have in mind for a BRT network in NYC. Read the Q&A before asking any questions.

Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M727eAhNtP-WXhezdXUclzlJZJzHbbdaIahgg-phSHc/edit?usp=sharing

Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a-Yqrxwr94BX9BUTEF3WRl6vttczMBHz&usp=sharing

Your map simply makes it more conspicuous that Brooklyn's highway network f***ing sucks...

[Lil 57]

9 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Yes, the bus network needs to be re-modernized, but this isn't the way to do it. What good are bus lanes if very few people are going to use it? 

If the  could only enforce the bus Lanes better (especially in Manhattan). SBS would be a good answer. These are the only highway networks in Brooklyn to put a BRT on. Unless if you want to dig underground and stuff to make a BRT system. Or use abandoned railways like what is being done in SI.

[JeremiahC99]

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Missabassie said:

As for Brooklyn, truncating routes outside Downtown Bklyn forcing a transfer to a single loop-shuttle or whatever doesn't sound too great. A setup like that would work with trains, but becomes complicated with buses. I guess we could say the B37 was the start of this.

I moved this here in the Brooklyn thread to avoid going off topic in the Bronx redesign.

Anyway, as far as Downtown Brooklyn is concerned, I do get that the transfer may not sound convenient on paper. However, with just the right infrastructure it can be more bearable. Ideally, a transit center should be built to facilitate this transferring. In fact, this was talked about when the DOT did they study on the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic study in 2011, AKA the Livingston Street Bus Study. The link is here: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dbstc_final_report.pdf. I recommend you read up on it. On page 3-10, this shuttle system was talked about as one alternative to improve the bus situation in Downtown. One of the reasons for the pursuit of this alternative is because overlapping service, while beneficial to the customer on paper, in all actuality decreases the reliability of these same bus routes. Decreased reliability in Downtown decreases reliability in other areas of the bus route, even if not in Downtown. By putting in a free shuttle service, no direct access is lost, but service becomes more reliable outside of Downtown. More specifically:

Quote

Twenty different bus routes traverse Downtown Brooklyn, many with high frequency. These routes start in a variety of different neighborhoods throughout Brooklyn and Queens, and overlap in key segments within Downtown Brooklyn, including Livingston Street, Fulton Street, Flatbush Avenue, Adams Street, Jay Street, and Cadman Plaza. Reducing the overlapping services has the potential to improve surface transit in Downtown Brooklyn. This reduction of service does not have to mean a decrease in mobility or access to the study area or loss of access from outlying areas of Brooklyn. By implementing a shuttle service, routes could be terminated before entering the congested downtown area, and one streamlined shuttle service could provide downtown access at high frequency and reliability.

A good example of this alternative is the system in place in Denver. The Denver RTD 16th Street MallRide Shuttle operates on the 16th Street Mall and in 2011, saw a ridership of 46,000 passengers. Because of this, the service has become more efficient and reliable. I recommend you read up on that document on the link about the success of the Denver service.

However, while the concept is nice, the problem is that we don't have the land available to build a bus terminal outside of the Fulton/Livingston Street corridor. Therefore, truncating routes 2 blocks outside of Downtown Brooklyn (Barclays Center or at Ashland/Fulton) and replacing service with a free shuttle should NOT be recommended in the Brooklyn network redesign. I don't care if they used electric BRT buses, but the street infrastructure (whether in or out) can not handle terminating nearly hundreds of buses per hour. Fulton and Livingston need a bus shuttle instead of too many overlapping routes, but the time is not now.

[B35 via Church]

Lack of real estate isn't remotely the only drawback..... Regardless, took you long enough to realize that proposal was a jackass idea from the rip.... Yet you kept parroting that bullshit on here like it was the greatest idea that ever involved anything transit related....

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Lack of real estate isn't remotely the only drawback..... Regardless, took you long enough to realize that proposal was a jackass idea from the rip.... Yet you kept parroting that bullshit on here like it was the greatest idea that ever involved anything transit related....

Not good now, but is good for the long term. I wasn’t pitching this as a short term idea due to the lack of real estate. Plus, DOT has said that with the routes truncated outside downtown, NO ONE IS LOSING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE AREA. Read the damn paper I put it. And I’ll put it in again. 

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dbstc_final_report.pdf

 

Plus, it’s not a jackass idea. The actual jackass idea was the other option they considered, which was a circular without changing any routes. That was the real jackass idea. The shuttle system was even recommended for a long term implementation. They even said this in the damn report;

Quote

The implementation of the Downtown Brooklyn Shuttle, while an attractive option that could reduce the number of buses circulating in the Downtown Core and provide greater service efficiencies, cannot move forward in the short term for a number of reasons. First, there is no available parcel of land with adequate space for a bus transfer facility within the Study Area. Second, for this option to be effective, the Downtown Brooklyn Bus Priority Loop would need to be implemented, but this alternative has its own limitations and requires additional traffic analysis, as described above. Last, this option requires the addition of new bus equipment, which would put demands on the MTA’s capital budget at a time when the system is forced to make cutbacks.
The Study Team recommends that the Downtown Brooklyn Shuttle be reconsidered once a system of Bus Only Lanes and a Downtown Brooklyn Bus Priority Loop is established. Similarly, as parcels are redeveloped in the Study Area and/or property becomes available, this recommendation may prove feasible.

 

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Not good now, but is good for the long term. I wasn’t pitching this as a short term idea due to the lack of real estate. Plus, DOT has said that with the routes truncated outside downtown, NO ONE IS LOSING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE AREA. Read the damn paper I put it. And I’ll put it in again. 

 

If everything is truncated at Barclays, then that is losing direct access. And EVERYONE loses it.

Edited June 5, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[B35 via Church]

10 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Not good now, but is good for the long term. I wasn’t pitching this as a short term idea due to the lack of real estate. Plus, DOT has said that with the routes truncated outside downtown, NO ONE IS LOSING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE AREA. Read the damn paper I put it. And I’ll put it in again. 

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dbstc_final_report.pdf

 

Plus, it’s not a jackass idea. The actual jackass idea was the other option they considered, which was a circular without changing any routes. That was the real jackass idea. The shuttle system was even recommended for a long term implementation. They even said this in the damn report;

 

BOTH are jackass ideas, Jackass.

- One involves the use of a circulator, who's usage would be 100% reliant on anyone coming off the subway & ALL of the buses that would be bastardized to have them truncated to terminate at Barclays... Dumping thousands upon thousands of people that are coming off of a myriad of bus routes throughout all of Brooklyn at Barclays is NOT "good", nor sustainable for the short OR any long term......

- The other idea involves the use of a 100% redundant circulator that much of no one would use, with the current bus routes still intact.....

 

....and f*** your punk ass link.

5 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

If everything is truncated at Barclays, then that is losing direct access. And EVERYONE loses it.

He actually believes that induced turnover amounts to direct access ....

Much like his existence, I needed a good laugh.

[Around the Horn]

10 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Plus, DOT has said that with the routes truncated outside downtown, NO ONE IS LOSING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE AREA.

Read that again slowly.

[Future ENY OP]

I didn’t want to chime in on this. However, I’m just simply going to ignore this kid and his antics. Just stop taking everything word for word and come up with your own ideas. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

1 hour ago, Future ENY OP said:

I didn’t want to chime in on this. However, I’m just simply going to ignore this kid and his antics. Just stop taking everything word for word and come up with your own ideas. 

^^^^ THIS... especially after the B44SBS "debate"... cheese & bread 😒

[Future ENY OP]

22 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

^^^^ THIS... especially after the B44SBS "debate"... cheese & bread 😒

Exactly. The other guy is an actual MTA planner from back in the day and has pure knowledge. However, this kid just takes everything word for word and doesn’t produce any ideas of his own so that (we) as a community can understand clearly. SMFH. 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

I didn’t want to chime in on this. However, I’m just simply going to ignore this kid and his antics.

Just stop taking everything word for word and come up with your own ideas. 

[JeremiahC99]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

BOTH are jackass ideas, Jackass.

- One involves the use of a circulator, who's usage would be 100% reliant on anyone coming off the subway & ALL of the buses that would be bastardized to have them truncated to terminate at Barclays... Dumping thousands upon thousands of people that are coming off of a myriad of bus routes throughout all of Brooklyn at Barclays is NOT "good", nor sustainable for the short OR any long term......

- The other idea involves the use of a 100% redundant circulator that much of no one would use, with the current bus routes still intact.....

 

....and f*** your punk ass link.

He actually believes that induced turnover amounts to direct access ....

Much like his existence, I needed a good laugh.

 

10 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

If everything is truncated at Barclays, then that is losing direct access. And EVERYONE loses it.

Why is everyone so paranoid about transferring? It’s very minor. It’s only going to add maybe 3-5 minutes to ones commute. And this shuttle is going to be free anyway.

Also, what you all fail to realize (due to not reading the like due to all of you being too stubborn and arrogant) is that by building a new transit center near the corridor (preferably at Ashland/Fulton), truncating the routes there, and implementing a new shuttle bus line across town along Fulton/Livingston, congestion would be relieved and reliability on the truncated routes would improve with buses no longer entering the congested Downtown Brooklyn core. The resources saved would then be used to increase service on the truncated routes in the areas most people are riding in (outside of Downtown). Ridership into/out of Downtown is very light and duplicated by more reliable subway service.

Denver operates one of the best shuttle bus services in the United States. The 16th Street Mall Ride service (which is free) sees an average ridership of 46,000 passengers daily, and has been very successful. If it can work on the Denver RTD 16th Street corridor, then a similar concept should work here in Brooklyn.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

Why is everyone so paranoid about transferring? It’s very minor. It’s only going to add maybe 3-5 minutes to ones commute. And this shuttle is going to be free anyway.

Also, what you all fail to realize (due to not reading the like due to all of you being too stubborn and arrogant) is that by building a new transit center near the corridor (preferably at Ashland/Fulton), truncating the routes there, and implementing a new shuttle bus line across town along Fulton/Livingston, congestion would be relieved and reliability on the truncated routes would improve with buses no longer entering the congested Downtown Brooklyn core. The resources saved would then be used to increase service on the truncated routes in the areas most people are riding in (outside of Downtown). Ridership into/out of Downtown is very light and duplicated by more reliable subway service.

Denver operates one of the best shuttle bus services in the United States. The 16th Street Mall Ride service (which is free) sees an average ridership of 46,000 passengers daily, and has been very successful. If it can work on the Denver RTD 16th Street corridor, then a similar concept should work here in Brooklyn.

This isn't Denver. It's NYC... Completely different here... The  already runs piss poor service. They can't even provide the service that's on the schedule now, and throwing transferring into the mix just exacerbates matters further.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

9 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Also, what you all fail to realize (due to not reading the like due to all of you being too stubborn and arrogant)

Says the one who keeps bringing up the same proposals over and over again...

Edited June 5, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[JeremiahC99]

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

This isn't Denver. It's NYC... Completely different here... The  already runs piss poor service. They can't even provide the service that's on the schedule now, and throwing transferring into the mix just exacerbates matters further.

That’s because traffic congestion and overlapping service has cause serious reliability issues on all parts of the routes entering it, even those far from it. By building a transit center, and shorting routes to it and replacing the northern end with a bus shuttle, then we should see reliability improve on the truncated routes, which is what we all want to see anyway.

But on Downtown Brooklyn service, is it really worth sacrificing the reliability of these routes for the many people riding outside of the Downtown area to get the very few people all the way into Downtown Brooklyn when some of these people have adequate subway alternatives from all directions? That’s the million dollar question.