Threxx Posted June 30, 2012 Share #951 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) I'm big on connectivity, and I could see how a route connecting the Windsor Terrace/South Slope area to the would be beneficial. But running along the Prospect isn't a bad idea, though. So I assume you like the route! It isn't a bad idea, I'm just worried that buses coming from Red Hook would be running empty... Also, LTD service would be weekdays & Saturdays, with local buses also using 9th Street on Saturdays. Edited June 30, 2012 by ThrexxBus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limitednyc Posted June 30, 2012 Share #952 Posted June 30, 2012 not really that part of the line would be designed strictly for serving ikea. busses could be interchanged between the branches at either end so service would be as close to guidline as possible. your overall plan is very intresting . I wonder what brooklyn bus thinks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 30, 2012 Share #953 Posted June 30, 2012 not really that part of the line would be designed strictly for serving ikea. busses could be interchanged between the branches at either end so service would be as close to guidline as possible. your overall plan is very intresting . I wonder what brooklyn bus thinks? I'm more worried about B35 via Church, as he despises the B43 to KCHC idea... he may not be too keen on my moving the B12 from Clarkson Avenue, but I think I pulled off the impossible with this: Doing just that perfectly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 30, 2012 Share #954 Posted June 30, 2012 So I assume you like the route! It isn't a bad idea, I'm just worried that buses coming from Red Hook would be running empty... Also, LTD service would be weekdays & Saturdays, with local buses also using 9th Street on Saturdays. I'm going to be honest, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I realized that there wasn't really anything wrong with the actual route: It connected both sides of Prospect Park and provided a straight route across Clarkson. The thing is that I don't think it should really have limited-stop service. It should be more of a coverage route, and I think only one branch is really necessary (Personally, I'd prefer the Prospect Avenue branch, but 9th Street might generate more ridership). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 30, 2012 Share #955 Posted June 30, 2012 I'm going to be honest, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I realized that there wasn't really anything wrong with the actual route: It connected both sides of Prospect Park and provided a straight route across Clarkson. The thing is that I don't think it should really have limited-stop service. It should be more of a coverage route, and I think only one branch is really necessary (Personally, I'd prefer the Prospect Avenue branch, but 9th Street might generate more ridership). Remember, when LTD is running during rush hours, local buses use Prospect Avenue. I don't expect it to be a high ridership branch, and if demand arises for more service there, then local buses will be sent there more often. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 30, 2012 Share #956 Posted June 30, 2012 Posting a lot, here is a guide a made, similar to the ones on the back of bus maps: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 30, 2012 Share #957 Posted June 30, 2012 Like I said, I think you're making service too frequent in general. It should just run every 15 minutes rush hours, 20 minutes off-peak, with no limited branch. I mean, running it every 10 minutes in the evenings with a limited is like B46-level service right there, and really, this is more of a coverage/fill-in-the-gap route. I think you might be better off having all buses use 9th Street to act as a backup to the B61, and then to cover Prospect Avenue, alternate B68s could be extended to the Prospect Avenue station. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #958 Posted July 1, 2012 Like I said, I think you're making service too frequent in general. It should just run every 15 minutes rush hours, 20 minutes off-peak, with no limited branch. I mean, running it every 10 minutes in the evenings with a limited is like B46-level service right there, and really, this is more of a coverage/fill-in-the-gap route. I think you might be better off having all buses use 9th Street to act as a backup to the B61, and then to cover Prospect Avenue, alternate B68s could be extended to the Prospect Avenue station. You're forgetting Clarkson Avenue. Look at the current B12's levels. Every bus has at least a seated load. The service levels are fine. And no, I'm not extending the B68, it has it's own problems. The two branches have just enough service to not overload the neighborhoods. I've planned this carefully. There are also short-turns at Park Circle as to not overload either branch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted July 1, 2012 Share #959 Posted July 1, 2012 With the B28 proposal, I prefer it using 9th Street since it's a much busier corridor than Prospect Avenue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #960 Posted July 1, 2012 With the B28 proposal, I prefer it using 9th Street since it's a much busier corridor than Prospect Avenue. I understand the concern about the Prospect Avenue branch, let me be a bit clearer: Frequent service to the Prospect Avenue branch is only at rush hours. Other times, service is only every 20 minutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotb16 Posted July 1, 2012 Share #961 Posted July 1, 2012 I understand the concern about the Prospect Avenue branch, let me be a bit clearer: Frequent service to the Prospect Avenue branch is only at rush hours. Other times, service is only every 20 minutes. Not bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 1, 2012 Share #962 Posted July 1, 2012 You're forgetting Clarkson Avenue. Look at the current B12's levels. Every bus has at least a seated load. The service levels are fine. And no, I'm not extending the B68, it has it's own problems. The two branches have just enough service to not overload the neighborhoods. I've planned this carefully. There are also short-turns at Park Circle as to not overload either branch. But how do you automatically know that just because there's that much demand for the B12, that there will be that much demand for the B28? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #963 Posted July 1, 2012 But how do you automatically know that just because there's that much demand for the B12, that there will be that much demand for the B28? The B12 has been moved from Clarkson, do people have a choice? Anyway, the B28 accomplishes the same thing as the B12. RIdership patterns only change streets. The demand will be there. Remember, this is my borough, my former neighborhood... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 1, 2012 Share #964 Posted July 1, 2012 The B12 has been moved from Clarkson, do people have a choice? Anyway, the B28 accomplishes the same thing as the B12. RIdership patterns only change streets. The demand will be there. Remember, this is my borough, my former neighborhood... The thing is that going eastward, the B12 serves a completely different area than the B28. The B12 goes northeast towards Broadway Junction, whereas the B28 goes due east and then southeast towards Canarsie. Yeah, I see the need for a Clarkson Avenue route, but there's no point why the B12 route should be moved just to boost ridership on the B28. I mean, you cut off access to the Brighton Line for crying out loud. And what's of interest along Linden Blvd that really warrants the B12 serving that area instead of continuing along Clarkson? Aside from that, if riders want the B12, they're not going to jump on the B28 just for the hell of it: They'll walk down, but if the B12 ridership base is closer to Clarkson, what's the point in moving it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 1, 2012 Share #965 Posted July 1, 2012 Thank you, Checkmate. Threxx, you're bastardizing the B12 to pump up that "B28" - that is as plain as day to me.... lmfao @ where you would have the B12 terminating on its western end..... You know full well aint nobody comin from the brighton line is fin to walk to flatbush to catch a bus to KCH - regardless if church av is an express station.... To try to portray otherwise is a load of crap, and if it's in my direction, you can spare it..... Your WB B12 will die out at NY/Clarkson - anyone else would've already gotten off for the B44, or gotten off somewhere along Clarkson for WB service (by way of your B28, of course)..... your "B12" EB usage at flatbush would be sporadic at best.... People in that area would walk down to the B35, to later catch the 44 (or walk from NY/Church, which is what ppl do when they're taking the B35 to KCH).... Oh, and you wouldn't get much if any ppl. coming off 41's to xfer to that 12 either..... Like I told mysterious 2, the only real good thing about the "b28" AFAIC, is the fact that travel b/w the 2 sides of prospect park is addressed/much improved... I don't get the sense though that there's latent ridership in my neck of the woods (and canarsie) to the IKEA...... it's more likely latent ridership to downtown brooklyn from E. Flatbush, etc. would show itself on that "B49" route of yours - and I think THAT would be low...... So that's only an illustration of how many ppl. I see taking this 28 to IKEA coming from the east..... Anyway, you can forget about prospect av, those buses would be carrying air b/w IKEA & park circle (windsor terr. riders can complain all they want - they know full well they wouldn't use buses if they went up/down prospect av.... That said, your only hope of getting any set of riders west of ocean av, is to have it mirror the current 68 & 61 routes..... I will say THAT is a better option than ppl. suggesting that the B68 be extended north past pritchard sq..... The B43 to KCH after this, I'm just not gonna get into anymore.... If BrooklynBus couldn't convince me of having the 43 do that, then forget it.... no one can honestly tell me that the B43 would get near as many riders @ KCH than they currently do @ Empire..... Branching the 43 serving KCH or Prospect Park subway is much ado about nothing - all that is, is an attempt at a compromise which would still end up screwing a hell of a lot of B43 riders..... Also, no one can portray to me that the B43 would get near as much usage at KCH itself for riders going to/coming from the fulton av subway - with the 43 serving kingston/throop... ....and the 44 serving franklin av. B69 is already a long route.. Extending it any further wouldn't do justice. Keep it downtown. IMO. It's current terminal doesn't do it any justice..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 1, 2012 Share #966 Posted July 1, 2012 based on what B35 is saying well wouldn't you be better off extending some B12 trips via prospct expressway to red hookIKEA?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted July 1, 2012 Share #967 Posted July 1, 2012 To Threxx Bus: I've just looked at your proposal without looking at anyone else's comments. Some aspects I like but others I don't. Like the idea of getting around the park very much. Also like the idea of Clarkson Avenue service. Now this is what I don't like. You've got to be more concerned with mileage. Providing service costs money. Not sting you have to be zero cost, but you've gotto be efficient. You can't just increase B43 service by 50%. Whle I agree there is demand for the Hospital service, I can't see that much of an increase. I don't like that the B28 does not to the IRT although it comes close to Saratoga Av. Also don't understand why it has to go one way on 9th Street and the other on Hamilton Avenue. It is not good planning practice to keep directions that far apart. Also Clarkson is too narrow and congested between Utica and Remsen for two way service. Westbound needs to be on Winthrop. Also can't make out 43 turnaround by hospital. Don't like using Linden for buses although it is only for a few blocks. Realize that few will need Brighton Line with new Clarkson Av service, but why take it away? I see buses on Linden underutilized with like 6 people getting on at Flatbush and another few at Rogers and not really filling up to the hospital. I would rather see it duplicating the 28 on its existing route although it woud be a few minutes longer. But who knows? Maybe that would work? The biggest problem is a lot of extra mileage without enough justification that the demand could justify it. The 28 is a completely new route that doesn't use parts of any existing routes. Adding totally new layers of service is something the MTA just cannot afford to do now unless perhaps it is an airport route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #968 Posted July 1, 2012 Threxx, you're bastardizing the B12 to pump up that "B28" - that is as plain as day to me.... lmfao @ where you would have the B12 terminating on its western end..... You know full well aint nobody comin from the brighton line is fin to walk to flatbush to catch a bus to KCH - regardless if church av is an express station.... To try to portray otherwise is a load of crap, and if it's in my direction, you can spare it..... Your WB B12 will die out at NY/Clarkson - anyone else would've already gotten off for the B44, or gotten off somewhere along Clarkson for WB service (by way of your B28, of course)..... your "B12" EB usage at flatbush would be sporadic at best.... People in that area would walk down to the B35, to later catch the 44 (or walk from NY/Church, which is what ppl do when they're taking the B35 to KCH).... Oh, and you wouldn't get much if any ppl. coming off 41's to xfer to that 12 either..... This point I actually agree with. I did bastardise the B12, but that wasn't my intent. There just isn't enough space on Clarkson Avenue for both routes, and know they would get equal ridership, and I'm not about to be convinced otherwise. The best thing I can think of is extending it to Church Avenue station, but where the hell would it terminate? I don't get the sense though that there's latent ridership in my neck of the woods (and canarsie) to the IKEA...... it's more likely latent ridership to downtown brooklyn from E. Flatbush, etc. would show itself on that "B49" route of yours - and I think THAT would be low...... So that's only an illustration of how many ppl. I see taking this 28 to IKEA coming from the east..... Anyway, you can forget about prospect av, those buses would be carrying air b/w IKEA & park circle (windsor terr. riders can complain all they want - they know full well they wouldn't use buses if they went up/down prospect av.... That said, your only hope of getting any set of riders west of ocean av, is to have it mirror the current 68 & 61 routes..... I will say THAT is a better option than ppl. suggesting that the B68 be extended north past pritchard sq..... This again with the Prospect branch? You can go read my earlier posts if you want... The reason they complained about the B103 is because it didn't stop in their neighborhood, and they felt entitled to the bus service, so if it wasn't stopping there, it wasn't working with them. The B28 won't have that problem... The B43 to KCH after this, I'm just not gonna get into anymore.... If BrooklynBus couldn't convince me of having the 43 do that, then forget it.... no one can honestly tell me that the B43 would get near as many riders @ KCH than they currently do @ Empire..... Branching the 43 serving KCH or Prospect Park subway is much ado about nothing - all that is, is an attempt at a compromise which would still end up screwing a hell of a lot of B43 riders..... Also, no one can portray to me that the B43 would get near as much usage at KCH itself for riders going to/coming from the fulton av subway - with the 43 serving kingston/throop... You know what? I'm not even going to get into that with you, since you are obviously so dead set against it that you didn't read the damn proposal properly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #969 Posted July 1, 2012 To Threxx Bus: I've just looked at your proposal without looking at anyone else's comments. Some aspects I like but others I don't. Like the idea of getting around the park very much. Also like the idea of Clarkson Avenue service. Now this is what I don't like. You've got to be more concerned with mileage. Providing service costs money. Not sting you have to be zero cost, but you've gotto be efficient. You can't just increase B43 service by 50%. Whle I agree there is demand for the Hospital service, I can't see that much of an increase. I don't like that the B28 does not to the IRT although it comes close to Saratoga Av. Also don't understand why it has to go one way on 9th Street and the other on Hamilton Avenue. It is not good planning practice to keep directions that far apart. Also Clarkson is too narrow and congested between Utica and Remsen for two way service. Westbound needs to be on Winthrop. Also can't make out 43 turnaround by hospital. Don't like using Linden for buses although it is only for a few blocks. Realize that few will need Brighton Line with new Clarkson Av service, but why take it away? I see buses on Linden underutilized with like 6 people getting on at Flatbush and another few at Rogers and not really filling up to the hospital. I would rather see it duplicating the 28 on its existing route although it woud be a few minutes longer. But who knows? Maybe that would work? Oh, the 9th & Hamilton Avenue things are two separate branches, I outline that in my proposal... I get the thing with the B12. I'm worried about traffic, having two very frequent buses runnning along that small street. I also understand the B28/B43 concern with the money. The MTA would probably want to cut back the B61, but that won't save enough to start the route... It wouldn't be cost-neutral, in the end, but the revenue if would bring in would make up for this fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #970 Posted July 1, 2012 Alright, peeps, check the map again if you were concerned about the B12 routing. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004c08eaa13e3791d33b&msa=0&ll=40.648313,-73.959832&spn=0.018853,0.038581 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 1, 2012 Share #971 Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) Threxx, sorry to burst your little bubble with that "I'm more worried about B35 via Church, as he despises the B43 to KCHC idea... he may not be too keen on my moving the B12 from Clarkson Avenue, but I think I pulled off the impossible with this: Doing just that perfectly.", but too damn bad..... This point I actually agree with. I did bastardise the B12, but that wasn't my intent. There just isn't enough space on Clarkson Avenue for both routes, and know they would get equal ridership, and I'm not about to be convinced otherwise. The best thing I can think of is extending it to Church Avenue station, but where the hell would it terminate? Yeah, which is exactly why there's no need for another route on Clarkson to begin with..... There is nothing wrong with the current B12.... ....and that question isn't mine to answer because you are the one that wants to move the 12 down there. Looks like you have it all figured out in your latest map rendition there huh.... Now address the redundancy it'll have w/ the B16 in that area..... This again with the Prospect branch? You can go read my earlier posts if you want... The reason they complained about the B103 is because it didn't stop in their neighborhood, and they felt entitled to the bus service, so if it wasn't stopping there, it wasn't working with them. The B28 won't have that problem... Don't get the sense they even want the 103 in their neighborhood, let alone being entitled to it.... They complained about that 103 change where it came off the prospect (expwy) @ 18th st, using it to get to 7th av..... AFAIC, that was a valid complaint & had squat to do w/ them being able to utilize the 103..... But none of that is here nor there b/c I wasn't even referring to that particular route.... I'm talking about Windsor Terr. patrons claiming they want buses on Prospect av, Period..... You know what? I'm not even going to get into that with you, since you are obviously so dead set against it that you didn't read the damn proposal properly... It aint about no I "didn't read the damn proposal properly".... what the hell did you say about it that was so profound..... So what you would boost the B43 by 50%, that would still result in more buses on the road that current 43 riders won't be able to use if they're heading to/from Prospect Park subway.... It's all about you obviously not being able to refute in coming up with a rock solid retort to what was stated in that point..... You or none of the other B43 to KCH supporters. Edited July 1, 2012 by B35 via Church 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted July 1, 2012 Share #972 Posted July 1, 2012 Oh, the 9th & Hamilton Avenue things are two separate branches, I outline that in my proposal... I get the thing with the B12. I'm worried about traffic, having two very frequent buses runnning along that small street. I also understand the B28/B43 concern with the money. The MTA would probably want to cut back the B61, but that won't save enough to start the route... It wouldn't be cost-neutral, in the end, but the revenue if would bring in would make up for this fact. You really need to stop with the branches. That is not done when absolutely necessary. There is a market for service around the Park, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that revenue would make up for the added costs. You pretty much need standees in both directions much of the time and high turnover to break even. Do you envision that with your routes? I think you' be lucky to ever get a seated load. As far as the 43 to KCH, there is plenty of demand for that. Not saying you woud get new passengers but a lt would be diverted from the 46/12 with a direct bus. I agree that few would take it to the Fulton subway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted July 1, 2012 Share #973 Posted July 1, 2012 Just one thing: If the issue with the B43 to the hospitals is the fact that the riders would lose a connection to the Brighton Line, couldn't they be extended across to the Brighton Line? If the issue is too many buses along Clarkson, the buses could take Winthrop-NY Avenue-Linden Blvd-Caton Avenue, and then turn around via Ocean-St. Pauls Court-St. Pauls Place-Caton. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted July 1, 2012 Share #974 Posted July 1, 2012 Just one thing: If the issue with the B43 to the hospitals is the fact that the riders would lose a connection to the Brighton Line, couldn't they be extended across to the Brighton Line? If the issue is too many buses along Clarkson, the buses could take Winthrop-NY Avenue-Linden Blvd-Caton Avenue, and then turn around via Ocean-St. Pauls Court-St. Pauls Place-Caton. Problem with what you're saying is, Winthrop is at the back end of the hospital; it's more for the employees than patients & visitors.... The main entrances are on Clarkson.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 1, 2012 Share #975 Posted July 1, 2012 I've received enough feedback to know this proposal isn't that popular, but I'm not changing it. I'll be posting my next one soon... 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.