Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[checkmatechamp13]

The B23 went all the way down to Borough Park. While I don't think that gap along 16th Avenue is too bad, I do think it would be nice if it was filled.

 

In any case, I think you're better off having it parallel the B8 east of Nostrand Avenue. The thing is that the B8 is more frequent, and people will still gravitate towards that (considering it's a block away), leaving the B23 fairly empty while the B8 is crowded. You could even use that to justify a B8 limited east of Nostrand (since you'd not only have the B8 local, but also the B23).

 

So basically, it should take the B8 route up to Nostrand Avenue, continue up Avenue D to Flatbush Avenue, take that over to Cortelyou Road, and then continue up the old B23 route to 62nd & New Utrecht.

 

As far as the B81 route goes, this is what I'm talking about "trying to run routes down every street". I mean, you'd have a route running down Claredon Road, Avenue D, and Foster Avenue, which are all a block apart. You're better off trying to concentrate the service onto one corridor, and have it centralized, like BrooklynBus said.

 

The only part of Foster Avenue that I think would need service is the part by Canarsie (because it's far from the other east-west routes), but it's not that dire a need. But come to think about it, you could have the B23 cover that part of the route (take Avenue B to Remsen Avenue, serving the Brooklyn Terminal Market in the process, and then go up Foster Road). But I don't like the route it would take to reach the Gateway Mall, but there's not much you can do about that. I guess it would provide a route from Gateway to the East Flatbush area, or else I'd just terminate it at New Lots Avenue on the or something.

[Threxx]

The B23 went all the way down to Borough Park. While I don't think that gap along 16th Avenue is too bad, I do think it would be nice if it was filled.

 

In any case, I think you're better off having it parallel the B8 east of Nostrand Avenue. The thing is that the B8 is more frequent, and people will still gravitate towards that (considering it's a block away), leaving the B23 fairly empty while the B8 is crowded. You could even use that to justify a B8 limited east of Nostrand (since you'd not only have the B8 local, but also the B23).

 

So basically, it should take the B8 route up to Nostrand Avenue, continue up Avenue D to Flatbush Avenue, take that over to Cortelyou Road, and then continue up the old B23 route to 62nd & New Utrecht.

 

As far as the B81 route goes, this is what I'm talking about "trying to run routes down every street". I mean, you'd have a route running down Claredon Road, Avenue D, and Foster Avenue, which are all a block apart. You're better off trying to concentrate the service onto one corridor, and have it centralized, like BrooklynBus said.

 

The only part of Foster Avenue that I think would need service is the part by Canarsie (because it's far from the other east-west routes), but it's not that dire a need. But come to think about it, you could have the B23 cover that part of the route (take Avenue B to Remsen Avenue, serving the Brooklyn Terminal Market in the process, and then go up Foster Road). But I don't like the route it would take to reach the Gateway Mall, but there's not much you can do about that. I guess it would provide a route from Gateway to the East Flatbush area, or else I'd just terminate it at New Lots Avenue on the or something.

 

 

Look at the map. That is the part of Foster I covered! ... You obviously didn't look at the map if you're saying this.

 

Anyway, I see where you're coming from with the B8 LTD, and it's something to consider, though the B23 is meant to be it's own, independent route... As for 16th Avenue, I plan to have another route fill that gap, but I haven't decided if it's a good idea to send the 67/69 down there...

[checkmatechamp13]

Look at the map. That is the part of Foster I covered! ... You obviously didn't look at the map if you're saying this.

 

Anyway, I see where you're coming from with the B8 LTD, and it's something to consider, though the B23 is meant to be it's own, independent route... As for 16th Avenue, I plan to have another route fill that gap, but I haven't decided if it's a good idea to send the 67/69 down there...

 

 

Farragut Road, same difference. The streets run funny in that area (Farragut Road goes into Glenwood Road, and Foster Avenue goes into Farragut Road instead of going into itself), so I assumed it would continue along Foster Avenue instead of going onto Farragut. My point still stands that it's too duplicative of the existing routes without actually directly helping them out. If there's a delay on the B6, it's not going to do anybody any good to have a route a block over.

 

It's the same thing except you're duplicating the B6/103 instead of the B8, because you're a block further south. In fact, that's even worse than duplicating the B8 because the B6/103 are even more frequent, so your route would get even less ridership. The point is that as far as the spacing goes, those routes are fine.

 

Oh, and don't give me that crap or I'll give it right back. I'm being respectful when I respond, not going "Oh, this will never work. You don't know these neighborhoods." so drop that.

Edited July 4, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

In any case, I think you're better off having it parallel the B8 east of Nostrand Avenue. The thing is that the B8 is more frequent, and people will still gravitate towards that (considering it's a block away), leaving the B23 fairly empty while the B8 is crowded. You could even use that to justify a B8 limited east of Nostrand (since you'd not only have the B8 local, but also the B23).

 

I also think buses should run along Av D - that's exactly what I have my "B23" doing... same reason you bring up is the same reason I wouldn't run the route on clarendon - good chance it would get shunned for the existing B8, which would be a waste.....

 

but yeh, from av D, I would have the route use nostrand/NY avs to get to/from beverly rd (2)/(5)... don't care for the brooklyn av routing.....

[Threxx]

Farragut Road, same difference. The streets run funny in that area (Farragut Road goes into Glenwood Road, and Foster Avenue goes into Farragut Road instead of going into itself), so I assumed it would continue along Foster Avenue instead of going onto Farragut. My point still stands that it's too duplicative of the existing routes without actually directly helping them out. If there's a delay on the B6, it's not going to do anybody any good to have a route a block over.

 

It's the same thing except you're duplicating the B6/103 instead of the B8, because you're a block further south. In fact, that's even worse than duplicating the B8 because the B6/103 are even more frequent, so your route would get even less ridership. The point is that as far as the spacing goes, those routes are fine.

 

Oh, and don't give me that crap or I'll give it right back. I'm being respectful when I respond, not going "Oh, this will never work. You don't know these neighborhoods." so drop that.

 

 

Sorry about the .

 

I see what you mean about the B81, and I think it should use Glenwood instead to help the B6. I can see the B8 parallel, but I'm still a bit more dubious about that... I chaned both routes on the map:

 

Note: The B7 has been relabeled B19 in this situation, and the B23 has been relabeled B7.

 

New map: https://maps.google....037711,0.077162

 

(When I use Google Maps to make these, my computer slows to a crawl...)

Edited July 4, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[BrooklynBus]

Just want to say this. The B21 operated every 15 to 20 minutes and the old pre-1978 B1 operated every 20 minutes. The B49 which was extended into Manhattan Beach in 1969 operated every 10 minutes. KCC enrollment was a fraction of what it is today. Most of the current buildings weren't in existence then, only the temporary buildings were there.

 

If it weren't for the Beach and college, MB would be similar to Gerritsen Beach with poor service. My guess is some GB residents would not the route extended and some would, if it meant more frequent off hour service. Even if GB residents would not use a westward extension, riders north of Aevnue U would use it and that accounts for about half the route's existing ridership.

[checkmatechamp13]

Sorry about the .

 

I see what you mean about the B81, and I think it should use Glenwood instead to help the B6. I can see the B8 parallel, but I'm still a bit more dubious about that... I chaned both routes on the map:

 

Note: The B7 has been relabeled B19 in this situation, and the B23 has been relabeled B7.

 

New map: https://maps.google....037711,0.077162

 

(When I use Google Maps to make these, my computer slows to a crawl...)

 

 

It's alright.

 

In any case, that's the thing: I think you're better off combining them as one route: From Church & McDonald to the Gateway Mall via Avenue D & Foster Avenue. The B6 already has the B103 for part of the route, and if you need extra service, I think you'd be better off just adding some short-turns.

[Threxx]

It's alright.

 

In any case, that's the thing: I think you're better off combining them as one route: From Church & McDonald to the Gateway Mall via Avenue D & Foster Avenue. The B6 already has the B103 for part of the route, and if you need extra service, I think you'd be better off just adding some short-turns.

 

 

A route that would garner more ridership as a whole, and would benefit more people, servicing Cortelyou Road, Avenue D, and Foster Avenue! GENIUS! My good sir, you must think like this more often! Now why didn't I think of this...

[B35 via Church]

A route b/w those two points I'll admit is a good idea.... the effectiveness of the route would come down to how it's physically routed.....

[Threxx]

A route b/w those two points I'll admit is a good idea.... the effectiveness of the route would come down to how it's physically routed.....

 

 

Here is my proposed routing:

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004c3750fbdde7be4805&msa=0

 

Well, I'll answer anymore questions tomorrow, I have to go.

[B35 via Church]

Here is my proposed routing:

 

https://maps.google....de7be4805&msa=0

 

cool....

 

- your routing b/w church/flatbush I don't have a problem with....

- personally, I would have buses still turning up to beverly rd to serve the 2/5, then using NY/nostrand to get to/from av D....

- having the route serve av D instead of clarendon is good....

- at kings hwy, I think you'd get more riders by having buses run up to clarendon & turning down ralph to foster (instead of running down kings hwy from av D to foster itself)..... those ppl. that live along foster in that area walk to ralph av for the bus anyway.....

[that is the routing I have my "b23" using to get to the btw....]

- I'm still not fond of having buses use foster, east of rockaway av, but w/e....

- your routing east of penn, I don't have a problem with.... especially when that part of gateway drive starts getting more developed....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just want to say this. The B21 operated every 15 to 20 minutes and the old pre-1978 B1 operated every 20 minutes. The B49 which was extended into Manhattan Beach in 1969 operated every 10 minutes. KCC enrollment was a fraction of what it is today. Most of the current buildings weren't in existence then, only the temporary buildings were there.

 

If it weren't for the Beach and college, MB would be similar to Gerritsen Beach with poor service. My guess is some GB residents would not the route extended and some would, if it meant more frequent off hour service. Even if GB residents would not use a westward extension, riders north of Aevnue U would use it and that accounts for about half the route's existing ridership.

 

Also, thank you for backing up my point about beach riders and KCC because it is true. In the wintertime and when KCC isn't open, the B49 can be pretty dead.

 

 

 

Now that I will agree to, but if you're saying that it should be extended to target Gerritsen Beach folks you and I know that isn't happening.

 

First of all it's hear not here

Second, I dont want to give a proposal. I just dont want it to turn into an off-topic flame war that might result in this thread be locked

 

 

Glad you picked that up since it was meant for you anyway.

[MHV9218]

I don't think checkmate gets it that public transportation is supposed to have a level of COMFORT to it. Even the local bus and subway. People are NOT attracted to crushloaded buses and subways. There's a point where you turn people off and that's another point he doesn't get. There's a point in which you go overkill with trying to "maximize" ridership.

 

 

For once, I agree with you. Efficiency and rider enjoyment don't always go hand in hand. The subway has always been and will always be the efficient route. The bus comes into play when there's either no subway service, the bus is more direct, or the bus is more comfy. For me, morning rush hour I pack myself into the 6 train every day. It's not fun but I get to sleep a few minutes later. On the way home, I take the bus cause it leaves me closer to my apartment and cause it's a little more relaxed overall. For my family, the older folks in the family all swear by the bus now since it doesn't have the rush and bustle of the subway. I'm young enough that I don't mind that crush loaded 6 in the morning, but I do prefer a mostly full and slightly slower bus all the time. And then for the older folks, they do mind a crush loaded train, and so they take the bus.

 

My point is that yes, in some cases the bus is a matter of necessity with no other transit options, but in a whole lot of cases the bus is a little bit of a more relaxed way to travel. And if you make every bus run at maximum efficiency (read: packed), you lose that second reason for ridership.

[Threxx]

cool....

 

- your routing b/w church/flatbush I don't have a problem with....

- personally, I would have buses still turning up to beverly rd to serve the 2/5, then using NY/nostrand to get to/from av D....

- having the route serve av D instead of clarendon is good....

- at kings hwy, I think you'd get more riders by having buses run up to clarendon & turning down ralph to foster (instead of running down kings hwy from av D to foster itself)..... those ppl. that live along foster in that area walk to ralph av for the bus anyway.....

[that is the routing I have my "b23" using to get to the btw....]

- I'm still not fond of having buses use foster, east of rockaway av, but w/e....

- your routing east of penn, I don't have a problem with.... especially when that part of gateway drive starts getting more developed....

 

 

I have the buses use Foster b/w Rockaway and Bank to serve the ...

 

Newkirk Avenue is one block away @ Nostrand, and it straightens the route.

[checkmatechamp13]

For once, I agree with you. Efficiency and rider enjoyment don't always go hand in hand. The subway has always been and will always be the efficient route. The bus comes into play when there's either no subway service, the bus is more direct, or the bus is more comfy. For me, morning rush hour I pack myself into the 6 train every day. It's not fun but I get to sleep a few minutes later. On the way home, I take the bus cause it leaves me closer to my apartment and cause it's a little more relaxed overall. For my family, the older folks in the family all swear by the bus now since it doesn't have the rush and bustle of the subway. I'm young enough that I don't mind that crush loaded 6 in the morning, but I do prefer a mostly full and slightly slower bus all the time. And then for the older folks, they do mind a crush loaded train, and so they take the bus.

 

My point is that yes, in some cases the bus is a matter of necessity with no other transit options, but in a whole lot of cases the bus is a little bit of a more relaxed way to travel. And if you make every bus run at maximum efficiency (read: packed), you lose that second reason for ridership.

 

 

That's the thing: He's coming up with this crap of "Oh, he doesn't understand that people want comfort". Like yeah, OK I love fighting to get on the S46 in the morning and having buses delayed because they're crowded and people have to push and shove to get on. (I remember once I literally saw kids pushing each other into the S46 the way they do on crowded trains in Japan). And I especially love when the bus is too crowded for you to fit on. Even if there's more space in the back, I hate being the one to shout out to everybody to move back.

 

But yeah, he can keep pushing that "Oh, he loves crowded buses and making routes long and unreliable" BS. He has yet to provide any examples, but whatever...

[Threxx]

Making those damn showcases are tiring...

 

Anyway, in this next one, I propose to cut the B24... *BOOOO!* You didn't let my finish! Anyway, I will replace it with two new, less redundant routes! *YAAY!*

 

The first route, the B27:

 

This route uses the buses that currently run on the B24, and it also services Ridgewood, helping to replace service that was lost when the B13 was cut back. It services the businesses on Knickerbocker Avenue, while replacing Metropolitan Avenue service on the B24.

 

Guide:

 

The second route, the Q38. The current Q38 has also been split and replaced by the Q52, Q67, and Q88.

 

The Q38 uses buses from LGA, and travels b/w Greenpoint Avenue station and 74th Street, Broadway, via Greenpoint Avenue & Roosevelt Avenue. It supplements the Q32, and provides full time service b/w Greenpoint & Sunnyside.

 

MAP of both routes: (With current Q38 replacements, can be discussed in Queens Bus Thread.)

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004c297a44ff1c96086f&msa=0&ll=40.720494,-73.932667&spn=0.018832,0.038581

[B35 via Church]

I have the buses use Foster b/w Rockaway and Bank to serve the ...

 

Newkirk Avenue is one block away @ Nostrand, and it straightens the route.

 

I understand that....

 

 

...And if you make every bus run at maximum efficiency (read: packed), you lose that second reason for ridership.

 

You make every bus run at maximum efficiency & you'll eventually start forcing more & more people onto trains..... which is ultimately what the MTA's trying to do w/ buses in this city if you ask me..... Population in this city is only gonna keep increasing, despite empty threats by many of leaving NYC....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's the thing: He's coming up with this crap of "Oh, he doesn't understand that people want comfort". Like yeah, OK I love fighting to get on the S46 in the morning and having buses delayed because they're crowded and people have to push and shove to get on. (I remember once I literally saw kids pushing each other into the S46 the way they do on crowded trains in Japan). And I especially love when the bus is too crowded for you to fit on. Even if there's more space in the back, I hate being the one to shout out to everybody to move back.

 

But yeah, he can keep pushing that "Oh, he loves crowded buses and making routes long and unreliable" BS. He has yet to provide any examples, but whatever...

 

 

I've provided them. You just refuse to accept them. In denial as usual. You constantly complain about buses being efficient even when they are (i.e. BxM18) and you refuse to accept that some routes just simply won't draw more passengers no matter how you try to extend it.

 

 

 

You make every bus run at maximum efficiency & you'll eventually start forcing more & more people onto trains..... which is ultimately what the MTA's trying to do w/ buses in this city if you ask me..... Population in this city is only gonna keep increasing, despite empty threats by many of leaving NYC....

 

 

I don't even know about that because the subways are like sardine cans too and they don't seem to be adding much service there either...

Edited July 4, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

I don't even know about that because the subways are like sardine cans too and they don't seem to be adding much service there either...

 

It's an adverse effect atop an adverse effect.....

people can't fit onto the buses, they'll try their hand with the subway [this (initial) part of it all, is all I'm saying].....

people can't fit onto the subway, they'll find other means of getting around [this part is more your point, which I never brought up].....

 

You're not wrong, but there's no point in splitting hairs b/c in either case, the rider loses out...

[checkmatechamp13]

I've provided them. You just refuse to accept them. In denial as usual. You constantly complain about buses being efficient even when they are (i.e. BxM18) and you refuse to accept that some routes just simply won't draw more passengers no matter how you try to extend it.

 

 

Uh, no I didn't complain it was inefficient. I just said it could serve more passengers if it made stops while deadheading to the depot.

 

And no, you didn't "provide examples". Go ahead. Bring up the posts where you provided those examples. The only thing you provided was the B31 (actually, I gave you a freebie with that one) and even then you said it wouldn't be a bad idea when BrooklynBus clarified it.

 

Go ahead. Look up those "oh-so-many" examples of me making super-long extensions. You even said "You made some in Staten Island but I forgot about them". Go ahead. I want specific examples of me making crazy extensions.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Making those damn showcases are tiring...

 

Anyway, in this next one, I propose to cut the B24... *BOOOO!* You didn't let my finish! Anyway, I will replace it with two new, less redundant routes! *YAAY!*

 

The first route, the B27:

 

This route uses the buses that currently run on the B24, and it also services Ridgewood, helping to replace service that was lost when the B13 was cut back. It services the businesses on Knickerbocker Avenue, while replacing Metropolitan Avenue service on the B24.

 

Guide:

 

The second route, the Q38. The current Q38 has also been split and replaced by the Q52, Q67, and Q88.

 

The Q38 uses buses from LGA, and travels b/w Greenpoint Avenue station and 74th Street, Broadway, via Greenpoint Avenue & Roosevelt Avenue. It supplements the Q32, and provides full time service b/w Greenpoint & Sunnyside.

 

MAP of both routes: (With current Q38 replacements, can be discussed in Queens Bus Thread.)

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004c297a44ff1c96086f&msa=0&ll=40.720494,-73.932667&spn=0.018832,0.038581

 

My Comments:

The Q38 are basically what I said, with twirls, so I agree with that plan of Q38 replacements.

I like the idea of a second bus on Roosevelt, because the Q32 is constantly delayed on both sides of its routes. The question is, will the Q38 get enough Roosevelt Avenue riders to Warrant service as well as the Q32.

I often transfer to the B24 after taking the Q32, so I personally think its a good idea. Besides, instea of using 3 buses I can use two instead.

[Rick44]

I agree with the Q38 as a replacement to the northern portion of the B24. I just want to say something about all of your proposals. Why is it that when a route is either rerouted or combined, you must change the route number? Example 1: The B2/B100 combo is renumbered tge B30 instead of keeping the B2. Example 2: The B24 gets shortened & rerouted and renumbered to the B27. Maybe utilizing the numbers that are being affected can help market your plan. Just imagine you as a route planner for the MTA presenting these changes to the table. It seems more confusing to use an entirely different route number to describe a reroute of a current route.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's an adverse effect atop an adverse effect.....

people can't fit onto the buses, they'll try their hand with the subway [this (initial) part of it all, is all I'm saying].....

people can't fit onto the subway, they'll find other means of getting around [this part is more your point, which I never brought up].....

 

You're not wrong, but there's no point in splitting hairs b/c in either case, the rider loses out...

 

 

That was my point in a nutshell.

[Threxx]

I agree with the Q38 as a replacement to the northern portion of the B24. I just want to say something about all of your proposals. Why is it that when a route is either rerouted or combined, you must change the route number? Example 1: The B2/B100 combo is renumbered tge B30 instead of keeping the B2. Example 2: The B24 gets shortened & rerouted and renumbered to the B27. Maybe utilizing the numbers that are being affected can help market your plan. Just imagine you as a route planner for the MTA presenting these changes to the table. It seems more confusing to use an entirely different route number to describe a reroute of a current route.

 

 

Well the B27 can remain as B24, but the B30 has been changed because it is streamlined and interlined with the B31, and it makes everything more recognizable, as we can more easily associate the two routes together.

[Threxx]

My Comments:

The Q38 are basically what I said, with twirls, so I agree with that plan of Q38 replacements.

I like the idea of a second bus on Roosevelt, because the Q32 is constantly delayed on both sides of its routes. The question is, will the Q38 get enough Roosevelt Avenue riders to Warrant service as well as the Q32.

I often transfer to the B24 after taking the Q32, so I personally think its a good idea. Besides, instea of using 3 buses I can use two instead.

 

 

The Q32 bunches and gets delayed so much that many opt to transfer to the subway, so the Q38 will get the ridership necessary.

 

Any more comments on the B24 & Q38?