Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[checkmatechamp13]

What three routes? It'd be two. The frequencies would be split between the two routes (each with 12-14 minute frequencies, combining to 6-7 minutes.)

 

As for the B11, it would affect Borough Park riders, as buses would take longer to reach Borough Park. That's why shortturns would be implemented. I don't know the history behind the B14 route, probably another historical thing...

 

(Dude, you're double posting)

 

 

Either I'm going crazy, my computer's going crazy, or the forum software's going crazy because I definitely don't remember clicking "Post" at 6:41. I had problems getting the first post to take, so I clicked "Post" again, but it was immediately afterward, not 10 minutes later (unless for some reason it took 10 minutes to show up again).

 

Anyway, I thought you were going to make 2 branches of the same route (one to Mill Basin and one to Kings Plaza). Or am I thinking of somebody else? (Now I really must be going crazy. Probably those damn college applications). I think before, you proposed a B100/B101, which is why I was thinking of 3 routes (B100, B101, and B31), even though you mentioned the B30/B31.

 

In that case, I would still send the B31 down to Bay Ridge instead of Coney Island. Remember that your B30 would be covering both the B100 and B2, so I think you should have more frequent service. Off-peak, they both run every 15-20 minutes for the most part, so 8-10 minute service would probably be alright for both halves of the route (east and west of the ). Then there's no need for the B31 along that portion of Kings Highway, and it could be sent elsewhere (in my plan, to Bay Ridge).

 

On a side note, during rush hours, you'd probably have frequent enough service that you could have some limited service along that route (B100/B101, or B30 or whatever)

[Threxx]

Either I'm going crazy, my computer's going crazy, or the forum software's going crazy because I definitely don't remember clicking "Post" at 6:41. I had problems getting the first post to take, so I clicked "Post" again, but it was immediately afterward, not 10 minutes later (unless for some reason it took 10 minutes to show up again).

 

Anyway, I thought you were going to make 2 branches of the same route (one to Mill Basin and one to Kings Plaza). Or am I thinking of somebody else? (Now I really must be going crazy. Probably those damn college applications). I think before, you proposed a B100/B101, which is why I was thinking of 3 routes (B100, B101, and B31), even though you mentioned the B30/B31.

 

In that case, I would still send the B31 down to Bay Ridge instead of Coney Island. Remember that your B30 would be covering both the B100 and B2, so I think you should have more frequent service. Off-peak, they both run every 15-20 minutes for the most part, so 8-10 minute service would probably be alright for both halves of the route (east and west of the ). Then there's no need for the B31 along that portion of Kings Highway, and it could be sent elsewhere (in my plan, to Bay Ridge).

 

On a side note, during rush hours, you'd probably have frequent enough service that you could have some limited service along that route (B100/B101, or B30 or whatever)

 

 

I proposed that B101 a long time ago... this is the current plan:

 

B30:

6-7 minute headways east of the station, 12-14 west.

B31:

7 minute headways east of the station, 15 west.

 

That's nowhere near too much service. That might actually be too little.

[checkmatechamp13]

I proposed that B101 a long time ago... this is the current plan:

 

 

Personally, I liked that plan better.

 

B30:

6-7 minute headways east of the station, 12-14 west.

B31:

7 minute headways east of the station, 15 west.

 

That's nowhere near too much service. That might actually be too little.

 

 

That's overcomplicating things. If the idea is to have roughly 7-8 minute headways (combined) west of the , you'd be better off just extending the B30 to Coney Island and having the B31 remain at the station. It's a lot simpler than having two routes with short-turns,

Aside from that, 7-8 minute headways along Kings Highway is the same level of service the B82 has right now, so it's definitely not too little. Actually, it's a little better, because the B82 runs every 10 minutes off-peak.

 

This is what I'd do:

B2: Kings Plaza - Coney Island

B100: Mill Basin - Bath Beach

B31: Gerritsen Beach - Bay Ridge

B50: Midwood - Starrett City

 

Of course, as we discussed before, the B2 & B100 would basically function as one route west of Flatbush Avenue. With the B82, roughly half the buses go to Coney Island, so I figure that if the routes are basically running the same headways, for simpilcity's sake, just have one route go to Coney Island. (Obviously, at the beginning and end of the day when headways get larger, then all buses would go to Coney Island)

 

Anyway, I'd have the following headways

B2: 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak

B100: 5 minutes peak*, 15 minutes off-peak

B31: 10 minutes all day

B50: 5 minutes peak, 8 minutes off-peak

* Half the buses would run from Mill Basin to the station during rush hours.

 

If the limited service along Kings Highway is useful, you could have the B2 running as a limited-only route during rush hours.

With the B50, if the limited service is useful, you could still have every other bus run limited during rush hours.

 

As for the B11, it would affect Borough Park riders, as buses would take longer to reach Borough Park.

 

 

I forgot to respond to this.

 

First of all, you mean riders would be waiting longer to go to Borough Park, not that it would take longer. The time once you're on the bus would be the same regardless of whether the bus started from Flatlands or Flatbush.

 

And the buses would have a longer route, but they wouldn't take longer to come. If service west of Flatbush Avenue runs every 10 minutes (hypothetically), then it would continue to run every 10 minutes regardless of whether the buses are coming from Flatlands or Flatbush. It would just require more buses to maintain that same frequency.

 

Reliability shouldn't be an issue because Avenue K isn't very busy. Say a bus normally leaves Flatbush Avenue at 8:00AM. If the MTA keeps the same schedule, the bus would have to leave Ralph Avenue at around 7:45AM. The travel time between Ralph Avenue & Flatbush Avenue should be about 15 minutes consistantly. There's no traffic, so the bus should arrive at 8:00AM every day, the same way he normally would. (Obviously, things happen, so there will be delays from time to time, for whatever reason). Then west of Flatbush Avenue, where the delays occur, that wouldn't be any different just because the bus happened to come from Flatlands.

 

The map explains that it would be one way on each of the former routes (eastbound on Avenue R, westbound on Fillmore). As for the B31, 3/4 of the riders there would likely support the extension. Gerritsen Beach riders may protest, but they don't make up the majority of ridership, so they could switch to the BM4, which would have improved service as well.

 

 

There's no reason to improve service on the BM4. An extension would likely result in improved service on the B31, especially off-peak, so if anything, riders should be shifting away from the BM4, not towards it. If for some crazy reason, riders from Gerritsen Beach don't like sharing a bus with riders from other neighborhoods, that's not the MTA's problem.

 

Now, if for some reason, ridership booms on the BM4 and buses are full, then yes, they should add BM4 service. (Not that it would ever happen anyway). But they shouldn't say "Oh, you're going to have to share the bus with riders from other neighborhoods, so we'll add service to the BM4".

[Threxx]

Personally, I liked that plan better.

 

 

It didn't reflect the needs of the area... I don't see what is to like about it.

 

That's overcomplicating things. If the idea is to have roughly 7-8 minute headways (combined) west of the , you'd be better off just extending the B30 to Coney Island and having the B31 remain at the station. It's a lot simpler than having two routes with short-turns,

Aside from that, 7-8 minute headways along Kings Highway is the same level of service the B82 has right now, so it's definitely not too little. Actually, it's a little better, because the B82 runs every 10 minutes off-peak.

 

This is what I'd do:

B2: Kings Plaza - Coney Island

B100: Mill Basin - Bath Beach

B31: Gerritsen Beach - Bay Ridge

B50: Midwood - Starrett City

 

Of course, as we discussed before, the B2 & B100 would basically function as one route west of Flatbush Avenue. With the B82, roughly half the buses go to Coney Island, so I figure that if the routes are basically running the same headways, for simpilcity's sake, just have one route go to Coney Island. (Obviously, at the beginning and end of the day when headways get larger, then all buses would go to Coney Island)

 

Anyway, I'd have the following headways

B2: 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak

B100: 5 minutes peak*, 15 minutes off-peak

B31: 10 minutes all day

B50: 5 minutes peak, 8 minutes off-peak

* Half the buses would run from Mill Basin to the station during rush hours.

 

If the limited service along Kings Highway is useful, you could have the B2 running as a limited-only route during rush hours.

With the B50, if the limited service is useful, you could still have every other bus run limited during rush hours.

 

 

How is that not complicated?

 

First of all, connecting the B31 to Bay Ridge or Borough Park won't benefit the route. Riders coming from that area would use it, but the current ridership would prefer a connection to more subway lines along Kings Highway and the shopping center around the Belt (the name slips my mind). It wouldn't do much for them, that's why a seperate route (a B5 in my plan, via 68/69th Streets) would take that purpose up. Your B2/B100 plan is quite similar to my B30/31 plan. The only real difference there is that instead of just helping one corridor (Marine Park-Mill Basin) I help two in mine, and I eliminate the redundancy of the B2/B100.

 

I forgot to respond to this.

 

First of all, you mean riders would be waiting longer to go to Borough Park, not that it would take longer. The time once you're on the bus would be the same regardless of whether the bus started from Flatlands or Flatbush.

 

And the buses would have a longer route, but they wouldn't take longer to come. If service west of Flatbush Avenue runs every 10 minutes (hypothetically), then it would continue to run every 10 minutes regardless of whether the buses are coming from Flatlands or Flatbush. It would just require more buses to maintain that same frequency.

 

Reliability shouldn't be an issue because Avenue K isn't very busy. Say a bus normally leaves Flatbush Avenue at 8:00AM. If the MTA keeps the same schedule, the bus would have to leave Ralph Avenue at around 7:45AM. The travel time between Ralph Avenue & Flatbush Avenue should be about 15 minutes consistantly. There's no traffic, so the bus should arrive at 8:00AM every day, the same way he normally would. (Obviously, things happen, so there will be delays from time to time, for whatever reason). Then west of Flatbush Avenue, where the delays occur, that wouldn't be any different just because the bus happened to come from Flatlands.

 

 

I meant buses would take longer to reach riders in Borough Park, and that's why shortturns would be needed on such an extension.

 

There's no reason to improve service on the BM4. An extension would likely result in improved service on the B31, especially off-peak, so if anything, riders should be shifting away from the BM4, not towards it. If for some crazy reason, riders from Gerritsen Beach don't like sharing a bus with riders from other neighborhoods, that's not the MTA's problem.

 

Now, if for some reason, ridership booms on the BM4 and buses are full, then yes, they should add BM4 service. (Not that it would ever happen anyway). But they shouldn't say "Oh, you're going to have to share the bus with riders from other neighborhoods, so we'll add service to the BM4".

 

 

There's some pretty strong NIMBYism in deep Gerritsen Beach.

[qjtransitmaster]

hmm Let B2 have ave P and bay parkway and B100 to 65th street and bay ridge ave. Let B31 eat B82's western part and keep the eastern half.

[checkmatechamp13]

It didn't reflect the needs of the area... I don't see what is to like about it.

 

 

Sure it did. You maintained access to Kings Plaza, while also keeping service along Fillmore Avenue east of Flatbush. It is somewhat of a large gap between Avenue N (B41) & Avenue U (B3), and aside from that, it gives riders easier access to the Brighton Line. It isn't 100% necessary to keep service along that stint, but if there's an easy way to do so, why not?

 

How is that not complicated?

 

First of all, connecting the B31 to Bay Ridge or Borough Park won't benefit the route. Riders coming from that area would use it, but the current ridership would prefer a connection to more subway lines along Kings Highway and the shopping center around the Belt (the name slips my mind). It wouldn't do much for them, that's why a seperate route (a B5 in my plan, via 68/69th Streets) would take that purpose up. Your B2/B100 plan is quite similar to my B30/31 plan. The only real difference there is that instead of just helping one corridor (Marine Park-Mill Basin) I help two in mine, and I eliminate the redundancy of the B2/B100.

 

 

That's Ceasar's Bay you're talking about (The shopping center)

 

In any case, you're overthinking it. If you draw it out, you'll see that it's not that complicated. It's a lot of changes, so it looks complicated, but the system would be simple after it's all done.

 

The B2/B100 are basically one route with two branches at the eastern end. On the western end, alternating buses short-turn, so you might as well keep it consistent. If it was the B31 running down there, you'd probably have to have the B31 doing the short-turns, while the B30 runs to Coney Island. And then if you still want limited service, that's a seperate issue.

 

The B50 isn't complicated. It's basically the plan we've been discussing all along.

 

The B31 isn't complicated. It's just a straightforward extension of the route (and it probably wouldn't hit too much traffic along the streets it travels on)

 

If anything, your plan is the more complicated one, with all the short-turns. Rather than having half the buses on each route short-turn, I'd prefer that one bus go the full way, and the other one be completely short-turned. It's a lot simpler to plan a trip in advance when you know that all B100s run the full length of the route.

 

With the B5, the thing is that it would add costs for no particularly good reason. The part east of the would be duplicative of the B50 along Kings Highway, and the B9/B41/Q35 on Flatbush Avenue. And if you're going from Borough Park/Bay Ridge to Kings Plaza, there's already the B9. And riders along Kings Highway would either be able to walk to the B9 or B2 (under my plan) to access Kings Plaza. You might as well have it cover a different area (in this case, Gerritsen Beach). The "unique" section of your B5 is west of the , so I figure you might as well combine that section with the B31.

 

As for the connections to other subway lines, you basically still have them. You have the at Avenue P & McDonald, you could walk to the from 65th Street & 20th Avenue, and you could walk to the at 65th Street & 14th Avenue.

 

Look, you can't please everybody, or else you'll end up with a more complicated system for no good reason. Yeah, riders in Gerritsen Beach would probably prefer access to Kings Highway & Ceasar's Bay, but there's nothing you can really do.

 

I meant buses would take longer to reach riders in Borough Park, and that's why shortturns would be needed on such an extension.

 

 

It wouldn't. If buses from Flatlands to Flatbush, are pretty reliable, then buses would leave Flatbush at the same time they do now, so the riders in Borough Park would see the same frequencies they do now.

 

There's some pretty strong NIMBYism in deep Gerritsen Beach.

 

 

That's not the MTA's problem.

[aemoreira81]

Not that it really makes a difference, but why does the B14 use Drew Street instead of Eldert Lane in that area? It adds two extra turns to the route, and takes it down a residential street. Is it to try and serve the Central Brooklyn Medical Center?

 

 

Probably a relic of when the B14 used to terminate by Spring Creek Gardens at the end of Drew Street.

 

 

The B14 needs to keep that route to maintain that wide coverage area, or else you'd inconvenience riders. I agree on the Q8 portion, though.

 

 

Crescent Street is five blocks away from Lincoln Avenue (which abuts the west side of the Pitkin Yard and the Linden Plaza development built over it)...you still have adequate network coverage.

Edited November 28, 2012 by aemoreira81

[B35 via Church]

....If we ever have routes providing door to door service I'll thank you.

...you'll have BrooklynBus to thank as well !

 

 

Yeah, you're right. Avenue K is better. Plus, it would shift back onto Flatlands before it hits Utica (I don't know if that really helps with anything, but whatever)

That's the idea.... To have the bus stop locations (both directions) at flatlands/utica remain unaffected..

 

Aside from what GC & myself already brought up (w/ the usage b/w flatbush & utica on the 82 [not inclusive]), I'd also have it serve 'K, due to the fact that I notice those folks around 'K (that little pocket binding flatbush av, av K, and Kings hwy) actually walk to flatbush/kings hwy for the bus - it doubles their chances for a bus; B7/B82... You'd think w/ the B7 closer by on kings hwy, they'd wait for the B7.....

 

Come to think of it, I don't ever see anyone waiting for the B7 southbound b/w av. H & flatbush av (not inclusive)..... What I am kinda surprised with is how the BM1 is used in that area; not uncommon to see 5+ ppl in the morning waiting at the 43rd st stop... But yeh, too many ppl. IMO walking in that area for B41's/dollar van's or over to kings hwy/flatbush (towards the brighton) for the B7/82 in the morning.... Some walk over to the corner of av L/flatbush for the B9 as well.... Those seeking service towards the junction in the morning I'd say, accounts for most ppl's commutes down there.... GC could probably add to the points I just made, since he's a lot closer to that area than I am.....

 

 

Not that it really makes a difference, but why does the B14 use Drew Street instead of Eldert Lane in that area? It adds two extra turns to the route, and takes it down a residential street. Is it to try and serve the Central Brooklyn Medical Center?

Once upon a time, the B14 used to end over on the NW corner of Drew/Linden....

 

....then it got extended southward, to begin/end on the eldert lane side of the movie theatre over on linden, opposite the pink houses

[SE corner of elderts/linden, which is a major stop]....

 

....then after that, they just went ahead & said to hell with it & extended it to the mail facility....

 

 

* If you're asking why it ever served Drew in the first place, my guess is to provide coverage for those couple blocks east of drew st (south of s. conduit)... I think that medical ctr out there (the one you're referring to) is relatively new....

Edited November 28, 2012 by B35 via Church

[Threxx]

Sure it did. You maintained access to Kings Plaza, while also keeping service along Fillmore Avenue east of Flatbush. It is somewhat of a large gap between Avenue N (B41) & Avenue U (B3), and aside from that, it gives riders easier access to the Brighton Line. It isn't 100% necessary to keep service along that stint, but if there's an easy way to do so, why not?

 

 

Because it overcompilcated and split the B100 for no reason. I don't remember all the specifics of that old plan, but it didn't maintain connections with Kings Plaza.

 

That's Ceasar's Bay you're talking about (The shopping center)

 

In any case, you're overthinking it. If you draw it out, you'll see that it's not that complicated. It's a lot of changes, so it looks complicated, but the system would be simple after it's all done.

 

The B2/B100 are basically one route with two branches at the eastern end. On the western end, alternating buses short-turn, so you might as well keep it consistent. If it was the B31 running down there, you'd probably have to have the B31 doing the short-turns, while the B30 runs to Coney Island. And then if you still want limited service, that's a seperate issue.

 

The B50 isn't complicated. It's basically the plan we've been discussing all along.

 

The B31 isn't complicated. It's just a straightforward extension of the route (and it probably wouldn't hit too much traffic along the streets it travels on)

 

If anything, your plan is the more complicated one, with all the short-turns. Rather than having half the buses on each route short-turn, I'd prefer that one bus go the full way, and the other one be completely short-turned. It's a lot simpler to plan a trip in advance when you know that all B100s run the full length of the route.

 

With the B5, the thing is that it would add costs for no particularly good reason. The part east of the would be duplicative of the B50 along Kings Highway, and the B9/B41/Q35 on Flatbush Avenue. And if you're going from Borough Park/Bay Ridge to Kings Plaza, there's already the B9. And riders along Kings Highway would either be able to walk to the B9 or B2 (under my plan) to access Kings Plaza. You might as well have it cover a different area (in this case, Gerritsen Beach). The "unique" section of your B5 is west of the , so I figure you might as well combine that section with the B31.

 

As for the connections to other subway lines, you basically still have them. You have the at Avenue P & McDonald, you could walk to the from 65th Street & 20th Avenue, and you could walk to the at 65th Street & 14th Avenue.

 

Look, you can't please everybody, or else you'll end up with a more complicated system for no good reason. Yeah, riders in Gerritsen Beach would probably prefer access to Kings Highway & Ceasar's Bay, but there's nothing you can really do.

 

 

Yes there is. Let's go through this:

 

The B5 wouldn't add unnecessary costs. It would actually use resources in part which would be "abandoned" in other parts of my master plan. (For example, the shortening of the B64 back to 86th/4th. Less fuel costs.) There'd also be buses availible at FLA from the B2. Not that many albeit, but some. The B5 wouldn't be that much more frequent than the B9, so it would eventually round out even.

 

Your B2/B100 plan would "double serve" Marine Park with Kings Highway service, and leave Gerristen Beach with the sub-par Avenue P connection. The and connection that you mentioned doesn't actually exist if you look at my planned route, so it doesn't work. The B30/31 plan is better as it gives both neighborhoods access to the lines while maintaining the same level of service on Kings Highway.

 

As for the B50, we're talking the same route, except I won't change the numbering. Leave it as what people have gotten used to, the B82.

 

Also, in reply to the above discussion why even move the B82 from Flatlands? The route does get usage there, and it would leave an even larger gap in coverage in the area. A different route should serve Avenue J or K.

 

Crescent Street is five blocks away from Lincoln Avenue (which abuts the west side of the Pitkin Yard and the Linden Plaza development built over it)...you still have adequate network coverage.

 

 

Why is there a need to straighten the route though? That doesn't contribute to the bunching/reliability issues, so why target that?

 

The only routes I think should be straightened are the B15 (not sure) and the B62 along Bedford/Driggs. (definitely).

Edited November 28, 2012 by Threxx

[Threxx]

DELETE, expected it to combine with above post.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Threxx

[checkmatechamp13]

Because it overcompilcated and split the B100 for no reason. I don't remember all the specifics of that old plan, but it didn't maintain connections with Kings Plaza.

 

 

What is this then, if not service to Kings Plaza?

 

Yes there is. Let's go through this:

 

The B5 wouldn't add unnecessary costs. It would actually use resources in part which would be "abandoned" in other parts of my master plan. (For example, the shortening of the B64 back to 86th/4th. Less fuel costs.) There'd also be buses availible at FLA from the B2. Not that many albeit, but some. The B5 wouldn't be that much more frequent than the B9, so it would eventually round out even.

Your B2/B100 plan would "double serve" Marine Park with Kings Highway service, and leave Gerristen Beach with the sub-par Avenue P connection. The and connection that you mentioned doesn't actually exist if you look at my planned route, so it doesn't work. The B30/31 plan is better as it gives both neighborhoods access to the lines while maintaining the same level of service on Kings Highway.

 

As for the B50, we're talking the same route, except I won't change the numbering. Leave it as what people have gotten used to, the B82.

 

For the & connection, that's partially why I had it on the route I did. Aside from that, 65th Street is wider than 68th/69th Street.

 

As for the unnecessary costs, yes it would add them. You're not saving much, if any money from eliminating the B2, because you'll have to throw those buses back onto the B100. The B100 currently runs every 15 minutes off-peak. You would have 7-8 minute service east of Kings Highway, which means all you're going (cost-wise) is relabeling B2s as B100s and modifying the route. Not that there's anything wrong with that (because I'd also have 7-8 minute service in that area), but you're not getting any savings from there. Aside from that, I'd rather the savings be used for something else.

 

As for shortening the B64 back to 86th & 4th, you still need something covering 13th Avenue, so you're still adding costs. Aside from that, the plan would still add costs. Necessary costs, but still costs.

 

The B5's frequency relative to the B9 is irrelvant, so I don't see why you're bringing that up. I'm saying that the B9 already has that general area covered as far as service to Kings Plaza goes. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have them parallel each other, but why do that when you can provide direct service to a different area?

 

Plus, the Marine Park area has more demand for bus service than Gerritsen Beach, and Kings Highway has more demand than Bay Ridge Avenue. So you're matching up service levels to demand. So you have a more frequent route and a less-frequent route, instead of trying to use short-turns to get the right frequencies (which likely won't work out).

[Threxx]

What is this then, if not service to Kings Plaza?

 

I'm VG8 now, aren't I?

 

Anyway, I didn't say the B101 would serve Kings Plaza there. Now that you link that thread, I remember that the B101 would simply have been a branch of the B100 taking Avenue R/S through Marine Park, rather than Fillmore Avenue. Nothing to do with Kings Plaza.

 

For the & connection, that's partially why I had it on the route I did. Aside from that, 65th Street is wider than 68th/69th Street.

 

As for the unnecessary costs, yes it would add them. You're not saving much, if any money from eliminating the B2, because you'll have to throw those buses back onto the B100. The B100 currently runs every 15 minutes off-peak. You would have 7-8 minute service east of Kings Highway, which means all you're going (cost-wise) is relabeling B2s as B100s and modifying the route. Not that there's anything wrong with that (because I'd also have 7-8 minute service in that area), but you're not getting any savings from there. Aside from that, I'd rather the savings be used for something else.

 

As for shortening the B64 back to 86th & 4th, you still need something covering 13th Avenue, so you're still adding costs. Aside from that, the plan would still add costs. Necessary costs, but still costs.

 

The B5's frequency relative to the B9 is irrelvant, so I don't see why you're bringing that up. I'm saying that the B9 already has that general area covered as far as service to Kings Plaza goes. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have them parallel each other, but why do that when you can provide direct service to a different area?

 

Plus, the Marine Park area has more demand for bus service than Gerritsen Beach, and Kings Highway has more demand than Bay Ridge Avenue. So you're matching up service levels to demand. So you have a more frequent route and a less-frequent route, instead of trying to use short-turns to get the right frequencies (which likely won't work out).

 

Formatting fun again...

 

The B100 serves two residential areas, Marine Park and Mill Basin. The B31 is similar. While the far southern portion serves Gerritsen Beach, the northern section serves Western Marine Park and parts of Plumb Beach, which has similar ridership amounts to Marine Park. The B31 shouldn't be lower on the spectrum than the B2/100. Actually, I'd assume the only reason the B100 gets more ridership is because it's the only local route serving Mill Basin, for a good reason of course, but still a factor. The B2 also detracts ridership from it. However, they still have higher ridership, and that's why the B30 in my plan has a higher frequency.

 

As for 13th Avenue, I split B16 service between 13th Avenue and Fort Hamilton Parkway (with both at 13-15 minute frequencies), so there's no real cost there.

 

It's not irrelevant, as you mentioned the B9 as it was a detrimental thing that the B5 paralleled it (I know that's not true now, but not then). I understand the cost issues, but also remember costs would be saved on the B82 as well. While you would still have to spend, it wouldn't be something the couldn't recoup overtime. While it would be a difficult case to make, it's possible to get them to take the risk, especially with someone like Lhota as Chairman. And as for 65th Street, traffic along there can get pretty nasty at rush our (especially with that stint under the Gowanus) so 68th/69th would be a faster route. If the B11 can traverse 49th and 50th, then this route can do it as well.

 

Whew... I think that's all.

 

I'll relink the map, because I think there was some confusion. Any former plans I had no longer apply.

https://maps.google....150774,0.308647

Edited November 28, 2012 by Threxx

[Q43LTD]

Ok, no through Kings Highway route, no Linden Boulevard route and no Ocean Avenue route (except for express buses)

[qjtransitmaster]

Ok, no through Kings Highway route, no Linden Boulevard route and no Ocean Avenue route (except for express buses)

 

err I only mentioned it once. damn why beating it down. Its flaws were exposed. But there is a workaround. On that later.

[Q43LTD]

err I only mentioned it once. damn why beating it down. Its flaws were exposed. But there is a workaround. On that later.

 

I'm not beating anything down. I'm looking for ways to restructure the Brooklyn bus network without starting from scratch

Edited November 29, 2012 by Q43LTD

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm VG8 now, aren't I?

 

Anyway, I didn't say the B101 would serve Kings Plaza there. Now that you link that thread, I remember that the B101 would simply have been a branch of the B100 taking Avenue R/S through Marine Park, rather than Fillmore Avenue. Nothing to do with Kings Plaza.

 

 

Well, at least you aren't making up BS arguments like he does.

 

Anyway, cool. But whoever suggested a branch to Kings Plaza, I still think it's a good idea.

 

Formatting fun again...

 

The B100 serves two residential areas, Marine Park and Mill Basin. The B31 is similar. While the far southern portion serves Gerritsen Beach, the northern section serves Western Marine Park and parts of Plumb Beach, which has similar ridership amounts to Marine Park. The B31 shouldn't be lower on the spectrum than the B2/100. Actually, I'd assume the only reason the B100 gets more ridership is because it's the only local route serving Mill Basin, for a good reason of course, but still a factor. The B2 also detracts ridership from it. However, they still have higher ridership, and that's why the B30 in my plan has a higher frequency.

 

As for 13th Avenue, I split B16 service between 13th Avenue and Fort Hamilton Parkway (with both at 13-15 minute frequencies), so there's no real cost there.

 

It's not irrelevant, as you mentioned the B9 as it was a detrimental thing that the B5 paralleled it (I know that's not true now, but not then). I understand the cost issues, but also remember costs would be saved on the B82 as well. While you would still have to spend, it wouldn't be something the couldn't recoup overtime. While it would be a difficult case to make, it's possible to get them to take the risk, especially with someone like Lhota as Chairman. And as for 65th Street, traffic along there can get pretty nasty at rush our (especially with that stint under the Gowanus) so 68th/69th would be a faster route. If the B11 can traverse 49th and 50th, then this route can do it as well.

 

Whew... I think that's all.

 

I'll relink the map, because I think there was some confusion. Any former plans I had no longer apply.

https://maps.google....150774,0.308647

 

 

The B2 steals ridership from both the B100 & B31.

 

For the B10 & B16, the B16 already runs every 15-20 minutes off-peak, so unless you plan on giving each branch 30 minute headways or something, it's still going to cost extra money.

 

For 65th Street, traffic under the Gowanus Expressway is irrelevant because it would only be on 65th Street east of 13th Avenue. But I guess either way, it doesn't make a big difference. I mean, 68th/69th Street are more in the middle of the gap, but 65th Street is wider. In any case, you'd still only be a couple of short blocks from the (at Bay Parkway) & (at 71st Street)

 

I'm not seeing how you're saving costs on the B82. You're cutting it back to the and extending two other routes in its place. You're not seeing reduced service on either end (east or west of the ), so there aren't any cost savings involved.

 

I dunno. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm not beating anything down. I'm looking for ways to restructure the Brooklyn bus network without starting from scratch

 

 

What would necessarily be wrong with starting from scratch?

[qjtransitmaster]

I'm not beating anything down. I'm looking for ways to restructure the Brooklyn bus network without starting from scratch

 

That is how I think as well actually but then again I am a bit extreme initially but starting from scratch is against my structure and I don't plan that way. I understand your logic.

[Grand Concourse]

That's the idea.... To have the bus stop locations (both directions) at flatlands/utica remain unaffected..

 

Aside from what GC & myself already brought up (w/ the usage b/w flatbush & utica on the 82 [not inclusive]), I'd also have it serve 'K, due to the fact that I notice those folks around 'K (that little pocket binding flatbush av, av K, and Kings hwy) actually walk to flatbush/kings hwy for the bus - it doubles their chances for a bus; B7/B82... You'd think w/ the B7 closer by on kings hwy, they'd wait for the B7.....

 

Come to think of it, I don't ever see anyone waiting for the B7 southbound b/w av. H & flatbush av (not inclusive)..... What I am kinda surprised with is how the BM1 is used in that area; not uncommon to see 5+ ppl in the morning waiting at the 43rd st stop... But yeh, too many ppl. IMO walking in that area for B41's/dollar van's or over to kings hwy/flatbush (towards the brighton) for the B7/82 in the morning.... Some walk over to the corner of av L/flatbush for the B9 as well.... Those seeking service towards the junction in the morning I'd say, accounts for most ppl's commutes down there.... GC could probably add to the points I just made, since he's a lot closer to that area than I am.....

 

 

I hardly ever ride the BM1, but the days after post-Sandy when they started up the bus services, I jokingly thought about how there were more people waiting at one of the stops b/w utica and FB than what I'd typically see on most of the Flatlands av segment from Utica to Troy av combined (excluding the ends themselves). As for the B7, that is surprising, but I guess not very. I don't see them crush loaded and they do help the B82 at 16th st when the B82 is backed up. I guess the B7 could use a new route as well for that portion.

 

I don't really ride the B9 much in the rush hours, but I think you summed it up correctly. FB av is where the masses tends to flock to. Years ago I would walk to the KH-FB corner for the B41/Q35 to the Junction, but now I go to the stop near Av N to avoid the crowding.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Grand Concourse

[Threxx]

Well, at least you aren't making up BS arguments like he does.

 

I dunno. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

LMAO!

 

I guess that's the best course of action here. You have to spend money to make money.

 

Ok, no through Kings Highway route, no Linden Boulevard route and no Ocean Avenue route (except for express buses)

 

A through Ocean Avenue route could work if done correctly. I have a separate plan for that, which is still coming together. I'll post it as soon as it's ready.

 

err I only mentioned it once. damn why beating it down. Its flaws were exposed. But there is a workaround. On that later.

And he wonders why he gets beaten down when he plays these games.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Threxx

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It seems like the same bloody proposals keep coming up over and over again with slight modifications if any, particularly the B2/B100 and this B30/B31 proposal. Am I missing something or what? I mean how many times are these two proposals gonna come up???

Edited November 29, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Turbo19]

It seems like the same bloody proposals keep coming up over and over again with slight modifications if any, particularly the B2/B100 and this B30/B31 proposal. Am I missing something or what? I mean how many times are these two proposals gonna come up???

Due to them being closely related, often proposals are made to improve both at the same time. Ultimately this leads to a plan that improves service or a plan that worsens bus service in that particular area. In my opinion you risk screwing with the riders of the entire community if you alter current routes as drastically as some of these proposals are.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Due to them being closely related, often proposals are made to improve both at the same time. Ultimately this leads to a plan that improves service or a plan that worsens bus service in that particular area. In my opinion you risk screwing with the riders of the entire community if you alter current routes as drastically as some of these proposals are.

 

Yeah I know that but the B2/B100 and B30/B31 have beaten to death. As far as I'm concerned if these proposals were really viable ones (particularly the B2 and B100) I would see the implementing them. One issue that clearly comes to mind is political pressure. Apparently no one paid attention when residents fought (as did I) to get the B2 weekend service restored for Marine Park so that they could access to shopping around the Kings Plaza area as well as the Kings Hwy station. As a former resident of Southern Brooklyn it is my belief that Southern Brooklyn historically has been starved of transportation and the B2/B100 combination if you will should only be enacted in dire straits, otherwise I would fight to keep both the B2 and B100. Southern Brooklyn needs MORE transportation not less. If the B2 and B100 were so practical I think both would've been combined a long time ago and the communities that they serve (i.e. Mill Basin, Marine Park, Midwood, etc.) would've been fine with them. There's a reason they're separate or shall I say reasons.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Turbo19]

At this time it is best to keep both routes seperate in my opinion as they are fine as they are, I recall the B2 being much worse and finally it is slowly improving.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

At this time it is best to keep both routes seperate in my opinion as they are fine as they are, I recall the B2 being much worse and finally it is slowly improving.

 

I agree... You will see more improvements to some routes when Bus Time comes as well. I saw Bus Time for the Bronx express buses yesterday while walking in the city and I saw some folks with their phones out so it's probably catching on in the Bronx too which I think will lead to increased ridership, better loading in terms of even loads and a better commute overall for passengers that will encourage them to use buses. It's definitely happening on Staten Island. Buses that I used to take that would empty are now full...

Edited November 29, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Turbo19]

I agree... You will see more improvements to some routes when Bus Time comes as well. I saw Bus Time for the Bronx express buses yesterday while walking in the city and I saw some folks with their phones out so it's probably catching on in the Bronx too which I think will lead to increased ridership, better loading in terms of even loads and a better commute overall for passengers that will encourage them to use buses. It's definitely happening on Staten Island. Buses that I used to take that would empty are now full...

 

Is anything, more discretionary (retail, social, etc.) trips will be taken. I'd be more likely to go to the city, or the mall, or with friends if I had a dependable resource for scheduling. Bus Time provides just that.