Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[Rick44]

I disagree with using Fillmore. Continuing to using Avenue R to East 36th Street makes more sense because it is centrally located and not bordering the park like Fillmore is. Also, residents would never permit a bus on East 54th and 55th Streets, so taking U all the way is more feasible.

 

I still think it should go past the Brighton subway westbound. In rush hours, probably only every other bus could be extended.

 

I said Fillmore Avenue because I wanted to give direct access to Marine Park and Marine Park JHS. Taking Avenue U is more feasible, I just wondered if doing that would cause a loss of passengers in the Avenue T section. I do not use the (B2) or (B100), so that idea comes from the routes looking very similar, and easy to combine with a save for the bureaucracy that is the .

 

I don't have much to say about the area westbound past the subway station, probably because I just don't know what's or who's there to serve with buses. There is a big hole in that area with no buses, and I do wonder why, but I never researched that area. I feel like there should be a crosstown route there, but I don't know why.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Who said anything about cutting off access from CI to Bay Ridge? It would still go there, just through a slightly different route (Cropsey Avenue instead of 86th Street like it used to).

 

Ay yay yay.... I was referring to the . Why do you have such a hard time following threads??

[checkmatechamp13]

Ay yay yay.... I was referring to the . Why do you have such a hard time following threads??

 

You said:

 

"Well good for him, but I still disagree". Even if by "you've cut off access from Bay Ridge to Coney Island" you are referring to the MTA, the reroute along Cropsey Avenue was still my/BrooklynBus' idea, so if anything, it's you who's having a hard time following the thread and then trying to deflect it off on me.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You said:

 

"Well good for him, but I still disagree". Even if by "you've cut off access from Bay Ridge to Coney Island" you are referring to the MTA, the reroute along Cropsey Avenue was still my/BrooklynBus' idea, so if anything, it's you who's having a hard time following the thread and then trying to deflect it off on me.

 

There is no even if like suddenly you can read my mind. Let's just end this. I'm done having this convo with you because you are really becoming annoying with this back and forth crap about what I'm trying to say. I know what I'm saying and I don't need you to interpret my thoughts.

[checkmatechamp13]

There is no even if like suddenly you can read my mind. Let's just end this. I'm done having this convo with you because you are really becoming annoying with this back and forth crap about what I'm trying to say. I know what I'm saying and I don't need you to interpret my thoughts.

 

"Let's just end this". Ah, the classic "quit before I fall further behind" strategy.

 

No matter which way you slice it, you can't find a valid argument to prove me wrong about why the B1 should be a through-86th Street route. It may not have been bad the other way, but strictly in terms of the B1 (not counting the negative impacts to the B64), it's better than before, and those negative impacts could've been avoided by having the B64 take a different route to 86th & 4th.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

"Let's just end this". Ah, the classic "quit before I fall further behind" strategy.

 

No matter which way you slice it, you can't find a valid argument to prove me wrong about why the B1 should be a through-86th Street route. It may not have been bad the other way, but strictly in terms of the B1 (not counting the negative impacts to the B64), it's better than before, and those negative impacts could've been avoided by having the B64 take a different route to 86th & 4th.

 

No the issue I have is you trying to tell me what I'm saying. I have no issue discussing the topic at hand, but don't sit here and tell me you know what I'm thinking when you don't. Your point about the B1 being a thorough 86th street route has nothing to do with the B64 which is what we've been discussing.

[checkmatechamp13]

No the issue I have is you trying to tell me what I'm saying. I have no issue discussing the topic at hand, but don't sit here and tell me you know what I'm thinking when you don't. Your point about the B1 being a thorough 86th street route has nothing to do with the B64 which is what we've been discussing.

 

If you want me to stop "interpreting your thought for you", then you have to be more clear. I'm simply responding to what you said. I'm not going to assume you meant something else when you said a completely different thing.

 

You said:

 

Well just so you're not confused further, there was no need to do anything to the B64. It was fine the way it was. The swap that it did with the B1 was completely unnecessary and like the B4, it should return to its previous route. The end.

 

The "swap" resulted in the B1 becoming a through-86th Street route, which was a good thing. So yes, the B64 is relevant to the B1 being a through-86th Street route.

[B35 via Church]

I meant to say "served". "Saved" wouldn't make any sense.

 

That would be better, but there's the problem with layover space. You have the S53/79/93 and the B1 terminating there, which are all pretty frequent, so you'd have to figure out a way around that.

 

- "saved" would make sense, if someone's trying to portray that the businesses along 86th st greatly benefitted from the folks coming off B64's - to the point that businesses would suffer & damn near fold w/ the removal of the 64 from that area......

 

- Yes, I'm well aware of the layover spacing/problems.... I was simply pointing out those folks won't settle for nothing less than 86th st.

 

 

Well just so you're not confused further, there was no need to do anything to the B64. It was fine the way it was. The swap that it did with the B1 was completely unnecessary and like the B4, it should return to its previous route. The end.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the swap was completely unnecessary, but what I will say is having moved the B64 from 86th/4th was completely unnecessary.... The B1 going to 86th/4th I don't have a problem with.... Of course the MTA aint goin create no new routes, but what really needs to happen is the creation of a 13th/14th av route.... this way there wouldn't be this toss up of whether to have the B1 or the B64 head to xaverian......

 

Ultimately what I'm sayin is, the B1 & the B64 should head to 86th/4th....

(The MTA) piecing together service on 13th/14th av's (current B16 & B64) is part of what's wrong w/ the bus network in SW Brooklyn... it's "broken" along 13th/14th & up there in the mid-to-upper 60's (street)......

 

 

No, the B1 is better off as a through-86th Street route. Even BrooklynBus thinks so. The question is what to do with the B64. As he said, you could reroute it via Cropsey Avenue so people along Bath Avenue get easy access to the VA Hospital and still keep their subway connection. Bay Ridge Avenue and 13th Avenue get covered by other routes. The end.

See reply, above...

 

I'm not gonna sit here & try to make a case for which of the two routes (B1/B64) is better off serving 86th/4th... stealing one of via's terms, that's immaterial.... Of course the MTA would be quick to point out duplication, but even as you (IINM) stated in another post, the point of having the B1/64 heading to that specific area wouldn't be for supplementary service along 86th st - It'd be to share that road to get to the (meaning, singular) desired destination.....

[B35 via Church]

They're trying to push folks to the B82 and this way forces folks over to that stupid line. They love it but anytime I've considered waiting for it, it takes forever to show up.

I still say the B82 (B5/50 merge) should have never been created in the first place.... I thought I was the only one that felt the MTA tried/is trying to force riders onto the 82.... same shit they pulled w/ the B69 with the increasing of service along it, and the lessening of service along the B67..... They know they f***in up w/ these moves..... It's like when a female tries to loud talk you when she knows she's wrong (as irritating as it is, that's when you know you got em)....

 

Back on (sub)topic.... funny thing is, @ Bay Pkwy subway (EB), folks still tend to favor the B6 over the 82..... I can't count how many times I've taken the 82 from CI after having served that stop, there'd still be a swarm of folks waiting (for the B6)....

 

Shortline will give you the whole *what about the nurses that take the B82 from areas east of kings hwy subway {B/Q}* bit.... but really, the bulk of 82 riders heading towards CI are NOT emanating from Canarsie & Flatlands, I'm sorry...... There was no real need for the creation of the B82... and to make it more conducive/appealing to those riders, they gave it a LTD.... it really didn't need that either to tell the truth, but that's another topic.....

 

 

Also, residents would never permit a bus on East 54th and 55th Streets, so taking U all the way is more feasible.

Beat me to it....

 

I saw Rick's (mapped) idea before I signed off..... That's just what I was going to point out the next time I came back on.....

 

 

I said Fillmore Avenue because I wanted to give direct access to Marine Park and Marine Park JHS. Taking Avenue U is more feasible, I just wondered if doing that would cause a loss of passengers in the Avenue T section. I do not use the B2 or B100, so that idea comes from the routes looking very similar, and easy to combine with a save for the bureaucracy that is the MTA.

 

I don't have much to say about the area westbound past the subway station, probably because I just don't know what's or who's there to serve with buses. There is a big hole in that area with no buses, and I do wonder why, but I never researched that area. I feel like there should be a crosstown route there, but I don't know why.

How can I say this..... Marine park is not one of those parks that bus service needs to be given to.... on that end, It's just a big, local park.... Brooklyn Bus is right, the precedence should be aimed towards as many residents as possible in the area (pretty much meaning, the way the current B2 is routed); putting such a (combined) route on that part of fillmore would be more of a hassle for those folks than anything....

 

As far as west of Kings Hwy. on the Brighton.... yeah there's a need for east-west bus service *somewhere* b/w 60th st [b9] & bay ridge pkwy [b4]... I don't think you'll get much of an argument to the contrary from those that are aware of the situation; that's about (if not a) 1 mile long gap.....

[Rick44]

I can reroute my map with those changes mentioned by BrooklynBus and you. I don't travel the area, so maybe I should on my free time. As for the "big hole" that I mentioned in my last post, I do agree that there is something missing from that area, but I don't know where it would go.

 

As for the B82/B64 debate, I personally love the B82 route as a service that is a full-time limited short of being an alternate route to a non-existent subway line. Even though I think that the idea named the Triboro RX would be a great replacement, I can be content with the B82 as is. I like the B82 in Coney Island, and that's where it should stay until a crosstown subway is created in that area.

[BrooklynBus]

Well good for him, but I still disagree. All these suggestions are pointless because you've cut off access from Bay Ridge to Coney Island and that was one main purpose of the B64. They're trying to push folks to the B82 and this way forces folks over to that stupid line. They love it but anytime I've considered waiting for it, it takes forever to show up.

 

Checkmate is correct. The flip flop and the truncation are two separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they occurred simultaneously.

 

A through 86th Street route (and all straight routes) are less confusing and makes it easier to plan trips and necessitates less indirect trips.

 

As for the people inconvenienced I would guess that slightly more were convenienced than inconvenienced by the flip flop. You cannot go by the number of passengers transferring at 13th Avenue because before the change, you had your choice of transferring from the B1 to the B64 to get to 86th Street and 4th Avenue or staying on the B1 to 5th Avenue and change for the B63 there to 86th Street there. Although it was more indirect, it would have been quicker if you just missed a 64 and had to wait 20 minutes for another one.

 

If your destination was 95th Street or further south, changing for the 63 would have definitely be a better choice than making two changes, one for the B64 and then later for the B63. A straight 86th Street route avoids such indirect trips and makes the trip a direct two bus trip with only one change at 86th and 5th Avenue. That's why the through route was a good idea. However as Checkmate stated, it should have been accomplished in other ways, not by flipping the routes which was the simplest solution and primarily just a cost saving technique since B64 service is less frequent than B1 service so service on Bay Ridge Avenue was reduced.

[BrooklynBus]

As for the "big hole" that I mentioned in my last post, I do agree that there is something missing from that area, but I don't know where it would go.

 

 

I would continue it along 65th Street until around 13th Avenue and hook it up with the B64 along Bay Ridge Avenue so 13th Avenue, and Ft Hamilton Parkway can have their own separate bus routes. Bath Avenue can be separate routed on Cropsey to 95th Street or extended part time to Staten Island. Since there is a local route on 60th Street, the extended B2 could stop operate like a Limited and stop every other avenue block along 65th Street to save time and costs.

[Threxx]

I wouldn't go as far as to say the swap was completely unnecessary, but what I will say is having moved the B64 from 86th/4th was completely unnecessary.... The B1 going to 86th/4th I don't have a problem with.... Of course the MTA aint goin create no new routes, but what really needs to happen is the creation of a 13th/14th av route.... this way there wouldn't be this toss up of whether to have the B1 or the B64 head to xaverian......

 

Ultimately what I'm sayin is, the B1 & the B64 should head to 86th/4th....

(The MTA) piecing together service on 13th/14th av's (current B16 & B64) is part of what's wrong w/ the bus network in SW Brooklyn... it's "broken" along 13th/14th & up there in the mid-to-upper 60's (street)......

 

 

This is what me & you have been discussing this whole time! But as we all know, the is smoking something that makes the cries of residents fall on deaf ears. S.W. Brooklyn routes are screwed because only a couple meet the rider's needs. The (B64)'s current routing does nothing good for Bath Beach residents. IT HAS TO GO BACK TO 86TH & 4TH. Because of this need, the creation of a 13 Avenue route and a Bay Ridge Avenue route is imperative. An Avenue P route is also needed, but is not on the critical list. Point is, the is on acid and can't realize that they are screwing S.W. Brooklyn residents. What we as straphangers must do is show the that if they don't shape up that we have other options at our disposal. THEN they might listen.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Checkmate is correct. The flip flop and the truncation are two separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they occurred simultaneously.

 

A through 86th Street route (and all straight routes) are less confusing and makes it easier to plan trips and necessitates less indirect trips.

 

As for the people inconvenienced I would guess that slightly more were convenienced than inconvenienced by the flip flop. You cannot go by the number of passengers transferring at 13th Avenue because before the change, you had your choice of transferring from the B1 to the B64 to get to 86th Street and 4th Avenue or staying on the B1 to 5th Avenue and change for the B63 there to 86th Street there. Although it was more indirect, it would have been quicker if you just missed a 64 and had to wait 20 minutes for another one.

 

If your destination was 95th Street or further south, changing for the 63 would have definitely be a better choice than making two changes, one for the B64 and then later for the B63. A straight 86th Street route avoids such indirect trips and makes the trip a direct two bus trip with only one change at 86th and 5th Avenue. That's why the through route was a good idea. However as Checkmate stated, it should have been accomplished in other ways, not by flipping the routes which was the simplest solution and primarily just a cost saving technique since B64 service is less frequent than B1 service so service on Bay Ridge Avenue was reduced.

 

Well on that point yes, that's right they're two separate issues which I wasn't disputing. The issue is what do you do with the B64, and the way I see the route is a dead duck on arrival. Tell me what can be done with it now with this ridiculous re-route and truncation of it?? :confused:

 

 

I still say the B82 (B5/50 merge) should have never been created in the first place.... I thought I was the only one that felt the MTA tried/is trying to force riders onto the 82.... same shit they pulled w/ the B69 with the increasing of service along it, and the lessening of service along the B67..... They know they f***in up w/ these moves..... It's like when a female tries to loud talk you when she knows she's wrong (as irritating as it is, that's when you know you got em)....

 

I remember when the B5 and B50 were around and when the B82 came about. I just think folks never took on to the B82. Of course folks use it but for some reason I've just never been fond of it. I don't service to be better quite frankly, and there is never a bus around when needed.

[B35 via Church]

I remember when the B5 and B50 were around and when the B82 came about. I just think folks never took on to the B82. Of course folks use it but for some reason I've just never been fond of it. I don't (find?) service to be better quite frankly, and there is never a bus around when needed.

Agreed.

 

I've never been fond of it, due to the fact that bus service got worse on the "eastern half" of the route (referring & comparing it to the B50 portion).... I remember B50's would arrive like wildfire.... service on the B82, I have to say, is very erratic - doesn't matter which end you're traveling towards either....

 

But what I will say is.... the folks that benefitted from the merge, were those that took the old B5 west of kings hwy on the brighton.... and that (portion) is exactly where you see the increase in bus usage too..... The B5 basically underwent the same problem as the current B4 (dwindling usage due to subpar service levels)....

 

The MTA's solution for the B5 was to merge it w/ the B50.... The MTA's (half-assed) solution for the B4 was to truncate it to CIH - with the same crummy service levels to boot......

 

 

As for the B82/B64 debate, I personally love the B82 route as a service that is a full-time limited short of being an alternate route to a non-existent subway line. Even though I think that the idea named the Triboro RX would be a great replacement, I can be content with the B82 as is. I like the B82 in Coney Island, and that's where it should stay until a crosstown subway is created in that area.

I kid you not, I didn't even see this post until after I replied to Via's, above....

 

You just reinforced my point (above), regarding the western half of the B82....

What's funny is, it is used as an alternative to the B68 by those little old ladies that board at Mermaid Loop....

Edited March 21, 2012 by B35 via Church
add on....

[checkmatechamp13]

As for the people inconvenienced I would guess that slightly more were convenienced than inconvenienced by the flip flop. You cannot go by the number of passengers transferring at 13th Avenue because before the change, you had your choice of transferring from the B1 to the B64 to get to 86th Street and 4th Avenue or staying on the B1 to 5th Avenue and change for the B63 there to 86th Street there. Although it was more indirect, it would have been quicker if you just missed a 64 and had to wait 20 minutes for another one.

 

If your destination was 95th Street or further south, changing for the 63 would have definitely be a better choice than making two changes, one for the B64 and then later for the B63. A straight 86th Street route avoids such indirect trips and makes the trip a direct two bus trip with only one change at 86th and 5th Avenue. That's why the through route was a good idea. However as Checkmate stated, it should have been accomplished in other ways, not by flipping the routes which was the simplest solution and primarily just a cost saving technique since B64 service is less frequent than B1 service so service on Bay Ridge Avenue was reduced.

 

The thing is that I don't think the B63 is much more frequent than the B64. I'm looking at the schedule and it says the headways are every 10-12 minutes for most of the day (and at times it goes up to 15 minutes). Plus, since it's towards the end of the route, you have bunching going on as well. So the time savings by going up to 5th Avenue/Bay Ridge Avenue and then back down wouldn't be much (if your destination was around 5th Avenue/86th Street)

 

But yeah, I agree with the idea that a direct system is generally better, assuming the street grid supports it, which is the case here.

 

I would continue it along 65th Street until around 13th Avenue and hook it up with the B64 along Bay Ridge Avenue so 13th Avenue, and Ft Hamilton Parkway can have their own separate bus routes. Bath Avenue can be separate routed on Cropsey to 95th Street or extended part time to Staten Island. Since there is a local route on 60th Street, the extended B2 could stop operate like a Limited and stop every other avenue block along 65th Street to save time and costs.

 

I thought you'd combine the B64 with the B70 (or send it to 86th & 4th), so the B2 would be the only route on Bay Ridge Avenue.

 

Well on that point yes, that's right they're two separate issues which I wasn't disputing. The issue is what do you do with the B64, and the way I see the route is a dead duck on arrival. Tell me what can be done with it now with this ridiculous re-route and truncation of it?? :confused:

 

 

Well as of now, yes they messed it up, but that's what we're discussing: A way to bring back ridership to the B64 while keeping the B1 as a through-86th Street route. And that's why we proposed what we did: Reroute the B64 to 86th & 4th via Cropsey Avenue and give 13th Avenue and Bay Ridge Avenue their own seperate bus routes.

 

Or the very least the MTA could do is send the B64 back to Coney Island for starters.

[Shortline Bus]

Agreed.

 

I've never been fond of it, due to the fact that bus service got worse on the "eastern half" of the route (referring & comparing it to the B50 portion).... I remember B50's would arrive like wildfire.... service on the B82, I have to say, is very erratic - doesn't matter which end you're traveling towards either....

 

But what I will say is.... the folks that benefitted from the merge, were those that took the old B5 west of kings hwy on the brighton.... and that (portion) is exactly where you see the increase in bus usage too..... The B5 basically underwent the same problem as the current B4 (dwindling usage due to subpar service levels)....

 

The MTA's solution for the B5 was to merge it w/ the B50.... The MTA's (half-assed) solution for the B4 was to truncate it to CIH - with the same crummy service levels to boot......

 

 

 

I kid you not, I didn't even see this post until after I replied to Via's, above....

 

You just reinforced my point (above), regarding the western half of the B82....

What's funny is, it is used as an alternative to the B68 by those little old ladies that board at Mermaid Loop....

 

 

Bro(B35) the current (B82) despite it's flaws works. Again the only change i would do is.

 

1)(B82)between Canarise-Rockaway Pwy and Stillwell Terminal.

2)"B81" between Elderts Lane via Starret City(Spring Creek Towers)and East 16th/Kings Highway ( station.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Bro(B35) the current (B82) despite it's flaws works. Again the only change i would do is.

 

1)(B82)between Canarise-Rockaway Pwy and Stillwell Terminal.

2)"B81" between Elderts Lane via Starret City(Spring Creek Towers)and East 16th/Kings Highway ( station.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. The B82 is so NOT reliable that it's pathetic.

[B35 via Church]

Tell me what can be done with it now with this ridiculous re-route and truncation of it??

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question too....

 

The thing is that I don't think the B63 is much more frequent than the B64

 

I thought you'd combine the B64 with the B70 (or send it to 86th & 4th), so the B2 would be the only route on Bay Ridge Avenue.

1) It isn't..... Which is why you often have a boatload of ppl. waiting for the NB 63 on 86th/5th.... hate waiting at that corner for the bus...

 

over/under, 1 baby stroller you'll have to contend with....

 

2) I'm not going to use those old ideas on his site as a reference point as to how he would change service around anymore....

 

 

Bro [b35] the current B82 despite it's flaws works. Again the only change i would do is.

 

1) B82 between Canarise-Rockaway Pwy and Stillwell Terminal.

2)"B81" between Elderts Lane via Starret City(Spring Creek Towers)and East 16th/Kings Highway ( station.

 

If it works, then why propose these changes.....

[kingal11234]

I was thinking, would a B36 LTD work, stoping at Nostrand/U, Nostrand/Z, Z/Ocean Ave, bypass the station, next stop CI AVE, then the hospital, West 5th/Neptune, Surf/Stilwell and it's last stop, also West 33rd/Mermaid Ave U bound, just an idea, open to criticism.

Also other ideas about SW Brooklyn bus routes as a whole.[/quote

 

The B36 does not need alimited because it's to short of a ride, but I have an idea. How about extending the B36 to Ave H? That would really help out service on the B44.

[kingal11234]

Bro one question? What serves Cropsey between 25th Ave and Stillwell? The renamed (B64) which becomes the "B5" under your plan?

I still agree with cutting the "B82" as i still felt one route should run between Canarise-Rockaway pwy. and Stillwell/Caser's Bay (B6) terminal. While the restored (B50) runs between Coney Island/Kings Highway and Gateway Mall/Spring Creek. Reactions and please clarify (B35)?

 

Why would you cut the B82 it serves just fine. I mean its not the fastest service but it rarely overcrowded. In fact I think they should have more B82 not less

[B35 via Church]

The B36 does not need a limited because it's to short of a ride, but I have an idea.

 

How about extending the B36 to Ave H? That would really help out service on the B44.

 

But it would hinder service on the B36.

 

I don't think the 36 needs to be extended past it's current eastbound terminal.....

Not to the junction, nor to kings plaza either (as some others have suggested)....

[kingal11234]

There hasn't been a reasonable alternative since the B4 (B4) bus route had been reduced east of Avenue Z and Ocean Parkway. I'm for the (B4) going back to the old ways, via Neptune Avenue.

 

As for the B36 (B36), I'd like to see that extended to Kings Plaza to take the load off that B3 (B3) bus route for those going between there and Brighton Beach/Coney Island for instance, that way those riders have a direct ride to the shopping mall from there.

 

How about running the B74 pass the Coney Island to Sheephead Bay along Neptune/Emmons ave to Knapps st. That would actually make the bus a useful bus service.

[kingal11234]

But it would hinder service on the B36.

 

I don't think the 36 needs to be extended past it's current eastbound terminal.....

Not to the junction, nor to kings plaza either (as some others have suggested)....

 

 

It would not hinder service on the B36 if the following options were proposed:

1.Extend the B74 to Ave h as well

2. Reroute the B44 to sheepshead bay train station via Voohies ave.

[B35 via Church]

How about extending the B36 to Ave H? That would really help out service on the B44.

 

It would not hinder service on the B36 if the following options were proposed:

1.Extend the B74 to Ave h as well

2. Reroute the B44 to sheepshead bay train station via Voohies ave.

Do you know what the word hinder means.... Extending the B36 all the way to the junction would make the route more slow & delayed than what it currently is.... Why would you want to make one of the main problems on the 36 worse....

 

You're not being realistic here with all this, buddy..... If you have the B44 serve sheepshead bay subway, then that ultimately defeats the purpose of extending the B36 & the B74 (lol) to the junction..... Such a plan would leave those patrons down by Emmons with nothing but a part time B4, and the express bus....