Public Hearing For New Brooklyn Navy Yard & Kent Avenue routes

[qjtransitmaster]

lol @ backroad shit....

 

As far as the rest of the reply, exactly... It's like they're tryna do anything possible to try to deter riders from taking the 67...

 

PDF From the MTA site....

The new service would operate every 30 minutes between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.

 

That's not by accident.

 

Aight, gotcha...

 

It's bad enough the B25 travels on brick roads up in DUMBO.... don't need any buses doing that in Bklyn. Hgts. also....

Regardless of that, a lot of those streets in Brooklyn Hgts. barely have room for cars to drive along em, much less a bus.....

 

True....

 

In all honesty though, I don't know why they even want to connect downtown to DUMBO and the Navy Yard with one route in the first place (that's yet another reason I think this 67 reason is stupid, for lack of a better word).... It all sounds like something some private operator should delve in, over a public transportation provider......

5 am to 7 PM is due to navy yard's gate hours huh? I see.

[B35 via Church]

5 am to 7 PM is due to navy yard's gate hours huh? I see.

Yup.

 

....It seems that the MTA is just going through the motion of creating routes that are "guaranteed to fail" in the long run.  Long headways, routes that do not make connections with other major traffic generators are not the way to generate the ridership for the route to be sustainable in terms of viability. What is the MTA afraid of here? The route will become quite popular and more service will be required? I thought that was the purpose in creating the route in the first place.

Y'know, I'm glad that more people are starting to see this.....

For too long a time now (before I became active on these forums), I thought it was just me....

 

Wait, where exactly is this B32 gonna terminate at?

There's no room in the plaza unless it shares a lane with another route (only ones with low enough service is the B24 and B39).

It's not running up to the plaza.... it's supposed to stop over there @ Division....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

It's not running up to the plaza.... it's supposed to stop over there @ Division....

 

The B32 is suppose to terminate at Willy B Plaza. You're talking about the B67 extention I think. 

 

Wait, where exactly is this B32 gonna terminate at? There's no room in the plaza unless it shares a lane with another route (only ones with low enough service is the B24 and B39).

I think the MTA is gonna either move the B24 out of Lane 1 (to the B62/Q59 stop) or stop the B32 at the B62/ Q59 stop

 

I'm don't feel like checking, but I'm pretty sure the route would terminate at Kent & Division, not Kent & Broadway.

Yeah, but the 67 should at least be extended to Willy-B.

[B35 via Church]

The B32 is suppose to terminate at Willy B Plaza. You're talking about the B67 extention I think.

Thanks...  yeah, since this thread is about the 67 extension, I got too caught up....

Still gotta get used to the "B32" being the LIC-Williamsburg route.....

 

I think the MTA is gonna either move the B24 out of Lane 1 (to the B62/Q59 stop) or stop the B32 at the B62/ Q59 stop

What I'm thinking is one of 3 things actually:

 

- The B32 would end over on South 8th/Roebling (on the corner, on south 8th)

- The B32 would stop at that B62/Q59 stop

- The B32 would share lane 1 with the B24

 

I can't see them kicking the B24 being out of lane 1 to stop at that B62/Q59 stop for this new B32....

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah, but the 67 should at least be extended to Willy-B.

 

Preaching to the choir. I never said I agreed with the terminal. I'm just saying that it will terminate there.

[Rick44]

What I'm thinking when I read this is, firstly B35 via Church is right, they're making routes that will fail. Might be an ego thing, idk.

Second thing is the B67 extension should serve WBP, and not make as many turns as shown in that map. The third thing is, if done the way I just mentioned, this and the B32 should get combined into one and run from LIC to McDonald/Church Avs in the long run, if service warrants it.

[BrooklynIRT]

what MTA is doing here is a total mindf*ck. 30 minute headways and very weird extensions. the B67 extension goes to the middle of nowhere. they really should have done something about Flatbush and Crown Heights by making changes there to complement the placement of the B44 SBS on Rogers Ave instead of this garbage with the B32 and B67. what MTA is doing here makes me wants to bang my forehead against a wall.

[checkmatechamp13]

The third thing is, if done the way I just mentioned, this and the B32 should get combined into one and run from LIC to McDonald/Church Avs in the long run, if service warrants it.

 

It's bad enough they have the B67 to Williamsburg. No way in hell should it be extended to LIC.

 

what MTA is doing here is a total mindf*ck. 30 minute headways and very weird extensions. the B67 extension goes to the middle of nowhere. they really should have done something about Flatbush and Crown Heights by making changes there to complement the placement of the B44 SBS on Rogers Ave instead of this garbage with the B32 and B67. what MTA is doing here makes me wants to bang my forehead against a wall.

 

Funny thing is, I think somebody came up with some sort of "B32" to supplement the B44 on NY Avenue. (There was a B32 & B40 that they made).

[BrooklynIRT]

that was me as '89 Liberty MCI. another plausible route would be something BrooklynBus suggested: "I think if a new route were provided along New York Avenue at 12 or 15 minute headways from Fulton Street to Clarendon Road, then along Albany Avenue to Avenue J to terminate at the Junction (using Nostrand where NY Av is one-way), then all B44s could use Nostrand and Rogers and all B49s coud use Ocean Av all the way to Empire. That woud provide a simpler and less confusing service pattern and needed service on Albany Avenue while helping Kings County Hospital without providing the unnecessary glut of service on Rogers Avenue."

 

although others have previously told me it would not be a good idea to leave Bedford Ave with no service, so there has to be a way to fix that. maybe a B48 extension running southbound on Bedford and northbound on either Bedford or Ocean. or extend the B48 via Ocean in both directions to about Foster (not "H" where BC is since the B41 and B103 have that covered) and move the northbound B49 to Bedford while leaving the southbound B49 alone. this would all be in addition to what BrooklynBus said. the only thing I might change is run the proposed route via "H" instead of "J".

 

it may seem like too much to have northbound service on both Rogers with the B44 SBS and local (under the plan above) and Bedford with the B49 but for one thing this also happens in Crown Heights with the southbound B48 on Franklin and the southbound B49 on Bedford and also the B44, unlike the B49, serves the Junction and travels further north than the B49 and whatnot. and I would love to see less northbound traffic on Nostrand north of Flatbush, especially no MTA buses (dollar cabs always in the way in front of 2135 Nostrand)

[Q43LTD]

To me the last good route the made was the S89.

[checkmatechamp13]

To me the last good route the made was the S89.

 

What about the Q52? I'd say that turned out pretty well.

[Q43LTD]

 

What about the Q52? I'd say that turned out pretty well.

Oh yeah that too

[Rick44]

@Checkmate: I did say if service warrants it.

 

I'm not 100% sure as to the reason this B32 is being made. It's of close proximity and resemblance to the B62.

I also don't think the B67 extension is gonna fly, due to it's minor resemblance to the B62.

I'm gonna ask rhetorically, is the B32/B67 thing part of a bigger idea to get rid of the B62? Or is this really set up to fail as is? I mean, the B62 does cover a nice-sized portion of the route changes in question.

[B35 via Church]

I'm not 100% sure as to the reason this B32 is being made. It's of close proximity and resemblance to the B62.

I also don't think the B67 extension is gonna fly, due to it's minor resemblance to the B62.

 

I'm gonna ask rhetorically, is the B32/B67 thing part of a bigger idea to get rid of the B62? Or is this really set up to fail as is? I mean, the B62 does cover a nice-sized portion of the route changes in question.

I don't think the B62 route is going anywhere... They broke up the old B61 (red hook-queens plaza) to form today's B62...

I'm sure you remember the whole ordeal/complaining/concerns from riders regarding that route (old B61)......

 

Not saying I think this'll happen anytime soon, but what I'm thinking is they're gonna find a way somehow to get rid of the B67 (especially with how service came to pass along 7th av when the B69 got a service increase when it got moved off 8th/PPW & eventually, weekend service back... this came as a result of a decrease in service of the B67), extend the B32 downtown, and fuse that into the B62 service... What I mean by "fuse" is, the B32 & the B62 will be (posted) under the same scheduling/timetable; kinda like the Bx1/Bx2 is..... In plain ole english, the 32 would end up being a 62 variant that goes inside the navy yard & serves the part of Williamsburg over there by the waterfront that's being developed....

 

The result of this will end up in a cost savings because they won't have to run as much B62 service as they do now....

Cutting the B67 & forcing riders to take the B41 or the from off 69's over around flatbush av for service downtown will also end up saving $$$$$....

[Q43LTD]

Talk about the B67's fall from grace

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Especially since the 67 has alternatives now on every part f the route, it might be given the axe in the future.

[aemoreira81]

I would actually propose running the B32 and B67 extension as one route (terminating at 130 Livingston) and bringing the B62 in a little bit more inland...running it via Lee and Bedford through southern Williamsburg instead of via Wythe Avenue (where the B44 runs, using the opposite side of the Bedford Gardens Houses). South of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the B62 (when the B32 is running) would no longer serve the Farragut Houses east of the Manhattan Bridge (instead running straight down Park Avenue onto Tillary Street); the B32 would serve that instead. The B62 and B32 would have 3 overlap points: across the Pulaski Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge Plaza, and Downtown Brooklyn only.

 

 

One block of Clymer Street would need to be made two-way for this to work.

[BrooklynBus]

that was me as '89 Liberty MCI. another plausible route would be something BrooklynBus suggested: "I think if a new route were provided along New York Avenue at 12 or 15 minute headways from Fulton Street to Clarendon Road, then along Albany Avenue to Avenue J to terminate at the Junction (using Nostrand where NY Av is one-way), then all B44s could use Nostrand and Rogers and all B49s coud use Ocean Av all the way to Empire. That woud provide a simpler and less confusing service pattern and needed service on Albany Avenue while helping Kings County Hospital without providing the unnecessary glut of service on Rogers Avenue."

 

although others have previously told me it would not be a good idea to leave Bedford Ave with no service, so there has to be a way to fix that. maybe a B48 extension running southbound on Bedford and northbound on either Bedford or Ocean. or extend the B48 via Ocean in both directions to about Foster (not "H" where BC is since the B41 and B103 have that covered) and move the northbound B49 to Bedford while leaving the southbound B49 alone. this would all be in addition to what BrooklynBus said. the only thing I might change is run the proposed route via "H" instead of "J".

 

it may seem like too much to have northbound service on both Rogers with the B44 SBS and local (under the plan above) and Bedford with the B49 but for one thing this also happens in Crown Heights with the southbound B48 on Franklin and the southbound B49 on Bedford and also the B44, unlike the B49, serves the Junction and travels further north than the B49 and whatnot. and I would love to see less northbound traffic on Nostrand north of Flatbush, especially no MTA buses (dollar cabs always in the way in front of 2135 Nostrand)

 

Bedford Avenue doesn't need service.  Don't forget the only reason Bedford Avenue has service today is because Rogers Avenue was converted to one-way traffic as was Nostrand in the 1960s.  The TA never wanted or planned any Bedford Avenue service south of Fulton Street. It just happened. And the only reason why there was once two-way service on Nostrand and Rogers only one block apart is because separate private companies were competing for the same clientele  before they both were absorbed by the BQT or BMT way back when.

[Guest MTA Bus]

I really don't think the B67 needs to be extended from Downtown Brooklyn.

[Interested Rider]

I think that the suggestion of keeping the B/67 as is and combining the B/32 and the (proposed) Navy Yard extension of the B/67 into one route is a good one if it is extended to downtown Brooklyn as proposed on this thread. As I stated in a previous post, the potential revenue generators are there and it will be a hit.

 

Ironically, this proposal defeats one of the main objectives of the proposed route and the B/67 extension, namely that the purpose of the two separate routes is to make sure it will fail and therefore it will be discontinued as it had low ridership. In examining the various political entities that have been involved in this process, there is one group missing from this chain and that is "the general public". Even though there will be "hearings"  held on the proposal, these hearings are for cosmetic purposes only and to meet the mandatory requirements of informing the public in accordance with the law. The number of persons that attend these "meetings" are few as most people work during the day and do not have the time to waste at a meeting where the decision is a "fait accompli". Yet the general public are the most affected in terms of changes and the ones that  will be providing  the ridership but they are always kept in the dark about these changes.

 

I have seen this time and again in the many years that I have been involved in traveling either to and from work or for recreation and it is a given that "we the ridership are never consulted as to any changes" as we not good enough to be part of their "inner circle" that proposes these changes. After seeing many of these changes take place and the myriad of problems that follow as no one consulted the general public on the issue, you now know why the general public will be ignored and the new route and the extension of the B/67 are doomed to fail.

 

By the way is the B/67 extension to Williamsburgh designed to give the religious community another way to travel from Borough Park to Williamsburgh?  Look at the terminals of the route and consider the possibilities.

 

  

[BrooklynIRT]

Bedford Avenue doesn't need service.  Don't forget the only reason Bedford Avenue has service today is because Rogers Avenue was converted to one-way traffic as was Nostrand in the 1960s.  The TA never wanted or planned any Bedford Avenue service south of Fulton Street. It just happened. And the only reason why there was once two-way service on Nostrand and Rogers only one block apart is because separate private companies were competing for the same clientele  before they both were absorbed by the BQT or BMT way back when.

I hope you are right about Bedford not needing service as it would make it easier to make changes to the B44 local, B49, etc happen since MTA would not have to invest as much.

[Trainmaster5]

I hope you are right about Bedford not needing service as it would make it easier to make changes to the B44 local, B49, etc happen since MTA would not have to invest as much.

Just a quick addition to BrooklynBus' post. Before the change to one way traffic on Nostrand, Rogers, and Franklin Avenues the setup was as follows. South of Fulton Street in Bed-Stuy you had two way bus service (B48)on Franklin Avenue, no service on Bedford Avenue in either direction, two way service on Rogers(B49) and Nostrand (B44) Avenues. South of Empire Blvd the Flatbush Ave (B41) took the place of the B48, again with no service on Bedford. It wasn't needed with buses running on the surrounding streets in the same direction. I lived on Rutland Road between Bedford and Rogers when the change took place and I can assure you that there was no adult, especially Bedford Avenue residents in that area of Lefferts Garden, who was in favor of bus service on Bedford. There are a few forum members like myself who believe the will remove bus service from Bedford Avenue south of Fulton St by eliminating the B49 from it's northern section completely. The northern portion will either be sent up Ocean Ave to the Prospect Park vicinity or truncated to Flatbush Avenue. It may not happen immediately but that is how the thinks.Does anyone really believe the is going to run parallel bus service on 5 adjacent streets (Flatbush, Bedford, Rogers, Nostrand and New York) forever? Sorry for the diversion. Back to the topic at hand at the Navy Yard part of Brooklyn. Carry on.

[B35 via Church]

....There are a few forum members like myself who believe the will remove bus service from Bedford Avenue south of Fulton St by eliminating the B49 from it's northern section completely. The northern portion will either be sent up Ocean Ave to the Prospect Park vicinity or truncated to Flatbush Avenue. It may not happen immediately but that is how the thinks.Does anyone really believe the is going to run parallel bus service on 5 adjacent streets (Flatbush, Bedford, Rogers, Nostrand and New York) forever? Sorry for the diversion. Back to the topic at hand at the Navy Yard part of Brooklyn. Carry on.

mmm hmm...

 

I'm of the ilk that says the 49 would be cut back to either [flatbush av] or [Newkirk av on the Brighton line].....

I don't see them running 49's to prospect park subway b/c they'll counter with flatbush av service being too close to ocean...

In either case, with the 44 SBS upcoming, the northern part of the 49 will be vanquished....

 

 

I would actually propose running the B32 and B67 extension as one route (terminating at 130 Livingston) and bringing the B62 in a little bit more inland...running it via Lee and Bedford through southern Williamsburg instead of via Wythe Avenue (where the B44 runs, using the opposite side of the Bedford Gardens Houses).

 

South of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the B62 (when the B32 is running) would no longer serve the Farragut Houses east of the Manhattan Bridge (instead running straight down Park Avenue onto Tillary Street); the B32 would serve that instead.

 

The B62 and B32 would have 3 overlap points: across the Pulaski Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge Plaza, and Downtown Brooklyn only.

 

 

One block of Clymer Street would need to be made two-way for this to work.

Yeah, of course you would....

 

A map of what's being proposed by you

 

^^ I personally & sincerely hope the MTA would never f*ck up service like this (on BOTH fronts).... It's bad enough they're extending the B67 to (inside) the Navy yard as it is, and you think having B67's running to Queens via the proposed B32 is plausible? Really now.....

 

 

I think that the suggestion of keeping the B/67 as is and combining the B/32 and the (proposed) Navy Yard extension of the B/67 into one route is a good one if it is extended to downtown Brooklyn as proposed on this thread. As I stated in a previous post, the potential revenue generators are there and it will be a hit.

 

Ironically, this proposal defeats one of the main objectives of the proposed route and the B/67 extension, namely that the purpose of the two separate routes is to make sure it will fail and therefore it will be discontinued as it had low ridership. In examining the various political entities that have been involved in this process, there is one group missing from this chain and that is "the general public". Even though there will be "hearings"  held on the proposal, these hearings are for cosmetic purposes only and to meet the mandatory requirements of informing the public in accordance with the law. The number of persons that attend these "meetings" are few as most people work during the day and do not have the time to waste at a meeting where the decision is a "fait accompli". Yet the general public are the most affected in terms of changes and the ones that  will be providing  the ridership but they are always kept in the dark about these changes.

 

I have seen this time and again in the many years that I have been involved in traveling either to and from work or for recreation and it is a given that "we the ridership are never consulted as to any changes" as we not good enough to be part of their "inner circle" that proposes these changes. After seeing many of these changes take place and the myriad of problems that follow as no one consulted the general public on the issue, you now know why the general public will be ignored and the new route and the extension of the B/67 are doomed to fail.

 

By the way is the B/67 extension to Williamsburgh designed to give the religious community another way to travel from Borough Park to Williamsburgh? 

Look at the terminals of the route and consider the possibilities.

I think keeping the the B67 route as is, is good.... Its service however, I think should be reverted to what it was before 2010...

The B32... Forget an extension downtown, I don't think the route as proposed (LIC - Williamsburg) should even exist....

 

So as we're set to have it, the B67 extension & the proposed B32 will both be fails IMO.....

Being frugal, I can see the MTA in the future opting to combine/consider combining the B32 (assuming they'll go hell & high water to keep it around, after the fail it'll end up being w/ the proposed route by itself) with a route that would serve the Navy Yard & Downtown Bklyn. (i.e., this B67 extension) b/c you could justify/get away with running such a route on Q103 like headways throughout the day..... Incorporate what would result from such a combination into the B62 & they could even slash more funds.... It's all about a dollar, what are we as riders to do when that's the thought process.....

 

As far as what you're mentioning in that last paragraph with the B67.... Possible, but I highly doubt it....

If that's the case, they would've been sent the B69 to Williamsburg because that route came w/ a service increase..... They're not gonna try to appease those religious folks you speak of, with a route that had its service lessened/bastardized (67) - think about it..... This 67 extension is all about service inside the Navy Yard.....

[Q43LTD]

The is so misleading at times.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah, of course you would....

 

A map of what's being proposed by you

 

^^ I personally & sincerely hope the MTA would never f*ck up service like this (on BOTH fronts).... It's bad enough they're extending the B67 to (inside) the Navy yard as it is, and you think having B67's running to Queens via the proposed B32 is plausible? Really now.....

 

Nah, he said it would terminate by 130 Livingston, so he'd have an LIC-Downtown Brooklyn route (as a supplement to the B62), and then the B67 remaining as is. (He should've used a different term than B67 extension, but he's just talking about combining the "extension" part with the B32, not the full B67 route)