B82 +select bus service+

[RailRunRob]

Backtrack? Like because it meets up with the route at Van Siclen? Technically no, because the reroute would be non-stop. And the terminal would be in the same place.

The Q8 doesn't terminate at the southeastern end of the mall. It terminates where the B13 and the B83 terminate. The B84 is the only route that terminates at the southeastern end.

Gotcha. I shop there and Queens Center I always drive to Gateway the terminal is on the northern end wouldn't that be kind of a walk to some of the stores? like Best Buy or some the of eateries? All routes besides the B83 come via Fountain Ave and cover most of the mall grounds correct? Would this reroute have the same coverage as well?

[Rick44]

Nope. The reroute would eliminate Erskine St/Gateway Drive stop, thereby eliminating that coverage.

[B35 via Church]

The demand for the B82 to L train connection is a rush hour demand mostly, that's in abundance. Usually the working class and schoolkids utilize that connection. Midday, yeah not so much. Don't know when you come down here, but I live down here. See it all the time now.

 

People are always getting on the B83 for two reasons: the train, an all day and all night (LATE NIGHT SERVICE ON THE B83 TO SCT IS NEEDED!) connection; and  during midday - that's just where people are going - at stops along the B83, including Gateway Mall.

 

There's not enough B83's. Ever since Gateway Mall opened, service has been awful - buses bunch up, lateness, overcrowding, etc. The bunch ups partially have to do with the Belt Parkway. This shouldn't have to be said - but buses shouldn't be on the Belt Parkway! This is a huge source of issues with that route - and the backroad idea of having a B82 SBS run up that way, could and should easily be adapted to the B83, with no extra stops - just straight through the back road. I had brought this to the attention of the people I was speaking with months back who were surveying people about this B82 SBS. They said that was something they were studying as well, that the backroads actually may save them time and fuel costs (albeit slightly on the fuel costs, but the savings are there, especially during the summer).

 

I wouldn't split that B82 as is simply because, if you aren't splitting the B6, you don't split either. They are similar animals, and people do ride end-to-end on both routes during the midday and evening hours, when the limited isn't there (B82 late nights I mean, I don't think people use the B6 end-to-end on a late night)

 

If you have a B82 SBS, then I'd consider splits. One split I'd immediately approve of is Canarsie Station to Spring Creek. Another split is Flatbush/Flatlands Avs to Canarsie Station. Another is Caesars Bay to Coney Island Av (extended late nights to Flatbush/Flatlands Avs). And last but not least, your B5 idea. Why this many splits? Because this is the real demand points for local service, if there's an SBS to cover everything else - that runs 24/7.

Of course, the B82 SBS will not run 24/7. That just won't happen. They'll deem that unnecessary, since a current B82 local is efficient enough to cover that service. And it is, but if you do splits, you'd confuse people late nights with a B82 local, since it wouldn't exist during the day.

I don't proclaim to frequent Starrett much, but when I am down there, it's always the same ordeal.... Ridiculously long waits for the B82 (sometimes it gets to the point where I say f**k it, and end up walking to the Breukelen houses for the B103) & a sea of NB B83's passing by (usually about 3 or 4 before the B82 I need finally shows up).... In any case, what is it that you're saying that happens all the time now exactly?

 

I don't disagree with your point about using the back roads to get to Starrett, but at the same time, how are you going to serve your neck of the woods (Starrett) with buses going via Van Siclen/Flatlands/Vandalia/Gateway Dr.) to Gateway Mall ?

 

For starters, the B83 needs to run more uniformly... It's been a problem with the route before the extension to the mall, and ever since it got extended, yeah - it has gotten worse... I (still) commonly see bunched B83's (SB) when I'm waiting for the B12 over at Alabama (the B20, not so much, but that's besides the point).... I agree that Penn. needs some sort of late night service; there's none provided for the 20 nor the 83.... I've been on more than my fair share of those 2-3am JFK bound B15's over the years, and I can tell you that there's a shitload of walking (up/down Penn) that shouldn't be....

 

The B6 has its own set of issues separate from the B82; splitting the B6 isn't by any means some sort of prerequisite to splitting the B82.... Splitting the B6 at the Junction is far less feasible than splitting the B82 at CI av (respective high turnover points of each route).... As for your consideration, forget the fact that you have as many splits - I don't understand your rationale of not splitting the current B82, but have it have SBS, you'd consider splitting the route into the ridership patterns of the route that you've listed....

 

The hardest part for the B6 is the SBS lanes and stop placement. Ave J is murder on the B6 due to the double parking.The B82 will suffer the same fate on Kings Highway past Av P, Rockaway PKWY Station, Flatlands Between Ralph & Remsen. Having the SBS going to gateway could work but then again that is to much service to gateway.

Over-saturation - It's become a problem with bus service in Spring Creek in general.....

 

And to think, it took the MTA the owners of Gateway until the early 2000's to finally "allow" bus service (back then, it was solely B13 territory) directly at the mall.... I would seldom go to Gateway because of those 2 reasons (the B13 being a bitch to get to from E. Flatbush & the fact you had to do that walk from Fountain/Vandalia to get to mall property on top of it....)

 

No need for the B82 to be at gateway. B/C If that's the case. Have the B82 and B6 both stop at Gateway [PART TIME] perhaps.

I've never been fond of running the B82 to Gateway & I absolutely abhor running the B6 to Gateway.... I wouldn't do either, part or full time, to be honest....

 

Never really knew that the B83 is plagued with delays coming off the belt.

Yup.... it's made the bunching the problem already had, worse....

 

Rick. That's too much of a loop around....

This.

[Rick44]

I don't proclaim to frequent Starrett much, but when I am down there, it's always the same ordeal.... Ridiculously long waits for the B82 (sometimes it gets to the point where I say f**k it, and end up walking to the Breukelen houses for the B103) & a sea of NB B83's passing by (usually about 3 or 4 before the B82 I need finally shows up).... In any case, what is it that you're saying that happens all the time now exactly?

 

What times do you come down here? That sounds like a rush hour thing. What I meant was that B83's are far and few in between during the middays and the B82 is running a lot during that time. There should be more B83's during the midday. It would help slightly with the overcrowding, but the reroute would help more.

 

I don't disagree with your point about using the back roads to get to Starrett, but at the same time, how are you going to serve your neck of the woods (Starrett) with buses going via Van Siclen/Flatlands/Vandalia/Gateway Dr.) to Gateway Mall ?

 

Answered and responded to already, which I'll get to on the bottom.

 

For starters, the B83 needs to run more uniformly... It's been a problem with the route before the extension to the mall, and ever since it got extended, yeah - it has gotten worse... I (still) commonly see bunched B83's (SB) when I'm waiting for the B12 over at Alabama (the B20, not so much, but that's besides the point).... I agree that Penn. needs some sort of late night service; there's none provided for the 20 nor the 83.... I've been on more than my fair share of those 2-3am JFK bound B15's over the years, and I can tell you that there's a shitload of walking (up/down Penn) that shouldn't be....

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

The B6 has its own set of issues separate from the B82; splitting the B6 isn't by any means some sort of prerequisite to splitting the B82.... Splitting the B6 at the Junction is far less feasible than splitting the B82 at CI av (respective high turnover points of each route).... As for your consideration, forget the fact that you have as many splits - I don't understand your rationale of not splitting the current B82, but have it have SBS, you'd consider splitting the route into the ridership patterns of the route that you've listed....

 

Splitting the B82 is a pre-requisite of splitting the B6.

 

The reason I'd split it with a SBS instead of current patterns is because the Limited doesn't run late nights, and people still ride from end to end late nights. If one was to extend Limited service late nights, then I'd consider this pattern. There's always gotta be buses running from end to end. 

 

Over-saturation - It's become a problem with bus service in Spring Creek in general.....

And to think, it took the MTA the owners of Gateway until the early 2000's to finally "allow" bus service (back then, it was solely B13 territory) directly at the mall.... I would seldom go to Gateway because of those 2 reasons (the B13 being a bitch to get to from E. Flatbush & the fact you had to do that walk from Fountain/Vandalia to get to mall property on top of it....)

I've never been fond of running the B82 to Gateway & I absolutely abhor running the B6 to Gateway.... I wouldn't do either, part or full time, to be honest....

 

About the B82 extension, I agree. The B83 just needs to be fixed.

The bunching issues, plus the Belt Parkway is a huge issue with the route. Hence why I suggested that loop-around. It's faster than anything you'd deal with on a bad day on the Belt Parkway, and even on a good day, this is still just as fast. It's weird on paper, but in action, it would work out very well. Saving fuel, time, and minimizing bunching issues.

 

Now... there is one other option they can take... can't believe I'm saying this - but...

 

Bus lanes on the Belt Parkway. This might sound crazy, but it may just work. Have the buses allocate one lane (barricaded) on the Belt Parkway for one exit. This actually can be done, it just eliminates one lane from the Pennsylvania entrance and one from both exits. This idea in a perfect world would be... perfect. Don't think it's a positive idea for New York City though.

Took me a while, but I planned to respond to this.

 

All responses in green.

[East New York]

I thought that the B/6 already has a split with service beginning and ending at Coney Island Avenue and Avenue J during the weekday afternoon period. While the Avenue J problem is much smaller than the Kings Highway portion of the B./82, the B/6 most likely has problems at the junction and further east. My problem with SBS remains the Federal money which entices the MTA to take it as it does not have to pay it back when I feel that adding more dispatchers on many of these routes would improve service more that SBS. The problem is the budget boys and their allies, the number crunchers and the paper pushers would have such agita at the thought of it that they would demand another fare increase to pay for it.  

 

They arent splits. They are just rush hour, and swing short turns. They are at Coney/Av J and Flatbush/Nostrand/Glenwood.

 

If the B6 were to be split, I would send the southern split down to Coney island, replacing the B82 along Cropsey....

 

Regardless of a B6 split or not (which I personally wouldn't do, since that creates the problem of having more buses ending around the junction), the B82 should've never been created.... I firmly believe that since they didn't know what to do w/ the old B5 (short of discontinuing the thing), they combined it w/ the B50 in an attempt to save face....

 

 

I wouldn't split the B6 and send it anywhere other than where it goes now. I live off Avenue H, so this is another of my regular lines. There are already a ton of buses that end or start between at Coney Island Av, and Glenwood.

 

Of-board payment however is badly needed.

[Rick44]

Off-Board Payment on the B6 is the best thing that would help speed that route up. Like that's one route they shouldn't SBS, just add the machines lol.

[B35 via Church]

1] What times do you come down here? That sounds like a rush hour thing. What I meant was that B83's are far and few in between during the middays and the B82 is running a lot during that time. There should be more B83's during the midday. It would help slightly with the overcrowding, but the reroute would help more.

 

2] Splitting the B82 is a pre-requisite of splitting the B6....

1] Random instances whenever I take the BM5 heading back to Brooklyn.... During the PM rush.

 

2] Neither is a prerequisite of the other, and I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that you've come to with what you state here....

 

I wouldn't split the B6 and send it anywhere other than where it goes now. I live off Avenue H, so this is another of my regular lines. There are already a ton of buses that end or start between at Coney Island Av, and Glenwood.

 

Of-board payment however is badly needed.

I'm not advocating splitting the B6....

[Rick44]

 

1] Random instances whenever I take the BM5 heading back to Brooklyn.... During the PM rush.

 

2] Neither is a prerequisite of the other, and I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that you've come to with what you state here....

 

Ahh, that makes perfect sense - the B82 during PM rush is scarce on the Spring Creek side. Of course that's because most buses that were supposed to go all the way to SCT are short-turned at Rockaway Parkway by dispatchers because they came in bunched up. That frustrates me on both sides of the situation (the passenger on the bus that has to get off at Rockaway Parkway and wait for another B82 to the towers that gets CRUSHLOADED, and the passenger on the SCT side waiting for a B82)

 

As for the split thing, I say that from a MTA (illogical) point of view, not a logical one.

Splitting the B82 works -> sees "similar" problems on the B6 -> split that too!

[B35 via Church]

Ahh, that makes perfect sense - the B82 during PM rush is scarce on the Spring Creek side. Of course that's because most buses that were supposed to go all the way to SCT are short-turned at Rockaway Parkway by dispatchers because they came in bunched up. That frustrates me on both sides of the situation (the passenger on the bus that has to get off at Rockaway Parkway and wait for another B82 to the towers that gets CRUSHLOADED, and the passenger on the SCT side waiting for a B82)

 

As for the split thing, I say that from a MTA (illogical) point of view, not a logical one.

Splitting the B82 works -> sees "similar" problems on the B6 -> split that too!

That explains it then (the increased short turning of buses @ the )..... The epic waits for a B82 around 6-7pm heading back towards Utica from Starrett, like I said, it pisses me off to the point where I start walking to the B103.... Hence, FWIW, is why I don't do that BM5 > B82 > B46 ride much anymore....

 

Just for shits & giggles, I should take the BM5 tomorrow on down to Penn & see if anything's changed....

Hell, yesterday while I was waiting for the BM's (co-incidentally), the BM5 showed up first (this was after I JUST missed the BM1)... then a BM2 came (didn't get on b/c I knew that bus was going to be SRO  going back to Brooklyn - sure enough, it was... Because we caught up to (and passed) it on the FDR & 2 people were standing)... then another BM1 came (which is what I got on)....

[TeeLow]

I wouldn't split the B6 and send it anywhere other than where it goes now. I live off Avenue H, so this is another of my regular lines. There are already a ton of buses that end or start between at Coney Island Av, and Glenwood.

 

Of-board payment however is badly needed.

Man I know what you mean! I live along that line on Ave H and even with the B103 and the rush hour shorty btn Ralph and the Junction it's still mad chaos around 7AM westbound.

[DS4Ever]

to my fact the B82 is one of the longest brooklyn bus routes extending from Coney Island all the way pole to pole to Starrett City...then again the B15 is quite long especially the non stop soute from Linden Blvd 79 street and Airtrain station of Lefferts blvd and lets not forget the B8 and B44 and B6

[BrooklynBus]

to my fact the B82 is one of the longest brooklyn bus routes extending from Coney Island all the way pole to pole to Starrett City...then again the B15 is quite long especially the non stop soute from Linden Blvd 79 street and Airtrain station of Lefferts blvd and lets not forget the B8 and B44 and B6

The B82 never should have been created. The B5 and B50 were only combined to save operating costs with zero consideration of decreased reliability. Yet whenever any route extension or combination is proposed to them, it is rejected with the excuse of decreased reliability.

 

How many riders were transferring between the B5 and B50? I bet it was very small, so there was no benefit to bus riders. And as for the B82 Limited, riders were requesting it for like five years and the MTA kept responding that it wasn't warranted, so why is SBS now warranted? Has ridership dramatically increased? I doubt that when overall bus ridership has been declining. The MTA never has to justify their decisions. They decide there will be SBS on the route, then ho,d meetings so people will agree, but do it anyway regardless of what the comments are.

[Union Tpke]

The B82 never should have been created. The B5 and B50 were only combined to save operating costs with zero consideration of decreased reliability. Yet whenever any route extension or combination is proposed to them, it is rejected with the excuse of decreased reliability.

 

How many riders were transferring between the B5 and B50? I bet it was very small, so there was no benefit to bus riders. And as for the B82 Limited, riders were requesting it for like five years and the MTA kept responding that it wasn't warranted, so why is SBS now warranted? Has ridership dramatically increased? I doubt that when overall bus ridership has been declining. The MTA never has to justify their decisions. They decide there will be SBS on the route, then ho,d meetings so people will agree, but do it anyway regardless of what the comments are.

 

Maybe it is just to decrease local service.

[BrooklynBus]

Maybe it is just to decrease local service.

The B82 was created to save operating costs. Since there would no longer be overlapping routes, there is less service. Creating a Limited can reduce service further. But I have no problem with Limiteds if bunching can be controlled.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Yes it was until it went to full ENY Operation.

The route needs to be split (IMO).

Since I'm used to longer routes upstate, may I ask why would an agency split a route rather than prioritize it to be less burdensome?

 

Even in Northern Westchester, operators tag team because twenty five mile routes can take it out of someone real quick.

 

While it's mostly trees up there, buses at faster speeds are more tolerated. Dedicated or even part time bus lanes could be given certain exceptions to allow slightly faster speeds.

 

In Brooklyn, east-west roads should be prioritized and in Manhattan north-south roads should be as well. If crossing roads were made one way instead crosstowns in Manhattan could allow drop offs in Brooklyn.

 

I'm sure there are kinks in that thought process I shared.

 

Do you think it's possible, or too ambitious?

I see no issue personally with the B82's length. My favorite city buses are the ones that are either long or spill between boroughs, like the Bx19 or Q44.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[B35 via Church]

The B82 never should have been created. The B5 and B50 were only combined to save operating costs with zero consideration of decreased reliability. Yet whenever any route extension or combination is proposed to them, it is rejected with the excuse of decreased reliability.

 

How many riders were transferring between the B5 and B50? I bet it was very small, so there was no benefit to bus riders. And as for the B82 Limited, riders were requesting it for like five years and the MTA kept responding that it wasn't warranted, so why is SBS now warranted? Has ridership dramatically increased? I doubt that when overall bus ridership has been declining. The MTA never has to justify their decisions. They decide there will be SBS on the route, then ho,d meetings so people will agree, but do it anyway regardless of what the comments are.

The B5 was a joke.... There was virtually no turnover between the two routes; the B5 from Canal had a tendency to empty out at CI av (strangely)... Of its ridership, a significant amount of it were that of the elderly... Anyway, by time it got to the Brighton from the west, the B7 (which was FAR more reliable than it is now) & the B50 had already picked up riders seeking EB service towards Flatbush (av).... When the B82 was created, reliability started going to shit on the B7 - and of course, the move from ENY to FP made things worse.... Somewhere in-between that timeframe (the creation of the B82 & the B7 moving to Fresh Pond), a concern about having Flatbush/Kings Hwy being a full time terminal came about....

 

*shrugs*

 

I made this point before on here IINM - The people that benefited from the creation of the B82 were those that lived west of CI av.... They got a crap ton more service than what the B5 provided, and surprisingly to no one that used to frequent commercial Kings Hwy, buses from the west got more crowded.... I used to frequent the B50 a lot, and when they came out with this route, needless to say I was not ecstatic about it.... B7 service got worse, B82's were more crowded & a lot slower than the B50.... Basically, the east-of-brighton riders (old B50 riders) got ye olde shafte.....

 

Anyone that's lived in Starrett long enough will tell you the headaches that came with the B82... For instance, I have never remembered the ride b/w Starrett & Canarsie being so sluggish on the B50... Never.... I'm convinced that's being done on purpose (because Flatlands isn't a stretch of road that's prone to standstill traffic much at all) & for what reason, I do not know.... Now have them implement SBS on the route, buses would move along Flatlands like they're supposed to - and then they will claim how lightning fast/how much time it will save the service is, yada yada yada.....

 

I remember when there was a push for LTD service on the route (82).... Generally, I was an advocate for LTD service, but I wasn't fond of LTD service on the route b/c I was still miffed that the route was created in the first place.... They didn't want to cut the B5 (outright; leaving nothing west of CI av), they didn't want 2 routes ending at Kings Hwy/Flatbush - so in order to kill a couple birds w/ one stone (of course, cost-cutting was inclusive), they combined the B5/B50 & tinkered with B7 service for the worst.... Yes, more trips ran to CI/Quentin as a result (B7's ran the full route at a much lesser rate back then, but were still reliable), but overall service on the route got worse.... So to sum it up, they flooded Kings Hwy with B82 service & the B7 became.... (more) supplemental.

 

....Which exacerbated things for the north-of-Church (av) riderbase.... Ask anyone waiting at Halsey/Saratoga for a SB bus!

 

I can't say ridership is increasing much on the B82 & can't see much of any newfound ridership coming, have SBS implemented on the route.... I'd say since the route got LTD service (what was that, 2010?), it's been more or less stagnant.... Didn't bother to check the ridership numbers, but I'm sure someone on here will...

 

Think I got to everything I wanted to say...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The B5 was a joke.... There was virtually no turnover between the two routes; the B5 from Canal had a tendency to empty out at CI av (strangely)... Of its ridership, a significant amount of it were that of the elderly... Anyway, by time it got to the Brighton from the west, the B7 (which was FAR more reliable than it is now) & the B50 had already picked up riders seeking EB service towards Flatbush (av).... When the B82 was created, reliability started going to shit on the B7 - and of course, the move from ENY to FP made things worse.... Somewhere in-between that timeframe (the creation of the B82 & the B7 moving to Fresh Pond), a concern about having Flatbush/Kings Hwy being a full time terminal came about....

 

*shrugs*

 

I made this point before on here IINM - The people that benefited from the creation of the B82 were those that lived west of CI av.... They got a crap ton more service than what the B5 provided, and surprisingly to no one that used to frequent commercial Kings Hwy, buses from the west got more crowded.... I used to frequent the B50 a lot, and when they came out with this route, needless to say I was not ecstatic about it.... B7 service got worse, B82's were more crowded & a lot slower than the B50.... Basically, the east-of-brighton riders (old B50 riders) got ye olde shafte.....

 

Anyone that's lived in Starrett long enough will tell you the headaches that came with the B82... For instance, I have never remembered the ride b/w Starrett & Canarsie being so sluggish on the B50... Never.... I'm convinced that's being done on purpose (because Flatlands isn't a stretch of road that's prone to standstill traffic much at all) & for what reason, I do not know.... Now have them implement SBS on the route, buses would move along Flatlands like they're supposed to - and then they will claim how lightning fast/how much time it will save the service is, yada yada yada.....

 

I remember when there was a push for LTD service on the route (82).... Generally, I was an advocate for LTD service, but I wasn't fond of LTD service on the route b/c I was still miffed that the route was created in the first place.... They didn't want to cut the B5 (outright; leaving nothing west of CI av), they didn't want 2 routes ending at Kings Hwy/Flatbush - so in order to kill a couple birds w/ one stone (of course, cost-cutting was inclusive), they combined the B5/B50 & tinkered with B7 service for the worst.... Yes, more trips ran to CI/Quentin as a result (B7's ran the full route at a much lesser rate back then, but were still reliable), but overall service on the route got worse.... So to sum it up, they flooded Kings Hwy with B82 service & the B7 became.... (more) supplemental.

 

....Which exacerbated things for the north-of-Church (av) riderbase.... Ask anyone waiting at Halsey/Saratoga for a SB bus!

 

I can't say ridership is increasing much on the B82 & can't see much of any newfound ridership coming, have SBS implemented on the route.... I'd say since the route got LTD service (what was that, 2010?), it's been more or less stagnant.... Didn't bother to check the ridership numbers, but I'm sure someone on here will...

 

Think I got to everything I wanted to say...

When I lived in Midwood, I found myself rarely using the B82.  We used to just walk along Kings Highway for any shopping.  Seemed faster than taking the B82.  On occasion we'd go in the car, but overall it was the B49 and then we'd walk.  Back then the B49 was better, or at least it seemed that way.  The B6, B9, B11 and B2 all were choices that I would use over the B82 for "West-East" trips, and I always found the B82 to be terribly slow going thorough Bensonhurst and the like, where as the B6 was great past Coney Island Avenue. Used the B6 here and there to visit old friends in Bensonhurst at the time.  I also agree with the B7 being an afterthought.  We'd see one here and there but the B82 buses were far more plentiful.  Oddly enough the B9 ran the best since I lived in the vicinity of Avenue M, so I would take that a lot especially for Kings Plaza trips.

[Q43LTD]

I wonder how it would look today if the following merges never happened:

old B47/old 62

B5/50

B40/78

B13/18

 

Just a thought

[Trainmaster5]

I wonder how it would look today if the following merges never happened:

old B47/old 62

B5/50

B40/78

B13/18

 

Just a thought

I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind the re-numbering of the old B47 to the B43. IIRC BrooklynBus or another poster tried to explain the number change but I'm old school so it didn't go over well with me. The old B47 just absorbed a piece of the old, part-time B62 along Graham Avenue and should have kept that B47 name. I have the same problem with the B40/78 mashup. In my world the present day B47 should carry the B40 designation because B40 was the Ralph Avenue route from Bridge Plaza via Broadway to it's southern terminal. Even though the terminal was moved from Liberty Avenue to it's present terminal in Mill Basin it still runs along Ralph Avenue for a greater distance than it did years ago. In the worst case scenario the present route should have used the B78 designation. It always seemed like the idea(s) were spur of the moment with no real thought behind them (the number changes) not the routings. Just papering over the bus stop signs from Prospect Park to Broadway on the old B47 or the old B40 signs along Broadway, Ralph, and the B78 signs from Rutland Road to Kings Plaza seemed like a total waste to me Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[BrooklynBus]

I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind the re-numbering of the old B47 to the B43. IIRC BrooklynBus or another poster tried to explain the number change but I'm old school so it didn't go over well with me. The old B47 just absorbed a piece of the old, part-time B62 along Graham Avenue and should have kept that B47 name. I have the same problem with the B40/78 mashup. In my world the present day B47 should carry the B40 designation because B40 was the Ralph Avenue route from Bridge Plaza via Broadway to it's southern terminal. Even though the terminal was moved from Liberty Avenue to it's present terminal in Mill Basin it still runs along Ralph Avenue for a greater distance than it did years ago. In the worst case scenario the present route should have used the B78 designation. It always seemed like the idea(s) were spur of the moment with no real thought behind them (the number changes) not the routings. Just papering over the bus stop signs from Prospect Park to Broadway on the old B47 or the old B40 signs along Broadway, Ralph, and the B78 signs from Rutland Road to Kings Plaza seemed like a total waste to me Just my opinion though. Carry on.

Back in 1978, the reasoning was to use the major route number. That's why when I created the "new" B1, I recommended that it be called the B34 since 95 percent of the old B34 was incorporated into the new B1. But they MTA insisted on calling the route B1 which barely resembled the B1 that had been operating until that time. The result was mass confusion during the first two weeks. The MTA then realized calling it the B1 was not a good idea. But the real reason for the confusion was the totally inadequate public information campaign.

 

So the MTA then decided to change their policy so that when routes are combined, they would use a totally "new" recycled number that hasn't been used for awhile. So when they did the B5 / 50 combination, they recycled the B82. They picked 82 because it shared the same street with the 83 at that time.

 

Same reasoning for the 43 which hadn't been used in like 50 years (old Holy Cross Cemetery route). Now 47 was unused so they chose that because it paralleled the 46.

 

And to B35 via Church: I can't disagree with what you wrote.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Back in 1978, the reasoning was to use the major route number. That's why when I created the "new" B1, I recommended that it be called the B34 since 95 percent of the old B34 was incorporated into the new B1. But they MTA insisted on calling the route B1 which barely resembled the B1 that had been operating until that time. The result was mass confusion during the first two weeks. The MTA then realized calling it the B1 was not a good idea. But the real reason for the confusion was the totally inadequate public information campaign.

 

So the MTA then decided to change their policy so that when routes are combined, they would use a totally "new" recycled number that hasn't been used for awhile. So when they did the B5 / 50 combination, they recycled the B82. They picked 82 because it shared the same street with the 83 at that time.

 

Same reasoning for the 43 which hadn't been used in like 50 years (old Holy Cross Cemetery route). Now 47 was unused so they chose that because it paralleled the 46.

 

And to B35 via Church: I can't disagree with what you wrote.

I actually prefer the Staten Island naming conventions as it'd be less confusing when viewing it in an app as the local and limited buses would have a separate entry.

 

Say the B35 would be local and the B85 be limited, or the B41 be local to Bergen Beach and the B91 be limited to Kings Plaza.

 

Do you guys think those two buses should be entitled to articulated shells? Between 2-4 PM is an utter mannerless nightmare of pushing, shoving & smacking.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[Fresh Pond]

I actually prefer the Staten Island naming conventions as it'd be less confusing when viewing it in an app as the local and limited buses would have a separate entry.

 

Say the B35 would be local and the B85 be limited, or the B41 be local to Bergen Beach and the B91 be limited to Kings Plaza.

 

Do you guys think those two buses should be entitled to articulated shells? Between 2-4 PM is an utter mannerless nightmare of pushing, shoving & smacking.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

The B35 will be getting artics in a few months when the new buses come in. The B41, not so much...

[Q43LTD]

I thought the B41 was getting SBS in the future

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

The B35 will be getting artics in a few months when the new buses come in. The B41, not so much...

That's good news.

 

I just get sick of being backhanded for wanting to get to the back of the bus where OPEN SEATS are available...

 

Transit fails when manners do. Manners really DO make a better ride. That's a region wide concept. If you put a lid on your coffee and you use a straw, you make a Bee-Line whiteshirt smile.

 

If you don't drink alcohol after you blew your bet at Empire City, you make the #20 bus operator's ride smoother and his bus parking less frenzied at Lane E come 1 AM.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

I thought the B41 was getting SBS in the future

I'm for that. Kinda like the B91 idea I floated around in an earlier comment. Just for Kings Plaza. Shopping locales really gives a bus substance and purpose. Almost 40% of Bee-Line routes and 35% of TOR routes come across a mall. Half of that portion comes across TWO.

 

Transit brings foot traffic, and foot traffic is business waiting to happen. [emoji4]

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

[checkmatechamp13]

I actually prefer the Staten Island naming conventions as it'd be less confusing when viewing it in an app as the local and limited buses would have a separate entry.

 

The thing is that on SI, the buses are numbered according to the region they serve, which makes it easier to separate the locals & limiteds. In the other boroughs where it's more of a grid system, it's harder to make that separation.