Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
BrooklynBus

My Proposed Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

As promised, I am releasing my bus network redesign for Brooklyn after many months of work and revisions. It does not include the express bus network. It consists of about 20 pages of text and about 75 pages of maps. And, yes, I am aware there already is a thread for Brooklyn proposals, but I think this deserves its own.

It also discusses the MTA's planning efforts in the other boroughs criticizing the approaches being taken. It also contains much system history. I would be pleased to hear comments, and of course it is subject to revision.

This is Version 3.0.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmiYAcY6ebQngTlAmfX--m_QpWMr"> 

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, limitednyc said:

what route serves betford ave replace the b49?

There won't be a route on Bedford Avenue to replace the B49. That stretch currently served by the B49 is duplicated by the B41 on Flatbush Avenue south of Empire Blvd and the B48 north of Empire. The B48 also goes to the Franklin Avenue station. The B44 also runs nearby as well and serves the Nostrand Avenue station. That local route would be rerouted along Rogers Avenue to replace service. All three can suffice without the B49 on Bedford Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, limitednyc said:

what route serves betford ave replace the b49?

There would be no service on Bedford. Remember, there only is service on Bedford now because Rogers and Nostrand were converted to one way operation in the mid sixties. And the only reason why service was provided on two adjacent streets anyway was that two private companies were after the same clientele. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave that B49 alone. You don’t need people walking to the 41, 44, 48. Bedford/Rogers Av deserves bus service. Bedford/Rogers serves as an additional alternative between the 41 and 44. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

 

As promised, I am releasing my bus network redesign for Brooklyn after many months of work and revisions. It does not include the express bus network. It consists of about 20 pages of text and about 75 pages of maps. And, yes, I am aware there already is a thread for Brooklyn proposals, but I think this deserves its own.

It also discusses the MTA's planning efforts in the other boroughs criticizing the approaches being taken. It also contains much system history. I would be pleased to hear comments, and of course it is subject to revision.

This is Version 3.0.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmiYAcY6ebQngTlAmfX--m_QpWMr"> 

I've been looking at your proposals and they are great. I do like that you incorporated some of your old proposals from 2004 and incorporated them into your new proposals of 2019. It does look better than what I was coming up with, but its still impressive. I do have some feedback for the proposals:

1.) To me, the changes to the B9 and B41 are the most obvious ones I should look at first. Under your plans, the B9 would be rerouted from Kings Plaza to Bergen Beach via Avenue N and reducing the Bergen Beach Brand of the B41 to a rush hours and overnight shuttle to the (2) and (5) trains at Flatbush Junction labeled the B10. I was thinking of a similar idea when making my proposals. However, I would've called your B10 route the B91. Either way, I like it, especially the B41 Bergen Beach changes. As a commuter who frequents the B41 during rush hours, I can't begin to tell you how delayed this bus is due to traffic uptown. I mean, why should passengers along Avenue N be delayed due to a traffic issue in Flatbush, especially in the center portion of the route? It makes no sense. By shortening this route, passengers of this line like me should see more reliable service, all without any delays. In addition, during middays and weekends, these B41 buses carry virtually nobody. On my most recent trip, I boarded a B41 Limited at my nearby stop on Avenue N and East 55th Street, and a local passed it. During my entire ride to Atlantic-Barclays, both buses were nowhere near a seated load. rush hours is a totally different story. I believe that a B9 reroute would create a perfect crosstown route through this section of Brooklyn and draw more passengers to the route for non commute purposes, especially to Bay Ridge. An A+ in my books. I do recommend you increase B41 service to every 8 minutes and have your proposed B10 at every 10 minute headways.

2.) The B11 extension along Avenue K to Ralph Avenue is another obvious change I've looked at. I live one block from Avenue K and I do see the route as one that I would frequently use on my adventures. I also was thinking of the same thing, except the turnaround would've been different. In my proposal, the bus would operate in two directions on Avenue K, like what you have on your map of the proposed B11, but as I said, the turnaround at Ralph Avenue would be different. At East 59th Street, the B11 would turn right, and operate along East 59th Street, Avenue L, and left on Ralph Avenue to a layover spot about 200 feet from the current B47 bus stop. Going to Sunset Park, the B11 would operate on Ralph to Avenue K, then turn onto Avenue K to resume the normal route. While this would've forced the bus onto residential streets, it would better serve the Georgetown Shopping Plaza. It appears you proposed to have the route turn around via Avenue K, East 72nd Street, and Ralph Avenue, which is still close to the Georgetown Plaza. However, no matter the turnaround, I like this as well. Personally, this route would actually reduce my walking distance to reach the bus, and allows me to get to not only the (2) and (5), but also to the (Q) and the (F), etc. Another good one in my books.

3.) For the B2, B31/B81 and B82, I'm going to collectively review together. I like how you kept the basic concept of the B2 and B31 the same as what you proposed in 2004, with one route going east from Kings Plaza and another going south on Gerritsen Beach. The overlap on Avenue R to the Kings Hwy (B)(Q) where they again split: one route goes up along 65th Street to Bay Ridge, while the other goes across town in Southern Brooklyn to the Gravesend Bay. With this modified proposal, the B2 would continue to be on 65th Street, and the B31 now goes on Kings Hwy right through the heart of it all. Very impressive. However, I'm concerned that you didn't include that deviation for the 65th Street route you proposed in 2004, which would allow for the 65th Street route to better serve the 62nd Street/New Utrecht Avenue (D)(N) station, which was just upgraded to include elevators for the disabled. I would suggest having that deviation to better serve the newly upgraded complex, since I fear that this will drop off elderly riders at the Bay Ridge Avenue station, which was renovated without elevators. The B31 extension across town is also a good one, though I would've done it (or any extension of the B31) without renumbering the route, but its still a good proposal nonetheless. The drawback is that most riders on the B82 would have to transfer at Coney Island Avenue to continue their trip, but how many people go from Gravesend to Canarsie? Is it that significant? However, I would personally trade that for a more reliable B82 route (I'm not interested in accessing the (F) train on the B82)

4.) The changes on for the B44, B44 SBS, and B49 are obviously a no-brainer. A straight route along Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd all the way to Utica Avenue, closing gaps on Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd in one route. It couldn't get any more simpler than that. That's a great one. I like how the B44 local and SBS are on the same route, with the B44 SBS to Kingsborough added as a branch as well, which is a plus, but I would've done it a little differently. Under my plans, I would've incorporated the old B5 Coney Island-Kings Plaza route from 2004, since I wanted to allow easy access to the Mall from other parts of Southern Brooklyn. Here, the B4 would be truncated to Sheepshead Bay Station. However, as the route serves Plumb Beach, and the Sheepshead Bay (B)(Q) stop is the most preferred stop for the area, there would be some significant changes. Under my plans, all Nostrand Avenue service to Plumb Beach would be discontinued. B44 local service would terminate at Emmons Avenue and Nostrand Avenue. The B44 SBS would be rerouted to Kingsborough College, just like what your proposed branch, but I would've added some additional stops to expand its usage beyond transporting students, unlike other ideas. The B5 would then operate every 8 minutes. However, your new plan is good too. Like I said, its a no-brainer.

5.) The only thing I can say about the B16 and B23 changes on Fort Hamilton Pkwy and 13th Avenue is that its another no brainer. Straight, direct, simple. Couldn't ask for anything more. I also like how you have the B23 serve Canarsie Plaza. That's a good one.

I'll continue to look through the proposals tonight and tomorrow, but for now, great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, this is more about wet dreams than sensible improvements...

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand why extending the already overcrowded and oft-delayed B38/LTD was one of your solutions. If anything, since a large portion of the crowding and delays are between Joralemon and Broadway without many going from one end to the other of this section, to me it makes more sense to split the route(s) at Broadway so units turn back to downtown and maintain service levels.

The extension you proposed could be another route - maybe it overlaps for a bit on Lafayette/Dekalb, but I’m leery of making an overburdened route take on another.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lex said:

I swear, this is more about wet dreams than sensible improvements...

I beg to differ. A straight B49 route along both Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd, coupled with other improvements in the Bedford/Rogers area to maintain service are no-brainers. It IS a sensible improvement. That route closes the service gaps in the area and makes travel more simpler for everybody. With these changes, those looking to go from Midwood near Ocean Avenue to Kensington via the B35 would no longer have to go 15 minutes out of their way just to catch the busy Church Avenue route. Its a straight shot up Ocean to Church and your home free. Even on Empire Blvd, just ONE block of no bus service on Empire Blvd makes bus travel difficult by 10 fold. This B49 change successfully rectifies this mistake.

The same can be said for changes to the Fort Hamilton and 13th Avenue corridors, where gaps in service also make bus travel difficult. By having the B16 stay on Fort Hamilton Pkwy from 86th Street all the way to McDonald Avenue, and having the B23 take 13th and 14th Avenues all the way to McDonald Avenue, connecting to Canarsie Plaza, the bus travel in this area becomes more simpler and direct, like it should be and the way its supposed to be. Nobody should have to sit through needless turns, unnecessarily adding time to trips, time that could be better spent elsewhere, like more shopping (I feel that these two changes to the B16 and B23 could bring in more people to the 86th Street corridor, which means more shopping, and more business, and more commerce, especially during the holidays). This all has nothing to do with "wet dreams".

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I beg to differ. A straight B49 route along both Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd, coupled with other improvements in the Bedford/Rogers area to maintain service are no-brainers. It IS a sensible improvement. That route closes the service gaps in the area and makes travel more simpler for everybody. With these changes, those looking to go from Midwood near Ocean Avenue to Kensington via the B35 would no longer have to go 15 minutes out of their way just to catch the busy Church Avenue route. Its a straight shot up Ocean to Church and your home free. Even on Empire Blvd, just ONE block of no bus service on Empire Blvd makes bus travel difficult by 10 fold. This B49 change successfully rectifies this mistake.

The same can be said for changes to the Fort Hamilton and 13th Avenue corridors, where gaps in service also make bus travel difficult. By having the B16 stay on Fort Hamilton Pkwy from 86th Street all the way to McDonald Avenue, and having the B23 take 13th and 14th Avenues all the way to McDonald Avenue, connecting to Canarsie Plaza, the bus travel in this area becomes more simpler and direct, like it should be and the way its supposed to be. Nobody should have to sit through needless turns, unnecessarily adding time to trips, time that could be better spent elsewhere, like more shopping (I feel that these two changes to the B16 and B23 could bring in more people to the 86th Street corridor, which means more shopping, and more business, and more commerce, especially during the holidays). This all has nothing to do with "wet dreams".

Go wash your face.

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lex said:

Go wash your face.

Washing ones face does result in sensible changes, NOT wet dreams. I mean who doesn’t want straighter and more direct B16 and B49 service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I've been looking at your proposals and they are great. I do like that you incorporated some of your old proposals from 2004 and incorporated them into your new proposals of 2019. It does look better than what I was coming up with, but its still impressive. I do have some feedback for the proposals:

1.) To me, the changes to the B9 and B41 are the most obvious ones I should look at first. Under your plans, the B9 would be rerouted from Kings Plaza to Bergen Beach via Avenue N and reducing the Bergen Beach Brand of the B41 to a rush hours and overnight shuttle to the (2) and (5) trains at Flatbush Junction labeled the B10. I was thinking of a similar idea when making my proposals. However, I would've called your B10 route the B91. Either way, I like it, especially the B41 Bergen Beach changes. As a commuter who frequents the B41 during rush hours, I can't begin to tell you how delayed this bus is due to traffic uptown. I mean, why should passengers along Avenue N be delayed due to a traffic issue in Flatbush, especially in the center portion of the route? It makes no sense. By shortening this route, passengers of this line like me should see more reliable service, all without any delays. In addition, during middays and weekends, these B41 buses carry virtually nobody. On my most recent trip, I boarded a B41 Limited at my nearby stop on Avenue N and East 55th Street, and a local passed it. During my entire ride to Atlantic-Barclays, both buses were nowhere near a seated load. rush hours is a totally different story. I believe that a B9 reroute would create a perfect crosstown route through this section of Brooklyn and draw more passengers to the route for non commute purposes, especially to Bay Ridge. An A+ in my books. I do recommend you increase B41 service to every 8 minutes and have your proposed B10 at every 10 minute headways.

2.) The B11 extension along Avenue K to Ralph Avenue is another obvious change I've looked at. I live one block from Avenue K and I do see the route as one that I would frequently use on my adventures. I also was thinking of the same thing, except the turnaround would've been different. In my proposal, the bus would operate in two directions on Avenue K, like what you have on your map of the proposed B11, but as I said, the turnaround at Ralph Avenue would be different. At East 59th Street, the B11 would turn right, and operate along East 59th Street, Avenue L, and left on Ralph Avenue to a layover spot about 200 feet from the current B47 bus stop. Going to Sunset Park, the B11 would operate on Ralph to Avenue K, then turn onto Avenue K to resume the normal route. While this would've forced the bus onto residential streets, it would better serve the Georgetown Shopping Plaza. It appears you proposed to have the route turn around via Avenue K, East 72nd Street, and Ralph Avenue, which is still close to the Georgetown Plaza. However, no matter the turnaround, I like this as well. Personally, this route would actually reduce my walking distance to reach the bus, and allows me to get to not only the (2) and (5), but also to the (Q) and the (F), etc. Another good one in my books.

3.) For the B2, B31/B81 and B82, I'm going to collectively review together. I like how you kept the basic concept of the B2 and B31 the same as what you proposed in 2004, with one route going east from Kings Plaza and another going south on Gerritsen Beach. The overlap on Avenue R to the Kings Hwy (B)(Q) where they again split: one route goes up along 65th Street to Bay Ridge, while the other goes across town in Southern Brooklyn to the Gravesend Bay. With this modified proposal, the B2 would continue to be on 65th Street, and the B31 now goes on Kings Hwy right through the heart of it all. Very impressive. However, I'm concerned that you didn't include that deviation for the 65th Street route you proposed in 2004, which would allow for the 65th Street route to better serve the 62nd Street/New Utrecht Avenue (D)(N) station, which was just upgraded to include elevators for the disabled. I would suggest having that deviation to better serve the newly upgraded complex, since I fear that this will drop off elderly riders at the Bay Ridge Avenue station, which was renovated without elevators. The B31 extension across town is also a good one, though I would've done it (or any extension of the B31) without renumbering the route, but its still a good proposal nonetheless. The drawback is that most riders on the B82 would have to transfer at Coney Island Avenue to continue their trip, but how many people go from Gravesend to Canarsie? Is it that significant? However, I would personally trade that for a more reliable B82 route (I'm not interested in accessing the (F) train on the B82)

4.) The changes on for the B44, B44 SBS, and B49 are obviously a no-brainer. A straight route along Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd all the way to Utica Avenue, closing gaps on Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd in one route. It couldn't get any more simpler than that. That's a great one. I like how the B44 local and SBS are on the same route, with the B44 SBS to Kingsborough added as a branch as well, which is a plus, but I would've done it a little differently. Under my plans, I would've incorporated the old B5 Coney Island-Kings Plaza route from 2004, since I wanted to allow easy access to the Mall from other parts of Southern Brooklyn. Here, the B4 would be truncated to Sheepshead Bay Station. However, as the route serves Plumb Beach, and the Sheepshead Bay (B)(Q) stop is the most preferred stop for the area, there would be some significant changes. Under my plans, all Nostrand Avenue service to Plumb Beach would be discontinued. B44 local service would terminate at Emmons Avenue and Nostrand Avenue. The B44 SBS would be rerouted to Kingsborough College, just like what your proposed branch, but I would've added some additional stops to expand its usage beyond transporting students, unlike other ideas. The B5 would then operate every 8 minutes. However, your new plan is good too. Like I said, its a no-brainer.

5.) The only thing I can say about the B16 and B23 changes on Fort Hamilton Pkwy and 13th Avenue is that its another no brainer. Straight, direct, simple. Couldn't ask for anything more. I also like how you have the B23 serve Canarsie Plaza. That's a good one.

I'll continue to look through the proposals tonight and tomorrow, but for now, great job.

You are just a straight up copy-cat.. Always agreeing with BrooklynBus, However, no offense to BrooklynBus and his work. YOU need to come up with ideas of your own.

Also B44 to KCC : This has been talked about to death and even Flatbush ops won't even do a KCC to Williamsburg. I'm gonna need you and everyone else that thinks a KCC to Williamsburg is gonna work to stop it right this second.. You are not from Flatbush, Crown Heights, South Williamsburg or Bed-Stuy to be talking about the B44.  Please and honestly study these bus lines before you make a valid point.

/sarcasm

#rantover.

Edited by Future ENY OP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree with that B67/B70 combo. I don't see a need for through service like that, because not only is it not warranted, but the subways and/or the B63 already serve similar areas, much more directly. Furthermore, with how the B67 suffers because of traffic in Downtown Brooklyn and Barclays Center (I know you would get rid of the Jay Street chokepoint, but Atlantic still remains), it would cascade further down the line, making the route incredibly unreliable. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Washing ones face does result in sensible changes, NOT wet dreams. I mean who doesn’t want straighter and more direct B16 and B49 service.

B16, maybe (don't get your hopes too high), but that B49 proposal is rooted in fantasy.

Likewise, those B2, B9, and B40 proposals fall squarely into nutbar territory, and the less said about the B5 and Q45 proposals, the better.

As for the "result(ing) in sensible changes" part, it's obvious that you've decided to keep your head shoved so damn far up his ass that you won't even consider that people are saying that these proposals are bonkers from a place of reason.

  • LMAO! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That B5 Limited, is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. Why have a route go via the Belt when on a good day, you have medium traffic going towards JFK? You're bound to have at least 20-30 minute delays heading onto the Belt going east. 

The B82 shouldn't terminate at Kings Highway, the SBS should be terminating at Coney Island, but we never got that, and it seems like you don't want it to happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 9:47 PM, Future ENY OP said:

Leave that B49 alone. You don’t need people walking to the 41, 44, 48. Bedford/Rogers Av deserves bus service. Bedford/Rogers serves as an additional alternative between the 41 and 44. 

Bedford is very slow and Ocean Avenue is lined with apartment buildings for virtually every block.

 

On 8/8/2019 at 10:36 PM, Deucey said:

I don’t understand why extending the already overcrowded and oft-delayed B38/LTD was one of your solutions. If anything, since a large portion of the crowding and delays are between Joralemon and Broadway without many going from one end to the other of this section, to me it makes more sense to split the route(s) at Broadway so units turn back to downtown and maintain service levels.

The extension you proposed could be another route - maybe it overlaps for a bit on Lafayette/Dekalb, but I’m leery of making an overburdened route take on another.

It's to improve interborough connections. 

 

On 8/9/2019 at 9:16 AM, NBTA said:

That B5 Limited, is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. Why have a route go via the Belt when on a good day, you have medium traffic going towards JFK? You're bound to have at least 20-30 minute delays heading onto the Belt going east. 

The B82 shouldn't terminate at Kings Highway, the SBS should be terminating at Coney Island, but we never got that, and it seems like you don't want it to happen.

Since the reconstruction, buses could use the shoulder along the Belt Parkway east of Knapp Street with some restriping and other minor changes avoiding much of the traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Since the reconstruction, buses could use the shoulder along the Belt Parkway east of Knapp Street with some restriping and other minor changes avoiding much of the traffic.

I thank you for actually taking the criticism as constructive, a lot of others would've took it the other way.

Also I do see what you mean about the shoulder and stuff, but it'll still be a heavy traffic issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 10:39 AM, BrooklynBus said:

 

As promised, I am releasing my bus network redesign for Brooklyn after many months of work and revisions. It does not include the express bus network. It consists of about 20 pages of text and about 75 pages of maps. And, yes, I am aware there already is a thread for Brooklyn proposals, but I think this deserves its own.

It also discusses the MTA's planning efforts in the other boroughs criticizing the approaches being taken. It also contains much system history. I would be pleased to hear comments, and of course it is subject to revision.

This is Version 3.0.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmiYAcY6ebQngTlAmfX--m_QpWMr"> 

The amount of work you put into it is really impressive!! However. Here are my 2 cents:

The Q5 LTD is a waste because traffic along the Belt Parkway on a Normal day is low key heavy. While I understand that you’re trying to improve airport access to JFK for Brooklynites, such a route will be too long and congestion won’t help.

The B14 has a lot of stops as is and extending it to downtown Brooklyn won’t help. From how I view it, extending this route to Downtown Brooklyn might increase the run time of this route to an unacceptable amount. Also, I’m not sure what’s up with extending it to Cross Bay, you could’ve just had the B12 operate from Rockaway Blvd via the Q7 Route, then run via Liberty to Broadway Junction. 

I like the B24 Split. The Kosciusko Bridge is normally Congested and I’ve thought of a similar idea of connecting Greenpoint with Woodside/Jackson Heights. The Q104 extension I HAVE to disagree with that because it’ll make the route unreliable considering the conditions on Kosciusko and additional turns just to get across Queens Blvd. 

IDK what’s up with the B62 going to DUMBO, can you explain that one? 

I know that the Q7, Q24, Q54, Q56, Q58 And Q59 aren’t Brooklyn Routes, but you couldn’t make any proposals for those routes? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The amount of work you put into it is really impressive!! However. Here are my 2 cents:

The Q5 LTD is a waste because traffic along the Belt Parkway on a Normal day is low key heavy. While I understand that you’re trying to improve airport access to JFK for Brooklynites, such a route will be too long and congestion won’t help.

The B14 has a lot of stops as is and extending it to downtown Brooklyn won’t help. From how I view it, extending this route to Downtown Brooklyn might increase the run time of this route to an unacceptable amount. Also, I’m not sure what’s up with extending it to Cross Bay, you could’ve just had the B12 operate from Rockaway Blvd via the Q7 Route, then run via Liberty to Broadway Junction. 

I like the B24 Split. The Kosciusko Bridge is normally Congested and I’ve thought of a similar idea of connecting Greenpoint with Woodside/Jackson Heights. The Q104 extension I HAVE to disagree with that because it’ll make the route unreliable considering the conditions on Kosciusko and additional turns just to get across Queens Blvd. 

IDK what’s up with the B62 going to DUMBO, can you explain that one? 

I know that the Q7, Q24, Q54, Q56, Q58 And Q59 aren’t Brooklyn Routes, but you couldn’t make any proposals for those routes? 

 

 

Thank you for the recognition regarding the amount of work. As I previously stated, since the reconstruction of part of the Belt Parkway, the shoulder could become a busway for part of the trip with some restriping and minor reconstruction in a few places. I assume you mean the B5 LTD. It also avoids the Belt Parkway using service roads where possible for part of the trip. 

When the Kosciusko Br is completed in two months, there will be additional traffic lanes which shoukd ease much of the traffic congestion. 

The B62 to DUMBO is to replace the B67 as explained on Page 28. 

I tried to stay out of Queens as much as possible. Brooklyn is a handful by itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Thank you for the recognition regarding the amount of work. As I previously stated, since the reconstruction of part of the Belt Parkway, the shoulder could become a busway for part of the trip with some restriping and minor reconstruction in a few places. I assume you mean the B5 LTD. It also avoids the Belt Parkway using service roads where possible for part of the trip. 

When the Kosciusko Br is completed in two months, there will be additional traffic lanes which shoukd ease much of the traffic congestion. 

The B62 to DUMBO is to replace the B67 as explained on Page 28. 

I tried to stay out of Queens as much as possible. Brooklyn is a handful by itself. 

I also find your work impressive, though I would've done a couple of things differently. The Kosciusko Bridge congestion I'm also aware about, since I've been down there a few times, and especially at night, it does get very slow. The Belt Pkwy does the same thing, having an HOV 2+ or 3+ lane on parts of the Pkwy between the Verrazano Bridge and the Airport. I also recommend possibly looking into one for the Kosciusko Bridge, as well as one some other highways with bus service. In addition to the feedback I posted yesterday, I do have a few other concerns for other routes:

1.) For the B6 and B103, I do see that the B6 would be on Glenwood Road and the B103 on Avenue H. Both would meet to serve Avenue L together before splitting on East 105th Street. While I do like this idea, since it preserves access to the Breukelen Houses at Williams Avenue, I do have concerns about the B6 being on Glenwood Road, and B103 one block south, while still serving the same areas. The problem I do see is that the B6 would actually miss the major transfer point at Utica Avenue and Avenue H. While the new routing does serve the B46 at Glenwood, the SBS or the northbound local does not stop near the intersection, requiring riders connecting between the routes to cross the wide and dangerous Kings Hwy to do so. I understand its for coverage issues, but still, it would be somewhat of an inconvenience. The same also goes for the connection to the (2) and (5) at Flatbush Avenue. This is also a huge transfer point for the B6 and B103, but in the current plans, the B6 would continue to stop one block away and the B103 would continue to be at the more convenient spot in front of the station. What this situation does is force riders coming off the train to pick a bus to take and hope it comes first, risking missing the other bus if it comes first. To me, having to deal with the situation with the Q35 and B41, that does sound like an inconvenience, especially for Canarsie riders along Avenue L, where the B6 and B103 would be going.

What I do recommend is having the B6 rerouted off Glenwood Road and onto Avenue H with the B103. Both the B6 and B103 would share the same travel path between the (2) and (5) trains and East 105th Street/Avenue L, where the routes split off. B6 and B103 LTD would share the same LTD stop pattern, stopping at the major transfer points and destinations. B6 local service would be increased as a result. This change would allow for Canarsie riders who are coming from the (2) and (5) trains to get off the train, exit the stop, wait at the bus stop, and be able to take the first bus that comes at that same spot, increasing convenience. The only drawback would be that riders on Glenwood Road would have to walk one block south to Avenue H to reach the buses. A similar proposal should also be looked into for the Q35 to also do the same thing, without congesting the area too much.

On that note, with the multitude of buses serving the Flatbush station, this should be one of the candidate locations for installation of overnight holding lights, to ease connections between the buses and the (2) at this location, especially if my recommendations go through.

2.) A similar problem currently exists with the proposed B69 route, since the proposed reroute back to 8th Avenue/Prospect Park West would cause it to miss that connection to the 7th Avenue (B)(Q) stop (those two are faster to reach midtown than the (2)(3) and the (A)(C)). However, since the line will serve the western end of Prospect Park, it would be better to keep it there to make it more convenient to reach the park. However, there should be somewhat of a compromise to ensure that the B69 continues to serve the 7th Avenue (B)(Q), while allowing for restored service to Prospect Park West.

What can be done is possibly have the route "loop" to serve the stop, similar to what the B82 does now at the Rockaway (L) train stop, and what you propose for the B14 at the Euclid Avenue (A)(C). I honestly feel that with the B67 rerouted from McDonald Avenue, those passengers would still want to have bus service to that station. Buses going northbound would turn left at Union Street, the right on 7th Avenue, then stop at the station. From there, it would go via Grand Army Plaza to resume the regular route. For southbound buses, after Grand Army, the route would merge onto Union Street rather than Prospect Park West, then head west on Union Street, and follow the same routing as the northbound alignment, still stopping at the station, before going to merge onto Prospect Park West at the Grand Army.

This would allow for the B69 to continue to serve the station like today, while still having the route back on 8th Avenue for park access. This also allows for some redundancies in the system, so that in the even the (2) and (3) are delayed, like what was the case a while back due to network problems, B69 passengers coming from Manhattan can instead take the (B) and (Q) to 7th Avenue instead and still have B69 access. They could also use the B67 as well, further increasing options.

3.) For the routes serving the Navy Yard, I like how the B69 serves the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza, something the B67 extension failed to address. This allows for new access. However, the new proposal fails to connect the Brooklyn Navy Yard with Dumbo and Downtown Brooklyn, which was why the B67 extension was implemented in the first place. Downtown Brooklyn, Dumbo, and the Navy Yard are all growing residential and commercial communities, especially with the Navy Yard and the tech sector.

What I also recommend is that some of the B62s serve the Navy Yard as well, preserving that link through the Brooklyn Tech Triangle. The B69 would remain to allow direct access between Fort Greene and the Navy Yard for potential workers. Either that or an extension of the proposed B24 through the yard, or maybe a standalone route would do.

4.) For the B23 to Remsen/Foster Avenues at Canarsie Plaza, that was something I came up with a while ago, though I would've done it by having the route go east on Avenue B and south on Remsen Avenue to get there. I believe I posted it here on the forums a while back. Otherwise, great work. I also recommend having the B33 LTD go on Avenue D to allow for B23 customers looking to reach JFK to transfer to the line as well, avoiding a double fare for 13th Avenue residents looking to get to JFK, but overall still good.

5.) I like having a short run B46 operating between Williamsburg Plaza and Church Avenue during the rush hours. However, I've seen Broadway at various times and I've heard that its one of the lower use segments of the line, with 9% of the routes ridership travelling along it. Its also one of the slower speed segments as well. This is why the SBS terminates at DeKalb Avenue. I do recommend splitting off the short route into two routes:

The B46 route, operating between Kings Plaza and DeKalb Avenue

A B96 route, operating between Williamsburg Plaza and Church Avenue (the B46 short route).

This would ensure that during most times of the day, B46 passengers in Crown Heights and Flatlands do not get delayed due to traffic issues on Broadway, especially during middays and weekends. During nights, the B46 would continue to travel on Broadway, with no B96 service.

As a daily user of the route, I did think of an idea while back to improve this route, which was to truncate all B46 service to DeKalb Avenue, with another route replacing it on Broadway, preferably a Q24 extension. Do you think its a good idea? Does that cause more harm than good, especially to other routes? What do you think.

6.) For the B71, I recommend having it also serve Red Hook, ensuring that area also has bus service to Manhattan as well, given the long commutes to Manhattan, despite it being nearby.

These are some concerns and feedback I have on the proposals, with some ways to improve them to make it more conductive to bus-subway transfers and direct access. I also do recommend looking into ways to adequately serve the Resorts World Casino in Ozone Park from Brooklyn (especially from the southern part) as well, as well as more routes connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan. Otherwise, its very impressive, despite some of the disagreements with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have some comments about the bus system proposal, but I'd like to point out some inaccuracies regarding Staten Island.

Quote

Passengers have complained of much inconvenience this restructuring has caused with service reduced so much that in some cases passengers were no longer able to board the first arriving bus.

Yes, the original redesign in August 2018 was a disaster...the problem is that the service wasn't scheduled properly...there were plenty of overcrowded buses, and plenty of buses with just a handful of people (yes, even during rush hour). They just copy-pasted sections of old routes' schedules onto completely different routes, left gaps between peak and off-peak service, the runtimes were all screwed up (15 minutes to get from Chambers Street to Park Place?). They were pretty quick to make adjustments (they had an emergency pick in October instead of waiting all the way until January). They admit they screwed up...at a lot of the Fast Forward meetings, Andy Byford would admit "Staten Island was our first time doing it, we learned some lessons, etc"

One of the goals in the redesign was to pinpoint where exactly service needed to be added to address overcrowding. The fact that there was so much overlap meant that people would take whichever bus came first, which meant a bus could have standees one day, and be half-empty the next day (e.g. If an X1 came before the X3 or vice versa). By consolidating the lines, they actually intended to reduce the amount of overcrowded buses by scheduling the proper amount of service. In many cases, they actually have succeeded in doing so. However, on Hylan Blvd, there is still a lot of work to be done (partially because, despite saying they wanted routes with shorter sections on the Staten Island end, they made those routes longer and more unreliable)

In any case, the original plan had $1 million added to the annual budget, and something like 68 extra weekday trips scheduled. Not sure how much it's grown to since then, but the goal was definitely not to cut service.

Quote

In other cases, passengers who previously were able to walk to a bus stop must now drive to one.

And there's people who previously had no express bus service anywhere near them who now have some express service within walking distance (e.g. Princes Bay, parts of Rossville, parts of Westerleigh off-peak). To be honest, saying that they "must" drive is overkill: The distance between stops is still reasonable to walk.

Quote

They are dismissing complaints that cuts in the span of service on some routes have added 40 minutes or more to some passengers’ commutes or some passengers must stand although they are paying a premium fare more than twice the standard fare.

By January, I'd say most of the issues with reductions in span were addressed (keep in mind that even from the beginning, a lot of areas did see an increase in span of service). Offhand, I really can't think of any neighborhood where the SIM route serving that neighborhood has a significantly shorter span (in Rossville, the SIM26 serves the Bloomingdale Road side of the neighborhood as opposed to the Rossville Avenue side, and in Arden Heights, the people by Drumgoole have to make their way to Woodrow Road. The Academy routes could use a later bus in the morning to maintain the old span of the X24, that much I agree with). 

Also keep in mind that standees is not a new issue caused by the redesign. As I said, there were plenty of cases of standees on the old system, and that issue was intended to be resolved with the redesign (and one thing I noticed from the beginning is that the SIM8 had fewer cases of standing room-only buses compared to the X17J, in part because of the SIM8X, and the beefed up SIM22 service compared to the X21, and also because the Arden Heights riders were taking the SIM23/24). 

Quote

An indication that reducing operating costs is the MTA’s major purpose in conducting these studies is that in the MTA’s recently announced schedule revisions to reflect ridership changes, instead of increasing the total amount of service, or leaving it the same, the MTA is reducing service to save on operating costs.

Do keep in mind that the MTA increased off-peak service on the Q6, Q69, S93, B17, and B65 (with the goal of having the extra service build ridership). As mentioned, they also increased the budget for the Staten Island express network. So to say that the MTA is looking to do nothing but save on operating costs is inaccurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Do keep in mind that the MTA increased off-peak service on the Q6, Q69, S93, B17, and B65 (with the goal of having the extra service build ridership). As mentioned, they also increased the budget for the Staten Island express network. So to say that the MTA is looking to do nothing but save on operating costs is inaccurate.

They are though, because they need to have a "balanced" budget. 

When you look at these particular cases alone, yes the operating costs go up, but then those increases are offsets by reductions somewhere else in the system (which may or may not be a route in the same geographical area). They don't really say it, but this happens all the time. There's only been one time they publicly admitted to this practice, and that was the reduction in Q17/Q46 service to increase Q77 service. Every single schedule change brought up by the transit committee at their respective meetings also indicated a decrease in operating cost, dating from September of last year (it probably goes further than that too). 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I do have some comments about the bus system proposal, but I'd like to point out some inaccuracies regarding Staten Island.

Yes, the original redesign in August 2018 was a disaster...the problem is that the service wasn't scheduled properly...there were plenty of overcrowded buses, and plenty of buses with just a handful of people (yes, even during rush hour). They just copy-pasted sections of old routes' schedules onto completely different routes, left gaps between peak and off-peak service, the runtimes were all screwed up (15 minutes to get from Chambers Street to Park Place?). They were pretty quick to make adjustments (they had an emergency pick in October instead of waiting all the way until January). They admit they screwed up...at a lot of the Fast Forward meetings, Andy Byford would admit "Staten Island was our first time doing it, we learned some lessons, etc"

One of the goals in the redesign was to pinpoint where exactly service needed to be added to address overcrowding. The fact that there was so much overlap meant that people would take whichever bus came first, which meant a bus could have standees one day, and be half-empty the next day (e.g. If an X1 came before the X3 or vice versa). By consolidating the lines, they actually intended to reduce the amount of overcrowded buses by scheduling the proper amount of service. In many cases, they actually have succeeded in doing so. However, on Hylan Blvd, there is still a lot of work to be done (partially because, despite saying they wanted routes with shorter sections on the Staten Island end, they made those routes longer and more unreliable)

In any case, the original plan had $1 million added to the annual budget, and something like 68 extra weekday trips scheduled. Not sure how much it's grown to since then, but the goal was definitely not to cut service.

And there's people who previously had no express bus service anywhere near them who now have some express service within walking distance (e.g. Princes Bay, parts of Rossville, parts of Westerleigh off-peak). To be honest, saying that they "must" drive is overkill: The distance between stops is still reasonable to walk.

By January, I'd say most of the issues with reductions in span were addressed (keep in mind that even from the beginning, a lot of areas did see an increase in span of service). Offhand, I really can't think of any neighborhood where the SIM route serving that neighborhood has a significantly shorter span (in Rossville, the SIM26 serves the Bloomingdale Road side of the neighborhood as opposed to the Rossville Avenue side, and in Arden Heights, the people by Drumgoole have to make their way to Woodrow Road. The Academy routes could use a later bus in the morning to maintain the old span of the X24, that much I agree with). 

Also keep in mind that standees is not a new issue caused by the redesign. As I said, there were plenty of cases of standees on the old system, and that issue was intended to be resolved with the redesign (and one thing I noticed from the beginning is that the SIM8 had fewer cases of standing room-only buses compared to the X17J, in part because of the SIM8X, and the beefed up SIM22 service compared to the X21, and also because the Arden Heights riders were taking the SIM23/24). 

Do keep in mind that the MTA increased off-peak service on the Q6, Q69, S93, B17, and B65 (with the goal of having the extra service build ridership). As mentioned, they also increased the budget for the Staten Island express network. So to say that the MTA is looking to do nothing but save on operating costs is inaccurate.

I highly respect your experiences with Staten Island. Since I have little personal experience, I have made my comments strictly from media reports. Anyway, you admit that many problems still exist after one year and there are still standees even after the MTA tried to eliminate standees. I still believe if the initial plan was a good one, all problems should have been resolved in three months by the next pick.

As for the MTA goal being not to cut expenses, why has the latest Brooklyn schedule revisions resulted in an eight million dollar cut instead of being cost neutral? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I also find your work impressive, though I would've done a couple of things differently. The Kosciusko Bridge congestion I'm also aware about, since I've been down there a few times, and especially at night, it does get very slow. The Belt Pkwy does the same thing, having an HOV 2+ or 3+ lane on parts of the Pkwy between the Verrazano Bridge and the Airport. I also recommend possibly looking into one for the Kosciusko Bridge, as well as one some other highways with bus service. In addition to the feedback I posted yesterday, I do have a few other concerns for other routes:

1.) For the B6 and B103, I do see that the B6 would be on Glenwood Road and the B103 on Avenue H. Both would meet to serve Avenue L together before splitting on East 105th Street. While I do like this idea, since it preserves access to the Breukelen Houses at Williams Avenue, I do have concerns about the B6 being on Glenwood Road, and B103 one block south, while still serving the same areas. The problem I do see is that the B6 would actually miss the major transfer point at Utica Avenue and Avenue H. While the new routing does serve the B46 at Glenwood, the SBS or the northbound local does not stop near the intersection, requiring riders connecting between the routes to cross the wide and dangerous Kings Hwy to do so. I understand its for coverage issues, but still, it would be somewhat of an inconvenience. The same also goes for the connection to the (2) and (5) at Flatbush Avenue. This is also a huge transfer point for the B6 and B103, but in the current plans, the B6 would continue to stop one block away and the B103 would continue to be at the more convenient spot in front of the station. What this situation does is force riders coming off the train to pick a bus to take and hope it comes first, risking missing the other bus if it comes first. To me, having to deal with the situation with the Q35 and B41, that does sound like an inconvenience, especially for Canarsie riders along Avenue L, where the B6 and B103 would be going.

What I do recommend is having the B6 rerouted off Glenwood Road and onto Avenue H with the B103. Both the B6 and B103 would share the same travel path between the (2) and (5) trains and East 105th Street/Avenue L, where the routes split off. B6 and B103 LTD would share the same LTD stop pattern, stopping at the major transfer points and destinations. B6 local service would be increased as a result. This change would allow for Canarsie riders who are coming from the (2) and (5) trains to get off the train, exit the stop, wait at the bus stop, and be able to take the first bus that comes at that same spot, increasing convenience. The only drawback would be that riders on Glenwood Road would have to walk one block south to Avenue H to reach the buses. A similar proposal should also be looked into for the Q35 to also do the same thing, without congesting the area too much.

On that note, with the multitude of buses serving the Flatbush station, this should be one of the candidate locations for installation of overnight holding lights, to ease connections between the buses and the (2) at this location, especially if my recommendations go through.

2.) A similar problem currently exists with the proposed B69 route, since the proposed reroute back to 8th Avenue/Prospect Park West would cause it to miss that connection to the 7th Avenue (B)(Q) stop (those two are faster to reach midtown than the (2)(3) and the (A)(C)). However, since the line will serve the western end of Prospect Park, it would be better to keep it there to make it more convenient to reach the park. However, there should be somewhat of a compromise to ensure that the B69 continues to serve the 7th Avenue (B)(Q), while allowing for restored service to Prospect Park West.

What can be done is possibly have the route "loop" to serve the stop, similar to what the B82 does now at the Rockaway (L) train stop, and what you propose for the B14 at the Euclid Avenue (A)(C). I honestly feel that with the B67 rerouted from McDonald Avenue, those passengers would still want to have bus service to that station. Buses going northbound would turn left at Union Street, the right on 7th Avenue, then stop at the station. From there, it would go via Grand Army Plaza to resume the regular route. For southbound buses, after Grand Army, the route would merge onto Union Street rather than Prospect Park West, then head west on Union Street, and follow the same routing as the northbound alignment, still stopping at the station, before going to merge onto Prospect Park West at the Grand Army.

This would allow for the B69 to continue to serve the station like today, while still having the route back on 8th Avenue for park access. This also allows for some redundancies in the system, so that in the even the (2) and (3) are delayed, like what was the case a while back due to network problems, B69 passengers coming from Manhattan can instead take the (B) and (Q) to 7th Avenue instead and still have B69 access. They could also use the B67 as well, further increasing options.

3.) For the routes serving the Navy Yard, I like how the B69 serves the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza, something the B67 extension failed to address. This allows for new access. However, the new proposal fails to connect the Brooklyn Navy Yard with Dumbo and Downtown Brooklyn, which was why the B67 extension was implemented in the first place. Downtown Brooklyn, Dumbo, and the Navy Yard are all growing residential and commercial communities, especially with the Navy Yard and the tech sector.

What I also recommend is that some of the B62s serve the Navy Yard as well, preserving that link through the Brooklyn Tech Triangle. The B69 would remain to allow direct access between Fort Greene and the Navy Yard for potential workers. Either that or an extension of the proposed B24 through the yard, or maybe a standalone route would do.

4.) For the B23 to Remsen/Foster Avenues at Canarsie Plaza, that was something I came up with a while ago, though I would've done it by having the route go east on Avenue B and south on Remsen Avenue to get there. I believe I posted it here on the forums a while back. Otherwise, great work. I also recommend having the B33 LTD go on Avenue D to allow for B23 customers looking to reach JFK to transfer to the line as well, avoiding a double fare for 13th Avenue residents looking to get to JFK, but overall still good.

5.) I like having a short run B46 operating between Williamsburg Plaza and Church Avenue during the rush hours. However, I've seen Broadway at various times and I've heard that its one of the lower use segments of the line, with 9% of the routes ridership travelling along it. Its also one of the slower speed segments as well. This is why the SBS terminates at DeKalb Avenue. I do recommend splitting off the short route into two routes:

The B46 route, operating between Kings Plaza and DeKalb Avenue

A B96 route, operating between Williamsburg Plaza and Church Avenue (the B46 short route).

This would ensure that during most times of the day, B46 passengers in Crown Heights and Flatlands do not get delayed due to traffic issues on Broadway, especially during middays and weekends. During nights, the B46 would continue to travel on Broadway, with no B96 service.

As a daily user of the route, I did think of an idea while back to improve this route, which was to truncate all B46 service to DeKalb Avenue, with another route replacing it on Broadway, preferably a Q24 extension. Do you think its a good idea? Does that cause more harm than good, especially to other routes? What do you think.

6.) For the B71, I recommend having it also serve Red Hook, ensuring that area also has bus service to Manhattan as well, given the long commutes to Manhattan, despite it being nearby.

These are some concerns and feedback I have on the proposals, with some ways to improve them to make it more conductive to bus-subway transfers and direct access. I also do recommend looking into ways to adequately serve the Resorts World Casino in Ozone Park from Brooklyn (especially from the southern part) as well, as well as more routes connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan. Otherwise, its very impressive, despite some of the disagreements with it.

I can't address your comments now. I will only say that I would oppose a B46 Q24 swap on Broadway because having the Q24 merely parallel the J would be less useful than what currently exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.