My Proposed Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign

[B35 via Church]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 12:13 AM, Future ENY OP said:

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.

What's funny about this ad nauseam B44 to KCC bit is the sheer irony of the status quo back in the day involving most B44 proposals across the different transit boards.... Instead of wanting to extend it, the popular suggestion was to split it at the Junction & have B36's extended to the Junction.....

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 10:27 PM, Lex said:

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

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 12:41 AM, Lex said:

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.

Lol @ "nutbar".....

Anyway, I'm pleading the 5th with these proposals & (of course, on cue, like clockwork, without fail) the doppelganger's never-ending 7-11 slurp fest....

My pragmatism is not the problem here & it is refreshing to see different people pointing shit out.....

p.s. shout out to Deucey.

6 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

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). 

As I was reading that part of his post, that's just what I was saying to myself.... The rob peter to pay paul mentality is very real.

Those breakdowns of those frequency changes every quarter or so that you bother to take time on plot out on here, really illustrates how much this agency is not looking to spend for the simple sake of it..... Whenever I see/hear about some route getting some service increase, my first thought is not "Oh, that's great" (or something along those lines), it's "Who's f***in service did they take away to have this happen"....

It's long past that of a mere skepticism at this point.

Edited August 10, 2019 by B35 via Church

[Deucey]

On 8/9/2019 at 9:19 AM, BrooklynBus said:

It's to improve interborough connections. 

I think the Bx, Bk and Q could use more interboro routes, but I don’t think running them as locals or LTDs is the smart way. Works in LA, but here when buses move 5mph on average? Nah.

I won’t make a map, but creating a BRT SBS-style with stops every 1-2 miles so it emulates an express subway train would be how I’d do it. Example being Astoria Blvd Station to  Sheepshead Bay via Bedford and/or Nostrand.

Problem is NY streets are so narrow that traffic will eat up any time savings that’d make it relatively comparable to a subway route.

[Deucey]

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

p.s. shout out to Deucey

What’d I do?

[checkmatechamp13]

17 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

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? 

And last year, they added $2,827,000 to the budget for the extra off-peak service on the routes I mentioned, and $569,175 to the annual budget for the extra Q22 service. The savings for the Bx6 articulated conversion are $430,000 but it is still a net increase in the budget: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/180723_1030_Transit.pdf

Which is another thing I kept on bringing up to the people involved in fixing the Staten Island situation: If they insist on more service being added in an inefficient way (the "C" routes that run off-peak and serve both Downtown & Midtown, because "that's what ran before") then the money to provide that service has to come from somewhere. If they were overly aggressive on cost-reduction with this round of schedule changes, then there's your answer. (Like I said, the original plan added $1 million to the annual budget, and then I believe in January they added an extra $2 million).

 

[checkmatechamp13]

Now, onto actual proposals:

For the B36, that is inaccurate that it reduces the chance of a missed connection. As we discussed a long time ago with the Q24-Q52/53 connection at Atlantic Avenue, unless the buses were timed to connect based on them arriving at the same time (and so that perfect connection consistently turns into a missed connection) the times where you miss the connection because of the extra walk will be counterbalanced by all of the times where you are walking during the time you would've otherwise been waiting. So on average, the only extra time added is the walking time.

Anyway, a brief commentary on the proposals:

Phase 1: I don't agree with swapping the B1/B16 on the western end, just for the sake of having a route run the entire length of 86th Street. That's like swapping the Bx18 and Bx40/42 routings just so that the Bx40 runs the entire length of Tremont Avenue...it's pointless. The part west of 4th Avenue is residential, and there's no major connection west of there (unlike near Dyker Heights for example, where there's major connections and destinations in both directions)

Agree with the B2 and B9 extensions.

Will the B23 run along the old route via 16th Avenue, or along 13th/14th Avenue? I also think it should be extended to the Canarsie  train station via Foster Avenue

Agree with the B64 rerouting.

Phase 2: I agree with the B16 (not sure if I'd split it at Ocean/Parkside to accomplish what you want to do, but I do agree with having the northern portion of the B7 run down Clarkson)

No point in routing the B47 off of Ralph for those few blocks just to say that a small extra piece of the B7 is covered. Just leave it as is.

I would rather just have the B49 routed up Brooklyn/NY Avenue to serve Kings County Hospital, over creating a whole new route. The B49 duplicates the Brighton Line too much, and having it swing east would give it a separate purpose besides being a super-local of the Brighton Line. To cover the gap along Empire, I'd just create a branch of the B12 and call it a day.

Phase 3: Agree with extending the B65 (actually, I think the B45 would be a bit better, since it covers some areas further away from the  and B25), but disagree with discontinuing the B12. See above.

Phase 4: I would leave the B54 and B38 as-is, but the other portions I agree with. 

Phase 5: Agree with restoring and extending the B71. Disagree with combining the B14 and B45.

Phase 6: I'll get back to you on this part.

Phase 7: Agree with the B24 Greenpoint Avenue portion being combined with the B32. Disagree with combining the southern portion with the Q104 (this is more of a Queens proposal, but I would have the Q102 run straight across 36th Avenue to Steinway Street to 34th Avenue to 48th Street, and have the Q104 run straight across Broadway to Jackson Heights. I'm debating on whether or not it should replace the Q53 along Broadway. I'd also have the Q101 run straight down 39th Street...one of the problems in the LIC area (the way I see it) is everything meandering around to Queensboro Plaza and getting caught in the congestion leading to/from the Queensboro Bridge.

I'd also straighten out the Q59 and leave the B32 covering the western side of Williamsburg. 

Phase 8: Agree with combining the B81 with the B31. Not sure how I feel about an extension of the B82 to Gateway.

Phase 9: A rush hour/overnight route is a little confusing. I'd rather have the B9 run as a short-turn to the  (or ideally all the way to Bay Ridge). The B9 already has a long span, so it would literally just be a couple of extra trips to give it official overnight service.

Phase 10: Will get back to you.

 

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, Deucey said:

What’d I do?

You normally don't comment on these bus proposal threads.

[Deucey]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You normally don't comment on these bus proposal threads.

It’s the only time I had anything to contribute to one.

Although I think I did “pitch” a Manhattan super SBS idea - duplicating express subway service with SBS lines - in one of these threads.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Deucey

[Nova Fly Guy]

On 8/9/2019 at 10:53 PM, 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 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 stop (those two are faster to reach midtown than the and the ). 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 , 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 train stop, and what you propose for the B14 at the Euclid Avenue . 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 and are delayed, like what was the case a while back due to network problems, B69 passengers coming from Manhattan can instead take the and 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.

The B6 & B103 does not need combine service take the B6 off Glenwood is pointless. The B19 maybe if you sent it to Crown Height you won’t pick up that many people at Rockaway for E 80th service. The B49 is ok if you find a replacement for Rogers Av even though that part of ocean does not really need a bus. No transit on New York av will not work and  why is there so much service to JFK it’s overkill same with Gateway.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Nova Fly Guy

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, Nova Fly Guy said:

The B6 & B103 does not need combine service take the B6 off Glenwood is pointless. The B19 maybe if you sent it to Crown Height you won’t pick up that many people at Rockaway for E 80th service. The B49 is ok if you find a replacement for Rogers Av even though that part of ocean does not really need a bus. No transit on New York av will not work and  why is there so much service to JFK it’s overkill same with Gateway.

Well I was thinking of it since both the B6 and B103 would be serving almost the exact same areas, and it would be nice to have all of them on the same streets to increase convenience for and subway riders. Also, I felt like it would've been a big opportunity to introduce some brand new services and rework our limited stop service. In the report, it mentioned that the problem with Limited Stop (LTD) and Select Bus Services (SBS) is that they both require longer walks to the bus stop. Otherwise in some cases, they would be forced to take a slower local. As someone who does that longer walk everyday when taking the B46 SBS at Avenue K, even though I live closer to the local B46 stop at Avenue L, I can tell you how tiring that can be. What if there was another type of service that doesn't require you to walk very far and have a faster service to the subway?

The solution is simple. With the B6, B6 LTD and B103 LTD all on Avenue H and Avenue L between Flatbush Avenue and East 105th Street, we can have three tiers of service to cater for the large crowd for the and trains. The first one is your basic B6 Local service, making all stops. The second is the basic B6 LTD service that stops at select stops and major transfer points, connecting with bus routes. The final tier of service is a service that makes all stops to a certain point, then non-stop straight to the subway. I call this the SUPER Rapid Bus Service (stylized as SUPERapid). A SUPERapid route is a type of route that make all stop up to a certain point on the route, then past that point, the bus makes no stops to the nearest subway station. This type of service would work in transportation deserts and for routes that travel a considerate distance between the start of the line and the first stop it intersects. The B103 would be a perfect candidate for SUPERapid service. Under my plans for such a service on the B103, the route would make all stops between the first stop at Williams Avenue, and the intersection of Ralph Avenue and Flatlands Avenue, which is the border of the Canarsie neighborhood, for which this route will serve. From this point, the line would then make no stops to the Flatbush Avenue station of the and trains. The route would run every 5 minutes. Since all service would be under the SUPERapid livery, The B6 LTD would make any stops the B103 makes now as a Limited but wont do as a SUPERRapid, while the B6 would have local service for those who still need it. However, the B103 SUPERRapid route would provide a faster service to ALL of southern Canarsie without the long walking the traditional LTD and Select Bus Service routes entail, the walking that some people CAN'T handle, such as elderly folks.

Another candidate for the service is the B82 and the recently-launched B82 SBS on Flatlands Avenue and Kings Hwy. The route serves Spring Creek Towers, and the nearest subway is at Rockaway Pkwy . In Canarsie, many people also ride the B82 and B82 SBS to the Kings Hwy station, and this service is immensely popular. As the B83 and potential B85 also serves the complex, and travels a considerate distance to the nearest subways as well, either one of the routes would be converted as a later date. However, for the B82, this would actually be TWO SUPERapid routes in one. To do this, the proposed B82 SUPERapid would start at the current B82 terminal at the Spring Creek Towers loop, and will not travel to Gateway Mall. From here, the B82 would serve every stop in the complex along Pennsylvania Avenue to Flatlands Avenue. From here, the bus makes no stops to the busy Rockaway Pkwy stop, where most people transfer. After serving Rockaway Pkwy, the route resumes making stops along Flatlands Avenue to Ralph Avenue to sevre Canarsie. After Ralph Avenue, the line exits Canarsie and makes no stops until the Kings Highway and station. After this point, the route would terminate at Coney Island Avenue. This would speed up service to the Subway for riders living in Spring Creek Towers and in Canarsie.

The idea for such a service is not new. A similar idea was introduced in the Northeast Queens Bus Study in 2015, when the MTA proposed a "Limited-Zone" service for some routes in Northeast Queens. NE Queens is not served by a single subway line, compared to some parts of Brooklyn, and those living there drive or rely on bus service to get around. The Limited Zone service for its NE Queens lines consisted of a combination of Limited and Express service, in which buses make limited stops along an outer part of a certain route, then non-stop to the nearest subway stop, such as Flushing-Main Street. Refer to page 68 for details. A similar idea should be tried for routes in Brooklyn as well, with Canarsie and Spring Creek routes as the testing ground.

As far as the B49, the replacement for the Rogers Avenue service is the B44. The line would make the same stops as the current B49, so nothing is being lost. The section of Ocean Avenue north of Foster that the B49 will now travel on really could use a bus service. After all, rerouting the B49 to Ocean Avenue and east along Empire Blvd not only improves travel, but closes two service gaps in one shot. Its a no brainer. All the B49 does on Rogers and Bedford is steal clientele off better performing routes and deny easy travel for everyone in the neighborhood. For example, if one wanted to go from Midwood to Costco or Industry City in Sunset Park, one has to needlessly travel east on Foster Avenue then up Rogers Avenue before reaching Church Avenue. This unnecessarily adds about 15 minutes to their trip. With the new B49 on Ocean Avenue, one can travel north on Ocean Avenue directly to Church Avenue and hop on the B35. The 15 minutes saved from not having to needlessly travel east would be reinvested for more shopping time in Industry City. Essentially, its a 15 minute head start shopping there. In addition, residents on Ocean Avenue between Foster Avenue and Parkside Avenue no longer have to walk far to catch the bus as well.

New York Avenue will be covered by the B40 and nearby B43 (the latter north of Empire).

Somehow, there is a side benefit to this proposal, as well as a few proposals here. The side benefit is that some of my friends actually live along some of the proposed routes. How is this a side benefit, here's the thing. My girlfriend lives on Cortelyou Road, where the proposed B23 would travel on going between 86th Street and Canarsie Plaza. Another one of my friends lives on Ocean Avenue, along the route of the proposed B49. In comparison, I live two blocks from Utica Avenue, near the unchanged B46, as well as Avenue N, near the route of the proposed B9 and B10, Avenue K near the proposed B11 route, and Flatlands Avenue near the existing B82. With all of these proposed changes, it would be much easier for me to reach them. For example, if I wanted to go visit my girlfriend at home, I could take the B46 to Avenue D, and ride the proposed B23 to the stop nearest her home. Similar with my other friend, if I wanted to visit her (or her brother as well), I could take the B82 to Ocean Avenue and ride directly to her apartment, simple as that. I could have out with them more. Looks like Allan just made my life easier.

Anyway, the reason why they have so many routes to JFK Airport and Gateway Mall is that both of those locations are poorly served by bus routes coming from the Southern Brooklyn area. This is why many people take cabs and car services or drive to these locations. One time, a family friend had to drive to the airport to pick up a friend. The multitude of proposed routes would get people out of their cars and onto the buses as trips that currently require three or more buses can now be done in less than two buses. Sure better than walking along the Brooklyn Queens Expressway or Grand Central Pkwy to reach LaGuardia.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Are you still hitting everyone over the head with a job that you held for less than a year, almost 40 years ago?

[Lex]

59 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Are you still hitting everyone over the head with a job that you held for less than a year, almost 40 years ago?

Do you even need to ask?

[MysteriousBtrain]

8 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Anyway, the reason why they have so many routes to JFK Airport and Gateway Mall is that both of those locations are poorly served by bus routes coming from the Southern Brooklyn area.

[Brillant93]

Some of these routes are ridiculous and don’t reflect the current demographics nor travel patterns of today. Cutting the B82 at Coney Island Avenue? People use it way past that point, cutting the B7? People use that route to get to the B and Q train. Routes along the belt? It won’t work. cutting the B100? You’re asking for a mob with pitchforks. 

[Deucey]

10 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

A SUPERapid route is a type of route that make all stop up to a certain point on the route, then past that point, the bus makes no stops to the nearest subway station.

So you want the type of Limited-Stop service EVERY OTHER transit service uses instead of the one NY uses?

Honestly, if you want more reliable service, split these long routes into two separates that don't interline, and orient them to hub and spoke from subway stations or major community centers. Most transit systems are looking at microtransit circulators, and NY should do the same instead of running long-haul routes that duplicate subway service that aren't BRT or SBS.

[Around the Horn]

I'm not even going to touch that B9 proposal with a ten foot pole and I live on the line dammit. 

[Nova Fly Guy]

10 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well I was thinking of it since both the B6 and B103 would be serving almost the exact same areas, and it would be nice to have all of them on the same streets to increase convenience for and subway riders. Also, I felt like it would've been a big opportunity to introduce some brand new services and rework our limited stop service. In the report, it mentioned that the problem with Limited Stop (LTD) and Select Bus Services (SBS) is that they both require longer walks to the bus stop. Otherwise in some cases, they would be forced to take a slower local. As someone who does that longer walk everyday when taking the B46 SBS at Avenue K, even though I live closer to the local B46 stop at Avenue L, I can tell you how tiring that can be. What if there was another type of service that doesn't require you to walk very far and have a faster service to the subway?

The solution is simple. With the B6, B6 LTD and B103 LTD all on Avenue H and Avenue L between Flatbush Avenue and East 105th Street, we can have three tiers of service to cater for the large crowd for the and trains. The first one is your basic B6 Local service, making all stops. The second is the basic B6 LTD service that stops at select stops and major transfer points, connecting with bus routes. The final tier of service is a service that makes all stops to a certain point, then non-stop straight to the subway. I call this the SUPER Rapid Bus Service (stylized as SUPERapid). A SUPERapid route is a type of route that make all stop up to a certain point on the route, then past that point, the bus makes no stops to the nearest subway station. This type of service would work in transportation deserts and for routes that travel a considerate distance between the start of the line and the first stop it intersects. The B103 would be a perfect candidate for SUPERapid service. Under my plans for such a service on the B103, the route would make all stops between the first stop at Williams Avenue, and the intersection of Ralph Avenue and Flatlands Avenue, which is the border of the Canarsie neighborhood, for which this route will serve. From this point, the line would then make no stops to the Flatbush Avenue station of the and trains. The route would run every 5 minutes. Since all service would be under the SUPERapid livery, The B6 LTD would make any stops the B103 makes now as a Limited but wont do as a SUPERRapid, while the B6 would have local service for those who still need it. However, the B103 SUPERRapid route would provide a faster service to ALL of southern Canarsie without the long walking the traditional LTD and Select Bus Service routes entail, the walking that some people CAN'T handle, such as elderly folks.

Another candidate for the service is the B82 and the recently-launched B82 SBS on Flatlands Avenue and Kings Hwy. The route serves Spring Creek Towers, and the nearest subway is at Rockaway Pkwy . In Canarsie, many people also ride the B82 and B82 SBS to the Kings Hwy station, and this service is immensely popular. As the B83 and potential B85 also serves the complex, and travels a considerate distance to the nearest subways as well, either one of the routes would be converted as a later date. However, for the B82, this would actually be TWO SUPERapid routes in one. To do this, the proposed B82 SUPERapid would start at the current B82 terminal at the Spring Creek Towers loop, and will not travel to Gateway Mall. From here, the B82 would serve every stop in the complex along Pennsylvania Avenue to Flatlands Avenue. From here, the bus makes no stops to the busy Rockaway Pkwy stop, where most people transfer. After serving Rockaway Pkwy, the route resumes making stops along Flatlands Avenue to Ralph Avenue to sevre Canarsie. After Ralph Avenue, the line exits Canarsie and makes no stops until the Kings Highway and station. After this point, the route would terminate at Coney Island Avenue. This would speed up service to the Subway for riders living in Spring Creek Towers and in Canarsie.

The idea for such a service is not new. A similar idea was introduced in the Northeast Queens Bus Study in 2015, when the MTA proposed a "Limited-Zone" service for some routes in Northeast Queens. NE Queens is not served by a single subway line, compared to some parts of Brooklyn, and those living there drive or rely on bus service to get around. The Limited Zone service for its NE Queens lines consisted of a combination of Limited and Express service, in which buses make limited stops along an outer part of a certain route, then non-stop to the nearest subway stop, such as Flushing-Main Street. Refer to page 68 for details. A similar idea should be tried for routes in Brooklyn as well, with Canarsie and Spring Creek routes as the testing ground.

As far as the B49, the replacement for the Rogers Avenue service is the B44. The line would make the same stops as the current B49, so nothing is being lost. The section of Ocean Avenue north of Foster that the B49 will now travel on really could use a bus service. After all, rerouting the B49 to Ocean Avenue and east along Empire Blvd not only improves travel, but closes two service gaps in one shot. Its a no brainer. All the B49 does on Rogers and Bedford is steal clientele off better performing routes and deny easy travel for everyone in the neighborhood. For example, if one wanted to go from Midwood to Costco or Industry City in Sunset Park, one has to needlessly travel east on Foster Avenue then up Rogers Avenue before reaching Church Avenue. This unnecessarily adds about 15 minutes to their trip. With the new B49 on Ocean Avenue, one can travel north on Ocean Avenue directly to Church Avenue and hop on the B35. The 15 minutes saved from not having to needlessly travel east would be reinvested for more shopping time in Industry City. Essentially, its a 15 minute head start shopping there. In addition, residents on Ocean Avenue between Foster Avenue and Parkside Avenue no longer have to walk far to catch the bus as well.

New York Avenue will be covered by the B40 and nearby B43 (the latter north of Empire).

Somehow, there is a side benefit to this proposal, as well as a few proposals here. The side benefit is that some of my friends actually live along some of the proposed routes. How is this a side benefit, here's the thing. My girlfriend lives on Cortelyou Road, where the proposed B23 would travel on going between 86th Street and Canarsie Plaza. Another one of my friends lives on Ocean Avenue, along the route of the proposed B49. In comparison, I live two blocks from Utica Avenue, near the unchanged B46, as well as Avenue N, near the route of the proposed B9 and B10, Avenue K near the proposed B11 route, and Flatlands Avenue near the existing B82. With all of these proposed changes, it would be much easier for me to reach them. For example, if I wanted to go visit my girlfriend at home, I could take the B46 to Avenue D, and ride the proposed B23 to the stop nearest her home. Similar with my other friend, if I wanted to visit her (or her brother as well), I could take the B82 to Ocean Avenue and ride directly to her apartment, simple as that. I could have out with them more. Looks like Allan just made my life easier.

Anyway, the reason why they have so many routes to JFK Airport and Gateway Mall is that both of those locations are poorly served by bus routes coming from the Southern Brooklyn area. This is why many people take cabs and car services or drive to these locations. One time, a family friend had to drive to the airport to pick up a friend. The multitude of proposed routes would get people out of their cars and onto the buses as trips that currently require three or more buses can now be done in less than two buses. Sure better than walking along the Brooklyn Queens Expressway or Grand Central Pkwy to reach LaGuardia.

You add to much service to an area that does not need it the B103 can handle Av M the BM2 runs on M also. That part of ocean is very notorious for traffic Jams that will only delay the B49 killing any time you saved. Gateway does not need any buses from Southern Brooklyn it has the B82 which the very few people that want gateway use already. The B23 does not need to go to Canarsie nobody is taking the bus to bay ridge from that side of Brooklyn and plus the B6 or B82 will get you there already. 

 

SB you forget that Glenwood Road is a block north of Flatlands you move the B6 now you force everyone on the already unreliable B82LcL.

[B35 via Church]

Lol... wtf is a superrapid?!? Swear, MF-ers don't have a creative bone in their body..... Bitin ass MF'ers....

Anyway, keep these comments a-coming.... The more/different people posting in here, the better... Keep proving my point.

Edited August 12, 2019 by B35 via Church

[Deucey]

2 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Lol... wtf is a superrapid?!? Swear, MF-ers don't have a creative bone in their body..... Bitin ass MF'ers....

What he recommended is how Limited Stop service in LA runs (the 300-series routes) - all stops at the ends, only stops at major streets in the middle.

Technically, that's almost what SBS does. But I think he wants a super-express-style - i.e. M15 stops everywhere until Allen St, then only makes 4 stops until 96th St. (Although this is how Manhattan SBS's should be running - only making 'Express Station" stops. Could work in the outer boroughs if 98% of NY Streets were not two lane roads messed up with double-parking.

/thinkpiecing

[B35 via Church]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

What he recommended is how Limited Stop service in LA runs (the 300-series routes) - all stops at the ends, only stops at major streets in the middle.

Technically, that's almost what SBS does. But I think he wants a super-express-style - i.e. M15 stops everywhere until Allen St, then only makes 4 stops until 96th St. (Although this is how Manhattan SBS's should be running - only making 'Express Station" stops. Could work in the outer boroughs if 98% of NY Streets were not two lane roads messed up with double-parking.

/thinkpiecing

It's also how NICE bus operates their 22x out here in Nassau county.... Last inbound stop at the county line, then straight express to 179th.....

I mean honestly, for what he's describing, the Junction bound B103 "unofficially" already does that shit.... Very few, if anyone, embarks or disembarks west of Utica, before the ....

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

It's also how NICE bus operates their 22x out here in Nassau county.... Last inbound stop at the county line, then straight express to 179th.....

I mean honestly, for what he's describing, the Junction bound B103 "unofficially" already does that shit.... Very few, if anyone, embarks or disembarks west of Utica, before the ....

The idea COULD work for @BrooklynBus's B38 extension if the bulk of the ridership rode from Fulton St to Ridgewood, but since most of the passengers at Fulton/Flatbush have gotten off by Throop Av, and those going to Ridgewood have gotten on after Nostrand, these SuperRapids would be running empty because it wouldn't stop in the parts where the ridership would get on.

It's why I say split B38 if it's extended.

[BrooklynBus]

10 hours ago, Deucey said:

The idea COULD work for @BrooklynBus's B38 extension if the bulk of the ridership rode from Fulton St to Ridgewood, but since most of the passengers at Fulton/Flatbush have gotten off by Throop Av, and those going to Ridgewood have gotten on after Nostrand, these SuperRapids would be running empty because it wouldn't stop in the parts where the ridership would get on.

It's why I say split B38 if it's extended.

Most routes have a lot of turnover. That is not a good reason to split them. Would you recommend splitting other long routes like the B41 or B46? 

[Deucey]

21 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Most routes have a lot of turnover. That is not a good reason to split them. Would you recommend splitting other long routes like the B41 or B46? 

If it improves OTP and connections to the subway or railroads, sure.

Long routes are great for budgeting and planning efficiency for the bean counters, but don’t necessarily mean they’re great for passengers.

It’s like taking the old M5 from Harlem to Chambers Street. Kept me off the , but the 20 minutes stuck between 57th St and 42nd when it already took 30 minutes to get there from 148th St means that it’s a wasted trip. 

(But I’m also of the mind that non-SBS Manhattan north-South bus routes without bus lanes are a waste of resources if they’re going from above 96th St to below 14th St because they waste time and fuel.)

In general, my reroute would be shorter lengths with direct termini at subway and LIRR stations on one end and major points of interest at the other. And I’d implement the bus-bus and bus-train-bus transfer scheme to minimize inconvenience as time savings increase.

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

If it improves OTP and connections to the subway or railroads, sure.

Long routes are great for budgeting and planning efficiency for the bean counters, but don’t necessarily mean they’re great for passengers.

It’s like taking the old M5 from Harlem to Chambers Street. Kept me off the , but the 20 minutes stuck between 57th St and 42nd when it already took 30 minutes to get there from 148th St means that it’s a wasted trip. 

(But I’m also of the mind that non-SBS Manhattan north-South bus routes without bus lanes are a waste of resources if they’re going from above 96th St to below 14th St because they waste time and fuel.)

In general, my reroute would be shorter lengths with direct termini at subway and LIRR stations on one end and major points of interest at the other. And I’d implement the bus-bus and bus-train-bus transfer scheme to minimize inconvenience as time savings increase.

You can't tell these M101 defenders that last part though.... It's one of the most inefficient routes out - But since it accumulates a shit ton of ridership from A to Z, that somehow makes it is a successful route....

I can't wait until that route is either broken up and/or fused into other route{s}.....

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by B35 via Church

[Around the Horn]

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

You can't tell these M101 defenders that last part though.... It's one of the most inefficient routes out, but since it accumulates a shit ton of ridership from A to Z, that somehow makes it is successful route....

I can't wait until that route is either broken up and/or fused into other route{s}.....

 

The M101 frankly has no business running on Lex at all...

I'd rather have the M98 run full time and take that role.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

38 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

You can't tell these M101 defenders that last part though.... It's one of the most inefficient routes out, but since it accumulates a shit ton of ridership from A to Z, that somehow makes it is successful route....

I can't wait until that route is either broken up and/or fused into other route{s}.....

 

Imagine if it's actually kept intact after the Manhattan redesign. I can already see it:

"We are not proposing any routing changes for the M101, considering the route is relatively direct, has high ridership, and connects to several important destinations and transfer points"

Edited August 13, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven