Select Bus Service Discussion Thread

[BrooklynBus]

2 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Once again, Allan has a problem with the B/44 SBS south of Avenue U and offers ideas that indicate that he does not understand my community.

As far as the number of riders on the B/44 SBS that is going to Knapp Street, the service is needed as where are you going to turn the B/44 SBS as the bulk of the ridership comes from the Avenue X stop which my apartment window faces so I can observe the 10 -20 riders (and sometimes more) that board at the stop during all hours of the day. In the AM rush some of the school runs that terminate at Avenue X do the Avenue X, Batchelder Street, Avenue Y and Nostrand Avenue then begin the northbound run at the Avenue X stop.

While I am not usually a defender of the MTA, the question becomes in light of the present route structure, where are you going to turn the  buses and  I would like to add something that is usually not taken into consideration as providing service to Knapp Street has other things than the number of riders.  Do you know that the nursing home allows MTA drivers to use their bathroom facilities? This is extremely important as it is a health issue. This adds another dimension to providing service to Knapp Street as the only other provider is located just south of Avenue U and is a nursing home. 

As far as the Kingsborough Community College Service that you mentioned, I bought it up to the MTA at open-house at Brooklyn College and suggested that it be re-routed via Emmons Avenue. i disagree  strongly  with your proposal to re-route it via Avenue Z and then via the B/49 route to Kingsborough Community College as Avenue Z has become a nightmare in terms of traffic west of Ocean Avenue and if you add the artics, it will be wall to wall gridlock from daybreak to midnight.  The B/44 SBS will be another nail in the coffin of the B/36 as headways have already increased at all times during the day and on the weekend. The B/36  now is up to 20 minute headways after 8 PM when it used to be 12 -15 minutes during the week is just one instance and the traffic along Avenue Z has only made it worse.

I am one of those who believe give Mr. Byford some slack in terms of doing his job as he has to deal with an entrenched bureaucracy that is reluctant to change. The system cannot have a total change overnight and it has to be done slowly using existing programs in place. He cannot be everywhere and the small step that MTA took in terms of the B/44 SBS stop at Avenue R after 4 years is great. The fact that MTA will be doing a comprehensive study of all Brooklyn Bus Routes ln the future is a major step in changing the routes and I, for one, am happy and hope that Mr. Byford will stay on to help to guide it through to completion. 

I think there is some confusion here and perhaps it is my fault since I floated two ideas regarding the B44. The first one was to reroute some of the buses through the Sheepshead Bay Station. That was before the B44 SBS was implemented in 2013. Ted Orosz promised to evaluate it and get back to me in three months. I never heard from him again after several reminders. 

 I abandoned that idea after several months. I replaced it with another one which I asked the MTA to evaluate in September 2016. That one was to operate alternate B44 SBSs to KCC when school is in session and to discontinue the B49 SBS. I also recommended that around school dismissal, they operate some B49s via the pre-1978 route bypassing Sheepshead Bay Station. They have not responded specifically regarding either idea other than by providing some irrelevant statistics. When I  sprained what statistics they needed to gather to evaluate the idea, they never responded. I never proposed to eliminate all B44 SBS service to Knapp Street. 

I do not see why you ask where would I turn the B44 SBS. You say 10 to 20 riders board at Avenue X. Surely you cannot be talking about to go in the southbound direction. 

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And with the B44 SBS going to Kingsborough being utilize, I can see the end of this B49 LIMITED. Given how the SBS will be using Rogers Avenue with the B49, the need for a LIMITED Stop service on the B49 on Bedford Avenue will no longer be needed. That route will be replaced with an enhanced version of your proposed B50 route. My proposed version would be called the B59 and would be a 7-day a week LIMITED stop bi-directional service. It would start at Kingsborough, make all stops to the Sheepshead Bay Station, and from there, run along the length of Ocean Avenue and Empire Blvd make the following stops:

• Ocean Avenue/Avenue Z
• Avenue V
• Avenue U
• Avenue R
• Kings Hwy
• Avenue M
• Avenue J
• Avenue H
• Foster Avenue
• Cortelyou Road 
• Beverly Road
• Church Avenue
• Parkside Avenue
• Empire Blvd/Flatbush Avenue 
• Bedford Avenue
• Nostrand Avenue 
• Kingston Avenue 
• Utica Avenue/ Empire Blvd
• Utica Avenue/Eastern Parkway

Service would make all stops to the current B45 terminal at Ralph Avenue and St John Place via the B45 route. B44 SBS service, which will have some trips added with the extensionto Kingsborough, will continue to make the Select Bus Stops in the Rogers/Bedford Avenue area.

This would have to implemented with your other proposed changes to East Flatbush Bus routes, such as the B12 reroute along Empire Blvd and the B43 reroute southward to Kings County Hospital, etc, but would provide better connectivity.

And with that, service will improve. No more empty 62-foot buses and no more crowded 40-foot ones. Bus service would be more efficient, and your wish of a better bus network will be closer to reality. 

Your proposal is a little difficult for me to follow. How would my proposed B50 get to the B45 terminal? Via Utica Avenue I presume? Sounds like a costly extension over existing routes. I doubt the MTA would go for it. 

[JeremiahC99]

6 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Your proposal is a little difficult for me to follow. How would my proposed B50 get to the B45 terminal? Via Utica Avenue I presume? Sounds like a costly extension over existing routes. I doubt the MTA would go for it. 

Via Utica Avenue, then east along St. John’s Place and follow the routing of the B45. I prefer it better than having t end at Utica Avenue and Empire Blvd, since the connectivity to other lines is increased.

 

I think the costs would be balanced by implementing other reroutes suck as rerouting the B12 via Empire Blvd to Kong’s County Hospital, reroute the B43 South to Kings County Hospital and reroute the B16 east along Clarkson Avenue to Sutter Avenue. This was part of proposal E of your 2004 proposals:

http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/id15.html

Edited August 26, 2018 by JeremiahC99

[BrooklynBus]

38 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Oh, but he definitely understands his !

I'm no advocate for the B49 per se, but at the same time, the B44 has no business being extended down there....

Nobody's disagreeing with the fact that the B44 gets light on the ass end of the route.... The question is, why do B44's even need to run to KCC? So, what, so that buses be more like sardine cans? It's a solution finding a problem... They're not going to make these SBS routes more indirect for the sake of more ridership anyway..... Yeah, more ridership in general is good, but at the same time, trying to one-size-fits-all a particular bus route isn't necessarily a good thing either - and that is exactly how I see a B44 to KCC.... Isn't it enough that the damn thing runs from Sheepshead to Williamsburg?

If InterestedRider is perceptive enough to see that "the bulk of the ridership (of the B44) comes from the Avenue X stop which my apartment window faces so I can observe the 10 -20 riders (and sometimes more) that board at the stop during all hours of the day. In the AM rush some of the school runs that terminate at Avenue X do the Avenue X, Batchelder Street, Avenue Y and Nostrand Avenue then begin the northbound run at the Avenue X stop.", why would he then be "must be oblivious" to the crowding issues on the B36 - which operates  along the same portion of Nostrand av

Ever stopped to think why the B36 has crowding issues? "You must be oblivious" to B36 patronage west of Sheepshead Bay & how absolutely sluggish the thing runs; never-mind the portion east of it...... Yes his plans would reduce crowding on that part of the B36, on the B36 - it would also render it null & void, since turnover from either side of said subway station is quite high.....

Running B44's to KCC isn't going to fix the issues plaguing the B36....  That's the narrative it's looking like you're trying to convey here.

Bear in mind that we're almost three-quarters into the year 2018 & he currently does not hold that position anymore...

You act like everything the man says is gospel.

I never said my B44 proposal would fix the B36 overcrowding. (Also see my response to Interested Rider where I clarified my proposal.) 

Ther are several reasons why the B44 needs to run to KCC which I fully explained in the proposal I sent to the MTA. (It was about three pages long.) Many B49 passengers to KCC come from transferring routes. The only reason they do not use the Brighton Line instead is to save a fare. Since many have classes only three days a week, an unlimited pass does not make sense for them. If the fare structure is changed to allow three vehicles for a single fare, I agree the B44 SBS to KCC would not be necessary. Since there is no reason to assume the fare structure will change any time soon, as the fare continues to increase, the incentive to avoid a double fare also will increase. 

If those transferring riders used the B44 SBS instead of the B49 or B49 Limited which only operates during the AM, they would save at least 15 minutes with travel times comparable to if they used the Brighton Subway. Also, few realize that in addition to between 8 and 10 AM, and 3 to 5, college traffic is very heavy between 12 and 2 also. I counted 1500 students boarding at the college for the B1 and B49 between those tines in addition to seated leads arriving at the college. Buses are also crowded at every class change. That does not even consider that about 20 percent of the potential B1 KCC passengers are using the yellow school buses and enrollment at the college increases every semester. 

And as I previously stated the B44 excess capacity would be utilized. So there are many reasons why this proposal is a good idea.

 

[BrooklynBus]

12 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Via Utica Avenue, then east along St. John’s Place and follow the routing of the B45. I prefer it better than having t end at Utica Avenue and Empire Blvd, since the connectivity to other lines is increased.

 

I think the costs would be balanced by implementing other reroutes suck as rerouting the B12 via Empire Blvd to Kong’s County Hospital, reroute the B43 South to Kings County Hospital and reroute the B16 east along Clarkson Avenue to Sutter Avenue. This was part of proposal E of your 2004 proposals:

http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/id15.html

I realize they are similar to my proposals. I am confused however what you are proposing for the B12 via Empire. Exactly what is the routing you propose. And I am still not convinced the extension up Utica and East to Ralph is cost efficient. What increased connectivity do you see that would make it worthwhile?

[JeremiahC99]

8 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I realize they are similar to my proposals. I am confused however what you are proposing for the B12 via Empire. Exactly what is the routing you propose. And I am still not convinced the extension up Utica and East to Ralph is cost efficient. What increased connectivity do you see that would make it worthwhile?

B12 Via Empire would go via Nostrand and Rogers to the Hospital, like in your proposals. The route of that route would follow what you proposed in 2004.

 

As for connectivity, the new route would connect to the  trains, and the B14, B17, B45, and the B65, which would be extended to Broadway Juction, a other proposal of yours. Now we need more effective SBS lines. Would your proposed B22 Line to JFK work?

Edited August 26, 2018 by JeremiahC99

[B35 via Church]

12 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I never said my B44 proposal would fix the B36 overcrowding.....

Splendid.... and I never said you did either.

That is, unless you're behind the "JeremiahC99" account...

14 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Ther are several reasons why the B44 needs to run to KCC which I fully explained in the proposal I sent to the MTA. (It was about three pages long.) Many B49 passengers to KCC come from transferring routes. The only reason they do not use the Brighton Line instead is to save a fare. Since many have classes only three days a week, an unlimited pass does not make sense for them. If the fare structure is changed to allow three vehicles for a single fare, I agree the B44 SBS to KCC would not be necessary. Since there is no reason to assume the fare structure will change any time soon, as the fare continues to increase, the incentive to avoid a double fare also will increase. 

If those transferring riders used the B44 SBS instead of the B49 or B49 Limited which only operates during the AM, they would save at least 15 minutes with travel times comparable to if they used the Brighton Subway. Also, few realize that in addition to between 8 and 10 AM, and 3 to 5, college traffic is very heavy between 12 and 2 also. I counted 1500 students boarding at the college for the B1 and B49 between those tines in addition to seated leads arriving at the college. Buses are also crowded at every class change. That does not even consider that about 20 percent of the potential B1 KCC passengers are using the yellow school buses and enrollment at the college increases every semester. 

And as I previously stated the B44 excess capacity would be utilized. So there are many reasons why this proposal is a good idea.

The B44 to KCC isn't necessary, regardless of the transfer policy and/or overall fare structure... I agree that the uni-directional LTD on the B49 is a half-assed attempt at serving those kids, but at the same time, that does not mean that the B44, in any facet, should be sent down there - SBS or not....

I'm no advocate of SBS in general in the slightest - However, I can not sit up here & support a prolonging & a meandering of the route (regardless of how slight), when I have, and still am vehemently vexed about how this agency f***ed over New York av. riders, in part, by moving the LTD equivalent on Rogers.... The 44 should be left over there down @ Knapp - and to use the argument that the thing has light usage past a certain point, doesn't amount to much of a hill of beans.... There is nothing saying that a bus route should be, or necessarily have to be packed to the gills from terminal to terminal..... By that logic, you would have to divert (or truncate) a shitload of bus routes that currently terminate where they do in this city, to some major ridership generator or something.....

There has to be some other way to address the capacity issue for/with/regarding those KCC kids.... Running some SBS B44's to KCC because the B49 is inadequate, I can't get on board with, especially given that the route emanates from WBP on the opposite end..... It's too much of a burden IMO..... Your proposal would be more plausible if the B44 didn't have to put up with as much of the current strain that it does, for the distance that it does.....

-fin.

[BrooklynBus]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

B12 Via Empire would go via Nostrand and Rogers to the Hospital, like in your proposals. The route of that route would follow what you proposed in 2004.

 

As for connectivity, the new route would connect to the  trains, and the B14, B17, B45, and the B65, which would be extended to Broadway Juction, a other proposal of yours. Now we need more effective SBS lines. Would your proposed B22 Line to JFK work?

But why would someone at Utica Avenue and Eastern Parkway need to transfer to the proposed B50? The B17 connection could be made at Empire and Utica. So the only really new connection would be between the B14 and the B50. I wonder if that cone toon alone merits an extension to Eastern Parkway but you would have it go further yet to Ralph Avenue, I guess to make a connection with an extended B65. 

The B22 would work if the new shoulders on the Belt Parkway were converted to a bus only lane. When the Mill Basin Bridge reconstruction is complete and Bus the Flatbush Avenue Overpass is high enough for buses, the route would not need to divert off the Parkway at Knapp Street. 

 

 

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Splendid.... and I never said you did either.

That is, unless you're behind the "JeremiahC99" account...

The B44 to KCC isn't necessary, regardless of the transfer policy and/or overall fare structure... I agree that the uni-directional LTD on the B49 is a half-assed attempt at serving those kids, but at the same time, that does not mean that the B44, in any facet, should be sent down there - SBS or not....

I'm no advocate of SBS in general in the slightest - However, I can not sit up here & support a prolonging & a meandering of the route (regardless of how slight), when I have, and still am vehemently vexed about how this agency f***ed over New York av. riders, in part, by moving the LTD equivalent on Rogers.... The 44 should be left over there down @ Knapp - and to use the argument that the thing has light usage past a certain point, doesn't amount to much of a hill of beans.... There is nothing saying that a bus route should be, or necessarily have to be packed to the gills from terminal to terminal..... By that logic, you would have to divert (or truncate) a shitload of bus routes that currently terminate where they do in this city, to some major ridership generator or something.....

There has to be some other way to address the capacity issue for/with/regarding those KCC kids.... Running some SBS B44's to KCC because the B49 is inadequate, I can't get on board with, especially given that the route emanates from WBP on the opposite end..... It's too much of a burden IMO..... Your proposal would be more plausible if the B44 didn't have to put up with as much of the current strain that it does, for the distance that it does.....

-fin.

Moving the B44 SBS to Rogers would have been the correct decision if the MTA had made other changes to replace service on New York Avenue. But they are not capable of thinking if the system by studying more than one or two routes a total a time like I did in 1975 when I looked at the linkages between six routes. They never could have figured out how to have the B36 go along Avenue Z only because moving it from Neptune could not have been done if they only looked two routes. 

Thats why I don't expect much from the redesign because they still will look at the system one or two routes at a time. 

I don't see how you consider my proposal a meandering of the B44 route. It takes the shortest and straightest distance to the college short of building a bridge over Sheepshead Bay which will never happen. 

A route cannot be expected to be packed to the gills at both ends in mist cases, but when you have an opportunity to greatly increase ridership where service bus underutilized at no extra cost, you should take advantage of that. I find your arguments unconvincing why a partial rerouting to KCC is a bad idea. 

[Interested Rider]

I am very well aware of the problems with the B/36 especially during rush hours and even during the  weekday midday period where it is standing room only south of Avenue Z.  How many times have I looked out the window on a weekday  morning at about 7:30 AM and I see 15 or more riders waiting for a B/36, it is a common occurrence. Many years ago, there was shuttle service from Nostrand Avenue and Avenue U to the Brighton Line station during rush hours. This could have been one alternative but now thanks to the Councilman and the now pigeon poop plaza, it cannot be done, 

The problem with the B/36 is two fold with first being Avenue Z and the second being an MTA practice of having the drivers spend the first part o their day on one route and the second half on  the B/36. As far as Avenue Z is concerned, there is nothing that can be done as there is a school,a post office,a  car wash among other things  that block up traffic flow on the street. It  is just one lane  for through  traffic in each direction. The street is a nightmare during  daytime hours. Even the traffic lane becomes blocked as I saw a truck driver stop his truck under the Brighton Line in the westbound lane and then proceed to make deliveries from the truck all the while leaving one lane for traffic in both directions. What is needed in Sheepshead Bay is traffic enforcement on a fairly regular basis that would reduce the traffic problems on Avenue Z.

There is something that gets me mad and it has to do with the penny pinchers that have decided to split drivers runs into the first half on one line and  the second half on another line. What this does is it spreads the delays from the first route onto the second route for if the driver is late on the first half, he will be late on the second half. By having the drivers work both halves on the same route (where it is feasible). it cuts down on the delays as if there is a delay, the driver then can be put into place.. The B/36 ran better when the drivers were able to work both halves on the same route and this idea that one half must be spent on one route and the second half on another route hurts ridership on both routes

Based on what I see now with the B/36 and the B/44, I have come to the conclusion (and therefore I am in agreement with B35 via Church) that the Kingsborough service proposed  by Brooklyn Bus will only make the B/44 SBS service far worse than it already is. The B/44 is a very long route and unlike the B/49 has a lot more businesses on it with more traffic to delay it.It was bought to their attention  about the traffic problems at the initial meetings  especially from Flatbush Avenue to Kings Highway and nothing has changed.  The B/49 can handle the Kingsborough service quite well as not only does it transfer to all the same routes as the B/44 does south of Fulton Street it operates on far wider streets with the exception of the Sheepshead Bay area so it can make up time. Let me add one more point as to the B/49 service to Kingsborough in that service to schools up to and including high schools is fixed or students come in at 8 AM and leave at 4 PM (for example) and it runs from September to June. This gives the MTA flexibility in terms of making a schedule change if it is needed . With a college, students may have one schedule in the fall and one in the spring so if the MTA provided more service during certain hours  during the fall semester, the same service may not be needed in the spring semester. Taking it one step further, the same run that carries a full load during fall, may carry ten students during the spring semester so when the schedule is prepared for the fall, using the spring numbers were used  the run becomes overcrowded again. This is why I have changed my mind about B/44 SBS KCC service and  let the planners go back to improving the B/49 service instead of destroying it.

[BrooklynBus]

29 minutes ago, Interested Rider said:

I am very well aware of the problems with the B/36 especially during rush hours and even during the  weekday midday period where it is standing room only south of Avenue Z.  How many times have I looked out the window on a weekday  morning at about 7:30 AM and I see 15 or more riders waiting for a B/36, it is a common occurrence. Many years ago, there was shuttle service from Nostrand Avenue and Avenue U to the Brighton Line station during rush hours. This could have been one alternative but now thanks to the Councilman and the now pigeon poop plaza, it cannot be done, 

The problem with the B/36 is two fold with first being Avenue Z and the second being an MTA practice of having the drivers spend the first part o their day on one route and the second half on  the B/36. As far as Avenue Z is concerned, there is nothing that can be done as there is a school,a post office,a  car wash among other things  that block up traffic flow on the street. It  is just one lane  for through  traffic in each direction. The street is a nightmare during  daytime hours. Even the traffic lane becomes blocked as I saw a truck driver stop his truck under the Brighton Line in the westbound lane and then proceed to make deliveries from the truck all the while leaving one lane for traffic in both directions. What is needed in Sheepshead Bay is traffic enforcement on a fairly regular basis that would reduce the traffic problems on Avenue Z.

There is something that gets me mad and it has to do with the penny pinchers that have decided to split drivers runs into the first half on one line and  the second half on another line. What this does is it spreads the delays from the first route onto the second route for if the driver is late on the first half, he will be late on the second half. By having the drivers work both halves on the same route (where it is feasible). it cuts down on the delays as if there is a delay, the driver then can be put into place.. The B/36 ran better when the drivers were able to work both halves on the same route and this idea that one half must be spent on one route and the second half on another route hurts ridership on both routes

Based on what I see now with the B/36 and the B/44, I have come to the conclusion (and therefore I am in agreement with B35 via Church) that the Kingsborough service proposed  by Brooklyn Bus will only make the B/44 SBS service far worse than it already is. The B/44 is a very long route and unlike the B/49 has a lot more businesses on it with more traffic to delay it.It was bought to their attention  about the traffic problems at the initial meetings  especially from Flatbush Avenue to Kings Highway and nothing has changed.  The B/49 can handle the Kingsborough service quite well as not only does it transfer to all the same routes as the B/44 does south of Fulton Street it operates on far wider streets with the exception of the Sheepshead Bay area so it can make up time. Let me add one more point as to the B/49 service to Kingsborough in that service to schools up to and including high schools is fixed or students come in at 8 AM and leave at 4 PM (for example) and it runs from September to June. This gives the MTA flexibility in terms of making a schedule change if it is needed . With a college, students may have one schedule in the fall and one in the spring so if the MTA provided more service during certain hours  during the fall semester, the same service may not be needed in the spring semester. Taking it one step further, the same run that carries a full load during fall, may carry ten students during the spring semester so when the schedule is prepared for the fall, using the spring numbers were used  the run becomes overcrowded again. This is why I have changed my mind about B/44 SBS KCC service and  let the planners go back to improving the B/49 service instead of destroying it.

I agree with your assessment of the B36. But I don't see why even with the current Street arrangement. They couldn't operate a needed B36 shuttle service if they rerouted eastbound service back to Sheepshead Bay Road and used the closed portion of the fork at East 17 Street for buses only. 

Traffic on Avenue Z is bad but not impossible. Yes more enforcement would help. 

I do not see why or agree why my proposal would hurt the existing B44. 

I do not know if you ever use the B49 during midday between say Avenue J and Avenue Z. I used to use it frequently and now only occasionally. It is as slow as molasses even without businesses because of the double parking on every single block. Buses are constantly delayed by always having to switch lanes and waiting for passing cars to let them switch between lanes. I don't see how you can say it serves the college just fine. 

 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Moving the B44 SBS to Rogers would have been the correct decision if the MTA had made other changes to replace service on New York Avenue. But they are not capable of thinking if the system by studying more than one or two routes a total a time like I did in 1975 when I looked at the linkages between six routes. They never could have figured out how to have the B36 go along Avenue Z only because moving it from Neptune could not have been done if they only looked two routes. 

Thats why I don't expect much from the redesign because they still will look at the system one or two routes at a time. 

I don't see how you consider my proposal a meandering of the B44 route. It takes the shortest and straightest distance to the college short of building a bridge over Sheepshead Bay which will never happen. 

A route cannot be expected to be packed to the gills at both ends in mist cases, but when you have an opportunity to greatly increase ridership where service bus underutilized at no extra cost, you should take advantage of that. I find your arguments unconvincing why a partial rerouting to KCC is a bad idea. 

I'm not optimistic about any of the individual borough bus network redesigns at all - especially if the current SIM network is any microcosm of what's the hell to come....

Yes, your route takes the shortest & straightest distance possible - which would still be less direct than what/how they want all these SBS routes..... I'm not faulting you for the street layout, but hey, the facts are the facts.... It's going to make the thing more meandrous than the current routing... It is what it is with that... I don't see how you can argue against that....

I'm well aware with who I'm dealing with here, thus - it is absolutely NO surprise you're going to find my (or any other dissenter's) arguments unconvincing with this - it's BrooklynBus' way or the highway, you're never wrong, got all that..... What I will say is that I'm not hyper-focused with KCC remotely enough to want to mar the B44 in sending it there.... I'm considering the entire B44 route from top to bottom & any current rider of the thing would easily object to what you're proposing.... It's not reasonable, it is overkill.... There has to be a breaking point with which ridership should be increased on a route, otherwise any of us can plausibly justify extending or diverting any route anywhere.....

Edited August 26, 2018 by B35 via Church

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

I agree with your assessment of the B36. But I don't see why even with the current Street arrangement. They couldn't operate a needed B36 shuttle service if they rerouted eastbound service back to Sheepshead Bay Road and used the closed portion of the fork at East 17 Street for buses only. 

Traffic on Avenue Z is bad but not impossible. Yes more enforcement would help. 

I do not see why or agree why my proposal would hurt the existing B44. 

I do not know if you ever use the B49 during midday between say Avenue J and Avenue Z. I used to use it frequently and now only occasionally. It is as slow as molasses even without businesses because of the double parking on every single block. Buses are constantly delayed by always having to switch lanes and waiting for passing cars to let them switch between lanes. I don't see how you can say it serves the college just fine. 

 

You’re right. There needs to be adequate service to and from the college. One time, I went to pick up a friend there at Kingsborough on a Thursday afternoon, and i got there at 1:00 PM. I met up with him and got on a B1 bus to the Brighton Line. By the time the bus left Kingsborough, the bus was extremely crowded, and between the college and the Brighton Line station at Broghton Beach Avenue and Coney Island Avenue, the bus made a grand total of ZERO stops. How can one say that the existing service is fine when the buses constantly don’t stop in Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach.  This is not something SBS is to solve.

 

They have to do everything in their power to make the crowding situation tolerable. The crowding situations in Manhattan Beach, Brighton Beach, and Sheepshead Bay is totally unacceptable.

Edited August 26, 2018 by JeremiahC99

[BrooklynBus]

50 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not optimistic about any of the individual borough bus network redesigns at all - especially if the current SIM network is any microcosm of what's the hell to come....

Yes, your route takes the shortest & straightest distance possible - which would still be less direct than what/how they want all these SBS routes..... I'm not faulting you for the street layout, but hey, the facts are the facts.... It's going to make the thing more meandrous than the current routing... It is what it is with that... I don't see how you can argue against that....

I'm well aware with who I'm dealing with here, thus - it is absolutely NO surprise you're going to find my (or any other dissenter's) arguments unconvincing with this - it's BrooklynBus' way or the highway, you're never wrong, got all that..... What I will say is that I'm not hyper-focused with KCC remotely enough to want to mar the B44 in sending it there.... I'm considering the entire B44 route from top to bottom & any current rider of the thing would easily object to what you're proposing.... It's not reasonable, it is overkill.... There has to be a breaking point with which ridership should be increased on a route, otherwise any of us can plausibly justify extending or diverting any route anywhere.....

The point isn't the meandering or the extra distance. It's how much extra time it would add to the route and I do not believe it would be more than three or four minutes which is not that significant. And I certainly do change my opinion when presented with convincing arguments. 

17 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

You’re right. There needs to be adequate service to and from the college. One time, I went to pick up a friend there at Kingsborough on a Thursday afternoon, and i got there at 1:00 PM. I met up with him and got on a B1 bus to the Brighton Line. By the time the bus left Kingsborough, the bus was extremely crowded, and between the college and the Brighton Line station at Broghton Beach Avenue and Coney Island Avenue, the bus made a grand total of ZERO stops. How can one say that the existing service is fine when the buses constantly don’t stop in Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach.  This is not something SBS is to solve.

They have to do everything in their power to make the crowding situation tolerable. The crowding situations in Manhattan Beach, Brighton Beach, and Sheepshead Bay is totally unacceptable.

I met with the MTA at least a half dozen times on thus very issue during the past ten years. I write to them whenever I see a problem. Whenever I think they got it under control, a few months later I see it again. 

[Interested Rider]

I know about the problems of the B/49 as I have been riding it off and on for 40 years so the present problems are nothing new to me. It is the reason that when I go to Avenue M to go shopping on a weekly basis, I would rather struggle up and down the stairs on the Brighton Line with all of its unexpected surprises than to take the B/49. Two years ago, I had to take a class to work for the Board of Elections at PS 195 in Manhattan Beach and the B/49 never showed up leaving the beach. I finally got fed up and took the B/1 which got stuck under the elevated so it took forever to reach Ocean Parkway  where I finally took the B/36 home.

As far as service to the college especially during the summer, it is a hit and miss thing and it has to do with travel to and from the beach. When the MTA prepares its summer schedule for the B/1 and the B/49, the MTA cannot correctly predict the weather which will determine how many buses are needed beyond the regular schedule and, therein lies the problem as clear warm weather will have more riders and rainy weather will have empty buses. So the reality is that when the MTA prepares a schedule for the summer,.which may or may not work every day . When the original B/1 was running from 25th Avenue (I am referring to prior to 1978) the B/1 ran every 10 minutes to the beach during the summer (it was 20 minutes during the rest of the ,year),  so there was regular service to and from the beach. The route today is quite different as compared to that time as the route is longer and goes under two separate elevated structures, 86th Street and Brighton Beach Avenue where the bus can get stuck for long periods of time. On routes such as this schedules go out the window as one truck, one long light or one truck that  cannot fit under the elevated structure will delay the bus and everything goes out the window. This is why I am thankful, I retired in September 2010 or right after the B/1 and the B/64 changed terminals in Bay Ridge as with the B/64 there was predictability with the schedules and as soon as the B/1 took over, I had to add an additional 45  minutes to the 2 1/2  hour one way trip. Do you or  the MTA want to go back to 2010 or 1978, I doubt it, so you learn to accept it . There is a reason that the MTA will just listen to your complaints and do nothing as what can they do as the buses are subject to the whims or the daily traffic patterns which can change in a New York minute.  The B/44 local and SBS is a different story as it does not have the problems of either B/1 or B/49 and therefore should not be burdened with those problems by extending it to Manhattan Beach.

For bus routes to work, there needs to be more traffic enforcement on a regular basis that crack down on the the double parkers and those that block traffic. This along with keeping bus routes at workable length, will improve service. 

 

 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

The point isn't the meandering or the extra distance. It's how much extra time it would add to the route and I do not believe it would be more than three or four minutes which is not that significant.

....except both of those factors aren't mutually exclusive to runtime - They're directly proportional to it.

Your attempt to try to minimize that point failed.

14 minutes ago, Interested Rider said:

....The B/44 local and SBS is a different story as it does not have the problems of either B/1 or B/49 and therefore should not be burdened with those problems by extending it to Manhattan Beach.

That's what I'm getting at when I make a mention of being hyper-focused with KCC..... Why introduce the B44 in its totality into what's going on with the B1/B49 on that end of the route...... And then he'll be the first person chomping at the bit to author never-ending blogpost series' on how the B44 SBS isn't this, that, and the third...

I'll say it again, it's a solution looking for a problem..... The thing should be left down there at Knapp.

Edited August 26, 2018 by B35 via Church

[Express Bus Operator]

I also wanted to address that, any additional time or stops or modifications added to the route must also be approved by the depot union chairman. Its not like transit just implement routes and times all by themselves. Its also over looked by the depot union chairman. Sometimes mileages and how much time will the operator be on the seat all determines modifications decisions.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Interested Rider said:

I know about the problems of the B/49 as I have been riding it off and on for 40 years so the present problems are nothing new to me. It is the reason that when I go to Avenue M to go shopping on a weekly basis, I would rather struggle up and down the stairs on the Brighton Line with all of its unexpected surprises than to take the B/49. Two years ago, I had to take a class to work for the Board of Elections at PS 195 in Manhattan Beach and the B/49 never showed up leaving the beach. I finally got fed up and took the B/1 which got stuck under the elevated so it took forever to reach Ocean Parkway  where I finally took the B/36 home.

As far as service to the college especially during the summer, it is a hit and miss thing and it has to do with travel to and from the beach. When the MTA prepares its summer schedule for the B/1 and the B/49, the MTA cannot correctly predict the weather which will determine how many buses are needed beyond the regular schedule and, therein lies the problem as clear warm weather will have more riders and rainy weather will have empty buses. So the reality is that when the MTA prepares a schedule for the summer,.which may or may not work every day . When the original B/1 was running from 25th Avenue (I am referring to prior to 1978) the B/1 ran every 10 minutes to the beach during the summer (it was 20 minutes during the rest of the ,year),  so there was regular service to and from the beach. The route today is quite different as compared to that time as the route is longer and goes under two separate elevated structures, 86th Street and Brighton Beach Avenue where the bus can get stuck for long periods of time. On routes such as this schedules go out the window as one truck, one long light or one truck that  cannot fit under the elevated structure will delay the bus and everything goes out the window. This is why I am thankful, I retired in September 2010 or right after the B/1 and the B/64 changed terminals in Bay Ridge as with the B/64 there was predictability with the schedules and as soon as the B/1 took over, I had to add an additional 45  minutes to the 2 1/2  hour one way trip. Do you or  the MTA want to go back to 2010 or 1978, I doubt it, so you learn to accept it . There is a reason that the MTA will just listen to your complaints and do nothing as what can they do as the buses are subject to the whims or the daily traffic patterns which can change in a New York minute.  The B/44 local and SBS is a different story as it does not have the problems of either B/1 or B/49 and therefore should not be burdened with those problems by extending it to Manhattan Beach.

For bus routes to work, there needs to be more traffic enforcement on a regular basis that crack down on the the double parkers and those that block traffic. This along with keeping bus routes at workable length, will improve service. 

Although the pre-1978 B1 ran every ten minutes during the summer, I doubt it that the buses never bunched and two didn't come every 20 minutes some of the time. 

There are many reasons why buses cannot keep to a schedule and although traffic is an important factor, too often it is a scapegoat so as not to address the issue of traffic enforcement and scheduling tactics that can minimize bunching and late buses. One is  to allow ample layover time to allow buses to recover from traffic delays and delays caused by wheelchairs. I do not believe any extra time is allowed in the schedule for wheelchairs. With RTS buses, one single wheelchair can delay a bus between five and ten minutes for entry and exit. With ten minute headways, that's automatic bunching without even considering traffic. And once bunching starts, it often exacerbates and spreads. 

If there is not enough layover time buses will leave the terminal already bunched or a minute apart. That means without any intervention they will remain bunched throughout the day. Not scheduling enough buses in the first place causes overcrowding at bus stops and also increases unreliability. So there is a lot more to bus delays than just traffic and double parking. You need more delivery zones which DOT has been trying to do, but the commercial establishments are against it because they do not want reduced metered parking. They are also trying to create additional traffic lanes in the parking lanes during rush hours but the stores don't want that either. They would rather have the double parking that delays buses. The solution is to tailor the parking bans to only when needed. Instead of 7 to 10 and 4 to 7, perhaps only an hour or 90 minute ban is necessary. 

Explain why the B1/B64 terminate swap reduced reliability on the B1. How would extending the B44 to KCC, extend the problems of the B1 and B49 to the B44? Many of the B1 problems are caused by the two els and are irrelevant to the B44. The B49s problems are caused by double parking on Ocean Avenue and traffic congestion near Sheepshead Bay Station, also irrelevant to the B44. I fail to see how adding passengers to the route in the off-peak direction would create problems. That is something that us desirable. 

Regarding your statement:  "the MTA cannot correctly predict the weather which will determine how many buses are needed beyond the regular schedule and, therein lies the problem as clear warm weather will have more riders and rainy weather will have empty buses."

But that is exactly what used to happen back in the old days. First of all summer schedules were automatically boosted on Beach routes as you already pointed out using the B1 as an example. And volunteers who wanted overtime would agree to work extra runs on those routes when the weather called for sunny temperatures in the 90s. Now I doubt that happens anymore with the focus on reducing overtime. Still, beach service was horrible through the 1980s, because the MTA had absolutely no idea regarding the numbers of passengers using beach routes. I remember in the 1960s how B49 buses would often run non-stop from Church Avenue all the way to Emmons Avenue, stopping only when someone had to get off usually at a transfer point. Those waiting at stops such as Avenue K could wait over two hours for a bus to stop.  That was something I tried very hard to correct during my brief time in Operations Planning. 

The solution is to schedule buses for a day with moderate bus usage, not for a rainy day. And to supplement buses on a day where high beach usage is projected. Luckily for the MTA, beach usage today is much lighter than it was 50 years ago, so not nearly as much service is needed.

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

....except both of those factors aren't mutually exclusive to runtime - They're directly proportional to it.

Your attempt to try to minimize that point failed.

I am sorry but I do not understand what you are saying. Additional mileage and adding three minutes to the runtime are directly proportional to what? The runtime? 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by BrooklynBus

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, DueceDrives said:

I also wanted to address that, any additional time or stops or modifications added to the route must also be approved by the depot union chairman. Its not like transit just implement routes and times all by themselves. Its also over looked by the depot union chairman. Sometimes mileages and how much time will the operator be on the seat all determines modifications decisions.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. Of course the union has a say. 

[B35 via Church]

30 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I am sorry but I do not understand what you are saying. Additional mileage and adding three minutes to the runtime are directly proportional to what? The runtime?

Yes, you are sorry.... You and your feigning ignorance antics.

You know full well that I'm referring to runtime (evidenced by that snide ass addition of "three minutes" to the inquiry).... This latest reply of yours is nothing more than you further trying to downplay how significant running B44's to KCC is....

Look, If that's what this is going to be relegated to, then let's not waste each other's time here....

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by B35 via Church

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Yes, you are sorry.... You and your feigning ignorance antics.

You know full well that I'm referring to runtime (evidenced by that snide ass addition of "three minutes" to the inquiry).... This latest reply of yours is nothing more than you further trying to downplay how significant running B44's to KCC is....

Look, If that's what this is going to be relegated to, then let's not waste each other's time here....

 

 

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Yes, you are sorry.... You and your feigning ignorance antics.

You know full well that I'm referring to runtime (evidenced by that snide ass addition of "three minutes" to the inquiry).... This latest reply of yours is nothing more than you further trying to downplay how significant running B44's to KCC is....

Look, If that's what this is going to be relegated to, then let's not waste each other's time here....

 

I was trying to be polite by saying "I am sorry". But you accuse me of "feigning ignorance." What you are saying makes no sense at all if you are saying adding runtime and mileage is "directly proportional" to runtime. How can something be proportional to itself? 

If anyone understands what he is trying to say, please chime in. 

[Interested Rider]

Allan (Brooklyn Bus) stated that the traffic on Avenue Z is not that bad near the station, Really as every time I take the B/36 to the Brighton Line Station, we seem to get stuck in traffic on Avenue Z from the Ocean Avenue to the station segment as I carefully delineated the reasons why in that short segment. It seems that Brooklyn Bus does not have to wait on Avenue Z under the trestle when three different buses try to board passengers (4,36 and 49) without tying up traffic on Avenue Z. I think he forgot that his routing of the B/36 in November 1978 to stop under the trestle on Avenue Z (I am not referring to the 1978 change only the location of the stop)  sent the B/36 on the slippery slope that took 20 years to recover from even though he had it routed via Sheepshead Bay Road six months later. The routing continued until Councilman Chaim Deutsch and his friends in the taxi industry (a man who you praised in the previous post on this thread) destroyed what we in my community worked so hard to change for the better.A political note as Chaim Deutsch would not have been able to run for that seat if the former Council speaker did not want to get even with Lou Fielder for losing the congressional race to Republican Bob Turner in 2012 which Carlos Danger A/K/A Anthony Weiner was forced to resign from earlier

Let me state quite emphatically that no one in the community where I live wants the B/44 SBS to be extended to Manhattan Beach now or in the future. In addition there are many on this forum who know the B/44 local and SBS route that have either made or are making constructive suggestions to improve the service and none of them have had anything nice to say about the B/44 SBS going to his Manhattan Beach. Brooklyn Bus' constant refrain about 6 riders going to Knapp Street reminds me of a book that i have been searching for and I have not been able to find titled "How to lie with statistics" which is applicable to his use of the 6 people as the ends justify the means.

As far as his work for the MTA in Operations Planning, that is in the past  as he retired 14 years ago. It means one thing as he is out of the agency and no one in the MTA (or anyone else)  has to listen to him  as he is just one person among the 8 million New York City residents .hat have the right to voice an opinion which he is doing on the forum and  I can express my opposition to his view on the subject. It is the same thing with his views on Andy Byford, who I got to know from the Toronto Star and the Toronto Transit Commission.  I have stated numerous times that Mr. Byford should be cut some slack as compared with many of this predecessors who were just there to fill the job. Mr. Byford is fighting an entrenched bureaucracy that will fight tooth and nail ty as to protect their turf as he tries to help improve the service slowly one small step at a time.

[B35 via Church]

45 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I was trying to be polite by saying "I am sorry". But you accuse me of "feigning ignorance." What you are saying makes no sense at all if you are saying adding runtime and mileage is "directly proportional" to runtime. How can something be proportional to itself? 

If anyone understands what he is trying to say, please chime in. 

You were being condescending, Mr. "Additional mileage and adding three minutes to the runtime are directly proportional to what? The runtime?"

- What makes no sense is running the B44 SBS to KCC to begin with !

- What makes no sense is pompously conveying that "The point isn't the meandering or the extra distance. It's how much extra time it would add to the route" - when the meandering & the extra distance would add extra time to the route... If you make a route more meandrous and/or add more mileage to the thing, the runtime increases.... You made that point as if making a route more indirect & increasing the distance that a route travels, is somehow irrelevant, when it's not the case.... Try to keep up here.

Furthermore, I never said adding runtime & mileage is directly proportional to runtime... I said both factors (of making a route more meandrous & adding distance to a route) are directly proportional to runtime.... Again, try to keep up here.

How you conclude something being directly proportional to being proportional to itself, is beyond me..... I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by claiming that you're feigning ignorance, because I don't believe you to be that damn stupid...... I see why you get questioned on Subchat for ever having worked for the MTA...

Edited August 27, 2018 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

29 minutes ago, Interested Rider said:

Let me state quite emphatically that no one in the community where I live wants the B/44 SBS to be extended to Manhattan Beach now or in the future. In addition there are many on this forum who know the B/44 local and SBS route that have either made or are making constructive suggestions to improve the service and none of them have had anything nice to say about the B/44 SBS going to his Manhattan Beach. Brooklyn Bus' constant refrain about 6 riders going to Knapp Street reminds me of a book that i have been searching for and I have not been able to find titled "How to lie with statistics" which is applicable to his use of the 6 people as the ends justify the means.

As far as his work for the MTA in Operations Planning, that is in the past  as he retired 14 years ago. It means one thing as he is out of the agency and no one in the MTA (or anyone else)  has to listen to him  as he is just one person among the 8 million New York City residents .hat have the right to voice an opinion which he is doing on the forum and  I can express my opposition to his view on the subject. It is the same thing with his views on Andy Byford, who I got to know from the Toronto Star and the Toronto Transit Commission.  I have stated numerous times that Mr. Byford should be cut some slack as compared with many of this predecessors who were just there to fill the job. Mr. Byford is fighting an entrenched bureaucracy that will fight tooth and nail ty as to protect their turf as he tries to help improve the service slowly one small step at a time.

I don't get too hung up on stats as others might, but that is certainly something that he's been criticized for elsewhere on the internet; twisting stats to fit a narrative....

While I don't exactly exalt any of these figureheads, I will say that I also agree with the unfair shake that Byford's getting.... Same thing Eng has to deal with as president of the LIRR...

[BrooklynBus]

2 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Allan (Brooklyn Bus) stated that the traffic on Avenue Z is not that bad near the station, Really as every time I take the B/36 to the Brighton Line Station, we seem to get stuck in traffic on Avenue Z from the Ocean Avenue to the station segment as I carefully delineated the reasons why in that short segment. It seems that Brooklyn Bus does not have to wait on Avenue Z under the trestle when three different buses try to board passengers (4,36 and 49) without tying up traffic on Avenue Z. I think he forgot that his routing of the B/36 in November 1978 to stop under the trestle on Avenue Z (I am not referring to the 1978 change only the location of the stop)  sent the B/36 on the slippery slope that took 20 years to recover from even though he had it routed via Sheepshead Bay Road six months later. The routing continued until Councilman Chaim Deutsch and his friends in the taxi industry (a man who you praised in the previous post on this thread) destroyed what we in my community worked so hard to change for the better.A political note as Chaim Deutsch would not have been able to run for that seat if the former Council speaker did not want to get even with Lou Fielder for losing the congressional race to Republican Bob Turner in 2012 which Carlos Danger A/K/A Anthony Weiner was forced to resign from earlier

Let me state quite emphatically that no one in the community where I live wants the B/44 SBS to be extended to Manhattan Beach now or in the future. In addition there are many on this forum who know the B/44 local and SBS route that have either made or are making constructive suggestions to improve the service and none of them have had anything nice to say about the B/44 SBS going to his Manhattan Beach. Brooklyn Bus' constant refrain about 6 riders going to Knapp Street reminds me of a book that i have been searching for and I have not been able to find titled "How to lie with statistics" which is applicable to his use of the 6 people as the ends justify the means.

As far as his work for the MTA in Operations Planning, that is in the past  as he retired 14 years ago. It means one thing as he is out of the agency and no one in the MTA (or anyone else)  has to listen to him  as he is just one person among the 8 million New York City residents .hat have the right to voice an opinion which he is doing on the forum and  I can express my opposition to his view on the subject. It is the same thing with his views on Andy Byford, who I got to know from the Toronto Star and the Toronto Transit Commission.  I have stated numerous times that Mr. Byford should be cut some slack as compared with many of this predecessors who were just there to fill the job. Mr. Byford is fighting an entrenched bureaucracy that will fight tooth and nail ty as to protect their turf as he tries to help improve the service slowly one small step at a time.

You know I was against taking the stop away from Sheepshead Bay Road and moving it to under the trestle. We both fought against that so I am unsure what your point is.  I also don't know what slippery slope you are referring to that took 20 years to recover. Or that the stop was moved to Sheepshead Bay six months later. I attended al those meetings and the MTA promised it would stop under the station. Buses stopped on Avenue Z for only three days. When I reminded them of their promise to stop by the station, it was changed in three days. 

As for Deutsch, while I had good things to say about him regarding Avenue R, he was of no help in this case and did nothing to get the stop back to Sheepshead Bay Road. 

I don't know how you can make a statement that no one in the community wants my proposed change when hardly anyone even knows about it. 

I don't see how stating a fact that virtually every bus south of Avenue X has no more than six riders is lying with statistics. Did you say you see 20 people boarding B44s on Avenue X going south? I don't believe you specified the direction those 20 people were traveling. 

I believe everyone is giving Byford a chance and was also doing that until he told me it would take five years to study my proposal, including two that have already passed, and at the same time claims to be able to study 300 routes in three years. And yes he is fighting an entrenched bureaucracy. 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by BrooklynBus

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

You were being condescending, Mr. "Additional mileage and adding three minutes to the runtime are directly proportional to what? The runtime?"

- What makes no sense is running the B44 SBS to KCC to begin with !

- What makes no sense is pompously conveying that "The point isn't the meandering or the extra distance. It's how much extra time it would add to the route" - when the meandering & the extra distance would add extra time to the route... If you make a route more meandrous and/or add more mileage to the thing, the runtime increases.... You made that point as if making a route more indirect & increasing the distance that a route travels, is somehow irrelevant, when it's not the case.... Try to keep up here.

Furthermore, I never said adding runtime & mileage is directly proportional to runtime... I said both factors (of making a route more meandrous & adding distance to a route) are directly proportional to runtime.... Again, try to keep up here.

How you conclude something being directly proportional to being proportional to itself, is beyond me..... I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by claiming that you're feigning ignorance, because I don't believe you to be that damn stupid...... I see why you get questioned on Subchat for ever having worked for the MTA...

Here are the points I was trying to make. Drivers get paid by the amount of time spent on the road, not by the length of a route. So when making a route extension, the amount of time added is more important than the distance added. In the case of my proposed extension, although a mile is being added to the route, it would only take about another five minutes since usually there are no traffic problems most of the day and no stops are proposed for that distance. (It might take seven or eight minutes for a a few hours a day, but you should reflect that in the running times.) You have to weigh that against the benefits which I already outlined, saving thousands of riders 15 minutes. 

According to your logic, no long routes should ever be made longer. But where is it written that every bus SBS (or local) must operate the entire route length? Years ago, there were many more short turns to reflect ridership demand, but they were eliminated just to save money and resulted in increased unreliability. Since virtually no one rides from Williamsburg to Sheepshead Bay, adding short turns so that most trips occur where the riders are lessens the probability of exceedingly light usage at a routes extremity.