Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[BrooklynBus]

Redesign covered by News 12

https://brooklyn.news12.com/mta-plans-to-make-major-changes-to-brooklyn-bus-routes

[B35 via Church]

Good for Charlton on focusing more on actual transit, than berating Riders Alliance....

That said, what's all this talk about eliminating overnight service? I get that they only played a snippet of his whole commentary on News12, but nonetheless, it could use some context..... Was he talking about a specific route or what, because in that 485 page PDF of the draft plan of the redesign, there are routes here that's slated to run 24/7.... What's not mentioned though, is how frequent each route that is slated to operate 24/7 would operate during the overnight hours... That is peculiar, given that they breakdown the proposed frequencies for the other periods of the day (AM peak, PM peak, midday, etc)..... The remix map doesn't help in this category either, as it would have you believe that most routes would start at 6am, instead of any of them running overnights.....

[BrooklynBus]

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Good for Charlton on focusing more on actual transit, than berating Riders Alliance....

That said, what's all this talk about eliminating overnight service? I get that they only played a snippet of his whole commentary on News12, but nonetheless, it could use some context..... Was he talking about a specific route or what, because in that 485 page PDF of the draft plan of the redesign, there are routes here that's slated to run 24/7.... What's not mentioned though, is how frequent each route that is slated to operate 24/7 would operate during the overnight hours... That is peculiar, given that they breakdown the proposed frequencies for the other periods of the day (AM peak, PM peak, midday, etc)..... The remix map doesn't help in this category either, as it would have you believe that most routes would start at 6am, instead of any of them running overnights.....

I am not sure either what he’s getting at about eliminating overnight service. I believe some routes that currently run overnight, will have those hours cut. And you are correct about them not giving the headways for overnight service. That is probably because they will remain at 60 or 75 minutes or will be increased. They are definitely hiding something. 
 

Here is the complete 3 1/2 hours. But I doubt you will have the patience to watch it all. So just skip around till you find what you want. I suggested they put out clips on various different subjects, such as overnight service. 
 

 

[B35 via Church]

Thanks for linking the complete session.... Yeah, no way am I listening to over 3 and a half hours of this babble.... I couldn't find the part of Charlton's speech in question (that pertained to eliminating overnight service).... Ended up giving up.... The few seconds of the few people I tried giving a listen to upon randomly skimming/scanning through the video, got me increasingly annoyed....

Aside from what I stated I was looking for, if anyone care enough to pinpoint worthwhile parts of this session (that doesn't come across as sophomoric), it'd be appreciated....

[N6 Limited]

Overnight service discussion starts around 2:34:00

[B61In2002]

On 12/6/2022 at 6:56 PM, Nova Fly Guy said:

That a bad spot nobody wants E 105 St you can walk from Flatlands or get on the B6. They really should have sent it up Van Siclen to replace the B83 people will use it to get to the .

E 105 St sees decent ridership weirdly enough, because it’s able to serve the areas of Canarsie east of Rockaway Pkwy w/out forcing riders to backtrack from there. 

[B61In2002]

Regarding the rest of this redesign:

If MTA is going to do all this to the B103, they might as well get rid of the route entirely and reroute the B5 or B6 down Av M. I know majority of the ridership is to The Junction, but there’s still a decent ridership on the B103 north of The Junction (Canarsie - Northwest Brooklyn is a pretty popular rush hour service). I know NB B103 service is kinda dead along Livingston, but they get decent SB ridership (majority of the time, those buses are crowded by the time it reaches Gowanus).  

I like the B81 proposal (Red Hook finally being able to get better access to central Brooklyn is a huge win) but it shouldn’t come at the cost of the B103, especially since 3 Av service is now forced to go to the B63 or the R train (that B37 barely ever comes before anyone says take it btw)

That B27 frequency is abysmal. I know the B57 essentially had 2 separate customer demands (I’ve seen that bus almost empty out at Jay St, only for another crowd to get on) but the more direct Red Hook - Downtown service still saw decent ridership. Would 10 minute frequencies be too much to ask for? 

Is there demand for Park Slope - Williamsburg/Greenpoint service…? Because that B48/B69 feels like something out of left field. 

Im not super familiar with the Marine Park area, but why are they ending the B2? I know there’s higher demand for KP service towards the IRT, but I think having the option for the B/Q from KP was useful (especially since that subway stop is closer)

Why run the B60 and B76 together? Not sure how strong Breukelen demand is, but wouldn’t it be better to have the B60 serve the Padergat branch?

[B35 via Church]

On 1/11/2023 at 10:47 PM, B61In2002 said:

Regarding the rest of this redesign:

If MTA is going to do all this to the B103, they might as well get rid of the route entirely and reroute the B5 or B6 down Av M. I know majority of the ridership is to The Junction, but there’s still a decent ridership on the B103 north of The Junction (Canarsie - Northwest Brooklyn is a pretty popular rush hour service). I know NB B103 service is kinda dead along Livingston, but they get decent SB ridership (majority of the time, those buses are crowded by the time it reaches Gowanus).  

That was my concern before they ever came out with this redesign; that it would be eliminated.... At least it's not eliminated, but they're not going to get anymore people considering taking those B41XT's Downtown than what few people already do currently coming off B103's at the Junction xferring to B41 LTD's.... What I am interested to see, is how many, or what percentage of people in Canarsie (south of Flatlands av. particularly) would abandon the B103 to the Junction , for a B103 to New Lots ....

Running the proposed B5 (which they got running to Gateway) over the current B103's portion south of Flatlands av. would be a whole mess.... They would have to break something like that up.... I'd go as far as to say that it would be hypocritical (not that the MTA is above that, but still... Lol) to have those B5's do that, but scale back the B103 to the Junction on the western end.... The proposed B6 (which is all local) they're scaling back to Rockaway Pkwy. , so to have that serve the current B103's portion via Av. M would be a backtrack....

All in all, I wouldn't bother with running B103's to the & would've left the thing alone.... It's far too late to try to bolster the B41.

On 1/11/2023 at 10:47 PM, B61In2002 said:

I like the B81 proposal (Red Hook finally being able to get better access to central Brooklyn is a huge win) but it shouldn’t come at the cost of the B103, especially since 3 Av service is now forced to go to the B63 or the R train (that B37 barely ever comes before anyone says take it btw)

...and demand for 3rd/4th av. has increased over the years for the B103 too.

On 1/11/2023 at 10:47 PM, B61In2002 said:

That B27 frequency is abysmal. I know the B57 essentially had 2 separate customer demands (I’ve seen that bus almost empty out at Jay St, only for another crowd to get on) but the more direct Red Hook - Downtown service still saw decent ridership. Would 10 minute frequencies be too much to ask for? 

Smith/Court definitely doesn't warrant 10 min. headways.... The demand for the bus in that part of Carroll Gardens & Cobble Hill is inferior, compared to their almighty ... It's been like that for the longest; ever since the old B75 used to serve those unidirectional pair corridors..... Lot of biking going on in that part of Brooklyn also....

Of those that do consider taking the bus along Smith/Court, that turnover (the phenomenon you're describing) in Downtown was & is always going to be the case.... Especially with the extending the thing [B57] to Jackson Hgts., it's 2 reasons they're scaling back service to Downtown.....

On 1/11/2023 at 10:47 PM, B61In2002 said:

Is there demand for Park Slope - Williamsburg/Greenpoint service…? Because that B48/B69 feels like something out of left field. 

I think the main premise behind that B48 is more or less an attempt to transport more ppl. to/from the Navy Yard (I agree that it does appear random though)..... There is a certain demand for Park Slope-Williamsburg travel - problem is, it's not for the part of Williamsburg that the current B48 serves.... Nobody's trying to get to Lorimer (lol) - the demand is majorically for the quirky/eccentric/hipster part of Willamsburg, west of the BQE...

On 1/11/2023 at 10:47 PM, B61In2002 said:

Im not super familiar with the Marine Park area, but why are they ending the B2? I know there’s higher demand for KP service towards the IRT, but I think having the option for the B/Q from KP was useful (especially since that subway stop is closer)

To sum it up, redundancy..... Sad how the B2 is set to go out too, because I remember when the route carried heavy (even during middays) on much better frequencies too.

On 1/11/2023 at 10:47 PM, B61In2002 said:

Why run the B60 and B76 together? Not sure how strong Breukelen demand is, but wouldn’t it be better to have the B60 serve the Paerdegat branch?

The B60 is a full time service, whereas the B76 is supposed to be some sort of (rush hour only) compromise for doing away with the Paerdegat branch of the current B17... At that point, all it amounts to, is an increase of rush hour service between Rockaway Pkwy. & Broadway Junction.... I would be shocked if too much of anyone in the Paerdegats would ride that B76 past Rockaway Pkwy in the morning....

To your inquiry, if you were to eliminate the proposed B60 to have the proposed B76 be the full time southern split of the current B60, you'd be overserving Rockaway Pkwy. (the street) through the day, with the B42 still at riders' disposal.... But I do understand the argument of, the B60 (current or proposed) east of Rockaway Pkwy. being redundant to other services along Flatlands, that also take pax. to the same subway station....

[Lawrence St]

A lot of these branches of routes that  has, they really have to start labeling them with the routing. For example, the previous iterations of the B17 should be the B17P for the Paerdegat Branch, and B17 for the regular branch.

Although, I always wondered why they didn’t have B17P buses operate via Paerdegat to Seaview Ave instead of just ending there.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Lawrence St

[jaf0519]

22 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

A lot of these branches of routes that  has, they really have to start labeling them with the routing. For example, the previous iterations of the B17 should be the B17P for the Paerdegat Branch, and B17 for the regular branch.

Although, I always wondered why they didn’t have B17P buses operate via Paerdegat to Seaview Ave instead of just ending there.

What I don’t understand is why they are not consistent with getting rid of locals and limited routes with the same number. There are no Queens routes that have both a local and limited pattern with one number in the recent redesign. While that is because there are no routes that are exactly the same, I think it is weird that routes like the B6 and B41 will have both a local route and a limited/crosstown designation. They should have followed Staten Island’s route system and given limited routes throughout the city a separate number.

[MysteriousBtrain]

52 minutes ago, jaf0519 said:

What I don’t understand is why they are not consistent with getting rid of locals and limited routes with the same number. There are no Queens routes that have both a local and limited pattern with one number in the recent redesign. While that is because there are no routes that are exactly the same, I think it is weird that routes like the B6 and B41 will have both a local route and a limited/crosstown designation. They should have followed Staten Island’s route system and given limited routes throughout the city a separate number.

If it ain't broken don't fix it ig 

But an unpopular opinion would be to discontinue the B6 LTD fully with the B5/103 LTD and create a separate local line that would connect with NL and canarsie if need be.

[B35 via Church]

34 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

A lot of these branches of routes that  has, they really have to start labeling them with the routing. For example, the previous iterations of the B17 should be the B17P for the Paerdegat Branch, and B17 for the regular branch.

Although, I always wondered why they didn’t have B17P buses operate via Paerdegat to Seaview Ave instead of just ending there.

The long & the short of it is that there isn't much of a need to have the Paerdegat branch to run to Seaview/108th, when the B42 is relatively close to enough of Seaview.... It's a waste of runtime to have the Paerdegat branch directly running to the , serving the Paerdegats itself, and running to Seaview/108th, with the main branch already running to Seaview/108th, without serving either the & the Paerdegats.... From Utica/Eastern Pkwy, service alternates b/w the 2 branches to (attempt to) maintain a certain headway.....

[BrooklynBus]

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The long & the short of it is that there isn't much of a need to have the Paerdegat branch to run to Seaview/108th, when the B42 is relatively close to enough of Seaview.... It's a waste of runtime to have the Paerdegat branch directly running to the , serving the Paerdegats itself, and running to Seaview/108th, with the main branch already running to Seaview/108th, without serving either the & the Paerdegats.... From Utica/Eastern Pkwy, service alternates b/w the 2 branches to (attempt to) maintain a certain headway.....

What they needed to do for for at least 70 years is add a stop at Canarsie Pier on the B42, since the route passes it anyway. It should layover there.

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

But an unpopular opinion would be to discontinue the B6 LTD fully with the B5/103 LTD and create a separate local line that would connect with NL and canarsie if need be.

Which B103 are you referring to, the current one or the proposed one? Also, where would this hypothetical New Lots - Canarsie route terminate on its western end?

21 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

What they needed to do for for at least 70 years is add a stop at Canarsie Pier on the B42, since the route passes it anyway. It should layover there.

I couldn't tell you what's going on over there at Canarsie Pier, as I haven't been there in ages.... At one point, buses used to layover on the southern end of the loop (well, apparently they still do, according to this shot on google maps).... But yeah, I usually notice b/o's take their layover right at the last stop, alongside that shopping plaza....

[MysteriousBtrain]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

1. Which B103 are you referring to, the current one or the proposed one? Also, 2. where would this hypothetical New Lots - Canarsie route terminate on its western end?

1. Proposed

2. Basically a split B6 (Bath Beach -Canarsie and Canarsie - New Lots )

[checkmatechamp13]

So I watched the video on double speed. At 1:41:00, the union rep spoke, and gave a pretty crappy explanation of what interlining is and why the MTA shouldn't do it. (He made it seem like the trips on the second route occur always occur after the meal break, and completely ignored that if the bus is late on the first trip, then any associated trips connected to that are also late, regardless of whether they are on the same route or a different route). He also talked about how certain communities were supposedly being "redlined" which is just adding a conspiracy theory for the sake of it. (Aren't they planning some multi-billion dollar project near Broadway Junction or something? There's million dollar homes in Brownsville...I don't think anywhere in Brooklyn is off-limits for gentrification).

 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

5 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

But an unpopular opinion would be to discontinue the B6 LTD fully with the B5/103 LTD and create a separate local line that would connect with NL and canarsie if need be.

For , is there really much end-to-end riding? Or could they be effectively split into shorter overlapping routes?

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

1. Proposed

2. Basically a split B6 (Bath Beach -Canarsie and Canarsie - New Lots )

So you concur with the proposed B5, the proposed B6, and the proposed B103... The only thing you're adding is a route running b/w the & the .

51 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

So I watched the video on double speed. At 1:41:00, the union rep spoke, and gave a pretty crappy explanation of what interlining is and why the MTA shouldn't do it. (He made it seem like the trips on the second route occur always occur after the meal break, and completely ignored that if the bus is late on the first trip, then any associated trips connected to that are also late, regardless of whether they are on the same route or a different route). He also talked about how certain communities were supposedly being "redlined" which is just adding a conspiracy theory for the sake of it. (Aren't they planning some multi-billion dollar project near Broadway Junction or something? There's million dollar homes in Brownsville...I don't think anywhere in Brooklyn is off-limits for gentrification).

That union rep's sentiment regarding interlining is a very old view/talking point... Lol at redlining going on in NYC; while slow, there's gentrification occurring in the South Bronx FFS.....

The only place/section of this borough I can think of off top where I don't really see gentrification happening (no time soon anyway) is that general area around Kings Plaza (Marine Park, Mill Basin, etc).... There's no appeal to/for these transients migrating to the city down there....

Edited January 16, 2023 by B35 via Church

[BrooklynBus]

15 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I couldn't tell you what's going on over there at Canarsie Pier, as I haven't been there in ages.... At one point, buses used to layover on the southern end of the loop (well, apparently they still do, according to this shot on google maps).... But yeah, I usually notice b/o's take their layover right at the last stop, alongside that shopping plaza....

I know where the layover is. My point is that to turn around the bus has to go all the way to Canarsie Pier anyway. That’s where the last stop should be, at least during times when people use the pier. When I was a kid, we would visit the pier all the time and I never saw a reason why we had to walk the last 600 feet when cars got to drive right up to the pier and park there. It made no sense.
 

In 1978, when I asked the MTA to change that, they used the excuse that it was federal property and the space in question where the buses would stop was dirt and needed to be paved and the feds would have to do it. The feds actually used the excuse there was no money to pave about 100 foot stretch. Can you believe our government was that broke? I could never get anyone to admit the real reason was that no one gave a damn about bus passengers. 

Now the MTA just wants to remove bus stops not add any. They want everyone to walk further to bus stops, not for things to be more convenient. People must still use the bus to get to Canarsie Pier and this is a simple zero cost solution to help them since everything is now paved and traffic lanes around the circle have been reduced to increase congestion as was done all over the city. 

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I know where the layover is. My point is that to turn around the bus has to go all the way to Canarsie Pier anyway. That’s where the last stop should be, at least during times when people use the pier. When I was a kid, we would visit the pier all the time and I never saw a reason why we had to walk the last 600 feet when cars got to drive right up to the pier and park there. It made no sense.
 

In 1978, when I asked the MTA to change that, they used the excuse that it was federal property and the space in question where the buses would stop was dirt and needed to be paved and the feds would have to do it. The feds actually used the excuse there was no money to pave about 100 foot stretch. Can you believe our government was that broke? I could never get anyone to admit the real reason was that no one gave a damn about bus passengers. 

Now the MTA just wants to remove bus stops not add any. They want everyone to walk further to bus stops, not for things to be more convenient. People must still use the bus to get to Canarsie Pier and this is a simple zero cost solution to help them since everything is now paved and traffic lanes around the circle have been reduced to increase congestion as was done all over the city. 

Honestly extending the back to the Pier using Eminemnt domain would be better then any bus route.

Which does bring me to my next point, what was with during the 1970's to the late 80's that everything subway wise could be replaced by a bus??? And look how that's going for them now, from the truncation of the from the pier to the 3rd Ave Elevated. And now with the redesign they expect that it will solve all these problems when it in fact won't.

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Honestly extending the back to the Pier using Eminemnt domain would be better then any bus route.

Which does bring me to my next point, what was with during the 1970's to the late 80's that everything subway wise could be replaced by a bus??? And look how that's going for them now, from the truncation of the from the pier to the 3rd Ave Elevated. And now with the redesign they expect that it will solve all these problems when it in fact won't.

Don’t understand what you are saying. How can the  be extended back to the pier or your point about the 3rd Avenue El truncation? I know they wanted to replace the Franklin shuttle with a bus. 
 

A useful cheap extension of the New Lots Line to Spring Creek to serve Spring Creek Towers formerly Starrett City, proposed during the 70s never materialized. Why? 

[Lawrence St]

2 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

Don’t understand what you are saying. How can the  be extended back to the pier or your point about the 3rd Avenue El truncation? I know they wanted to replace the Franklin shuttle with a bus. 
 

A useful cheap extension of the New Lots Line to Spring Creek to serve Spring Creek Towers formerly Starrett City, proposed during the 70s never materialized. Why? 

The  to the Pier is a very cheap extension that can become reality if done properly. Most of the ROW is already there, and the money they use to run the B42 can be put into this project. Win-Win. Regarding the 3rd Ave Elevated, my point is the fact that they thought they could replace the whole thing with a bus and it would've been fine, except now the  is barely running the Bx15 efficiently. Same thing with the Myrtle El and now the B54.

I know why, because most projects the  does is always met with red tape. Heck, the only expansions we've had in the last few decades have all been within Manhattan. 

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

The  to the Pier is a very cheap extension that can become reality if done properly. Most of the ROW is already there, and the money they use to run the B42 can be put into this project. Win-Win. Regarding the 3rd Ave Elevated, my point is the fact that they thought they could replace the whole thing with a bus and it would've been fine, except now the  is barely running the Bx15 efficiently. Same thing with the Myrtle El and now the B54.

I know why, because most projects the  does is always met with red tape. Heck, the only expansions we've had in the last few decades have all been within Manhattan. 

So you are saying the L should run on the surface to the pier?

[Lawrence St]

38 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

So you are saying the L should run on the surface to the pier?

Yup! Just like it used to

[BrooklynBus]

10 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yup! Just like it used to

How would you expect to get that done with the policy of no grade crossings? The only way to do it would be to run light rail south of Rockaway Parkway or Broadway Junction. 
and what about the construction south of Seaview since it was eliminated?

Edited January 16, 2023 by BrooklynBus