Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[BrooklynBus]

7 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Any opinions on the B4 changes? Is the detour it takes to Sheepshead Bay station detrimental to it's reliability and service?

I was the one who designed that detour. It is definitely needed. It allowed the straightening of the B36 in 1978. The MTA is not proposing to change it. If MTA had any brains, when two eastbound buses bunch on Neptune Avenue, the late bus could transfer its passengers to the following bus and bypass the loop, where it would gain about nine minutes and be back on schedule. That is one of the advantages of the current route. But the MTA has no interest in reliability so both buses unnecessarily follow each other around the loop when they bunch. 

[Ex696]

42 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I was the one who designed that detour. It is definitely needed. It allowed the straightening of the B36 in 1978. The MTA is not proposing to change it. If MTA had any brains, when two eastbound buses bunch on Neptune Avenue, the late bus could transfer its passengers to the following bus and bypass the loop, where it would gain about nine minutes and be back on schedule. That is one of the advantages of the current route. But the MTA has no interest in reliability so both buses unnecessarily follow each other around the loop when they bunch. 

What was the B36's routing pre-1978? and do you think rerouting away from Shell Road and Avenue Z in exchange for Stillwell and Neptune Avenues is a good idea?

 

[BrooklynBus]

10 hours ago, Ex696 said:

What was the B36's routing pre-1978? and do you think rerouting away from Shell Road and Avenue Z in exchange for Stillwell and Neptune Avenues is a good idea?

 

The B36 operated from CI on. Surf to W 5th, then on Neptune from West 5th to Emmons, then Sheepshead Bay Road to E15 to Avenue Z to Nostrand and then to Ave U. There also was the B21 which used the B4 route from Sheepshead Bay but used Emmons to Sheepshead Bay Road, to E 15 to Ave Z to Ocean Parkway to Brighton Beach Ave to Manhattan Beach. 
 

I like the Stillwell Neptune route for the B4 provided the B36 is rerouted onto Shell Rd and straight along Ave Z to replace the B4. It’s just too bad the Ruth Bader Ginsberg Hospital only has vehicular access from Ave Z, but I guess you could walk through the parking garage. 

[Ex696]

I see...I think splitting the B12 into the B10 Limited and B12 Local is good, the B12 is notorious for being unreliable and having frequent bus bunching

 

[BrooklynBus]

7 hours ago, Ex696 said:

I see...I think splitting the B12 into the B10 Limited and B12 Local is good, the B12 is notorious for being unreliable and having frequent bus bunching

 

My idea is much better.

[Ex696]

1 minute ago, BrooklynBus said:

My idea is much better.

What was your idea of fixing reliability on the B12?

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Ex696 said:

What was your idea of fixing reliability on the B12?

I totally restructured all the routes in the area. I shortened the B12 so it terminates at Kings County Hospital. I rerouted the B49 to operate straight on Ocean Avenue then on Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. I rerouted the B43 to continue south on Brooklyn and north on Kingston going around Kings County Hospital to Clarkson Ave, and extended the B16 east to E 98 St along Clarkson. 

[Ex696]

16 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I totally restructured all the routes in the area. I shortened the B12 so it terminates at Kings County Hospital. I rerouted the B49 to operate straight on Ocean Avenue then on Empire Blvd to Utica Avenue. I rerouted the B43 to continue south on Brooklyn and north on Kingston going around Kings County Hospital to Clarkson Ave, and extended the B16 east to E 98 St along Clarkson. 

Wouldn't Bedford Avenue south of Fulton lose their service?

[Ex696]

and B12 riders would lose their Brighton Line connection

[BrooklynBus]

12 hours ago, Ex696 said:

Wouldn't Bedford Avenue south of Fulton lose their service?

Yes, but you have to remember that prior to the mid 1960s, Bedford Avenue never had bus service. It was only when Nostrand and Rogers became one way pairs, that the TA was forced to add service to Bedford and NY Avenues. It was not done to help bus passengers, but to speed traffic which it greatly did on Nostrand and Rogers. But Bedford has always been exceedingly slow for buses. I don’t see moving service from Bedford to Ocean as a loss, but as a gain. 

12 hours ago, Ex696 said:

and B12 riders would lose their Brighton Line connection

The only riders that would lose a Brighton connection are those from east of Utica Avenue and I doubt there are many. If the B16 terminates at Rutland / Sutter, those near East 98 St would use that route to access the Brighton line and some could walk from East NY Ave to Clarkson for the B16. There would be very few east of Howard Ave who are going to the Brighton line. Most B12 riders are destined for Kings County Downstate or the Nostrand Ave Line. I used the B12 all the time growing up so I am familiar with its usage. 

[Ex696]

2 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Yes, but you have to remember that prior to the mid 1960s, Bedford Avenue never had bus service. It was only when Nostrand and Rogers became one way pairs, that the TA was forced to add service to Bedford and NY Avenues. It was not done to help bus passengers, but to speed traffic which it greatly did on Nostrand and Rogers. But Bedford has always been exceedingly slow for buses. I don’t see moving service from Bedford to Ocean as a loss, but as a gain. 

Wouldn't Rogers or New York lose their local service?

[BrooklynBus]

14 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Wouldn't Rogers or New York lose their local service?

I would move the B44 to Rogers and replace New York Ave service south of Kings County Hospital with a new route. 

[Ex696]

20 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I would move the B44 to Rogers and replace New York Ave service south of Kings County Hospital with a new route. 

What about north of there?

 

[B35 via Church]

On 7/26/2023 at 3:25 AM, Ex696 said:

Can you explain more about this, why you think the B47 should be split and where it should be split?

Sure.

There was nothing wrong with the old B78 before the MTA purposely marred service, not too long before the time they ended up combining parts of the old B40 with the old B78 to create today's B47.... That was their way of making the B47 more attractive than the old B78 for the old B78 riders.... That is how the MTA does things..... The fact of the matter though, is that the current B47 is an unreliable mess that not too many of the folks along the old B78 portion benefited from.... Most of those folks don't ride past Sutter - Rutland (which is what I mean by "tanking")....

The problem with the old B40 was that it was an underutilized route; with the worst performing portion by far being the portion east of Ralph... They took the better performing parts of the old B40 (which isn't really saying much, being that the old B40 in & of itself was a poorly performing route) & appended it to today's B47, to ultimately form a "Ralph av." route..... Now I will admit that the Ralph av, portion north of ENY av. benefited more from the creation of today's B47, but it came at the sacrifice of marring the old B78 portion of today's B47 (as in, the portion south of Sutter - Rutland )....

To answer the last part of your question there, I think the B78 should be brought back in full, which addresses the southern portion.... As for the northern portion, I would have did away with the old B40 differently (which would've resulted in a chain reaction in the network)....

• Old B40 portion east of Ralph av replacement:
  • B65 extended to pan east of St. Johns/Ralph, to run to Alabama (instead of ending at Atlantic/Georgia like the old B40 did, which loomed inconvenient for riders)
• Old B40 portion along Ralph av replacement:
  • B15 re-routed along the current B47, north of ENY av... New route to then be carved from the current B15 b/w Woodhull Hospital & Utica av, to run between Utica & Meeker/Stewart (current B48 terminal)
• Old B40 portion along Broadway replacement:
  • Old portion between Ralph av. & Woodhull Hospital to be covered by a re-routed B15, stated above
  • Old portion between Woodhull Hospital & Williamsburg Bridge Plaza eliminated (which was also a very weak portion of the old B40, which the MTA actually got right with having the current B47 end at Woodhull)

Edited July 29, 2023 by B35 via Church

[BrooklynBus]

1 hour ago, Ex696 said:

What about north of there?

 

As I stated, before the mid sixties there was no bus service north of there and of course no trolley service before that. Service was not added to help passengers but making Nostrand a one way left the TA no other choice. You could be asking why we needed duplicate two way service on Nostrand and Rogers before that since they are only one block apart. We didn’t. They only existed because there were two competing trolley companies trying to get the same market which is why the Rogers and Nostrand Avenue trolleys and later buses did not grant a free transfer to the same routes. If the 44 transferred to a crosstown route, the 49 did not and vice versa. 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Now I will admit that the Ralph av, portion north of ENY av. benefited more from the creation of today's B47, but it came at the sacrifice of marring the old B78 portion of today's B47 (as in, the portion south of Sutter - Rutland )....

  Should read :

"...but it came at the sacrifice of marring the old B78 portion of today's B47 (as in, the portion south of Sutter - Rutland ) in terms of service quality)"

On 7/26/2023 at 7:10 AM, Ex696 said:

What makes you say the B65 over, for example, the B45? The B40 ran on Liberty Avenue to Liberty Avenue ...should whatever route that takes over that portion of the B40 also take over the B12's former route on Liberty Avenue to City Line as well?

The consensus on these parts was to have the B45 get that eastward extension..... I am a proponent of having the B65 do so, as it could use the ridership more....

To the other question, I'd say nothing should run on those respective portions of Liberty that the old B40 & those old City Line B12's used to... No real reason to, AFAIC...

On 7/28/2023 at 10:34 AM, Ex696 said:

...I think splitting the B12 into the B10 Limited and B12 Local is good, the B12 is notorious for being unreliable and having frequent bus bunching

I don't, as I just never saw this demand for Empire Blvd enough to have a bus route run clear along it.... As it pertains to this redesigned network proposal, I'm specifically vehement about extracting some amt. of B12 service to have it go towards addressing that gap along Empire (B10).... Yes, the B12 has regressed when it comes to the unreliability & bunching (the way I see it, among other things, due to the turnaround scenario around Alabama , as well as the recent construction along ENY av. that has buses detoured to run along Rockaway & along Pitkin) - However, I can't concur with this apparent implication that the creation of the proposed B10 would lean towards solving those issues plaguing the B12.

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by B35 via Church

[Ex696]

25 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The consensus on these parts was to have the B45 get that eastward extension..... I am a proponent of having the B65 do so, as it could use the ridership more....

Speaking of the B65, I don't think it is a good idea for service on Bergen/Dean west of Washington Avenue to get discontinued.

[Ex696]

26 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I don't, as I just never saw this demand for Empire Blvd enough to have a bus route run clear along it.... As it pertains to this redesigned network proposal, I'm specifically vehement about extracting some amt. of B12 service to have it go towards addressing that gap along Empire (B10).... Yes, the B12 has regressed when it comes to the unreliability & bunching (the way I see it, among other things, due to the turnaround scenario around Alabama , as well as the recent construction along ENY av. that has buses detoured to run along Rockaway & along Pitkin) - However, I can't concur with this apparent implication that the creation of the proposed B10 would lean towards solving those issues plaguing the B12.

Then would fixing the eastern terminal loop fix it? I'm assuming from your earlier response a re-extension to City Line is a no-go.

[Ex696]

27 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

"...but it came at the sacrifice of marring the old B78 portion of today's B47 (as in, the portion south of Sutter - Rutland ) in terms of service quality)"

The headways of the B47 are worse than the B78 had? Or do you mean something else by this?

 

[B35 via Church]

5 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Speaking of the B65, I don't think it is a good idea for service on Bergen/Dean west of Washington Avenue to get discontinued.

I was never all that fond about the way the B65 "backdoors" into Downtown Brooklyn (referring to the portion west of Flatbush, en route to getting to Smith/Livingston)... Having the B65 proposed to turn up Washington I happen to concur with; the fact of the matter is that folks do value Atlantic Terminal over Bergen .... However, proposing removing the current B45 WB stop at S. Portland is pretty stupid.... Having the WB B65 run along Atlantic to stop at the far corner of Atlantic/4th (a current WB B63 stop) after the current B45 WB stop at Carlton is going to be a huge deterrent.....

4 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

Then would fixing the eastern terminal loop fix it? I'm assuming from your earlier response a re-extension to City Line is a no-go.

The MTA got it right when they discontinued service east of Alabama ; those buses carried way too much air past that point... 2010 was way too late for that old portion of the route.... With that said, going back to the old turnaround scenario on the eastern end of the route (which they're not going to do, for safety reasons) would mitigate matters; it wouldn't quell those problems....

3 minutes ago, Ex696 said:

The headways of the B47 are worse than the B78 had? Or do you mean something else by this?

IINM, weekday headways are more or less the same.... Being that the B47 has to contend with a lot more than the old B78 did though (which includes Broadway traffic), its quality of service is worse than what the B78 was....  Weekend B47 headways are simply worse than what the old B78's were....

I'm not only referring to headways, but reliability as well..... The B78 was a reliable route before they started tinkering with service, not too long before the creation of the current B47.....

[Ex696]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The MTA got it right when they discontinued service east of Alabama ; those buses carried way too much air past that point... 2010 was way too late for that old portion of the route.... With that said, going back to the old turnaround scenario on the eastern end of the route (which they're not going to do, for safety reasons) would mitigate matters; it wouldn't quell those problems....

What would need to be done to fix the problems of the B12, and would you consider the B10 a step in the right direction, at least? Are the infrastructure upgrades on East NY Avenue going to add bus lanes there?

[Ex696]

And any opinions about the shifting of the B44 SBS from Knapp Street to Coney Island Hospital?

[checkmatechamp13]

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The MTA got it right when they discontinued service east of Alabama ; those buses carried way too much air past that point... 2010 was way too late for that old portion of the route.... With that said, going back to the old turnaround scenario on the eastern end of the route (which they're not going to do, for safety reasons) would mitigate matters; it wouldn't quell those problems....

To clarify, what turnaround scenario is being referred to here? At Alabama Avenue (in which case, what was the turnaround compared to today?) or in City Line? 

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, Ex696 said:

What would need to be done to fix the problems of the B12, and would you consider the B10 a step in the right direction, at least? Are the infrastructure upgrades on East NY Avenue going to add bus lanes there?

Aside from the turnaround scenario, another problem that plagues the B12 is the LIRR underpass between Fulton st & Junius st.... It creates a bottleneck.... A lot of that is traffic coming off the Jackie Robinson Pkwy.... Basically, the nature of what buses along the route have to deal with, you're never going to fully fix the problems on the thing....

I don't consider the B10 a step in the right direction, because again, they're suggesting taking service away from the B12 in order to come up with it.

I have not heard anything about bus lanes along ENY av.... Would be rather odd to have them there IMO.....

6 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

To clarify, what turnaround scenario is being referred to here? At Alabama Avenue (in which case, what was the turnaround compared to today?) or in City Line? 

I'm referring to the current turnaround scenario being significantly more of a time waste than the old turnaround scenario on the Alabama av. end of the B12.... The B12 doesn't run to City Line anymore....

From the last dropoff stop:

• the old turnaround scenario went Fulton-Georgia-Jamaica
• the current turnaround scenario is Fulton-Pennsylvania-Atlantic-Alabama

[Ex696]

8 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

the old turnaround scenario went Fulton-Georgia-Jamaica

Then where was the first stop before?