Jump to content

Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread


Cait Sith

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I was bored and decided to start doing a redesign of my own;

Opinions? 

FuvqCtg.png

Many problems with your ideas. First. I fail to see what is accomplished by flip flopping the B49/68 terminals other than adding extra mileage. For everyone who saves a transfer, others have additional transfers and anyone from Manhattan Beach using the B49 and transferring to an eastbound route would have a longer trip between Coney Island and Ocean Aves. Along Avenue U, Kings Highway, Avenue M or Avenue J, all of which are congested and slow. 

Second, there is nowhere to turn around the B68 at the Brighton Station. The closest turnaround would be Corbin Place which is three minutes from the college. 

Third, Half the B4 riders in Sheepshead Bay are going to or coming from the Subway Station, so that diversion (which I designed in 1978) to replace the B21, is far from useless. I also proposed extending the B64 to Coney Island in 1978 to replace the B78, and this was strongly opposed by residents fearing a deterioration of service. Part of the reason at that time for the combination was the high volume of transfers by students from John Dewey High School. Sorry to say, but I have nothing good to say about these proposals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

-  IDK what entrance/exit you're referring to, but the B4 (as you have it drawn) would not serve the Brighton line whatsoever...

- What do you mean "alternate between Coney Island & 37th St"? It's all Coney Island... Regardless, the B74 warrants more service than the B64 offers... Alternating trips won't solve much of anything down there.... Never understood this fixation from as many people that want to combine the B74 with *something*.... B64 & B74 should remain as two separate services...

- Alright.

Lot of that ridership along Brighton Beach Av on the B68 is of elderly people & neither Ocean Pkwy nor Brighton Beach subway stations have elevators.

You'd have to ask him about justifying taking buses off Bedford... I don't agree with that either.

As for the B49 south of Flatbush (the neighborhood), the B49 is hurting for ridership along Ocean av. & for the life of me, I will never understand why it continues to crawl along Ocean - even during the periods when there's little traffic to speak of... That crawling has been a problem along that route for decades now.

 

I was actually thinking of instead extending the B74 to Brighton Beach to replace the discontinued portion of the B68.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Because the B74 has potential instead of just being a shuttle... 

I agree it has potential, but until the community can be assured service won't erode with a longer route, it won't happen. Incidentally DOT (not the MTA) proposed by extending the B74 straight on Neptune to KCC about 10 years ago, bypassing the subway stops. CB 15 shot it down and it never even made it to the MTA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lex said:

But why does the B74 need to be extended at all?

The 74 has potential to do well if extended perhaps to Sheepshead Bay.. At the least Sheepshead Bay Road (B)(Q) or Knapp Street making it a true Neptune/Emmons Ave straight route. Per se  to help with the B4 down Neptune/Emmons. I'm not in favor of a merge of the B64 and B74. Those 2 sectors serve different purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Future ENY OP said:

The 74 has potential to do well if extended perhaps to Sheepshead Bay.. At the least Sheepshead Bay Road (B)(Q) or Knapp Street making it a true Neptune/Emmons Ave straight route. Per se  to help with the B4 down Neptune/Emmons. I'm not in favor of a merge of the B64 and B74. Those 2 sectors serve different purposes.

While I designed the eastern portion of the B4 n 1978, it was the MTA 's idea to run it to Bay Ridge. My proposal was to have the B4 terminate at Stilwell Station from Bay Ridge and connect with a new B21 from the station to Knapp St. I didn't combine it with the B74 because I knew they would object. Otherwise I thought it was a good idea, but with keeping the diversion to Sheeoshead Bay Station. My intention was if buses were running in pairs, the late bus would transfer its Station bound passengers to the other bus and run straight on Neptune making up nine minutes. But the MTA never had the imagination to do that. I have seen nearly empty buses follow each other around the loop which is crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I agree it has potential, but until the community can be assured service won't erode with a longer route, it won't happen. Incidentally DOT (not the MTA) proposed by extending the B74 straight on Neptune to KCC about 10 years ago, bypassing the subway stops. CB 15 shot it down and it never even made it to the MTA. 

Not sure why CB 15 would shut it down, if it would still serve Coney Island serving all 4 subway lines then why were they against it? Some folk just don't like change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Not sure why CB 15 would shut it down, if it would still serve Coney Island serving all 4 subway lines then why were they against it? Some folk just don't like change.

Some of these community boards don't make sense to me. Some of these boards need younger folk who have a strong interest in the transit committees need to run them.  When I attended some meetings at CB8 and CB 17 those areas in Central Brooklyn had their own agendas especially when it came to transportation related issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Future ENY OP said:

Some of these community boards don't make sense to me. Some of these boards need younger folk who have a strong interest in the transit committees need to run them.  When I attended some meetings at CB8 and CB 17 those areas in Central Brooklyn had their own agendas especially when it came to transportation related issues.

Which is exactly my issue. They don't want anything to change and it hinders the ability to create a sufficient network.

Why not implement the new routes on a trial basis, see how people like it, and if they don't, just revert it, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Not sure why CB 15 would shut it down, if it would still serve Coney Island serving all 4 subway lines then why were they against it? Some folk just don't like change.

They shut it down because they didn’t see it as serving their needs. They couldn’t care less about the college students. They viewed it as more traffic and pollution with extra buses coming into the area. The route also made no sense by not stopping at the Brighton Beach subway station. KCC has private school buses from Stillwell Ave Station so I don’t even know if the route would have been necessary.

Thats the problem with community boards, if there is a proposal with a community that hurts or benefits those from outside the area, those people have no say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

They shut it down because they didn’t see it as serving their needs. They couldn’t care less about the college students. They viewed it as more traffic and pollution with extra buses coming into the area. The route also made no sense by not stopping at the Brighton Beach subway station. KCC has private school buses from Stillwell Ave Station so I don’t even know if the route would have been necessary.

Thats the problem with community boards, if there is a proposal with a community that hurts or benefits those from outside the area, those people have no say. 

And honestly it shouldn't work like that.

Anyway, I decided to start from scratch with my redesign plan, and am going to start from Coney Island and work my way up.

I'm going to utilize the existing conditions report as well as some ideas here.

First ideas:

B1 (formerly B74): West 37th St to KCC via Stillwell Terminal. 

B2 (formerly B36): West 37th St to Sheepshead Bat via Neptune (bypassing C.I Hospital, section replaced by B3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2021 at 12:57 PM, B35 via Church said:

 ...and Here is said map in question.... It features 4 routes & not every layer is shown (you'll have to select/deselect the route/layer you want to see)... This is done for clarity purposes, as there is overlap.... Both directions are drawn for each route.

Again, this is to portray what I'd do if the MTA decides to eliminate the [B62 for the QT1] & the [B57 for the QT4].

 

I can see the B26 & the B52 getting consolidated somehow & I can also see one of the B38's branches getting eliminated... If the Met. av branch goes, that's going to free up BPH for the Seneca branch (even if all the resources for the Met. av branch doesn't go towards the Seneca branch).... OTOH, if the Seneca branch goes, the B38 overall is going to see a noticeable decrease in service, as I don't see close to most of the BPH dedicated to the Seneca branch being doled out to the Met. av branch... Quite frankly, the Seneca branch of the B38 in Ridgewood garners more patronage than any one of the Downtown - Ridgewood routes individually at or around Ridgewood terminal (which includes the B52)... This isn't to say that the B52 SHOULD get eliminated.... You've been paying attention to these redesigns, so you know they're all in with this frequency vs. coverage shit....

Something else I believe they're going to look into, is the sheer number of BPH operating in/out of Ridgewood Terminal itself... Unlike Jackson Heights patrons that are vociferously fighting for the routes serving Moore terminal. Ridgewood patrons have been complaining about the amt. of buses clogging up their streets for decades now & this is the perfect opportunity for the MTA to address it - especially since that Ridgewood's gained an immense amount of clout over the years now.... I want to see how far they're going to go with decreasing the amt. of buses entering/leaving Ridgewood Terminal... Cumulatively speaking, Ridgewood itself does not warrant all that service...

If the MTA does nothing with any of the Brooklyn routes serving Ridgewood Terminal, I'm going to pay close attention to Queens CB5 (who's going to be up in arms over such a decision) & Brooklyn CB4 (who's going to favor such a decision).... Believe it or not, the former of the two CB's care less about the (horse that is the) Q58 & much more about the Q55 - both of which appear to be kept serving Ridgewood Term., so no harm, no foul as far as that goes....

I see the map. So Smith/Court would be left with the (F) and (G) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Because the B74 has potential instead of just being a shuttle... 

So is the problem really that it's a shuttle (regardless of how well utilized that shuttle is), or is it the fact that it lacks revenue mileage per trip, compared to other routes in the system?

The fact of the matter is that shuttles have their place in a bus network, just like any other fixed route service....

32 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I see the map. So Smith/Court would be left with the (F) and (G) 

Yes.

7 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Some of these community boards don't make sense to me. Some of these boards need younger folk who have a strong interest in the transit committees need to run them.  When I attended some meetings at CB8 and CB 17 those areas in Central Brooklyn had their own agendas especially when it came to transportation related issues.

What you're essentially implicating with this is that some of these communities don't make sense.... Every single community has an agenda & TBH, that's not necessarily a bad thing.... Certain communities simply don't value and/or vie for public transit as much as other communities do... These are the same communities that simply value other facets of what makes a community a community.... I know that this is a public transit forum, but I can't feel too much of a certain type of way, realizing that penultimate sentence/statement....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

So is the problem really that it's a shuttle (regardless of how well utilized that shuttle is), or is it the fact that it lacks revenue mileage per trip, compared to other routes in the system?

The fact of the matter is that shuttles have their place in a bus network, just like any other fixed route service....

Yes.

What you're essentially implicating with this is that some of these communities don't make sense.... Every single community has an agenda & TBH, that's not necessarily a bad thing.... Certain communities simply don't value and/or vie for public transit as much as other communities do... These are the same communities that simply value other facets of what makes a community a community.... I know that this is a public transit forum, but I can't feel too much of a certain type of way, realizing that penultimate sentence/statement....

But the basic "give me service and screw everyone else" argument needs to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What you're essentially implicating with this is that some of these communities don't make sense.... Every single community has an agenda & TBH, that's not necessarily a bad thing.... Certain communities simply don't value and/or vie for public transit as much as other communities do... These are the same communities that simply value other facets of what makes a community a community.... I know that this is a public transit forum, but I can't feel too much of a certain type of way, realizing that penultimate sentence/statement....

The problem is that these particular versions of communities have legal, and in some cases customary standing to determine what happens. Not all communities are afforded that luxury, which you start seeing when you compare the demographics of CBs to the census tracts they represent.

(As an example of customary power, CBs do not actually have final say on street changes or bus routes; legally speaking, their role is entirely advisory. Theoretically speaking, if a mayor wanted to make sweeping changes without asking it's entirely possible.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But the basic "give me service and screw everyone else" argument needs to stop.

There's nothing saying that every bus route has to serve multiple communities.... That sentiment isn't tantamount to "screwing everyone else"...

The only problem I have with shuttles is when patrons of the community that route serves barely use them.... This is the problem I had with Country Club, back when they were doing all that complaining, with their valiant effort with trying to have the Bx24 morph back into the old Bx14 - when the Bx14 from Country Club past Pelham Bay Park (6) carried a shit ton of air..... I have zero problem with routes like the B42, B74, and the Q64 - because they are heavily patronized....

What needs to stop is this mindset that every short distanced bus route in a network needs to be extended somewhere.

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that these particular versions of communities have legal, and in some cases customary standing to determine what happens. Not all communities are afforded that luxury, which you start seeing when you compare the demographics of CBs to the census tracts they represent.

(As an example of customary power, CBs do not actually have final say on street changes or bus routes; legally speaking, their role is entirely advisory. Theoretically speaking, if a mayor wanted to make sweeping changes without asking it's entirely possible.)

I don't disagree, but that's a separate issue altogether.... The main point I was basically conveying is that, to expect a community not to have an agenda (however unfair or nefarious it is, compared to another community) isn't realistic... It's kind of like expecting somebody not to have a certain individuality, or personality about them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShyPtC0.png

 

Here we are with Proposal 2, notable changes:

B16: Rerouted north of McDonald Ave, via former B67 routing to Atlantic Av, providing customers a one seat ride to many subway lines. Service runs limited north of 12th Avenue.

B43: Extended from Prospect Park to Church Av (F), replacing former B16 portion.

B57: Discontinued south of Downtown Brooklyn.

B61: Discontinued between Red Hook & Prospect Park.

B67: Discontinued entirely.

B68: Replaced discontinued B61 portion between 15 St & Red Hook, providing C.I Av customers with a one seat ride to Red Hook Ferry terminal.

B77: Replaces B57 between Dwtn Bklyn & Red Hook.

Thoughts?

Edited by Lawrence St
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

ShyPtC0.png

 

Here we are with Proposal 2, notable changes:

B16: Rerouted north of McDonald Ave, via former B67 routing to Atlantic Av, providing customers a one seat ride to many subway lines. Service runs limited north of 12th Avenue.

B43: Extended from Prospect Park to Church Av (F), replacing former B16 portion.

B57: Discontinued south of Downtown Brooklyn.

B61: Discontinued between Red Hook & Prospect Park.

B67: Discontinued entirely.

B68: Replaced discontinued B61 portion between 15 St & Red Hook, providing C.I Av customers with a one seat ride to Red Hook Ferry terminal.

B77: Replaces B57 between Dwtn Bklyn & Red Hook.

Thoughts?

I don't understand why the B16 and the B67 are essentially combined. The B16, while having moderate ridership, is somewhat long. You would make that route much longer, and on top of that deal with traffic conditions in Park Slope and Downtown Brooklyn. That's a recipe for disaster. They should both be left alone. The B43 is gonna carry air west/south of Prospect Park. 

While I do agree with having something resembling the B57 to/from Red Hook in the way the B77 does from Downtown Brooklyn (I personally wouldn't leave Smith/Court Streets without bus service), I don't know if I would terminate a B77 of sorts in Downtown Brooklyn. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I don't understand why the B16 and the B67 are essentially combined. The B16, while having moderate ridership, is somewhat long. You would make that route much longer, and on top of that deal with traffic conditions in Park Slope and Downtown Brooklyn. That's a recipe for disaster. They should both be left alone. The B43 is gonna carry air west/south of Prospect Park. 

While I do agree with having something resembling the B57 to/from Red Hook in the way the B77 does from Downtown Brooklyn (I personally wouldn't leave Smith/Court Streets without bus service), I don't know if I would terminate a B77 of sorts in Downtown Brooklyn. 

 

 

The B16 carries air east of McDonald, this new LIMITED will serve more areas and have more connections to faster subway lines. If the B43 carries air east of Prospect, then that portion will be discontinued.

The B67, how I see it, is basically a B69. No point in having duplicated service where it isn't needed, hence the entire route being discontinued. The B16 will serve more riders while also being a LIMITED, so it won't get in traffic as much. And it will terminate at Atlantic, away from all of the worse traffic conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The B16 carries air east of McDonald, this new LIMITED will serve more areas and have more connections to faster subway lines. If the B43 carries air east of Prospect, then that portion will be discontinued.

The B67, how I see it, is basically a B69. No point in having duplicated service where it isn't needed, hence the entire route being discontinued. The B16 will serve more riders while also being a LIMITED, so it won't get in traffic as much. And it will terminate at Atlantic, away from all of the worse traffic conditions.

Faster subway lines for who? The only new subway lines you're essentially connecting to are the IRT lines at Bergen Street and at Barclays Center. You're not convincing whatever riders head out to the Brighton Line to ride the bus all the way up to 7th Ave & Flatbush or to consider the IRT at Bergen Street. 

Since when did making a bus a LIMITED all of a sudden make it immune to traffic conditions? The section of Flatbush north of Grand Army Plaza, especially around Barclays Center, can be really slow to travel along. So it's gonna run into congestion there, and it's gonna run into congestion along 7th Ave too. That's all before hitting the heart of Downtown Brooklyn. Doesn't matter if you skip stops. 

Also, your statement on the B67 and B69 being duplicates is inaccurate. The B67 and B69 have been/were independent routes which served different riders. It was only after the MTA routed B69 buses on 7th Ave back in 2010 that there was even a complementary relationship between the two. And even on top of that, the B67 and B69 still have their own set of riders on their individual portions. People use the B67 to/from Downtown Brooklyn from points on 7th Avenue, and the B69 has its own set of riders north of Grand Army Plaza.  This B16 LIMITED won't entice riders to use it more, instead it would so the exact opposite. Those B67 riders to/from Downtown Brooklyn will in large part be lost to the (F) or the B61. And whatever stops would only be served by the B69 would see a drastic cut in bus service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Faster subway lines for who? The only new subway lines you're essentially connecting to are the IRT lines at Bergen Street and at Barclays Center. You're not convincing whatever riders head out to the Brighton Line to ride the bus all the way up to 7th Ave & Flatbush or to consider the IRT at Bergen Street. 

Since when did making a bus a LIMITED all of a sudden make it immune to traffic conditions? The section of Flatbush north of Grand Army Plaza, especially around Barclays Center, can be really slow to travel along. So it's gonna run into congestion there, and it's gonna run into congestion along 7th Ave too. That's all before hitting the heart of Downtown Brooklyn. Doesn't matter if you skip stops. 

Also, your statement on the B67 and B69 being duplicates is inaccurate. The B67 and B69 have been/were independent routes which served different riders. It was only after the MTA routed B69 buses on 7th Ave back in 2010 that there was even a complementary relationship between the two. And even on top of that, the B67 and B69 still have their own set of riders on their individual portions. People use the B67 to/from Downtown Brooklyn from points on 7th Avenue, and the B69 has its own set of riders north of Grand Army Plaza.  This B16 LIMITED won't entice riders to use it more, instead it would so the exact opposite. Those B67 riders to/from Downtown Brooklyn will in large part be lost to the (F) or the B61. And whatever stops would only be served by the B69 would see a drastic cut in bus service. 

So what do you recommend? In order for the B77 to exist, the B67 has to go or be altered. You could do a Bx4/Bx4A reduction like they did in the Bronx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So what do you recommend? In order for the B77 to exist, the B67 has to go or be altered. You could do a Bx4/Bx4A reduction like they did in the Bronx.

What does the B67 have to do with your proposed B77? They don't even serve the same areas besides Downtown Brooklyn. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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