Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Kriston Lewis]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yes, but not on Cortelyou Rd...

It’s definitely there. It’ll share the stop with the B68.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, Kriston Lewis said:

It’s definitely there. It’ll share the stop with the B68.

Yes on Coney Island Avenue... Not the same as on Cortelyou Rd. There will be no more BM service running on Cortelyou. 

[Kriston Lewis]

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yes on Coney Island Avenue... Not the same as on Cortelyou Rd. There will be no more BM service running on Cortelyou. 

Yes, I know there’s no service on the road. I meant anyone who already walks to the Stratford Road stop can walk another block to the new stop at the corner on Coney Island Avenue.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, Kriston Lewis said:

Yes, I know there’s no service on the road. I meant anyone who already walks to the Stratford Road stop can walk another block to the new stop at the corner on Coney Island Avenue.

Correct...

[ABOGbrooklyn]

A few things for South West Brooklyn..

Why make the new B5 route serve Gateway Mall but omit the other side from Caesars Bay? 

I don't know how to feel about the B6 losing a one seat ride to Caesars Bay.. yes I know it's only two blocks away but it was so convenient and the B82 is less frequent than the B6..

What is the point of the B49 paralleling the Q train serving Coney Island? Will people from EFB Crown Heights and Bed Stuy really take a bus all the way to Coney Island insyead of taking a crosstown bus to the Q or Shuttle!?? 

The B55 barely touches South West Brooklyn and should go south on Dahill to 18th Avenue atleast..

[BrooklynBus]

https://www.change.org/p/mta-oppose-the-mta-s-plan-to-eliminate-bus-stops/u/31130926

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

A lot of the redesign appears to be tinkering routes here and there, and then rerouting these unrelated routes to cover said missing portion (or in some cases nothing new replaces it). While not all of those type of changes are bad per se (like the B16 serving Church Avenue ), many of them leave a lot to be desired (like the B49). Overall I would say I have mixed feelings about this proposal at best, on the local side that is. Even that might be an overstatement. 

Some initial route comments:

B2: So they eliminated this route, and then didn't even boost service on the B100 during the rush? The B100 can be crush loaded leaving Kings Highway subway station, and the B2 and B31 both carry. There's going to be crowding issues if they just keep that at combined B31/B100 intervals. 

B4: Rerouting it to (near) Coney Island as a replacement for the B64 is kinda wild, because the B4 and B64 are two complete different routes and serve different areas. Furthermore, it'll no longer serve Coney Island Hospital, so riders would now have to walk further to the B1 or B36, or transfer? This was completely unnecessary. 

B7: How strong is ridership on Saratoga Ave & Thomas S. Boyland St? If it's not all that, I think they could have just had it take ENY or Piktin Aves to Rockaway Ave (and vice-versa) to/from Cooper Street. 

B16: Sending it to KCH is interesting, and I agree with rerouting it via Church Avenue  instead of the current route which avoids it and receives little ridership. However what I wanted to see that didn't get addressed here is the lack of service on Fort Hamilton Parkway and at least some coverage service on 13th & 14th Avenues. 

B25: Overnight service should be retained into Downtown Brooklyn. Trying to time and coordinate the B25 and B26 at Franklin Avenue (if that's what they're planning on doing, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the case) will be too much of a hassle. Running it to Jay Street would be ideal IMO, worst case scenario I guess run it to/from Flatbush Avenue, for both DeKalb Avenue , and Nevins Street. That would you can run the B25 and B26 on a combined 30 minute headway along Fulton Street at night. 

B40 Rush, B41 Local, and B41 SBS: Now, I had a feeling they were going to split up the Veterans Avenue branch of the B41 from the main route, however I had a total different thing in mind (I personally thought it was going to become a feeder to/from Kings Highway  as part of modifying the B2/31/100 there). However, I question if this amount of service is necessary. Yes, I know the B40 isn't that frequent during off peak hours, however Flatbush Avenue from Empire to Nostrand can get pretty congested, especially when you have truck activity and deliveries ongoing. Even with it being a "rush" route of sorts, it's not going to matter because of the delays, and I doubt that many riders (if any) from Avenue N/Veterans Avenue will ride to Empire for the  or .

What perhaps could have been considered, is if they want to serve both, have the B40 feed into the Brighton line at Kings Highway, and then maybe either have some rush hour variant to Flatbush Avenue  , or have some B41 locals serve that area during the day. I don't see there being sufficient ridership to/from Avenue N and Veterans Avenue for the B40 to be running effectively as a LTD. 

B46: Disagree with this, they should have kept it to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. However with the B53 first coming out in the Queens redesign it was only anticipated I suppose.

B49: Umm, lol. It looks like they tried to keep this route more useful but somehow managed to make it more indirect than the existing route. This could have been handled some other way, there was no reason to swap route segments with both the B44 local AND the B68 in order to make the B49 more efficient/useful. That is up there with one of my least favorite changes. 

B53: They seriously need to let this proposal die. This is a mash of several segments together but not really being compared to the services it's replacing. 

B60/B66/B76: I'm leaning more on the indifferent side with this split. However if they're going to split the existing B60 the way they did, and they're having the B76 (East 80th Street B17 branch split off) operating via Rockaway Avenue north of Rockaway Parkway as well, why don't they just make that routing THE Rockaway Avenue route. I don't recall getting riding B60s which had a significant amount of through-riding at Rockaway Parkway . Those riders would have the B5LTD, B6 LTD, B82 local, and B82 SBS to connect to the B60 from Breukelen Houses.

B61, B81: What's the point of having both the B61 and the B81 overlapping for as much as they do between Red Hook and Park Slope. It's not even a corridor which warrants it, the heaviest portion of the B61 is between Red Hook and Downtown Brooklyn. The B61 as is can handle it, no need to add another route to it. They're eliminating like a few blocks off the B61 and adding this B81. Honestly a complete waste of resources. If this B81 is supposed to be a replacement of the B103 north of Flatbush & Nostrand, well this doesn't cut it at all. The ridership headed north of that point is overwhelmingly headed to Downtown.  

Edited December 2, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lawrence St]

Looks like they used my B68 to Kings CC idea, nice.

[Q43LTD]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

It’s because there are. Specifically in Southwest Brooklyn. Me personally I would’ve done things a lot differently.

I see a gap could have been filled with 65 St. Sunset Park to Avenue P 

[JeremiahC99]

26 minutes ago, Q43LTD said:

I see a gap could have been filled with 65 St. Sunset Park to Avenue P 

And not only that, but also routes could’ve been straightened out on Fort Hamilton Parkway and on 13th Avenue, so both corridors get one route each rather than what we have now and in the draft plan. More direct trips.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Surprised nobody mentioned this but no BM1-4 service along the "Downtown Loop" is not something I am ok with . I'm hoping @Via Garibaldi 8will do his best to keep the loop intact and the MTA stops trying to force riders onto the local bus/subway to make up for lost service. The "C" routes are iffy too with no wall St service. My suggestions for exp service 

BM1: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM1/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM6

BM2: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM2/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM22 (or if it "confuses riders" BM9)

BM3: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM3/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM7

BM4: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM4/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM8

BM5: God knows why they even bothered renaming this to "BM35" when they literally said in the documents they wanna keep names as similar to the normal route as possible, but I guess you can't have a BM5c if there can't be downtown service to begin with. 

X27/28: the Queens redesign has the QM63-68, not sure why they didn't do the same here (assuming bc it's easier to "take away the 2" from their names to create the BM7/8) Just have these routes as the BM27/28/C. 

X37/38: The two routes that have appropriate names so no need to mess with it.

Sea Gate service: I know they are gonna fight hard for express service over there. They need to retain at least peak service along the BM(2)8/38.

Edited December 2, 2022 by MysteriousBtrain

[BrooklynBus]

3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And not only that, but also routes could’ve been straightened out on Fort Hamilton Parkway and on 13th Avenue, so both corridors get one route each rather than what we have now and in the draft plan. More direct trips.

But both those proposals involve an investment in a borough that is growing and the MTA is only interested in cutting service. They say they want straighter and simpler routes, but not if they need to provide additional service to accomplish that. 

They talk about the need to improve inter borough connections, but will not add a second route to JFK. 

It’s a bit ironic that the B4 they are now proposing is the exact same route I proposed in 1978 when making my Southwest Brooklyn proposals, except I would have left the Neptune Emmons portion as a separate route. The MTA rejected the idea because they wanted the B4 to serve Coney Island Hospital and I wasn’t sure it needed three routes. Now, the MTA reversed its position so they could cut service in Bath Beach. 

They proposed moving the B16 to 60 Street in 1978. Rejected by CB 12 who asked for straightening of the B16 and a new route on 13 Ave. Proposed again in 2004. Rejected again, and community countered with same proposal. It will now happen a third time and the MTA will relent and leave that portion of the route as is. 60 St has more traffic than 56-57 Streets, and the route will be further delayed.

Community has asked for B71 restoration and extension into Manhattan. Rejected by MTA, and chose instead to widen the service gap by moving the B65 to Atlantic Ave.

Rockaway twice rejected removal of Q35 from Newport Ave.

MTA wouldn’t send B44 SBS to Kingsborough as was proposed, but sends it to CI Hospital that no one asked for, but they brag how it’s an improvement.  But they don’t mention they are removing Coney Island Hospital from the B4. That is dishonest. They  wouldn’t connect Sheepshead Bay to Rockaway as proposed, but will provide direct service from Broadway Junction to Sunnyside that no one asked for and no one will use. 

2500 signed petition to not have their bus stops removed. MTA is ignoring them. 

So explain to me how the MTA is listening to the it’s riders, and not just doing what it wants.

 

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

56 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Surprised nobody mentioned this but no BM1-4 service along the "Downtown Loop" is not something I am ok with . I'm hoping @Via Garibaldi 8will do his best to keep the loop intact and the MTA stops trying to force riders onto the local bus/subway to make up for lost service. The "C" routes are iffy too with no wall St service. My suggestions for exp service 

BM1: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM1/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM6

BM2: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM2/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM22 (or if it "confuses riders" BM9)

BM3: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM3/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM7

BM4: Off peak and Downtown bypass route is BM4/C, Downtown Loop only route is BM8

BM5: God knows why they even bothered renaming this to "BM35" when they literally said in the documents they wanna keep names as similar to the normal route as possible, but I guess you can't have a BM5c if there can't be downtown service to begin with. 

X27/28: the Queens redesign has the QM63-68, not sure why they didn't do the same here (assuming bc it's easier to "take away the 2" from their names to create the BM7/8) Just have these routes as the BM27/28/C. 

X37/38: The two routes that have appropriate names so no need to mess with it.

Sea Gate service: I know they are gonna fight hard for express service over there. They need to retain at least peak service along the BM(2)8/38.

As I said earlier, I like some of the express bus changes, but a lot of them are not good, either because they cut the span and or frequency or service or because they make the commute more difficult.  The Downtown Loop should be preserved for sure.  If you notice, in the morning people that get the bus by Church & Barclay in the afternoon would have no service west of Water St because that stop would only be served going back to Brooklyn. That is a huge stop too, so anyone that works in that area or west of it, has quite a schlepp in the morning, or they have to transfer.  As it is, some mornings, the Downtown Loop trips don't run and people have to transfer at other stops just to get a bus Downtown.  They would have to perhaps transfer twice some days.

The Sea Gate cuts are ridiculous because from Cropsey & Canal to Sea Gate, that trip can be done in 10 minutes, so they are not saving much doing away with those trips.  They can maintain them.  Most of the usage in Coney Island is from the people in Sea Gate during the week.  On weekends there are people here and there, but again, you are not saving that much time.

I also am going to push to have the X27 & X28 terminate at 14th St because there is definitely a chunk of ridership north of Worth St, which is where they're proposing to end service during peak periods. Terrible idea.  By terminating them at 14th St, this gives people north of Worth St service (under this plan they would lose service during peak periods). Anyone by 23rd St can hop on the X37 or X38 or go down to 14th St.

The bus stop consolidation I am not going to protest because I do like what they did there in most cases and some of the tweaks to the routes in Brooklyn are not bad either. However, what I am concerned about with not having overlapping service for most of these routes now, particularly the BM lines is when they can't fill trips, those people will be SOL.  I don't believe that even with all of the cuts they're proposing that they will have enough bus operators at Spring Creek Depot to ensure that service runs the way that it should.   I'm looking to try to keep Saturday BM service too and off-peak on all lines.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8

[JeremiahC99]

21 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

But both those proposals involve an investment in a borough that is growing and the MTA is only interested in cutting service. They say they want straighter and simpler routes, but not if they need to provide additional service to accomplish that. 

They talk about the need to improve inter borough connections, but will not add a second route to JFK. 

It’s a bit ironic that the B4 they are now proposing is the exact same route I proposed in 1978 when making my Southwest Brooklyn proposals, except I would have left the Neptune Emmons portion as a separate route. The MTA rejected the idea because they wanted the B4 to serve Coney Island Hospital and I wasn’t sure it needed three routes. Now, the MTA reversed its position so they could cut service in Bath Beach. 

They proposed moving the B16 to 60 Street in 1978. Rejected by CB 12 who asked for straightening of the B16 and a new route on 13 Ave. Proposed again in 2004. Rejected again, and community countered with same proposal. It will now happen a third time and the MTA will relent and leave that portion of the route as is. 60 St has more traffic than 56-57 Streets, and the route will be further delayed.

Community has asked for B71 restoration and extension into Manhattan. Rejected by MTA, and chose instead to widen the service gap by moving the B65 to Atlantic Ave.

Rockaway twice rejected removal of Q35 from Newport Ave.

MTA wouldn’t send B44 SBS to Kingsborough as was proposed, but sends it to CI Hospital that no one asked for, but they brag how it’s an improvement.  But they don’t mention they are removing Coney Island Hospital from the B4. That is dishonest. They  wouldn’t connect Sheepshead Bay to Rockaway as proposed, but will provide direct service from Broadway Junction to Sunnyside that no one asked for and no one will use. 

2500 signed petition to not have their bus stops removed. MTA is ignoring them. 

So explain to me how the MTA is listening to the it’s riders, and not just doing what it wants.

 

 

 

Well they aren’t. I also wanted more Avenue N/Veterans Avenue service on weekends, but that didn’t work out well. Also no Avenue K local service straight to Ralph Avenue to fill in major east-west service gaps in my area (Flatlands Avenue is in a diagonal orientation). Admittedly, I was looking at the draft proposals today, and for some of the I found them hilarious. The B49 one is worth noting. “The B49 route is indirect for transferring so let’s make it more indirect”, they said. “What could totally go wrong?”, they said.

If it were me, I would redesigned the routes in a whole different way, even though you and I will totally disagree on a lot of things.

[checkmatechamp13]

7 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

and the fact they merged the 2 and the 100 is shocking 

That was a long time coming

5 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

Also, the B68 makes fewer bus connections than the B49 causing some to have to pay additional fares like those transferring in Crown Heights. And diverting it to NY Avenue, further increases travel time for those transferring from the B49 to the B35 going toward Sunset Park. They talk about straighter more direct routes, but they rejected my proposal for the B49 to go straight on Ocean Avenue and are causing more indirect travel. 

For anyone coming from Kingsborough, the B68 to the B35 would be the way they would get to Sunset Park. For those coming from Ocean Avenue, most of them are near the Brighton Line (and the connection to the hospital does have some value). 

For any extra fare issues, they usually provide 3-legged transfers. (Hopefully they're smart about it and allow people to use the subway...for the Bx15/M125 split, they insisted that people use the M125 to get the second transfer)

4 hours ago, Kriston Lewis said:

Some armchair thoughts:

• B5/6 Limited expanded to Sundays: Took them long enough. Not sure why the 5 and 6 have different spans, that's going to get confusing.
• B15/43 in Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights: The justification of moving the northbound B15 to Kingston Avenue is to provide a better connection to the  at Kingston-Throop Avenues. But the existing route on Troy Avenue puts you about one block away from the Stuyvesant Avenue entrance of the accessible Utica Avenue station, where you have both local and express service. Moving the B43 southbound below Fulton Street takes it away from the Brooklyn Children's Museum.
• Overnight B25 truncation: I see that idea being shelved quickly, otherwise, I am happy that it's mostly left alone. Lots of older folks rely on the line since the Fulton Street Line isn't very accessible.
• B26 changes: I wanted the B26 to be re-routed to directly serve the Nostrand Avenue  station for years. Happy about that. The idea to turn it into a daytime limited on Fulton Street is also kind of interesting, the bus priority has be there for that idea to actually work out.
• B44/B49/B68: Ocean Avenue is very sleepy after a certain hour. I have serious doubts that those overnight buses will carry anyone. I don't like the idea of using the B68's resources for this. I also don't get the move of southbound service to Nostrand Avenue, having the B44 Local, B44 SBS, B49 and the subway is overkill. I have come to terms with the move of the B44 Local to Rogers Avenue.
• B55: Church Avenue finally gets its SBS to the Airport. That's also going to be a nightmare without bus priority.
• New B81: I have a strange suspicion that they created this line based on my MetroCard data, lol. I am happy about the return of local service on Coretlyou Road (and a connection between my old and new home), but I don't want it at the expense of the B103.
• Neutering of the B103: I hate it. The B103 was great, it was a point-to-point limited stop line that connected far-flung areas. If there was an example for an SBS conversion (with some tweaks), this was it. Also, why no overnight service?
• B71: This was a wasted opportunity to restore east-west service through Prospect Heights, Park Slope and Gowanus. There are no options between Ninth Street and Atlantic Avenue. What a shame.
• Express buses on Beverley Road: Beverley Road homeowners are going to fight to the death on this one. They raise hell whenever a truck manages to get onto the street, I can't imagine the reaction to a bunch of MCIs.
• Other express notes: I'm surprised that they didn't try to re-route the former Command expresses off the FDR to Sixth Avenue and Broadway. I am happy about the BM4 being re-routed to Coney Island Avenue which will maintain some Cortelyou Road service and restore part of the X29.

I agree with the B5/6 limited expansion (except I think the B5 has a really stupid routing around Gateway Mall...it should take Schenck to Vandalia and serve the mall that way.

For the B15/43, I think they were trying to provide a super-frequent corridor in between the B44 & B46.

I think the B25 should be truncated to Flatbush Avenue as was mentioned by @BM5 via Woodhaven, so that riders have the connections to the subway lines in that area.

Agree with the B26 changes.

I agree with you on the B49...it doesn't make sense to have all those services on NY Avenue. I would've routed the B49 to Brooklyn Avenue and just ended it at the hospital.

I was expecting something like the B15/35 restructuring they came up with, and I think it'll work out. The B55 makes connections to most of the subway lines in southern Brooklyn (with the exception of the 4th Avenue Line), and the B15 could use the truncation for more reliable service.

I think they want everyone to transfer to the subway for Downtown Brooklyn access, but realized the value of a Flatbush - Park Slope connection.

I agree with you on the B71...they should've also extended it to Lower Manhattan.

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

B16: Sending it to KCH is interesting, and I agree with rerouting it via Church Avenue  instead of the current route which avoids it and receives little ridership However what I wanted to see that didn't get addressed here is the lack of service on Fort Hamilton Parkway and at least some coverage service on 13th & 14th Avenues. 

B40 Rush, B41 Local, and B41 SBS: Now, I had a feeling they were going to split up the Veterans Avenue branch of the B41 from the main route, however I had a total different thing in mind (I personally thought it was going to become a feeder to/from Kings Highway  as part of modifying the B2/31/100 there). However, I question if this amount of service is necessary. Yes, I know the B40 isn't that frequent during off peak hours, however Flatbush Avenue from Empire to Nostrand can get pretty congested, especially when you have truck activity and deliveries ongoing. Even with it being a "rush" route of sorts, it's not going to matter because of the delays, and I doubt that many riders (if any) from Avenue N/Veterans Avenue will ride to Empire for the  or .

What perhaps could have been considered, is if they want to serve both, have the B40 feed into the Brighton line at Kings Highway, and then maybe either have some rush hour variant to Flatbush Avenue  , or have some B41 locals serve that area during the day. I don't see there being sufficient ridership to/from Avenue N and Veterans Avenue for the B40 to be running effectively as a LTD. 

B46: Disagree with this, they should have kept it to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. However with the B53 first coming out in the Queens redesign it was only anticipated I suppose.

B49: Umm, lol. It looks like they tried to keep this route more useful but somehow managed to make it more indirect than the existing route. This could have been handled some other way, there was no reason to swap route segments with both the B44 local AND the B68 in order to make the B49 more efficient/useful. That is up there with one of my least favorite changes. 

B53: They seriously need to let this proposal die. This is a mash of several segments together but not really being compared to the services it's replacing. 

B60/B66/B76: I'm leaning more on the indifferent side with this split. However if they're going to split the existing B60 the way they did, and they're having the B76 (East 80th Street B17 branch split off) operating via Rockaway Avenue north of Rockaway Parkway as well, why don't they just make that routing THE Rockaway Avenue route. I don't recall getting riding B60s which had a significant amount of through-riding at Rockaway Parkway . Those riders would have the B5LTD, B6 LTD, B82 local, and B82 SBS to connect to the B60 from Breukelen Houses.

B61, B81: What's the point of having both the B61 and the B81 overlapping for as much as they do between Red Hook and Park Slope. It's not even a corridor which warrants it, the heaviest portion of the B61 is between Red Hook and Downtown Brooklyn. The B61 as is can handle it, no need to add another route to it. They're eliminating like a few blocks off the B61 and adding this B81. Honestly a complete waste of resources. If this B81 is supposed to be a replacement of the B103 north of Flatbush & Nostrand, well this doesn't cut it at all. The ridership headed north of that point is overwhelmingly headed to Downtown.  

Agree with you on the B16.

I was actually expecting them to have the B9 run out to Bergen Beach.

I don't think a truncation to Woodhull Hospital is the worst idea, but I definitely agree the B53 has no business running past WBP.

Agree with you on the B76. For the Breukelen Houses, I would have a route running from Canarsie to Euclid Avenue via Glenwood Road, East 108th Street, Stanley Avenue, Eldert Lane, Sutter Avenue, Crescent Street, and Pitkin Avenue (return south via Euclid Avenue). Maybe swing over to Linden Blvd between Ashford & Fountain the way they have the proposed B20 doing. That would allow the B14 to run straight across Sutter (with that slight series of turns in Ozone Park) and terminate at Cross Bay & Rockaway (or better yet, Aqueduct Racino, or Lefferts Blvd AirTrain station).

For Pennsylvania Avenue, I actually think the B13 should be providing the Gateway - Starrett City connection, and have a route down Van Siclen providing the connection to the rest of ENY.

I agree with you on the B61/81...I think the B61 should go no further than 4th Avenue. I think their general argument is that Park Slope (and Red Hook) - Flatbush is relatively difficult by mass transit (I know Red Hook specifically was mentioned in the ECG as an area they wanted to focus on), but Downtown Brooklyn - Flatbush has the subway and B41.  

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And not only that, but also routes could’ve been straightened out on Fort Hamilton Parkway and on 13th Avenue, so both corridors get one route each rather than what we have now and in the draft plan. More direct trips.

I agree.

2 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well they aren’t. I also wanted more Avenue N/Veterans Avenue service on weekends, but that didn’t work out well. Also no Avenue K local service straight to Ralph Avenue to fill in major east-west service gaps in my area (Flatlands Avenue is in a diagonal orientation).

I think they're of the belief that the slight B82 reroute onto Avenue K (and the frequency of the route) is sufficient compensation for the lack of through Avenue K service (though I do agree that it should exist for the purposes of connecting to Flatbush/Nostrand).

[Around the Horn]

I just want to know what's by 1st Av and 58th St that's worthy of rerouting the B64 over there when it's already used as a pretty important crosstown route and the only route between western Bay Ridge and the zoned middle school in Dyker Heights.

The Brooklyn Army Terminal isn't *that* much of a ridership generator. B11s over there are generally empty... I just don't get it.

[Lawrence St]

Why was there no type of service restored to some of the B23? That section has been asking for restoration for the longest.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I just want to know what's by 1st Av and 58th St that's worthy of rerouting the B64 over there when it's already used as a pretty important crosstown route and the only route between western Bay Ridge and the zoned middle school in Dyker Heights.

The Brooklyn Army Terminal isn't *that* much of a ridership generator. B11s over there are generally empty... I just don't get it.

Nothing, but by removing the B64 from Bay Ridge over by Shore Rd, that means the only option is the B9 and if you need to travel say along Bath Av, you now need to transfer.  They are still using the idea of giving riders fewer choices to thereby force them to have to relay on just one route. It's their way of trying to maximize ridership on each line.  

[B35 via Church]

B2/B100 (combination): Shocker.

B4: Ok, do away with the current piecemealing along Neptune.... However, I'd rather split the Bay Ridge Pkwy. portion into its own route somehow, to still have the other portion serve CI Hospital - over running it along more of Stillwell (down to Coney Island, no less) to end up removing access to that hospital...

B5/B6/B103: The problem with the (real) B6 & Caesars Bay Shopping ctr. is that it only serves it in the one direction (towards it).... If you're leaving from there, you're gonna be making that walk up to Bay Pkwy... Regarding the rest of the proposal involving the (real) B6, it's not at all surprising that they'd truncate locals (the proposed B6) to Canarsie .... However, I can't concur with having the LTD portion (as the proposed B5) run over to Gateway, to have the B103 run up to New Lots in its place.... If the idea is to truncate all B103's to the Junction, then that should be the route going to Gateway.... As someone earlier in here pointed out (lol), it's interesting to take the B6 away from Caesars Bay to have it serve Gateway Mall instead.... I see that as a shot at Caesars Bay, but that's neither here nor there

B7/B20: I'd think most will pay more of an attention to the attempted optimizing of the proposed B20, but I fully believe this part of the proposal{s} is about the B7 operating out of FP...

B8: Having Brownsville buses make that right turn off Amboy onto Hegeman won't fly... Regardless of feasibility issues, what they're proposing on the Brownsville end will save some runtime for sure - however, I see it being detrimental for a significant amt. of riders....

B10/B12: The B12 looks to be left alone - however, that proposed B10 is basically a B12 that runs to Prospect Park via Empire... I mean. great, it fills a gap, but I don't see this catching on to the tune some may think it will.... I sincerely hope that the plan isn't to take away service from the B12 to give to that B10, b/c it'd be BS if it were to AFAIC - LTD service or not.....

B13: I get doing away with the meandrous nature of the thing in Bushwick... At the same time, I'd want noooo part of B13's (or any other route nowadays) running on Cypress.... It's almost akin to running a bus along the more eastern portion of Bushwick av, esp. proximate to the JRP...

B14: While I would still run it to Rockaway Blvd. to supplant the current Q7's stint in Brooklyn, to propose having it (the B14) divert to run up to Euclid before swinging back down to the Bklyn. general mail facility is a palatable idea in its own right....

B15: If they're going to take it away from JFK to give it more coverage north of Broadway, it should, at minimum, run to Grand st..... Having it stop dead at Montrose is a stub.

B16: The only thing I agree with here, is the having of it serve Church av .... The running of this thing on 60th, the running of it east of Parkside to Utica/Clarkson, good lord.... Having this swing over to Utica for supplemental service along Clarkson to me (considering what they're doing along Church) reeks of damage control/mitigative measures - considering their lovely plan for Church av

B26: LMAO.... You're not going to get anything "rush"(ing) along narrow Halsey st.... Better off choosing the B52/Gates av for that purpose...

B27: ...but Fort Hamilton Pkwy doesn't get its own route, man GTFOH with this.... A Court/Smith st split of the current B57 that'd stop dead at the goddamn Farragut houses???? This wouldn't have to have been a thought in anyone's mind for supplemental service b/w those PJ's & Downtown Brooklyn if the B62 weren't running up to the Astoria houses... How 'bout we run this to City Hall instead

B36: Never understood why it didn't end at Surf/W. 37th (at the actual gate of Sea Gate) to begin with.... Thank f*** they didn't resort to the age-old proposal around these parts to extending it to (either) Kings Plaza or the Junction....

B38: Not surprising that they're proposing canning the Met. av branch... With that said, there is no way you're having every single B38 trip under those headways terminating around Seneca/Cornelia <> Seneca/Catalpa.... Something will have to give.

B40: I'm not convinced this route actually has anything to do with being some sort of an improvement to rush hour service...

B41XT: Nice gesture I suppose, but I'd say It's way too late for something like this.... The damage has been done with the B41 (in general)... Something like this should've been done before the PBL takeover, let alone before major improvements were done to the B103 (that made it as popular as it is today) not too long after the takeover.... Back when the B41 was far more popular than it is today... Proposing scaling the B103 back to the Junction won't make something like this more attractive than the current B103 to/from Downtown Brooklyn (if that's supposed to be the idea with this)...

=========================

 

guess I'll finish the rest of this some other time....

[MysteriousBtrain]

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Why was there no type of service restored to some of the B23? That section has been asking for restoration for the longest.

Double check bc I'm pretty sure the B23 ran on Cortelyou Rd.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

B10/B12: The B12 looks to be left alone - however, that proposed B10 is basically a B12 that runs to Prospect Park via Empire... I mean. great, it fills a gap, but I don't see this catching on to the tune some may think it will.... I sincerely hope that the plan isn't to take away service from the B12 to give to that B10, b/c it'd be BS if it were to AFAIC - LTD service or not.....

B16: The only thing I agree with here, is the having of it serve Church av .... The running of this thing on 60th, the running of it east of Parkside to Utica/Clarkson, good lord.... Having this swing over to Utica for supplemental service along Clarkson to me (considering what they're doing along Church) reeks of damage control/mitigative measures - considering their lovely plan for Church av

That's exactly what they're planning for the B10 & B12 (in bold). They list it in the draft plan, I think in both sections. It's gonna be about a 50-50 split in terms of service levels, so some B12 service is taken away.  I presume that the B16 would then provide additional service on Clarkson Avenue in the process. I don't like that part of the B10/B12 plan, and personally I would just keep the B12 alone instead of the B10/12 split. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Lawrence St]

4 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Double check bc I'm pretty sure the B23 ran on Cortelyou Rd.

I see the B81 over there but no service restoration on the 16th Ave portion which was the entire point of the B23 in the first place.

[Nova Fly Guy]

B5/B6 - I have no complaints I’m from Breukelen we wanted a bus to gateway without going to East New York. Moving it off of Glenwood was a great move almost Nobody get on the bus it also eliminates that Bottle neck At Nostrand & Albany Av. Ceasar Bay is a Driver friendly shopping Center nobody used the B6 for that anyway. I believe this is a streamline thing for 60FT in the Future 

B7/B20- Nobody using the B20 to go to Bushwick/Ridgewood because the  is way faster moving it to cooper was super smart is will be used.

B10/B12 - will make a little difference Rush can be brutal toward ENY 

B13 - it’s closer to the commercial area only way to justify keeping the route Past Euclid 

B15 - Don’t know about ending at Montrose but Throop is better it’s Dead past Fulton on Lewis anyway.

B16 - Should see a bump in ridership a lot of young people live on Clarkston & Lenox it will feed the  

B17 - The paerdegats are ok they have the B76 but a few people on the other side of Remsen will be mad at the loss of the  but overall not a bad move 

B25 - Fulton is ADA compliant since you have the B26 past Franklin. They could really kill the route at night there little to no ridership 

B26 - Great move finally 

B27 - Court & Smith needed a bus 🤷🏾

B40/41/41SBS- Should have been done years ago, it’s really the only option to deinterine the B41 a bit.

B43 - like the B15 Focused on the core of the Stuy low ridership on Thompkins  

B44/B49 - Good Swap keep the B44 together it’s about the same ridership wise. Most people on the New York are not going to Williamsburg you help the B49. The south part i understand both side of this Decision not really a fan of it for the B49.

B44 SBS - I’am ok with it

B45/65 - Court Street was a waste of Gas and BeaSouthbound Good extension it’s a better terminal with more connections 

B48 - I love the church Ave extension 

B53- I am all for it Broadway need it’s own Route while Helping the Q59 streamline better and still keeping Greenpoint service. I knew this meant the End of the B46 & Q24 on Broadway which I think we can live with 

B55 - Best thing I seen it years I’m assuming more 60FT for JG

B57/B62 - only problem I really have is the B62 could have stayed on Park Av East Williamsburg & LIC areas are hot destinations 

B60/B66/B76 - The B60 should have went the Full length of Rockaway Ave & Wilson Av you could have turn around at Morgan. The main portions are From Pitkin to Flushing you going have a lot people mad that go from Brownsville/bed stuy to Bushwick.

B67/B69 - Both move are ok

B68 - don’t have a problem I think it will be converted to a 60FT route 

 
B81 - wasted route don’t like anything about it expect the Cortelyou road service. Should have went to City hall at least 

B82/B82SBS - should have not went to CI in the first place 

B83 - Finally good move

B103 - The Meat & Bone of the route is still intact it could have went up Van Siclen to New Lots though 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Nova Fly Guy

[Theli11]

Wish they'd do something with the B39. We need better interborough travel, perhaps extending it to Lorimer St  Brooklyn Side and either the East End of Houston St or a LES loop from Bridge --> Essex -> Houston or 14th St--> Columbia and/or Avenue D --> Grand --> Essex --> Bridge. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, Theli11 said:

Wish they'd do something with the B39. We need better interborough travel, perhaps extending it to Lorimer St  Brooklyn Side and either the East End of Houston St or a LES loop from Bridge --> Essex -> Houston or 14th St--> Columbia and/or Avenue D --> Grand --> Essex --> Bridge. 

They want people using the subway for interborough travel.  Don't expect anything to change with the B39. It is short, direct, straight and only really exists because of ADA issues, otherwise they wouldn't have brought it back.  Despite what their Condition Reports state about better connectivity between the boroughs, they would prefer to avoid having any local buses do that where possible.  It's all about keeping costs down and the only way to do that is to eliminate stops, eliminate turns and keep bus lines as short as possible.