B35 via Church Posted December 4, 2022 Share #576 Posted December 4, 2022 Continuing on... ------------------------ B43: I bet anything this was done to speed up service a bit... Likely/secondarily as well as to provide more coverage along Empire... I say that b/c (while I'm not really sure when this phenomenon started happening) Brooklyn av, starting at Fulton, at minimum, has become more & more of a choke-point over the years.... Coming from Queens, the B32 - B43 (then a good walk from Empire/Brooklyn) used to be one of my "go-to's".... Generally speaking, I still like the current B43, but as of late, I've been refraining from taking it because of that very reason mentioned.... But yeah, being that they're proposing shifting the SB routing along Marcus Garvey <> Albany to close that gap in service along Albany, I see the potential for increased patronage along the proposed SB routing (compared to the current SB routing)... I'm glad that they'd still have it running to Prospect Park subway , instead of say, running it down to KCH to have it terminating there.... Although I'm not wild about the fact that it'd have to utilize Broadway for that short stint, overall, I can rock with this proposal. B44 (local) / B49: Given the current SBS routing, the shifting of the local B44 NB to Rogers was inevitable... As for the B49, I honestly didn't think they'd actually go through with taking it off Bedford... I thought they'd remove the B44 local NB off NY, to have it be left with nothing (so at least that won't be the case).... Although I don't think the proposed B49 is going to be all that popular in my neck of the woods here, I don't even think this part of the proposal is the worst part... ...What they're doing to the southern end of the route [B49] OTOH, Oy Vey... There is no justification to have it running to Coney Island - especially via the meandrous routing that the current B68 takes... There is more of a connection between Sheepshead Bay & Manhattan Beach, than there is with Manhattan Beach patrons & basically, anywhere along Coney Island av.... The B1 already takes those folks to the Brighton line, so from that point alone, I don't see the point in also having the B68 pan east of CI av towards Manhattan Beach.... From Brighton Beach, I see the B49 being a bit of an afterthought (even with the Grady HS kids).... That part of the proposal strikes me as a poor attempt at a ridership grab past Sheepshead Bay.... Should've been left alone in Manhattan Beach. B44 (SBS): There'd a clear double standard in place if this ends up coming to fruition... You scale back the B46 SBS to Dekalb as a means to not subject the thing to the slow crawl along Broadway..... However, you divert the thing (proposed B44 SBS) to have it pan way over to CI Hospital along Av. Z from Nostrand... This isn't at all to compare the traffic levels & pace along Av. Z to that of Broadway, but I bring it up to say that traffic along Av. Z isn't a breeze at all.... I look at this & I say to myself, wtf you even need the B36 past (as in, east) of CI Hospital for? What, supplementary service? The masses will end up piling onto this thing (proposed B44 SBS).... I thought (and still think) having the B44 SBS run to Sheepshead Bay being tantamount to that of (what I like to call) a superroute.... Running it to CI Hospital is just flat out ridiculous... IMO, ridership should be organic & not forced... Low demand is the last categorization anyone would ascribe to the B44 SBS.... If you're going to try to cram folks in a certain locale onto a particular route (instead of multiple routes in the vicinity), you don't have faith in the network you're trying to build & maintain... ...which may be a large part of the problem here - They're not trying to build a cohesive network... B45: Lol.... Right idea in general (of extending it to a subway line), wrong subway line... Should've been extended to the at Alabama.... Ralph/Fulton is a terrible place to have buses terminating at throughout the day anyway... B46: Although I'd be disheartened by such a move (and I hate to admit it, but) this does make sense if you pay attention to rider habits.... Something else that I'll admit, is that they'd retain more of the thing along Broadway than I thought they would.... But yeah, while there's definitely a certain demand for B46 service at WBP, the demand for B46 service is simply stronger to/from that pocket along Broadway b/w Flushing & Myrtle (specifically at Woodhull itself)... I still think some semblance of B46 service should be retained at WBP for the sake of the overall network though.... If this ends up coming to fruition, I would have some SBS trips running to Woodhull also (nonstop b/w Dekalb & the hospital itself)... F**k it.... B47: Little surprised that they'd keep it intact..... To the proposal itself though, see, this is an example of why I say straighter isn't always better.... Despite the fact that everything the B47 does b/w Sutter-Rutland & {Church/Ralph} is rather meandrous, I actually think it's a detriment to have buses going E. 98th > Kings Hwy > Church > Ralph... The current routing avoids running along that traffic along that hectic part of Kings Hwy, while the proposed route would introduce it to it (like the current B7 has to contend with).... That, and in terms of passenger boardings/alightings, the current routing is definitely more beneficial.... B48: This is interesting.... It's safe to say that the current B48 as a whole is rather lacking/slowly becoming antiquated, so something has to change... Regarding the proposal though, I have mixed opinions about it.... My concern is that something like this would be largely used as a quote-unquote transfer route, moreso than most people using it to a specific area along/around it.... Looking at the routing itself, something I do not at all see flying, is the terminating of this (or anything else) in the immediate area of Church av (Caton av side or Church av side)... Traffic won't allow for it; it'd cause more problems than anything would end up being solved.... It's one of those *looks good on paper* sort of ordeals.... On a lighter note, I do see it being more cumulatively patronized than the current B69, especially with the parts of Brooklyn this route would serve becoming more & more gentrified.... It's not so much that it's Park Slopers & Windsor Terrace [B69] per se that are working in the Navy Yard... Very few ppl. xfer to the B69 for that purpose (it's no accident that the B69 from the south absolutely dies at Flatbush av).... Anyway, I'd say you could still have this proposed B48 ending at Prospect Park & have it accomplish the same basic idea.... B53: Oh yeah. this crap... I remember speaking on this proposal in the Queens redesign thread.... A routing like this is what you end up with, when you get too caught up in connecting dots... I'll just leave it at that.... B55: Years of people proposing this crap & now it has the potential to end up coming to fruition..... Yeah, GFY's... Really don't feel like commenting on this concept anymore than I have over the course of at least a decade now.... B57: Also spoke on this in the Queens redesign thread.... The increased coverage in Queens will be more beneficial for more people than whatever will loom detrimental from the losses it'd incur from being cut back to Downtown Brooklyn (hence, a route like the proposed B27.... Lol).... A simpler way of saying this, is that it'll end up being a net positive in terms of patronage, IMO.... B60/B66: Saw this coming, and to tell the truth, I'm in more of an agreement with it more than I'm against it..... The southern split (proposed B60) may not look like much on a map, but I can see something like this catching on.... Thing is though, you'd need to have it making current B60 stops along Rockaway av to have it be that much more of a difference maker, instead of the condensed amt. of stops they'd have the thing make..... The northern split (proposed B66) I would argue, has more of a need to pan south of Fulton along the current B60... Instead of having it run to B'way Junction, I'd try to end it somewhere around Rockaway ... Thank god they aren't proposing combining it with the B42... B61: Yeah, cutting it back to Pritchard Sq/15th st was inevitable... Almost nobody uses it south of that point. B62: Spoke on this in the Queens redesign thread also, but I want to add a few things... My basic sentiment still remains that it should be the B32 running up to Astoria (not necessarily to the projects, but whatever)... With that said, being that they're using parts of the B32 to come up with that god awful B53, they're using the B62 to run up to Astoria instead... See, with the then proposed QT1, you got the sense that it was supposed to be a quote-unquote super limited route connecting Astoria & Downtown Brooklyn, with as minimal amt. of stops in Brooklyn (within reason).... Then the revised Queens redesign came about, to have had the concept of the QT1 amended, to take the B62 & run that up to Astoria instead.... THAT (in red) is what I don't concur with.... The differences between those 2 concepts (highlighted blue & red) are stark.... LTD or not, the B62 doesn't need to run that far north, no more than the old B61 Red Hook - Queens Plaza needed to have ran to Red Hook from Downtown Brooklyn (while petty, I'm still gonna bring that up).... Not for nothing, but I do wonder if that BQX proposal (as much as a pipe dream as it was) was an inspiration for that QT1 proposal in the first draft of the Queens redesign.... Having the B62 run up to Astoria is an even more watered down version of the QT1 proposal/concept... Only thing worse would be to have the B62 run all local b/w Astoria & Downtown Brooklyn.... B64: How I can put this.... I don't have much of a problem with taking the B64 away from Xaverian - but at the same time, I don't think it should be the B64 being the 2nd route running in that immediate area of the Brooklyn Army Terminal (where there's also a certain amount of growth of small businesses popping up, much like at Industry City & in the Brooklyn Navy Yard) & Lutheran Hospital (or whatever it's called now) either.... The B9 needs more service in general anyway, but it would need it even moreso on that end of the route, with the B64 being shifted northward.... As far as the proposed changes on the southern part of the route, I can't agree to this at all.... You take the B64 off Stillwell so that the B4 runs along more of Stillwell (serving very little of anything by covering that gap b/w Dewey HS & 86th st) & you cut all B82 service back to the depot (don't see how the hell this will be manageable with the B5/B6 ending at the depot also) so that the B64 can cover Cropsey? Sorry not sorry, but at that point, I'd rather split the B82 (with one of the splits running to Coney Island) & stop the B64 dead at Dewey... I would much rather supply Harway with service over [Cropsey, south of the Belt Pkwy].... The B82 is infinitely more useful along Cropsey than I could ever see the B64 being.... B65: I would have liked to have seen either the B45 or the B65 getting extended to Alabama av , but since they're keeping it [B65] in Weeksville, I can agree to ending it right there at St Marks/Ralph (even if they would've kept the B45 terminating at St. Johns/Ralph).... And I most certainly agree to the routing change on the Downtown end of the route; having it serve Atlantic in both directions, basically paralleling the B45 b/w Barclays Center & Dean/Bergen.... The current WB routing past Flatbush is a massive waste of time getting into the heart of Downtown Brooklyn... It's why the masses end up disembarking at Bergen instead of riding it out past Flatbush... Virtually nobody gets off on Bergen, west of Flatbush.... It's actually rather common to see people get off at Flatbush, to take the subway to Nevins, Hoyt, or Borough Hall.... EB trips OTOH see plenty people boarding within the heart of Downtown Brooklyn, namely at either the first (Smith/Fulton) or second (Boerum/Joralemon) stop.... B67: They may be doing this for the Wegman's & the Navy Yard in general, but extending it to the Farragut houses makes sense, when you consider the B62 coming way down from Astoria & the B57 coming way down from Jackson Heights... The (current) B67 should've never been the route that was selected to run through the Navy Yard in the first place.... I don't have a problem with running it to those projects (via York ) full time.... B68: I vehemently disagree with this... See B44 (local)/B49 comments above... More service is always great, but Manhattan Beach really doesn't need 2 routes/that much more BPH specifically running b/w it & Brighton Beach ... From the north, buses are going to absolutely tank that much more at Brighton Beach av... Zero justification for this.... Absolutely amazing that they'd opt to do away with BOTH the B68 & the B82 at Mermaid loop (both routes carry pretty decently to/from there too), to have the f***ing B49 serve Coney Island instead... B69: This proposal is just, strange.... I mean, I get that *something* has to serve that industrial pocket of Greenpoint with the re-purposing with the proposed B48, but the B69?? The main thing I don't like about this proposal isn't even that extension, it's the cutting back of it to 20th st. as a result of that extension... While that ridership isn't what it once was, the B67 b/w Church av. & (what's now dubbed) South Slope still gets underestimated... It's going to need more than service every 12 mins during peak periods.... What I would do with this proposed route is split it. to have the southern split run from Kensington to WBP, and the northern split be combined with that proposed B27 (meaning, a Red Hook - Greenpoint route).... ====================== The finale to this, upcoming... Then I'll get to some of the comments in this thread. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 4, 2022 Share #577 Posted December 4, 2022 (edited) 17 hours ago, Lex said: Given how little the BM2 has in common with the others, I'd run the BM2 on Sundays well before the BM1, especially if it serves the Spring Creek Towers. I was actually talking about in general if there was no more weekend service. The BM2 riders in Canarsie are somewhat close to the as option, even if not ideal and they have to take a bus to get to it. Mill Basin and Old Mill Basin have nothing. Anyone from Flatlands on could make their way to the BM1. I'm not proposing any of those options though. That said, the demographics in Old Mill Basin in particular have changed and a number of those people need the BM1 because they like BM2 riders work on weekends. Similar demographics to the BM2 in fact. I also don't see the running a combined BM2/BM5 service. Too long... One trip could be almost two hours. Petitions for Sunday BM service were started a while ago. Never went anywhere, even with a number of BM2 riders signing it. At a minimum, Saturday service needs to be kept, even if concessions have to be made. What some people do now is make their way to the X27 or X28 when there is no BM service on Sundays. Edited December 4, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 4, 2022 Share #578 Posted December 4, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, Lex said: You mean the section of Avenue J west of Ocean Avenue? That's not being covered by the express side. Also, have you actually seen how Avenue K interacts with Flatbush Avenue? It's basically a worse version of Glenwood Road and Flatbush Avenue. No he's talking about east of Ocean Av and I agree with him 100%. I lived in Midwood for a bit. Avenue K moves a lot better than Avenue J does. They deal with one issue with the BM1 but open up another. Not sure which is worse. The double parking on Avenue J is pretty bad at times. Edited December 4, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBTA Posted December 4, 2022 Share #579 Posted December 4, 2022 On 12/2/2022 at 1:51 AM, B35 via Church said: 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.... You probably already saw it, but the proposed 103 and the B6 Limited are gonna run to New Lots , while overnight, the B6 local will be extended to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted December 4, 2022 Share #580 Posted December 4, 2022 23 hours ago, Lex said: You mean the section of Avenue J west of Ocean Avenue? That's not being covered by the express side. Also, have you actually seen how Avenue K interacts with Flatbush Avenue? It's basically a worse version of Glenwood Road and Flatbush Avenue. I misread the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 4, 2022 Share #581 Posted December 4, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said: I misread the map. If they're concerned about that, why not just run the BM1 the entire length of Avenue J at Ralph Avenue? Far fewer turns. The only issue remains double parked cars on Avenue J. I wonder if it's because that would require relocating bus stops. With their current proposal, they technically wouldn't have to. The BM1 could just stop where the B6 & B11 stop along J and they keep the other stops on Avenue K. Edited December 4, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubBus Posted December 5, 2022 Share #582 Posted December 5, 2022 (edited) Based of what I read so far, I'll comment on routes that I'm familiar with.... /: So the B5 returns but as a B6 LTD to Gateway. All services on Ave H/Glenwood with the B103. Flatbush between Nostrand and H is about to be real crowded... /: MTA been trying to get the 12 on Empire awhile (90s). I remember that actually had put up bus stop signs at Schenectady/Empire and Troy/Empire. The community pretty much shot down that idea. Now comes the B10, sort of(see B15). Since service will be half west of Utica and the B10 will stay on Empire until the park, the B16 is proposed to extend to Utica Avenue. Well, I felt that it should've been extended to the / Station. Funny thing, is that the Clarkson Ave stop on the B46 have been removed a few years ago.... : Finally, 24 hours!!! Should be extended to cover the B38 Metropolitan branch... : Well, there goes the B14 to Rockaway Boulevard idea. Kinda make sense... : So basically the B15 is reverted back to the old B10. And is getting kicked out of Woodhull for the B46... But a direct transfer to the at Kingston/Throop (see B43) : Eh, whatever (see B60) : Now, its truly the hood shuttle.... And will use Stanley Ave to solidify this. I guess it'll be back to ENY depot : Franklin Ave / is the last stop on the midnights? Convenient turnaround... : Loses the for the B55, will it lose the artics as well? /: Cut back Livingston and Court with the B45. I see that there might be a new traffic pattern in that area... I'll be in Downtown Brooklyn in a couple of weeks, so I'll if there are any changes by then... Gains SBS status, bound to happen. Actually is SBS even necessary at this point? As for the B40, I remember back in the day that old Flatbush RTSs(3000s) had B40:Empire Blvd (glitch) that was used on the B41 shorties.... 30+ years later, it might be a thing.... : Sharing the Bed Stuy portion with the B15, and uses Albany Ave instead of Brooklyn. Interesting.... Will both routes go back to Grand Ave? ///: No service on Bedford south of Fu:::lton. NB B44/B49 swap streets. B49 beomes 24hr, but loses "LTD" service. B44SBS and B49 heads west towards CI... /: Weird terminal on the eastern end for the B45. I would sent either one of these routes to Bwy Jct. Hell, why not both? Broadway Junction is proposed to be just that.... A "Junction" of bus routes. Also, no brainer by letting it run on Sterling Pl from NY Ave. As for the B65, I noticed that Dean/Bergen has been congested by the Barclays. So maybe Atlantic is a good move... No love for Ralph/St. John's? : Cut back to Woodhull Hospital and the B15 gets the boot.... : I guess a time saving move. N/B B47 can get caught up at Rockaway Parkway/Clarkson... : Proposed to get cut back to Broadway Junction and returns to Flatlands Av in both directions. I guess back to ENY depot it'll go... Maybe it should have taken over the Paerdegats portion of the B17 and let the B5/6/103 LTDs handle Breukelen. No B76... /: Eh, whatever. Unless they plan to split the route between the UP/ENY. Anyway, let the B64 eat whatever the B82 was picking up between UP and CI... : 24hrs!!! About time... And no more Van Siclen Av service(see B103) : Basically, a B6a LTD. So like Broadway Junction, they're trying to make New Lots Ave a hub. Let's see where all these routes will terminate in that area. Let it divert off to Van Siclen Av for loss of B83 service. Edited December 5, 2022 by SubBus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted December 5, 2022 Share #583 Posted December 5, 2022 Some more thoughts: Big missed opportunity not having any buses run down to the Army Ferry Terminal. Again, very big issue not restoring service to 16th Ave. If anything, extend the B48 down to cover that portion. B74 - why keep this shuttle instead of making it useful? Extend it eastward to Kingsboro C.C to make it a true crosstown service. Extend the B53 northward to Northern Blvd to serve that shopping complex. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted December 5, 2022 Share #584 Posted December 5, 2022 23 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: Some more thoughts: Big missed opportunity not having any buses run down to the Army Ferry Terminal. Again, very big issue not restoring service to 16th Ave. If anything, extend the B48 down to cover that portion. B74 - why keep this shuttle instead of making it useful? Extend it eastward to Kingsboro C.C to make it a true crosstown service. Extend the B53 northward to Northern Blvd to serve that shopping complex. I get the impression that you rode this route fewer times than I have, which is exactly once. As for the B53, the existing proposal is bonkers. Your proposed addendum will do it no favors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #585 Posted December 5, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lawrence St said: Some more thoughts: B74 - why keep this shuttle instead of making it useful? Extend it eastward to Kingsboro C.C to make it a true crosstown service. Why does it need to extended when its main purpose is to serve people to and from the subway and within Coney Island? The more you extend a line, the more you increase the chances of it becoming unreliable and then the core base that is supposed to be served is not. Anyone who needs serve eastward takes the B36, which historically has been unreliable precisely because it does too much (I know as it was one of my home lines growing up). Back in the day, the B36 was almost as bad as the B4. If it ran less frequently than the B4 it would've been. The B49 was actually the most reliable. Seeing what it is today is insane. Edited December 5, 2022 by Via Garibaldi 8 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBTA Posted December 5, 2022 Share #586 Posted December 5, 2022 8 hours ago, Lawrence St said: Some more thoughts: Big missed opportunity not having any buses run down to the Army Ferry Terminal. Again, very big issue not restoring service to 16th Ave. If anything, extend the B48 down to cover that portion. B74 - why keep this shuttle instead of making it useful? Extend it eastward to Kingsboro C.C to make it a true crosstown service. Extend the B53 northward to Northern Blvd to serve that shopping complex. 74 doesn’t need to be anything more than a shuttle. It’s designed to serve one area, and one area only. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted December 5, 2022 Share #587 Posted December 5, 2022 Let enough time for the Brooklyn bus Redesign to sink into my head. Now it's time to give out my opinions on each route: B1: No change B2/100: saw the merger coming, but I rather keep the Kings Plaza section since it has more ridership. B3: No change B4: idk that Coney Island section seems iffy.... B5/B6/84: B84 is basically split into the B5 and B6. If the B5 is gonna exist and you gonna have the B103 to New Lots (see below) don't see a need for a "B6 LTD" B7: Just keep the B7 as is. This is the wrong route to go north (see B60) B8: could care less about the Av B section B9: No change B10/12: I'll honestly say I haven't rode the B12 enough to have a proper opinion but to what ik this wasn't the first time this "idea" was brought up. B11: simplicity on the west end I see B13: I swear this is the B18 without it being the B18. That said, is this really what they are doing bc you are missing a big chunk of Glendale/Ridgewood here B14: basically direct service to Euclid Av . Guessing that's a W. B15: I'm wondering why the JFK portion wasn't its own route to begin with. B55 proposal aside, the first route should have been a New Lots Av bus route between Sutter Av and JFK Airport. Also is that northward extension to the really needed? B16: I understand Boro Park needs coverage but I feel the 13/14 Av section would be better off as a split off route and keep the B16 on Fort Hamilton. B17/76: That B17 branch was a little off anyway so glad to see it as it's own route. B20: I'll take the split, but having the north half as a B7 extension dosent seem ideal (see B60) B24: Listen I feel the MTA wanted to be rid of "redundant loop routes" so they decided to split the Q38 and B24 in the Queens redesign and for the B24 the B53/Q68 was made. Q68 is a neat route, B53 I'll talk about soon B25/26: if anything the late night service should be the B25 and the B26 should end at Franklin Av for consistency B27: this is basically a modified B75. Guessing the new B27 gonna save some time from not getting stuck on Flushing Av and Downtown Brooklyn B31: No change B32/53: I just like the way the B53 is a combination of the B32 and ends of the B24, B46 and Q24. Gotta wonder how some of these ideas even went through to begin with. B35/55: if they do not have the B55 as an artic route I will be really upset. You also gotta wonder about the sight of XN60s at JFK Airport. B36: No change B37: No change B38: Is the B38 really that dense to not need ltd service bc that route gets crowded even after artic conversion. Let's not even mention the Metro Av branch getting absolutely no replacement. B39: while there are no changes, you couldn't at least go a couple blocks east to connect to Lorimer St ? B40/41: the split is something I thought was gonna happen. I don't dislike the idea B42: No change B43: wanna say congratulations to the board members that said "y'know what, the B15 and B43 are basically the same route in Bed-Stuy, might as well combine them" because you just made some extra work for some people. The B44/46 can't save anyone either B44: so SBS to Sheepshead Bay but it's actually Coney Island hospital. Another case of confused riders getting on the wrong bus similar to the Bx6/SBS changes due next year. B45: fine with the Ralph av section, the St Johns change smells one way conversion in the future. B46: listen I don't have that much of a problem ending the B46 at Woodhull like most people likely would but if you gonna cut it back here why not extend the SBS here too? B47: just a case of "straightening out the route" B48/69: so what they swapped the northern ends of these routes and called it a day? B49/68: yeah I don't see this lasting in the final redesign. And why is it we have the last two B4x and B6x routes swapping out terminals? B52: Just feel a bit indifferent on the minor reroute. B54: No change B57: That Jackson Heights section does not scream B57. Keep the Eastern terminal and if a Brooklyn connection is needed make a queens route run on Flushing Av/69 St between Woodhull Hospital and Jackson Heights. B60: it makes no sense to have the B60 go to Broadway Junction. Just give it the northern half of the B20 to keep a consistent north-south run. B61: If you gonna chip the park slope end and add a new B81 that duplicates half the B61 why keep the B61 on 9 St. Matter fact, make it more useful and run it on the B71 route on Union Street between 3 Av and Grand Army Plaza. B62: NO ASTORIA SERVICE!!! have a separate route between Astoria and Williamsburg if it's that important. B64: they basically have the B64 replacing the Coney Island portion of the B82 while the B4 replaces the B64's segment. Just seems ehh B65: I feel the eastern terminal just kills off one block or so but that one block may make a difference. B66: This section of the split B60 I like. I hope this B66 makes service more reliable. B67: that Brooklyn Navy Yard section was literally so pointless and just there when the MTA was adding "service based on demands" in the mid 2010's. B70: what's there at 3 Av and 30 St bc I'm lost on this extension B74: No change B81/103: so the Downtown Brooklyn portion of the B103 was discontinued just to make the B81 a thing. My memories may be gone, but this B81 (somewhat) looks promising with the segments of the B61, B67 and B23 it runs along. As for the New Lots extension of the B103, they basically make this a Canarsie shuttle that connects to the final stops on the IRT Lines. Somewhat W for Canarsie B82: the local basically become identical to the SBS save the Bath Beach portion now becoming the B6 route. (Definitely didn't see that coming -_-) B83: Do you really think Van Sicklen gonna let the B83 go away ? That's one of the spots that scream "do not take away my bus service". I already covered my brief thoughts on the BM routes so no need to mention them again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted December 5, 2022 Share #588 Posted December 5, 2022 The B67 extension into the Navy Yard had more stops then it does now. I think there’s only one stop left right in the middle and even they’re trying to take that away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillant93 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #589 Posted December 5, 2022 Since I live in the eastern part this map changes a lot for BK. B2/100: I feel as if the B100 needs to stay on Quentin Rd because Madison high is right there, I could see the B2 being a rush hour only route which could help the Marine Park and Southern Midwood area of BK. B5/B6/B6LTD: I feel like this route is getting overlapped. I could see a need for a route to Gateway or by the area but honestly not a lot of people use it to go crosstown like that unlike the B82 where people really use it because it provides a direct connection and its faster. I could have seen them split the B6 into two branches. I'm not too sure about the B5 though. B15/B35/B55: So having a crosstown route that goes to JKF is a good idea and I think if they were going to do that they could have just converted the B35 all together but to probably not create confusion they made a seperate route. I don't think the B55 should replace the B15 for direct access to JFK as many workers use it to get there from the upper part of BK. B38: Wasn't there a proposal to have it become an SBS? I think if anything having the 38 become fully local isn't a good idea in my opinion. B40/41/41SBS: It was a given this route was going to be split and converted into an SBS. I could have seen the bergen beach branch split into a branch that only goes to prospect park because they always short turned it during the mornings. It being a limited right really works in my opinion to help ease congestion. The SBS part of the B41 will be interesting and I'm quite eager to see the changes they will make. They have been slowly doing it for about a decade now. B17/B76: Interesting and I think having a separate route for the L train connection is smart but I think this route should be treated like the B100 instead of just weekdays. B82/B82 SBS: The whole point of having a local and limited route is to make the SBS faster. Having the local as the same as SBS would defeat its purpose a little bit. If anything I feel this is where the B5 could come into play as it could provide a connection from Midwood to Gateway or so and not overlap the B6. B103: I really was expecting this route to be split but I never expected them to split it into 3 routes. I'm not to well versed with the top western part of BK so I don't know how that will fair out for the residents up there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #590 Posted December 5, 2022 1 hour ago, MysteriousBtrain said: Let enough time for the Brooklyn bus Redesign to sink into my head. Now it's time to give out my opinions on each route: B1: No change B2/100: saw the merger coming, but I rather keep the Kings Plaza section since it has more ridership. B3: No change B4: idk that Coney Island section seems iffy.... B5/B6/84: B84 is basically split into the B5 and B6. If the B5 is gonna exist and you gonna have the B103 to New Lots (see below) don't see a need for a "B6 LTD" B7: Just keep the B7 as is. This is the wrong route to go north (see B60) B8: could care less about the Av B section B9: No change B10/12: I'll honestly say I haven't rode the B12 enough to have a proper opinion but to what ik this wasn't the first time this "idea" was brought up. B11: simplicity on the west end I see B13: I swear this is the B18 without it being the B18. That said, is this really what they are doing bc you are missing a big chunk of Glendale/Ridgewood here B14: basically direct service to Euclid Av . Guessing that's a W. B15: I'm wondering why the JFK portion wasn't its own route to begin with. B55 proposal aside, the first route should have been a New Lots Av bus route between Sutter Av and JFK Airport. Also is that northward extension to the really needed? B16: I understand Boro Park needs coverage but I feel the 13/14 Av section would be better off as a split off route and keep the B16 on Fort Hamilton. B17/76: That B17 branch was a little off anyway so glad to see it as it's own route. B20: I'll take the split, but having the north half as a B7 extension dosent seem ideal (see B60) B24: Listen I feel the MTA wanted to be rid of "redundant loop routes" so they decided to split the Q38 and B24 in the Queens redesign and for the B24 the B53/Q68 was made. Q68 is a neat route, B53 I'll talk about soon B25/26: if anything the late night service should be the B25 and the B26 should end at Franklin Av for consistency B27: this is basically a modified B75. Guessing the new B27 gonna save some time from not getting stuck on Flushing Av and Downtown Brooklyn B31: No change B32/53: I just like the way the B53 is a combination of the B32 and ends of the B24, B46 and Q24. Gotta wonder how some of these ideas even went through to begin with. B35/55: if they do not have the B55 as an artic route I will be really upset. You also gotta wonder about the sight of XN60s at JFK Airport. B36: No change B37: No change B38: Is the B38 really that dense to not need ltd service bc that route gets crowded even after artic conversion. Let's not even mention the Metro Av branch getting absolutely no replacement. B39: while there are no changes, you couldn't at least go a couple blocks east to connect to Lorimer St ? B40/41: the split is something I thought was gonna happen. I don't dislike the idea B42: No change B43: wanna say congratulations to the board members that said "y'know what, the B15 and B43 are basically the same route in Bed-Stuy, might as well combine them" because you just made some extra work for some people. The B44/46 can't save anyone either B44: so SBS to Sheepshead Bay but it's actually Coney Island hospital. Another case of confused riders getting on the wrong bus similar to the Bx6/SBS changes due next year. B45: fine with the Ralph av section, the St Johns change smells one way conversion in the future. B46: listen I don't have that much of a problem ending the B46 at Woodhull like most people likely would but if you gonna cut it back here why not extend the SBS here too? B47: just a case of "straightening out the route" B48/69: so what they swapped the northern ends of these routes and called it a day? B49/68: yeah I don't see this lasting in the final redesign. And why is it we have the last two B4x and B6x routes swapping out terminals? B52: Just feel a bit indifferent on the minor reroute. B54: No change B57: That Jackson Heights section does not scream B57. Keep the Eastern terminal and if a Brooklyn connection is needed make a queens route run on Flushing Av/69 St between Woodhull Hospital and Jackson Heights. B60: it makes no sense to have the B60 go to Broadway Junction. Just give it the northern half of the B20 to keep a consistent north-south run. B61: If you gonna chip the park slope end and add a new B81 that duplicates half the B61 why keep the B61 on 9 St. Matter fact, make it more useful and run it on the B71 route on Union Street between 3 Av and Grand Army Plaza. B62: NO ASTORIA SERVICE!!! have a separate route between Astoria and Williamsburg if it's that important. B64: they basically have the B64 replacing the Coney Island portion of the B82 while the B4 replaces the B64's segment. Just seems ehh B65: I feel the eastern terminal just kills off one block or so but that one block may make a difference. B66: This section of the split B60 I like. I hope this B66 makes service more reliable. B67: that Brooklyn Navy Yard section was literally so pointless and just there when the MTA was adding "service based on demands" in the mid 2010's. B70: what's there at 3 Av and 30 St bc I'm lost on this extension B74: No change B81/103: so the Downtown Brooklyn portion of the B103 was discontinued just to make the B81 a thing. My memories may be gone, but this B81 (somewhat) looks promising with the segments of the B61, B67 and B23 it runs along. As for the New Lots extension of the B103, they basically make this a Canarsie shuttle that connects to the final stops on the IRT Lines. Somewhat W for Canarsie B82: the local basically become identical to the SBS save the Bath Beach portion now becoming the B6 route. (Definitely didn't see that coming -_-) B83: Do you really think Van Sicklen gonna let the B83 go away ? That's one of the spots that scream "do not take away my bus service". I already covered my brief thoughts on the BM routes so no need to mention them again. It's important to note that all of these lines have changes, even if the routing remains the same because bus stops are being eliminated/combined... Tons of them in fact, even on routes like the B74. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted December 5, 2022 Share #591 Posted December 5, 2022 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said: It's important to note that all of these lines have changes, even if the routing remains the same because bus stops are being eliminated/combined... Tons of them in fact, even on routes like the B74. When I refer to no change, I do mean route wise. Not really gonna bring up stops bc that's literally almost every route. If we're talking about service spans, I don't see much that I don't dislike but I'll give credit to the B76 and B5/6. The B76 make sense since it's designed as a part time route to begin with, and I'm happy the B6 LTD has 7 day service. Edited December 5, 2022 by MysteriousBtrain 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #592 Posted December 5, 2022 55 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said: When I refer to no change, I do mean route wise. Not really gonna bring up stops bc that's literally almost every route. If we're talking about service spans, I don't see much that I don't dislike but I'll give credit to the B76 and B5/6. The B76 make sense since it's designed as a part time route to begin with, and I'm happy the B6 LTD has 7 day service. Yes I know what you mean. Just noting that because bus stop elimination is also a big part of this plan and some stops up for elimination are quite popular. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #593 Posted December 5, 2022 What's stopping them from letting the B82+ from running to Gateway, the B6 Local running to New Lots Ave, and just having the B6-LTD run to Gateway as well. I like the addition of the B5 (in fact i love it considering there wasn't really a way to get from Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy to Gateway Mall without frustration and 2 routes (B82 to the B83 being the simpler route. )) You'd figure there's a lot of overlap between the 4 buses that you can consolidate connections somewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 5, 2022 Share #594 Posted December 5, 2022 Anyone feel the B71 should have been reinstated? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #595 Posted December 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, Q43LTD said: Anyone feel the B71 should have been reinstated? There was an interesting B71+ route proposed that i'd think would be fine, maybe if it went deeper into Manhattan and ended at Broadway Junction via Eastern Parkway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubBus Posted December 5, 2022 Share #596 Posted December 5, 2022 33 minutes ago, Q43LTD said: Anyone feel the B71 should have been reinstated? Yes. Or at least have the take over the Union St portion.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBus Posted December 5, 2022 Share #597 Posted December 5, 2022 Just found out something very interesting. They used a consultant to develop the routes. So what does their Operations Planning Department do? Even more interesting is the consultant they chose who employs the same person who did all their bus planning in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. The person I was constantly at odds with when pushing through my Southwest Brooklyn Plan of which only about 25% was accepted. in fact, I was hired to replace him in 1981 after he screwed up the first Brooklyn redesign attempt by spending 90 percent of the money and accomplishing only 25 percent of the tasks. The first think I had to do was get more federal funds to continue. I only had six employees to develop an entire Brooklyn plan which was much better than what the 300 MTA employees and a consultant came up with this time around. Why it went nowhere is another story. My first three months were spent having my staff clean up a mess he caused. He fired the hundreds of survey temps on Friday, only to rehire them the following Monday as new employees. That way he saved the MTA having to pay them sick and vacation benefits. They found out and retaliated by sabatoging the survey data. He was eventually fired by the MTA many years later for some impropriety. Now he is back still planning Brooklyn Bus routes. The more things change, the more they remain the same. So much for taking a fresh look. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted December 5, 2022 Share #598 Posted December 5, 2022 1 hour ago, SubBus said: Yes. Or at least have the take over the Union St portion.... But yet it's swapping northern terminals with the B48, possibly depots and not placed on Prospect Park West 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSRR Posted December 5, 2022 Share #599 Posted December 5, 2022 Surprising that the ridgewood-downtown Brooklyn SBS did not make the redesign. Not happy about the b38 losing LTD. I was really expecting the 38 LTD to turn into the SBS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted December 5, 2022 Share #600 Posted December 5, 2022 4 hours ago, BrooklynBus said: Just found out something very interesting. They used a consultant to develop the routes. So what does their Operations Planning Department do? Even more interesting is the consultant they chose who employs the same person who did all their bus planning in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. The person I was constantly at odds with when pushing through my Southwest Brooklyn Plan of which only about 25% was accepted. in fact, I was hired to replace him in 1981 after he screwed up the first Brooklyn redesign attempt by spending 90 percent of the money and accomplishing only 25 percent of the tasks. The first think I had to do was get more federal funds to continue. I only had six employees to develop an entire Brooklyn plan which was much better than what the 300 MTA employees and a consultant came up with this time around. Why it went nowhere is another story. My first three months were spent having my staff clean up a mess he caused. He fired the hundreds of survey temps on Friday, only to rehire them the following Monday as new employees. That way he saved the MTA having to pay them sick and vacation benefits. They found out and retaliated by sabatoging the survey data. He was eventually fired by the MTA many years later for some impropriety. Now he is back still planning Brooklyn Bus routes. The more things change, the more they remain the same. So much for taking a fresh look. Yeah they've done that for the other boroughs as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.