Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[BreeddekalbL]

In one of the Facebook groups someone mentioned merging the b2 and the b46 cutting off their kp segments 

[B35 via Church]

24 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

In one of the Facebook groups someone mentioned merging the b2 and the b46 cutting off their kp segments 

What are these facebook groups you be frequenting, that be having people posting these idiotic suggestions?

5 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

if I'm not mistaken, the B7, B8 & B78 all went to East NY in January 1998. i know this because service on the 78 got exponentially better with this shift from FB. plus, the 78 was my line for getting to Roy Mann JHS. by 2000, the 78 went back to flatbush before the merge with the B40 (and actually was better served the second time around... again, before being merged)

...and in the waning moments right before they merged the B40 & the B48, B78 service went back to being absolute shit.... It's something that I'll never forget.... The difference was like night & day, and that just might have been the very moment when I became highly skeptical of the MTA's motives when it comes to bus service....

[Future ENY OP]

5 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

In one of the Facebook groups someone mentioned merging the b2 and the b46 cutting off their kp segments 

Very delusional if you ask me. I know your a veteran at this @BreeddekalbL and why would someone even mention about merging the B2 and B46 segments. This make absolute NO SENSE AT ALL. (But again do any of these Facebook groups do) except @Via Garibaldi 8 express bus advocacy group which gets results. 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

...and in the waning moments right before they merged the B40 & the B78, B78 service went back to being absolute shit.... It's something that I'll never forget.... The difference was like night & day, and that just might have been the very moment when I became highly skeptical of the MTA's motives when it comes to bus service....

lol i swear before God & man that this was going to be my next sentence, but decided against it in the interest of not having my post be too long. it was in those days that i was growing into the belief that transit/DOB/Brooklyn Division depots absolutely prioritized certain lines over others. East NY in those days was overcrowded & stretched thin (B8, B78, splitting the 20 & 82, B60, etc.) and got by by the skin of their teeth... found a way & made a way. not to say the 14's & 25's of the world saw outstanding service in those times, but FB never loved the 7 & 78... going back to the mid-70's (from tales i was told)  and the B8 was that for UP.

one thing i can say for a fact is that the reason why we all notice how bad the Grand Avenue B47 is, is because some of us remember the brief moment when Flatbush had the 47 after the merger, and due to the use of the Rutland Rd short-sign (outside of just school-trippers & rush hours) service was fantastic south of east 98 street. to this day, no one can explain why when GA took over, they ended the Rutland shorties (and the am Mill Avenue/Avenue U shorts) it had to be a run pay scenario, but I've never been proven correct or incorrect. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by EastFlatbushLarry

[B35 via Church]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What are these facebook groups you be frequenting, that be having people posting these idiotic suggestions?

...and in the waning moments right before they merged the B40 & the B48, B78 service went back to being absolute shit.... It's something that I'll never forget.... The difference was like night & day, and that just might have been the very moment when I became highly skeptical of the MTA's motives when it comes to bus service....

ouch.... that should read "merged the B40 & the B78"

-----

B48 is a whole 'nother discussion.... I personally think that route will end up being toast, south of Flushing av. & the rest of the route will be piecemealed.... Something like having the B62 Bedford/Driggs portion continue along Nassau to Meeker & having the B43 run on Lorimer (instead of Graham).....

  

56 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Very delusional if you ask me. I know your a veteran at this @BreeddekalbL and why would someone even mention about merging the B2 and B46 segments. This make absolute NO SENSE AT ALL. (But again do any of these Facebook groups do) except @Via Garibaldi 8 express bus advocacy group which gets results. 

Even if that stupid scenario were to be entertained, do you know how many trips they'd have to end at Fillmore

43 minutes ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

lol i swear before God & man that this was going to be my next sentence, but decided against it in the interest of not having my post be too long. it was in those days that i was growing into the belief that transit/DOB/Brooklyn Division depots absolutely prioritized certain lines over others. East NY in those days was overcrowded & stretched thin (B8, B78, splitting the 20 & 82, B60, etc.) and got by by the skin of their teeth... found a way & made a way. not to say the 14's & 25's of the world saw outstanding service in those times, but FB never loved the 7 & 78... going back to the mid-70's (from tales i was told)  and the B8 was that for UP.

one thing i can say for a fact is that the reason why we all notice how bad the Grand Avenue B47 is, is because some of us remember the brief moment when Flatbush had the 47 after the merger, and due to the use of the Rutland Rd short-sign (outside of just school-trippers & rush hours) service was fantastic south of east 98 street. to this day, no one can explain why when GA took over, they ended the Rutland shorties (and the am Mill Avenue/Avenue U shorts) it had to be a run pay scenario, but I've never been proven correct or incorrect. 

Believe it or not, they still have B47 short turns - but they only run to KP from Sutter-Rutland (don't know the actual span though)..... When I used to take the B12 to the LIRR in the morning, there would always be a Grand av bus parked on the corner of ENY av/E. 98th st (either at the EB B12 stop, or on the E. 98th side)... B12 would usually get to that stop around 5:05am or so....

I get what you're getting at though - there really needs to be more short turns throughout the day.... Way I see it, there's simply more of a demand for it on the old B78 portion of the thing, compared to the Crown Hgts. - Bed Stuy portion of the thing.... At the ENY/Ralph stop in particular, there are clearly more people seeking B12's over B47's at that stop....

Edited May 12, 2020 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

55 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Very delusional if you ask me. I know your a veteran at this @BreeddekalbL and why would someone even mention about merging the B2 and B46 segments. This make absolute NO SENSE AT ALL. (But again do any of these Facebook groups do) except @Via Garibaldi 8 express bus advocacy group which gets results. 

There's also one specifically for Staten Island express buses which got tremendous results.

There's one for the Queens Bus Network redesign but that one is mostly people blindly whining and coming up with conspiracy theories. When it first started there were some people who posted and had constructive discussion (including some people on this forum) but now it's just people just ranting and complaining with no focus.

35 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

B48 is a whole 'nother discussion.... I personally think that route will end up being toast, south of Flushing av. & the rest of the route will be piecemealed.... Something like having the B62 Bedford/Driggs portion continue along Nassau to Meeker & having the B43 run on Lorimer (instead of Graham).....

Keep in mind that the QT76 is listed as being part of the old B62 (though of course anything is subject to change). So they consider the QT76 to cover the Bedford/Driggs portion of the B62 as of now

[MTADieselBuses]

As someone who was born and raised in this borough, I'll give my perspective on each bus route I have experience and knowledge of.

B1: Never really had issues with this route, seems to be overall swell. I'd extend its Bay Ridge terminus to Shore Road via 86th, otherwise it is fine as it is.

B2: Should be discontinued (refer to B100 in this list to find out why).

B3: I'd extend to VA Hospital via Cropsey or Bath, otherwise, seems fine.

B4: Firstly, I'd rather have it travel down Voorhies Avenue instead of Shore Pkwy and Emmons, less turns. Secondly, have the Bay Ridge terminus extended to B9/B64 terminus, provides transfers and better connection to the X27 and X37.

B6: For the most part, it is fine, but it lacks directness so instead of meandering at Brooklyn Junction, have it just run down Avenue J until it reaches Flatlands Avenue.

B8: Similar issue to the B6, just have it run down Ditmas Ave/Ave D until it reaches Remsen Avenue, less unnecessary turns.

B9: No issues, keep it as it is.

B11: A lot of meandering in this route, to start off, let's look at the Sunset Park terminus and its vicinity. Have it run down 49th until it reaches 1st Avenue, then it'll go down to the terminus from there. It'll run onto 2nd Avenue to get onto 50th Street for Midwood-bound buses. For the McDonald Avenue area, have it take a turn from McDonald to 18th Avenue instead of taking Parkville Ave, that street is more narrow than 18th. Finally, for the Midwood area, have it remain on Avenue I instead of taking the unnecessary turn onto Avenue J, while it provides better connection, passengers literally just have to walk one block to get to the  , no need to babysit here.

B16: This route has similar issues with the B11, specifically the one-way street meandering phenomenon. Here me out, I know 13th and 14th generate ridership, but those two streets (to my experience) always have congestion, such as double-parked vehicles, vehicles making constant lane changes, trucks being unloaded, etc. Honestly, just have it run down Fort Hamilton Parkway, while it wouldn't have the same ridership effect, it isn't too far from 13th/14th, so I'd say it wouldn't devastate this route. 

B31: Extend this route, it deserves it. I'd have it continue to Coney Island Ave, then it'll run north to the B68 terminus (Prospect Park W). Coney Island and the general area already have pretty good bus presence, I'd say it would be smart to give the Prospect Park area better southern connections besides just the B68.

B35: I've had many experiences with this route, with the entering of articulated buses to this route, it is pretty unique. The route seems fine, but I do wish that there was more service to the Sunset Park terminus instead of running supplementary buses to McDonald Avenue. On one occasion, I came across 3 buses in a row, all terminating at McDonald Avenue, that is quite ridiculous and the schedule should be revised.

B36: This route is a perfect opportunity for an extension to Brooklyn Junction (Flatbush Avenue), have it go there instead of just stopping at Avenue U. 

B37: I hardly ever use this route due to the fact that it has lackluster frequencies, at most there could be 3-4 buses on this route at the same time. You can expect a good wait until the bus arrives, though that would reflect on the ridership this route receives which is also minimal. The MTA did abandon this route previously, but people contested this and wanted this route reinstated. The MTA decided to heed to that request and did so, but honestly, you might as well find some way to extend this route if the current route generates little ridership, maybe Williamsburg? That'd be interesting.

B41: The route is fine, although Flatbush is pretty congested at day time. One thing I'd remove is Bergen Beach service, refer to B100.

B61: One of the most meandering routes I've seen thus far, I still don't know why the MTA made it go on 3rd Street and Gowanus. I know Red Hook residents are eager for better service, but the DoT should revise the neighborhood's roads, particularly how the one-way streets are organized. That's a major issue for the B61 and why it has no choice but to take many turns. I believe it should stick on 9th, have it then go on Court Str/Smith Str to turn onto Bay Street, then Columbia, then Halleck/Beard Street to finally get onto Van Brunt. It'll maintain the B57 and Ikea connection at least, until the DoT fix the roads there, this is the least meandering route I can think off the top of my head. 

B63: The route is pretty direct, hardly any turns so I'd keep with it. 

B64: I'd consider the route acceptable to my standards, but I'd discontinue service on Harway Avenue, just have it run down Bath Avenue to get onto Stillwell Avenue. I'd also say, have it go on 14th Avenue, but 13th Avenue people, especially considering that it's a hot spot for commerce, wouldn't appreciate it. 

B67/B69: These two routes are brothers/sisters, they both essentially go to the same terminus, just via different roads. Question is, which one generates higher ridership? That'd be the B67, so I'd just discontinue the B69 seeing as its whole purpose is unnecessary and moot.

B70: I have a lot of experience with this one, it is pretty short when it comes to the route, weekend service is also pretty slow. I feel as this route holds a great opportunity to appease Red Hook residents, maybe it should be extended there via 4th Avenue, 9th Street, and Hamilton Avenue, it'll use that loop at the end of the Gowanus (before it becomes a tunnel) to change directions. Perhaps? Otherwise, increase service a little to prevent crowded buses (especially 8th Avenue).

B74: Someone has to explain to me why this route exists, it is literally a supplementary B36 from Coney Island Terminal to Seagate. Discontinue it, please.

B82: The route is pretty direct for the most part, for the Canarsie portion, keep it on Flatlands, no need for those unnecessary turns. I'd extend the SBS service to the Coney Island Terminal to better appease passengers.

B100: This route holds a lot of opportunity, and it is essentially a longer B2, hence why I want B2 discontinued. To cover for the B41 if we remove its Bergen Beach service, have it go on Flatbush to get onto Avenue N where it'll travel it until it reaches Avenue U, where it'll turn onto there to get onto E 66th Street, and from there it'll continue its normal route to the Mill Basin Terminus. 

B103: Rode this route a couple times, it has a tendency to get stuck in traffic, I'd limit the amount of turns this route takes to remedy that. For Flatbush Avenue, have it continue to Church Avenue, where it'll turn left and then take a turn onto Coney Island Avenue to Machate Circle, it'll take Ocean Pkwy to get onto Prospect Expressway. Canarsie bound buses would take exit 6 to get onto Church. Have it stick on 4th Avenue instead of both 4th and 3rd, don't see the need for that. I'd have it terminate at Atlantic Avenue considering its distance and that ridership usually increases at Flatbush, so.

 

[Lex]

2 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B4: Firstly, I'd rather have it travel down Voorhies Avenue instead of Shore Pkwy and Emmons, less turns. Secondly, have the Bay Ridge terminus extended to B9/B64 terminus, provides transfers and better connection to the X27 and X37.

The portion south of Voorhies Avenue is pretty difficult to reach, hence the route. In addition, the B4 meets the B64 at 13th Avenue and sits in fairly close proximity to it as far west as 4th Avenue, and the B4 terminates a short distance away from the nearest bus stops on Shore Road.

 

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B6: For the most part, it is fine, but it lacks directness so instead of meandering at Brooklyn Junction, have it just run down Avenue J until it reaches Flatlands Avenue.

That would drastically weaken the route. Avenue J (east of Brighton) has no real draw, hence the shift to Bedford Avenue.

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B8: Similar issue to the B6, just have it run down Ditmas Ave/Ave D until it reaches Remsen Avenue, less unnecessary turns.

Ditmas Avenue is far more residential, which would weaken the route.

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B11: A lot of meandering in this route, to start off, let's look at the Sunset Park terminus and its vicinity. Have it run down 49th until it reaches 1st Avenue, then it'll go down to the terminus from there. It'll run onto 2nd Avenue to get onto 50th Street for Midwood-bound buses. For the McDonald Avenue area, have it take a turn from McDonald to 18th Avenue instead of taking Parkville Ave, that street is more narrow than 18th. Finally, for the Midwood area, have it remain on Avenue I instead of taking the unnecessary turn onto Avenue J, while it provides better connection, passengers literally just have to walk one block to get to the  , no need to babysit here.

This route is largely a residential one, and the Sunset Park terminus is in an industrial area. The route's western end is to provide a better  connection than what your proposal entails (hell, it would be far worse than the B4 <-> X27/X37 connection, which isn't too likely to be used when the B4 meets the  sooner than that). Parkville Avenue may not be as wide as 18th Avenue, but considering the section's brevity, the potential for traffic jams on McDonald Avenue, and clearance concerns (18th Avenue's mezzanines may be high enough to allow CNG buses to pass under them, but I'm not willing to test that) lead to the current westbound route. The last part? Clearly, you've never seen how Avenue I meets Brighton. (This is part of why Avenue J is so busy.)

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B31: Extend this route, it deserves it. I'd have it continue to Coney Island Ave, then it'll run north to the B68 terminus (Prospect Park W). Coney Island and the general area already have pretty good bus presence, I'd say it would be smart to give the Prospect Park area better southern connections besides just the B68.

Who's this supposed to cater to?

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B35: I've had many experiences with this route, with the entering of articulated buses to this route, it is pretty unique. The route seems fine, but I do wish that there was more service to the Sunset Park terminus instead of running supplementary buses to McDonald Avenue. On one occasion, I came across 3 buses in a row, all terminating at McDonald Avenue, that is quite ridiculous and the schedule should be revised.

You're basically asking to run far more service than is needed for the weakest part of the route. If anything, Church Avenue traffic would need to be addressed so the route can even have a chance to run consistently.

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B36: This route is a perfect opportunity for an extension to Brooklyn Junction (Flatbush Avenue), have it go there instead of just stopping at Avenue U. 

This route has its own purpose, and it can't even do that well (in part thanks to Ulmer Park's lackluster performance as anything more than a place to store buses). Tacking on more miles to the route will only exacerbate the problem.

3 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B37: I hardly ever use this route due to the fact that it has lackluster frequencies, at most there could be 3-4 buses on this route at the same time. You can expect a good wait until the bus arrives, though that would reflect on the ridership this route receives which is also minimal. The MTA did abandon this route previously, but people contested this and wanted this route reinstated. The MTA decided to heed to that request and did so, but honestly, you might as well find some way to extend this route if the current route generates little ridership, maybe Williamsburg? That'd be interesting.

The route largely sits in the shadow of a freeway, and the areas it passes through are much more likely to be either industrial or low residential. Much of the draw is on the southern end of the route, and said route is already fairly long. Considering the fact that it ran to Downtown Brooklyn at a slightly higher frequency before being placed on the chopping block, that's far more indicative of the route itself having a limited base. Service to Williamsburg would need far more planning to be remotely viable, and that would likely run into similar issues as the current B67 up that way.

4 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B64: I'd consider the route acceptable to my standards, but I'd discontinue service on Harway Avenue, just have it run down Bath Avenue to get onto Stillwell Avenue. I'd also say, have it go on 14th Avenue, but 13th Avenue people, especially considering that it's a hot spot for commerce, wouldn't appreciate it. 

Harway Avenue is more like the portion of Bath Avenue currently served by the route.

 

4 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B67/B69: These two routes are brothers/sisters, they both essentially go to the same terminus, just via different roads. Question is, which one generates higher ridership? That'd be the B67, so I'd just discontinue the B69 seeing as its whole purpose is unnecessary and moot.

Sure, let's sacrifice Vanderbilt Avenue so all buses can go up Flatbush Avenue. That'll totally fly.

4 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B70: I have a lot of experience with this one, it is pretty short when it comes to the route, weekend service is also pretty slow. I feel as this route holds a great opportunity to appease Red Hook residents, maybe it should be extended there via 4th Avenue, 9th Street, and Hamilton Avenue, it'll use that loop at the end of the Gowanus (before it becomes a tunnel) to change directions. Perhaps? Otherwise, increase service a little to prevent crowded buses (especially 8th Avenue).

I don't get the impression that too many will be gunning for a B70 to/from Red Hook. It'll be running between the B37 and B63, forced to run alongside part of the B61, and will be in close proximity to the subway for a good stretch while failing to go somewhere people may even be remotely interested in (the Red Hook terminus seems completely random and even more like having no idea what to do with the route than the current Sunset Park terminus).

4 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B74: Someone has to explain to me why this route exists, it is literally a supplementary B36 from Coney Island Terminal to Seagate. Discontinue it, please.

You just responded to yourself, then dismissed it, even though it gets good use and actually uses a more ideal street than the B36.

4 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B82: The route is pretty direct for the most part, for the Canarsie portion, keep it on Flatlands, no need for those unnecessary turns. I'd extend the SBS service to the Coney Island Terminal to better appease passengers.

Those "unnecessary" turns provide better access to a pretty important part of Canarsie. By contrast, Flatlands Avenue is dead. (This is exacerbated by the bus loop at the station, which was just modified to improve bus connections, and has 24-hour use.) Also, who's being appeased by having SBS to/from Coney Island, especially when that's the weakest part of the route?

5 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B103: Rode this route a couple times, it has a tendency to get stuck in traffic, I'd limit the amount of turns this route takes to remedy that. For Flatbush Avenue, have it continue to Church Avenue, where it'll turn left and then take a turn onto Coney Island Avenue to Machate Circle, it'll take Ocean Pkwy to get onto Prospect Expressway. Canarsie bound buses would take exit 6 to get onto Church. Have it stick on 4th Avenue instead of both 4th and 3rd, don't see the need for that. I'd have it terminate at Atlantic Avenue considering its distance and that ridership usually increases at Flatbush, so.

The (full) B103's primary purpose is to bring people from the far-flung parts of Canarsie to Downtown Brooklyn and intermediate areas without forcing transfers or excessive coverage gaps. The turns it makes are in pursuit of this goal. Cutting that down will straighten the route, but that's it. If traffic is a concern, find ways to cut down on that, or route changes will be meaningless.

5 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

B2: Should be discontinued (refer to B100 in this list to find out why).

B41: The route is fine, although Flatbush is pretty congested at day time. One thing I'd remove is Bergen Beach service, refer to B100.

B100: This route holds a lot of opportunity, and it is essentially a longer B2, hence why I want B2 discontinued. To cover for the B41 if we remove its Bergen Beach service, have it go on Flatbush to get onto Avenue N where it'll travel it until it reaches Avenue U, where it'll turn onto there to get onto E 66th Street, and from there it'll continue its normal route to the Mill Basin Terminus.

Yes, I'm sure Bergen Beach, Mill Basin, Marine Park, and Flatlands residents would appreciate having the B100 try to do everything in those areas (while severing the connection to Downtown Brooklyn and intermediate areas, in the process).

As an aside, I should mention that Veterans Avenue begins as Avenue N's alignment shifts, so the BM1 (not mentioned) hardly touches the latter.

[MTADieselBuses]

I'll respond to certain points made in your reply.

 

Quote

Ditmas Avenue is far more residential, which would weaken the route.

Though I should've explain my logic beforehand to be more concise, I believe that, based off the proximity between both Ditmas and Foster, it wouldn't devastate the route's ridership considering customers only have to take a short 1-2 minute walk to get to the B8 assuming it is changed to run on Ditmas. Will it weaken it? Hardly, it should still receive proper ridership to uphold itself.

 

Quote

Clearly, you've never seen how Avenue I meets Brighton. 

Yes, I did accidentally forget that Avenue I is a dead-end, whoops! Disregard that.

 

Quote

You're basically asking to run far more service than is needed for the weakest part of the route. If anything, Church Avenue traffic would need to be addressed so the route can even have a chance to run consistently.

I wouldn't consider that the weakest part, during certain hours it receives basically the same ridership as Church Avenue. Now here's food for though, run another short turn to Kings Hwy for buses coming from Sunset Park, to my experience most passengers aren't interested in Mother Gaston Boulevard, etc. The bus frees up by that point. Church Avenue traffic is a whole another story, an enduring issue that warrants a separate thread, sheesh.

The B74's purpose is still moot regardless, my opinion has not changed. But, if you do believe having bus service remain on Neptune is a must due to it being an ideal road, I'd just have the B36 run short turns on that road from Seagate to the Stillwell Terminal, weekdays peak hours only. Simple.

 

21 minutes ago, Lex said:

Sure, let's sacrifice Vanderbilt Avenue so all buses can go up Flatbush Avenue. That'll totally fly.

I mean, yeah, most B69 buses free up once they reach Flatbush Avenue so there's no point of having that run further. Vanderbilt Avenue residents will still have connection to a plethora of routes for Downtown Brooklyn, as for Park Slope, G train is available. The least I can respect is having the B69 run during peak hours only, or just no weekend service, whatever residents there would be inclined to the most.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Lex said:

Sure, let's sacrifice Vanderbilt Avenue so all buses can go up Flatbush Avenue. That'll totally fly.

To my knowledge, many people get off the B70 once they reach 4th Avenue for the subway, some are interested in then transferring to the  or  at 9th Street to get to Red Hook. In addition, some people in Sunset Park use the B35 for the same purpose, to get to the  and . I feel as having this extension will remove the need to transfer, it'll directly bring passengers interested in Red Hook to that area, the terminus I suggested is what would be the most 'direct' (which is what the MTA is currently brainstorming for, more direct routes).  
 

34 minutes ago, Lex said:

Those "unnecessary" turns provide better access to a pretty important part of Canarsie. By contrast, Flatlands Avenue is dead. (This is exacerbated by the bus loop at the station, which was just modified to improve bus connections, and has 24-hour use.) Also, who's being appeased by having SBS to/from Coney Island, especially when that's the weakest part of the route?

I do acknowledge the Canarsie renovations, but the MTA should've considered the fact that the congestion on Rockaway Parkway is real. Yes, better connections, but the idea was poorly executed. Buses have to take turns to get to a  terminal station for the sake of fast transfer, in return, they get stuck in tight traffic. Flatlands isn't dangerously far from the station, it is two short blocks away, it wouldn't invest in any harm. Coney Islanders who want to get the B82-SBS, if it were to be extended, would be appeased because they won't have to stick with the local B82 just to get off at another stop for the SBS, then waiting for that particular bus.
 

40 minutes ago, Lex said:

Yes, I'm sure Bergen Beach, Mill Basin, Marine Park, and Flatlands residents would appreciate having the B100 try to do everything in those areas (while severing the connection to Downtown Brooklyn and intermediate areas, in the process).

As an aside, I should mention that Veterans Avenue begins as Avenue N's alignment shifts, so the BM1 (not mentioned) hardly touches the latter.

We cannot definitively be so sure of that, I'm just going off the limb here, maybe they won't mind the need to transfer for the B41 which has pretty quick headways all-around, so I don't see any major backlash using this inference. 

 

[Cait Sith]

Can someone enlighten me about the B40 and B78? I've never known about these routes being in existence before.

[P3F]

35 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Can someone enlighten me about the B40 and B78? I've never known about these routes being in existence before.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000823062216/www.lirr.org//nyct/maps/busbkln.pdf

Look at where the B47 currently runs.

Unrelated: it appears we have come full circle in terms of map fonts. Compare the font on that 1999 map, to the one on the latest MTA map: https://new.mta.info/document/12041

Edited May 14, 2020 by P3F

[Q43LTD]

Looking at that 1999 Brooklyn Map. Memories. No B103, no Grand Av depot and the B18, 23, 40, 51, 71, 75 and 77 all existed 

[B35 via Church]

11 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

As someone who was born and raised in this borough, I'll give my perspective on each bus route I have experience and knowledge of.

B1: Never really had issues with this route, seems to be overall swell. I'd extend its Bay Ridge terminus to Shore Road via 86th, otherwise it is fine as it is.

B2: Should be discontinued (refer to B100 in this list to find out why).

B3: I'd extend to VA Hospital via Cropsey or Bath, otherwise, seems fine.

B4: Firstly, I'd rather have it travel down Voorhies Avenue instead of Shore Pkwy and Emmons, less turns. Secondly, have the Bay Ridge terminus extended to B9/B64 terminus, provides transfers and better connection to the X27 and X37.

B6: For the most part, it is fine, but it lacks directness so instead of meandering at Brooklyn Junction, have it just run down Avenue J until it reaches Flatlands Avenue.

B8: Similar issue to the B6, just have it run down Ditmas Ave/Ave D until it reaches Remsen Avenue, less unnecessary turns.

B9: No issues, keep it as it is.

B11: A lot of meandering in this route, to start off, let's look at the Sunset Park terminus and its vicinity. Have it run down 49th until it reaches 1st Avenue, then it'll go down to the terminus from there. It'll run onto 2nd Avenue to get onto 50th Street for Midwood-bound buses. For the McDonald Avenue area, have it take a turn from McDonald to 18th Avenue instead of taking Parkville Ave, that street is more narrow than 18th. Finally, for the Midwood area, have it remain on Avenue I instead of taking the unnecessary turn onto Avenue J, while it provides better connection, passengers literally just have to walk one block to get to the  , no need to babysit here.

B16: This route has similar issues with the B11, specifically the one-way street meandering phenomenon. Here me out, I know 13th and 14th generate ridership, but those two streets (to my experience) always have congestion, such as double-parked vehicles, vehicles making constant lane changes, trucks being unloaded, etc. Honestly, just have it run down Fort Hamilton Parkway, while it wouldn't have the same ridership effect, it isn't too far from 13th/14th, so I'd say it wouldn't devastate this route. 

B31: Extend this route, it deserves it. I'd have it continue to Coney Island Ave, then it'll run north to the B68 terminus (Prospect Park W). Coney Island and the general area already have pretty good bus presence, I'd say it would be smart to give the Prospect Park area better southern connections besides just the B68.

B35: I've had many experiences with this route, with the entering of articulated buses to this route, it is pretty unique. The route seems fine, but I do wish that there was more service to the Sunset Park terminus instead of running supplementary buses to McDonald Avenue. On one occasion, I came across 3 buses in a row, all terminating at McDonald Avenue, that is quite ridiculous and the schedule should be revised.

B36: This route is a perfect opportunity for an extension to Brooklyn Junction (Flatbush Avenue), have it go there instead of just stopping at Avenue U. 

B37: I hardly ever use this route due to the fact that it has lackluster frequencies, at most there could be 3-4 buses on this route at the same time. You can expect a good wait until the bus arrives, though that would reflect on the ridership this route receives which is also minimal. The MTA did abandon this route previously, but people contested this and wanted this route reinstated. The MTA decided to heed to that request and did so, but honestly, you might as well find some way to extend this route if the current route generates little ridership, maybe Williamsburg? That'd be interesting.

B41: The route is fine, although Flatbush is pretty congested at day time. One thing I'd remove is Bergen Beach service, refer to B100.

B61: One of the most meandering routes I've seen thus far, I still don't know why the MTA made it go on 3rd Street and Gowanus. I know Red Hook residents are eager for better service, but the DoT should revise the neighborhood's roads, particularly how the one-way streets are organized. That's a major issue for the B61 and why it has no choice but to take many turns. I believe it should stick on 9th, have it then go on Court Str/Smith Str to turn onto Bay Street, then Columbia, then Halleck/Beard Street to finally get onto Van Brunt. It'll maintain the B57 and Ikea connection at least, until the DoT fix the roads there, this is the least meandering route I can think off the top of my head. 

B63: The route is pretty direct, hardly any turns so I'd keep with it. 

B64: I'd consider the route acceptable to my standards, but I'd discontinue service on Harway Avenue, just have it run down Bath Avenue to get onto Stillwell Avenue. I'd also say, have it go on 14th Avenue, but 13th Avenue people, especially considering that it's a hot spot for commerce, wouldn't appreciate it. 

B67/B69: These two routes are brothers/sisters, they both essentially go to the same terminus, just via different roads. Question is, which one generates higher ridership? That'd be the B67, so I'd just discontinue the B69 seeing as its whole purpose is unnecessary and moot.

B70: I have a lot of experience with this one, it is pretty short when it comes to the route, weekend service is also pretty slow. I feel as this route holds a great opportunity to appease Red Hook residents, maybe it should be extended there via 4th Avenue, 9th Street, and Hamilton Avenue, it'll use that loop at the end of the Gowanus (before it becomes a tunnel) to change directions. Perhaps? Otherwise, increase service a little to prevent crowded buses (especially 8th Avenue).

B74: Someone has to explain to me why this route exists, it is literally a supplementary B36 from Coney Island Terminal to Seagate. Discontinue it, please.

B82: The route is pretty direct for the most part, for the Canarsie portion, keep it on Flatlands, no need for those unnecessary turns. I'd extend the SBS service to the Coney Island Terminal to better appease passengers.

B100: This route holds a lot of opportunity, and it is essentially a longer B2, hence why I want B2 discontinued. To cover for the B41 if we remove its Bergen Beach service, have it go on Flatbush to get onto Avenue N where it'll travel it until it reaches Avenue U, where it'll turn onto there to get onto E 66th Street, and from there it'll continue its normal route to the Mill Basin Terminus. 

B103: Rode this route a couple times, it has a tendency to get stuck in traffic, I'd limit the amount of turns this route takes to remedy that. For Flatbush Avenue, have it continue to Church Avenue, where it'll turn left and then take a turn onto Coney Island Avenue to Machate Circle, it'll take Ocean Pkwy to get onto Prospect Expressway. Canarsie bound buses would take exit 6 to get onto Church. Have it stick on 4th Avenue instead of both 4th and 3rd, don't see the need for that. I'd have it terminate at Atlantic Avenue considering its distance and that ridership usually increases at Flatbush, so.

The B3 crawls enough on Av. U as is it is.... While you can argue it doesn't do much for Bath Beach residents, running it all the way to VA Hospital would mar the route..... Don't really see such an extension being all that worth it, in terms of patronage..... Also, I find it funny that you think there should be two local routes in Bath Beach running between 14th av & 25th av - yet you say the B74 should be discontinued because its supplementary to the B36..... The B74 along its respective routing garners far more riders than the B64 between that aforementioned stretch (14th-25th av's).... The B74 remedies a longstanding problem with the B36 for CI riders - and that's reliability.... I'd also argue current B36 service levels aren't enough to facilitate the demand to get to/from the Stillwell - CI subway from areas east of Stillwell...... Nevermind the fact you also believe the B36 should (unnecessarily) run up to the Junction.... Regardless, the existence of the B74 is warranted.... Coney Island is more dense than people like to give it credit for....

The B4 routing in that part of Sheepshead Bay exists to provide service/coverage on the south side of the Belt..... If anything, I'd terminate buses along Shore Pkwy b/w Bragg & Coyle (instead of over there by the 7-eleven).... Running B4's up to Xaverian won't remedy much of anything - and for damn sure it won't have people xferring to the express buses....

Straightening the B6 to where it would bypass the Junction would f**k over too large a percentage of people utilizing the eastern half of the route.... The connection to the is the main draw.... You say you have experience & knowledge of these routes you're commenting on, yet you're suggesting something so largely detrimental to this route? The issues with the B6 (and the B8) have less to do with the amount of turns they make & more to do with how long the two routes are....

Honestly, much of nobody really cares about the amount of turning the B11 does in that area.... What is it with you & eliminating turns that provide direct access to subway stations? What you so-call "babysitting" can mean the difference in wanting to utilize a bus route or not, for some folks..... The problematic portion of the route is along narrow 49th/50th streets, not the turns buses are making between 4th av & the Brooklyn Army Terminal area....

The B16 does not have similar issues you're proclaiming the B11 has... The problem people have with the B16 aren't the amount of turns it makes, it's that it turns off Ft. Hamilton Pkwy to serve 13th/14th avenues.... While I agree the thing should run along Ft. Hamilton Pkwy. to "babysit" that demand, it's not due to the indirect nature of the current routing.....

What makes a bus route "deserving" of being extended somewhere? The B31 is fine right where it is... Suits Gerritsen Beach riders just fine & AFAIK, there is no great demand to get from other areas of Brooklyn to Gerritsen Beach....

You can claim that there needs to be more B35 service running past McDonald av, but short turning buses have much of nothing to do with being supplementary... You're making it sound like every trip ran to Sunset Park prior & the MTA ended up adding/piling on short turns on top of it, to somehow stick it to Sunset Park riders or something (which would be a fallacy)....

Budget cuts are the reason today's B61 takes on the current routing/structure/form that it does.... Short of reverting the B77 (and having it extended to 20th st, where the current B61 terminates at) & cutting back the B61 to IKEA, the current B61 suffices.... Whatever the DOT does with the roads in Red Hook, is whatever....

So just eenie-meenie-miney-mo & eliminate service along Vanderbilt? Yeah, nice logic there.... There should be at least one route panning north-south between Flatbush av & Classon av.... Network coverage.

You can't have every B41 trip running to Kings Plaza (especially now with how the terminal layout is); there's no space for it.... Zero need to have the B100 backtrack from Fillmore up to Av. N, so it can take over the Bergen Beach branch of the B41, to go on to cover the rest of the B100 route in Mill Basin.... So much for this apparent crusade in wanting to eliminate unnecessary turns

Having the B103 run up Flatbush av, to Church av., to Coney Island av. would have it getting stuck in more traffic, what the hell are you talking about?????

Edited May 14, 2020 by B35 via Church

[B35 via Church]

5 hours ago, MTADieselBuses said:

I wouldn't consider that the weakest part, during certain hours it receives basically the same ridership as Church Avenue. Now here's food for though, run another short turn to Kings Hwy for buses coming from Sunset Park, to my experience most passengers aren't interested in Mother Gaston Boulevard, etc. The bus frees up by that point. Church Avenue traffic is a whole another story, an enduring issue that warrants a separate thread, sheesh.

Western portion of the route is weaker than the eastern portion.... That's the point & quite frankly, he's right.

5 hours ago, Lex said:

The route largely sits in the shadow of a freeway, and the areas it passes through are much more likely to be either industrial or low residential. Much of the draw is on the southern end of the route, and said route is already fairly long. Considering the fact that it ran to Downtown Brooklyn at a slightly higher frequency before being placed on the chopping block, that's far more indicative of the route itself having a limited base. Service to Williamsburg would need far more planning to be remotely viable, and that would likely run into similar issues as the current B67 up that way.

Lol, the B37 along Livingston - complete & utter waste.... Albeit only to Barclays, I'm surprised they brought the thing back, quite honestly.... To their credit, it does appear as if it's garnering more riders now, compared to back then.... FWIW, I'd like to see if more riders would be attracted to it, if it made a mid-route diversion to directly serve NYU Langone Brooklyn... But running a route of sorts to Williamsburg? Um, no.

4 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Can someone enlighten me about the B40 and B78? I've never known about these routes being in existence before.

P3F linked you an old map, so that takes care of the routing they each took.... As far as actual ridership is concerned, B40 wasn't that much better than the old B5 IMO.... If you compare it to most other routes that run under an el', it was clearly one of the weaker ones.... After its stint on Ralph av towards Penn, straight air Jordan.... As for the B78, I'd say more people used the B78 back then, than people currently do the current B47 between the same stretch of the route (from Sutter-Rutland subway, on down to Kings Plaza)...

Edited May 14, 2020 by B35 via Church

[MTADieselBuses]

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The B3 crawls enough on Av. U as is it is.... While you can argue it doesn't do much for Bath Beach residents, running it all the way to VA Hospital would mar the route..... Don't really see such an extension being all that worth it, in terms of patronage..... Also, I find it funny that you think there should be two local routes in Bath Beach running between 14th av & 25th av - yet you say the B74 should be discontinued because its supplementary to the B36..... The B74 along its respective routing garners far more riders than the B64 between that aforementioned stretch (14th-25th av's).... The B74 remedies a longstanding problem with the B36 for CI riders - and that's reliability.... I'd also argue current B36 service levels aren't enough to facilitate the demand to get to/from the Stillwell - CI subway from areas east of Stillwell...... Nevermind the fact you also believe the B36 should (unnecessarily) run up to the Junction.... Regardless, the existence of the B74 is warranted.... Coney Island is more dense than people like to give it credit for

I guess that's the MTA doing its most to appease the Coney Islanders. A connection to the junction won't hurt the route, it'll actually provide better connection, look at the plethora of routes and transfer to the  and , there's certainly demand there if we're having the B44 and B49, both running up and down from southern to northern portions of Brooklyn. As for Ulmer, much alike a barn, it has a tendency to park buses on the streets themselves, so I guess they can go about that. The bath beach routes would at least go to different areas in Brooklyn, unlike the B74, that's why it isn't detrimental.

 

 

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Straightening the B6 to where it would bypass the Junction would f**k over too large a percentage of people utilizing the eastern half of the route.... The connection to the is the main draw.... You say you have experience & knowledge of these routes you're commenting on, yet you're suggesting something so largely detrimental to this route? The issues with the B6 (and the B8) have less to do with the amount of turns they make & more to do with how long the two routes are....

The main draw, believe it or not, is the  in Canarsie (it was just recently brought back in-service, time to see crowding progressively climb up.) It is largely detrimental? Not to that extent, but I'd rather have a more direct B6 than one that will get stuck in the junction. Then again, it's a moderate walk from Ave J to the subway station. Long routes deserve better direction, more streamline than tedious. This is quite literally what the MTA is doing now with their redesign projects, so.

 

 

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Honestly, much of nobody really cares about the amount of turning the B11 does in that area.... What is it with you & eliminating turns that provide direct access to subway stations? What you so-call "babysitting" can mean the difference in wanting to utilize a bus route or not, for some folks..... The problematic portion of the route is along narrow 49th/50th streets, not the turns buses are making between 4th av & the Brooklyn Army Terminal area....

 

But why have those turns? It isn't giving anyone better connection, that area is basically all industrial (though there is some gentrification going on in that area, look at Industry City). Realistically, all there should be is a connection to that ferry at bush terminal, which the B11 does do even with this route change. As far as 49th and 50th go, if we want to remove the 'narrowness' issue that'd require a re-direction to a street like 60th, already covered by the B9, which I don't see happening anytime soon. 49th and 50th are fine, though there is the occasional double parking which can delay the buses, it provides fine connection and the ridership there is pretty real.

 

 

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What makes a bus route "deserving" of being extended somewhere? The B31 is fine right where it is... Suits Gerritsen Beach riders just fine & AFAIK, there is no great demand to get from other areas of Brooklyn to Gerritsen Beach....

I have a pet peeve with these short routes, there's opportunity in them, the least the MTA should do with this route is maybe add a weekday-extension to the  train, the Culver line, that'll at least maybe give it some outstanding purpose than just being a gate for transferring to the  and , could also redirect the attention there to the  so both subway lines are equally served, perhaps?

 

 

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

So just eenie-meenie-miney-mo & eliminate service along Vanderbilt? Yeah, nice logic there.... There should be at least one route panning north-south between Flatbush av & Classon av.... Network coverage.

Like I said previously, if Vanderbilt is quite pivotal for the MTA, have the B69 run a weekday service there to cover for residents, though realistically there's a bus route on every road the B69 passes by on Vanderbilt, except for Willoughby (+ the ). 

 

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You can't have every B41 trip running to Kings Plaza (especially now with how the terminal layout is); there's no space for it.... Zero need to have the B100 backtrack from Fillmore up to Av. N, so it can take over the Bergen Beach branch of the B41, to go on to cover the rest of the B100 route in Mill Basin.... So much for this apparent crusade in wanting to eliminate unnecessary turns

Those hypothetical turns would at least churn some purpose, that being full-time coverage of those aforementioned areas, that's the difference between 'unnecessary' and 'necessary', necessary having some purpose or meaning. The B41, if that terminal really can't handle many buses, we could probably have some B41's use that B47 layover on Avenue U, there's decent space there. 

 

7 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Having the B103 run up Flatbush av, to Church av., to Coney Island av. would have it getting stuck in more traffic, what the hell are you talking about?????

If we were to assume your statement was true, let's focus our efforts on getting the B103 off Flatbush quicker. Either Ditmas or Cortelyou would suffice, but if we kept with Cortelyou there should realistically only be one stop, being E16th to provide connection to the  and , as a limited it would treat it right.
 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

I guess that's the MTA doing its most to appease the Coney Islanders. A connection to the junction won't hurt the route, it'll actually provide better connection, look at the plethora of routes and transfer to the  and , there's certainly demand there if we're having the B44 and B49, both running up and down from southern to northern portions of Brooklyn. As for Ulmer, much alike a barn, it has a tendency to park buses on the streets themselves, so I guess they can go about that. The bath beach routes would at least go to different areas in Brooklyn, unlike the B74, that's why it isn't detrimental.

The B36 is unreliable as it is... You're going hell or high water in wanting to make other routes straighter, but for all the turns the B36 makes, all you had to say about the route is that it's such this perfect opportunity to run it up to the Junction.... Prolonging the B36 & eliminating the B74 is blatantly detrimental to Coney Island riders.... Much like your sentiment regarding short routes, all that other nonsense you're rambling on about Ulmer Park & how buses are parked on the streets, is 100% irrelevant.

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

The main draw, believe it or not, is the  in Canarsie (it was just recently brought back in-service, time to see crowding progressively climb up.) It is largely detrimental? Not to that extent, but I'd rather have a more direct B6 than one that will get stuck in the junction. Then again, it's a moderate walk from Ave J to the subway station. Long routes deserve better direction, more streamline than tedious. This is quite literally what the MTA is doing now with their redesign projects, so.

Then explain Canarsie riders riding past (or averting) the to get to the /..... If I were to pick a point approximately equidistant between the two subway lines (like Ralph av), you'll find more people heading towards the Junction than you would towards the in the morning.....The demand is higher for the Lex & the 7th av line, than there is for the 14th st line from folks out there.....

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

But why have those turns? It isn't giving anyone better connection, that area is basically all industrial (though there is some gentrification going on in that area, look at Industry City). Realistically, all there should be is a connection to that ferry at bush terminal, which the B11 does do even with this route change. As far as 49th and 50th go, if we want to remove the 'narrowness' issue that'd require a re-direction to a street like 60th, already covered by the B9, which I don't see happening anytime soon. 49th and 50th are fine, though there is the occasional double parking which can delay the buses, it provides fine connection and the ridership there is pretty real.

Should be obvious (contrary to your belief) - for access to the hospital & to provide a connection to the .... The fact that those side streets it currently uses are one way over there, is no fault of the MTA's.... Running buses down to 60th st would require a backtrack, which would require.... Turning.

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

I have a pet peeve with these short routes, there's opportunity in them, the least the MTA should do with this route is maybe add a weekday-extension to the  train, the Culver line, that'll at least maybe give it some outstanding purpose than just being a gate for transferring to the  and , could also redirect the attention there to the  so both subway lines are equally served, perhaps?

So.... you being peeved by short routes makes a bus route deserving of an extension... Got it.

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

Like I said previously, if Vanderbilt is quite pivotal for the MTA, have the B69 run a weekday service there to cover for residents, though realistically there's a bus route on every road the B69 passes by on Vanderbilt, except for Willoughby (+ the ).

"Quite pivotal" & basic network coverage are two different things.... If we were to go by the "quite pivotal" argument, then NYC wouldn't have much of a bus network.... The B67 is not this pivotal giant (compared to the B69) that you're making it out to be, in your justification of believing the B69 be eliminated....

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

Those hypothetical turns would at least churn some purpose, that being full-time coverage of those aforementioned areas, that's the difference between 'unnecessary' and 'necessary', necessary having some purpose or meaning. The B41, if that terminal really can't handle many buses, we could probably have some B41's use that B47 layover on Avenue U, there's decent space there.

I most certainly don't need someone that misused the term supplementary (in your little summary regarding the B35) to define what the term necessary means.... Aside from that feeble attempt to justify diverting B100's along Av. N, having some B41's layover on the Av. U side of Kings Plaza would grossly exacerbate the turnaround scenario.... You're not making sense here.... You can't feasibly get from anywhere alongside that side of Av. U to the current B41 pickup stop at Kings Plaza....

1 hour ago, MTADieselBuses said:

If we were to assume your statement was true, let's focus our efforts on getting the B103 off Flatbush quicker. Either Ditmas or Cortelyou would suffice, but if we kept with Cortelyou there should realistically only be one stop, being E16th to provide connection to the  and , as a limited it would treat it right.

....except I don't have to assume, and apparently neither do you.... You, yourself blatantly stated "Church Avenue traffic is a whole another story, an enduring issue that warrants a separate thread, sheesh." - Even went as far as to add the emphasis at the end of that assessment.

The extent of the focusing of taking the B103 off of much of Flatbush av., I wouldn't delve any further than turning it off at Cortelyou...

Edited May 14, 2020 by B35 via Church

[MTADieselBuses]

Your response here is abridging my actual reply; you are going outside the scope of my reply, with the addition of random generalizations.

10 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

The B36 is unreliable as it is... You're going hell or high water in wanting to make other routes straighter, but for all the turns the B36 makes, all you had to say about the route is that it's such this perfect opportunity to run it up to the Junction.... Prolonging the B36 & eliminating the B74 is blatantly detrimental to Coney Island riders.... Much like your sentiment regarding short routes, all that other nonsense you're rambling on about Ulmer Park & how buses are parked on the streets, is 100% irrelevant.

I'm not going to waste my time here, I'll keep each response short and sweet.

You're repeating what you've said previously, I already explained this whole B36 and B74 phenomenon. The reason I mentioned Ulmer Park, contrary to what you see it is as, was to hint the fact that the depot can handle extra equipment regardless of its size. Thus making a more serviceable B36 actually possible with the right circumstances.
 

 

13 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Then explain Canarsie riders riding past the to get to the /..... If I were to pick a point approximately equidistant between the two subway lines (like Ralph av), you'll find more people heading towards the Junction than you would towards the .....The demand is higher for the Lex & the 7th av line, than there is for the 14th st line from folks out there.....

We're talking about the B6, I don't know why you're bringing that statistic up. I'd say this is deserving of the irrelevant title.

 

 

14 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Should be obvious (contrary to your belief) - for access to the hospital & to provide a connection to the .... The fact that those side streets it currently uses are one way over there, is no fault of the MTA's.... Running buses down to 60th st would require a backtrack, which would require.... Turning.

The B11, with my proposal, is still going to have that connection..? I rest you said, I response with a hefty 'Ok.'

 

16 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

So.... you being peeved by short routes makes a bus route deserving of an extension... Got it.

It's my perspective, can't get mad at someone's opinion right? Get some propriety.

 

 

17 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

"Quite pivotal" & basic network coverage are two different things.... If we were to go by the "quite pivotal" argument, then NYC wouldn't have much of a bus network.... The B67 is not this pivotal giant (compared to the B69) that you're making it out to be, in your justification of believing the B69 be eliminated...

You misinterpreted my usage of 'pivotal'. I was referring to Vanderbilt and Vanderbilt only. I never mentioned the 'B67 being a pivotal giant', with that, I can care less for the rest said as it was said based off a misinterpretation.

 

 

19 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I most certainly don't need someone that misused the term supplementary (in your little summary regarding the B35) to define what the term necessary means.... Aside from that feeble attempt to justify diverting B100's along Av. N, having some B41's layover on the Av. U side of Kings Plaza would grossly exacerbate the turnaround scenario.... You're not making sense here.... You can't feasibly get from anywhere alongside that side of Av. U to the current B41 pickup stop at Kings Plaza....

Well assuming you didn't make any counterargument to that B100 justification, I can safely say you do not have anything else to say about that. There are other roads that B41's at layover can take to get back to the main King Plaza terminal? That wouldn't exacerbate anything, it'll give the terminal more breathing room in terms of bus presence.

 

 

[MTADieselBuses]

22 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

....except I don't have to assume, and apparently neither do you.... You, yourself blatantly stated "Church Avenue traffic is a whole another story, an enduring issue that warrants a separate thread, sheesh." - Even went as far as to add the emphasis at the end of that assessment.

The extent of the focusing of taking the B103 off of much of Flatbush av., I wouldn't delve any further than turning it off at Cortelyou...

I don't know what point you're trying to bring out here, Church Avenue traffic is an enduring issue, cool. 

[B35 via Church]

Just now, MTADieselBuses said:

Your response here is abridging my actual reply; you are going outside the scope of my reply, with the addition of random generalizations.

I'm not going to waste my time here, I'll keep each response short and sweet.

You're repeating what you've said previously, I already explained this whole B36 and B74 phenomenon. The reason I mentioned Ulmer Park, contrary to what you see it is as, was to hint the fact that the depot can handle extra equipment regardless of its size. Thus making a more serviceable B36 actually possible with the right circumstances.

We're talking about the B6, I don't know why you're bringing that statistic up. I'd say this is deserving of the irrelevant title.

The B11, with my proposal, is still going to have that connection..? I rest you said, I response with a hefty 'Ok.'

It's my perspective, can't get mad at someone's opinion right? Get some propriety.
 

You misinterpreted my usage of 'pivotal'. I was referring to Vanderbilt and Vanderbilt only. I never mentioned the 'B67 being a pivotal giant', with that, I can care less for the rest said as it was said based off a misinterpretation.

Well assuming you didn't make any counterargument to that B100 justification, I can safely say you do not have anything else to say about that. There are other roads that B41's at layover can take to get back to the main King Plaza terminal? That wouldn't exacerbate anything, it'll give the terminal more breathing room in terms of bus presence.

You can choose not to waste whatever you want & you can have your perspective....

I'm repeating what I've said (and going quote-unquote outside of the scope of your reply) because quite frankly, you don't seem to get it.... You asked for someone to explain to you why the B74 exists, you got at least 1 explanation, now you're coming with this whole you "already explained this whole B36 & B74 phenomenon".... Your mere explanation of the phenomenon isn't an argument for eliminating the B74.... You weren't truly seeking an explanation, you just wanted to justify eliminating the B74.... You got strong counterarguments to that & barely addressed any of them.

That point regarding subway demand went over your head, it wasn't irrelevant by any means.... You made the claim that Canarsie is the main draw for the B6, without offering much of anything to support it.... I'm backing up my claim of the Junction being the main draw of the B6, by conveying the fact that you have people in Canarsie riding past the to get to the Junction for the /, for starters..... For your claim to have a stronger ring of truth to it, at minimum, you would need to have more people in Canarsie from points west of the riding towards the , over the / (which is why I brought up Ralph av, as a point of reference).... It's simply not the case.

While it would have access to the hospital, a B11 that would "....run down 49th until it reaches 1st Avenue, then it'll go down to the terminus from there." would not maintain a direct connection to the .... There is no subway station along the 4th av line at 49th st or 50th st.... You ask that question as if such a subway station exists....

You mentioned discontinuing the B69 because the B67 garners higher ridership, which is a silly reason for eliminating the coverage along Vanderbilt the B69 offers.....

There was no need for a counterargument, because lazily claiming those turns would serve some purpose & explaining the meaning of necessary, 1] wasn't much of an argument & 2] doesn't counter my original argument of having the B100 unnecessarily backtrack in that fashion - especially as it relates to the B41.... As for the whole having B41's layover on the Kings Plaza side of Av. U, it would exacerbate matters - because again, there is no feasible way to get back to the current Kings Plaza stop of the B41..... Don't just say "there are other roads", specify it - How are you getting back to the current B41 stop at Kings Plaza from the Av. U side of Kings Plaza???

1 minute ago, MTADieselBuses said:

I don't know what point you're trying to bring out here, Church Avenue traffic is an enduring issue, cool. 

Look, try to follow along.... You're talking about assuming statements being true, when you made a sticking point of Church av traffic.... It didn't make sense to make a sticking point out of B103's getting stuck in traffic, by conveying a proposal that would introduce the B103 to more traffic... So this whole "let's focus our efforts on getting the B103 off Flatbush quicker" spiel, should have been considered in your OP (original post).

[Nova Fly Guy]

14 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Can someone enlighten me about the B40 and B78? I've never known about these routes being in existence before.

The B40/B78 were pretty good before the merger despite having to transfer for Ralph Av service. The B40 was down the block from ENY so runtime was smooth never waited long it seemed. Now the B78 not so much you would be lucky to catch it from a connecting line very erratic run wise but also smooth line.

[Around the Horn]

On 5/13/2020 at 10:23 PM, MTADieselBuses said:

B67/B69: These two routes are brothers/sisters, they both essentially go to the same terminus, just via different roads. Question is, which one generates higher ridership? That'd be the B67, so I'd just discontinue the B69 seeing as its whole purpose is unnecessary and moot.

The B67 and B69 were much better when they were individual routes rather than they are sharing 7th Avenue now. The first step in fixing them being reversing the off peak cut to every 30 minutes (every 15 where combined). IIRC the B67 was every 15 and the B69 was every 20 and both saw good usage.

That nifty merge with the B67 plus the weekend/night service cut effectively killed the route. I don't think the appropriate response to an entirely self-inflicted ridership downturn is to cut it outright, especially when we've seen elsewhere that doing the bare minimum to improve bus service (such as running buses more frequently) can lead to improved ridership.

[aemoreira81]

On the B69, there is no route going north-south between Jay Street and Classon/Franklin Avenues. To that end, I have to wonder if at least Saturday service is warranted, along with a reroute on the north end, as a backdoor way into downtown Brooklyn. Instead of its current terminus, what about having the B69 and B62 share a route between Washington Avenue/Vanderbilt Avenue and the terminus in front of the downtown Brooklyn NYCTA building? The idea would be better connections instead of a destination in the middle of nowhere on Sands Street at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge.

In the meantime, in Park Slope, I have to wonder if the B69 could be modified to operate via Union Street instead of going all the way up to Flatbush Avenue before turning off (Union Street used to carry the B71 route before that was discontinued). It would also eliminate a problematic left turn from Flatbush Avenue to 7 Avenue (allowed only for the B69).

Completely separate from that, and this includes the other boroughs as well, I have to wonder if the time has come for a night bus network that runs from 2300 to 0500(+1) x6, and 2300 to 0700(+1) on day 6 only. (Monday - Sunday - days 1 - 7.), which could allow the subways to be closed for cleaning from 0030 to 0500 (x7; 0030 to 0630 7). This night network would include express bus service at the local bus fare, open-door in outer boroughs.

Edited June 7, 2020 by aemoreira81

[B61In2002]

On 5/13/2020 at 10:23 PM, MTADieselBuses said:

B61: One of the most meandering routes I've seen thus far, I still don't know why the MTA made it go on 3rd Street and Gowanus.

DOT had to fix the 9 St lift bridge for a few months which caused that, but last time i rode it (which was around 2-3 weeks ago) service was running normally.

 

Personally, I think the Redesign should get rid of a decent number of Bed Stuy routes, namely the 48 and either the 52 or 26 (leaning more towards the 26) or merge some Bed Stuy routes. Theres too much service going through those areas, and it really causes a problem in Downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg. (If I get flamed for this, oh well)

Based on the QT1 i saw in QBR, I have to ask, what the hell Is serving that area? A revamped 75? Rerouted 65? 

To peeps wanting the 103 off Flatbush faster, why not have it go around Flatbush completely? Have it stay straight down Av H, turn on Nostrand, turn on Av I, turn on Ocean Av, then regular route. Flatbush Junction still gets service while also getting it off the Flatbush segment entirely. 

I'd also like to see the 8 bus alignment between Coney Island and Nostrand fixed. Having it run on Newkirk slows it down a LOT. If B and Q service is still needed, service can reroute via the side streets from Ditmas.

Can the 2 and 100 bus alignment be fixed? They basically zig zag around each other. My idea is 2 bus uses Quentin Rd from Nostrand to the train station and normal route, while the 100 is Av R from Nostrand to the station. 

On the topic of the 2 bus, can it be extended to service the F and N as well or would that be a useless extension?

[B35 via Church]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:33 PM, Around the Horn said:

The B67 and B69 were much better when they were individual routes rather than they are sharing 7th Avenue now. The first step in fixing them being reversing the off peak cut to every 30 minutes (every 15 where combined). IIRC the B67 was every 15 and the B69 was every 20 and both saw good usage.

That nifty merge with the B67 plus the weekend/night service cut effectively killed the route. I don't think the appropriate response to an entirely self-inflicted ridership downturn is to cut it outright, especially when we've seen elsewhere that doing the bare minimum to improve bus service (such as running buses more frequently) can lead to improved ridership.

Well, the problem had/has less to do with both routes being on 7th & more to do with the decreased individual frequencies on both routes.... Very few people over there in Park Slope would've raised a fuss if the MTA [simply shifted the B69 along 7th with the original service levels it had] & [left the B67 alone].... There wasn't much of any demand for 8th/PPW individually.... To say that today's B69 is moot & purposeless, is flat out ignorant.... There's clearly demand for service along Vanderbilt - the issue is what the thing does after serving Vanderbilt on the northern portion of the route..... For whatever the reason, that's the issue the MTA hasn't addressed up until this point... If they do/will in the Brooklyn network redesign, remains to be seen.... Personally, I'd be shocked if they ended up keeping a route running up Vanderbilt to turn off on Flushing, en route to Jay/Sands intact.... Such a routing doesn't do much of anything for the B57 & folks in that area (between Jay/Sands & the Farragut houses) aren't the ones trying to get to Vanderbilt & points south along it....

Demand for the Navy Yard (in general) is only going to increase.... If not for diverting the B69 up to somewhere in Williamsburg or over towards Woodhull hosp. or something (which would have it be more of a help to the B57), I would stop the thing right there at the Navy Yard itself.... Whatever relevance the routing west of Vanderbilt had back in the day, has long dwindled now... It's antiquated.

12 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

On the B69, there is no route going north-south between Jay Street and Classon/Franklin Avenues. To that end, I have to wonder if at least Saturday service is warranted, along with a reroute on the north end, as a backdoor way into downtown Brooklyn. Instead of its current terminus, what about having the B69 and B62 share a route between Washington Avenue/Vanderbilt Avenue and the terminus in front of the downtown Brooklyn NYCTA building? The idea would be better connections instead of a destination in the middle of nowhere on Sands Street at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge.

In the meantime, in Park Slope, I have to wonder if the B69 could be modified to operate via Union Street instead of going all the way up to Flatbush Avenue before turning off (Union Street used to carry the B71 route before that was discontinued). It would also eliminate a problematic left turn from Flatbush Avenue to 7 Avenue (allowed only for the B69).....

First sentence is misleading; that should've read "Without the B69"....

Anyway, to have the B69 run with the B62 to/from Livingston/Boerum is making it about where in Downtown Brooklyn it serves/terminates at.... While the quote-unquote heart of Downtown Brooklyn is clearly more in demand than Jay/Sands, that would have the B69 be more redundant to just about every single route it connects with, north of Grand Army Plaza.... Sure, it's great to have a backup plan, but there's simply too many options for anyone along Vanderbilt trying to get anywhere in Downtown, south of Tillary.... Forget about anyone south of Flatbush utilizing something like that to get Downtown (you would just have folks continuing to bolt for the at 7th, or take the B67)..... For the sake of redundancy, I can't agree with something like that (either)....

As far as having the B69 turn off for Union st. to access Vanderbilt, etc.... Well, as long as you plan on boosting B67 service, have at it.... Remember, service was taken away from the B67 & service was added to the B69 to create a resultant "balance" of service along 7th av.... Contrary to popular belief, the amount of people riding from Windsor Terrace or Park Slope directly into Downtown Brooklyn (as in, points along Livingston st & along Jay st) isn't anywhere near as high as it used to be.... Most folks emanating south of Flatbush av for bus service along 7th av are bolting at Flatbush (well technically, the Sterling/7th stop) itself..... Heading back towards Park Slope, etc., take note of the amt. of people waiting for B67's/B69's at Flatbush/7th.... This is why I'd worry about the future of the B67.

A B69 running along Union for 2 blocks, is no substitute for the B71.... (A reversion of) Union st service is a completely separate issue.

[RapidoNewLook]

On 5/13/2020 at 10:23 PM, MTADieselBuses said:

B11: A lot of meandering in this route, to start off, let's look at the Sunset Park terminus and its vicinity. Have it run down 49th until it reaches 1st Avenue, then it'll go down to the terminus from there. It'll run onto 2nd Avenue to get onto 50th Street for Midwood-bound buses. For the McDonald Avenue area, have it take a turn from McDonald to 18th Avenue instead of taking Parkville Ave, that street is more narrow than 18th. Finally, for the Midwood area, have it remain on Avenue I instead of taking the unnecessary turn onto Avenue J, while it provides better connection, passengers literally just have to walk one block to get to the  , no need to babysit here.

B11 can't stay on Avenue I, Avenue I dead ends on both sides of the Brighton line.