Brooklyn Bus Redesign Discussion Thread

[Around the Horn]

The B70 loop was honestly more useful than the current B37 and more frequent.

[Interested Rider]

On 7/3/2020 at 11:19 PM, Around the Horn said:

The B70 loop was honestly more useful than the current B37 and more frequent.

Before I retired (it is 10 years ago this September), I had a medical appointment on 64th street and 8th Avenue in the early afternoon and I decided to try out the B/70 routing instead of taking the subway. It was for the most part interesting and what I learned at that time still applies with a modification.

The B/70 should be left alone, however, service imust be reatined on 3rd Avenue in Bay Ridge.. It should be a stand alone route beginning at 59th street and 4th avenue then via 60th street, 3rd avenue inread of Bay Ridge Avenue like the B/70 rerouting was in 2010.  This keeps the portion south of the expressway where there is significant ridership and retains the connections with the staten Island routes without having the traffic problems of  Bay Ridge Avenue.

 

 

[Bay Ridge Express]

5 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Before I retired (it is 10 years ago this September), I had a medical appointment on 64th street and 8th Avenue in the early afternoon and I decided to try out the B/70 routing instead of taking the subway. It was for the most part interesting and what I learned at that time still applies with a modification.

The B/70 should be left alone, however, service imust be reatined on 3rd Avenue in Bay Ridge.. It should be a stand alone route beginning at 59th street and 4th avenue then via 60th street, 3rd avenue inread of Bay Ridge Avenue like the B/70 rerouting was in 2010.  This keeps the portion south of the expressway where there is significant ridership and retains the connections with the staten Island routes without having the traffic problems of  Bay Ridge Avenue.

Yes, at least something like this would suffice. Anyway, I will explain why the B70 loop was not that good--currently, the primary source of ridership comes from Staten Island transfers and those from the B8 hoping to get into Bklyn Chinatown. I would say however, like Around the Horn mentioned, that the good thing about the B70 was its frequency. Coverage is good, but not at the expense of ridership patterns. So, if anything, the B37 (or some other 3 Av line designation) should be its own route (I would still advocate for an extension to Industry City, but I get that not too many people actually use the bus for that reason).

Edited July 6, 2020 by Bay Ridge Express

[B61In2002]

So basically a B37 from 36 St  (with a rush hour extension to Union St or 4 Av - 9 St to keep a connection with Gowanus & ) should work, yes? From what you guys are saying basically nobody rides above that area.

Side note: is there any plans to add service to Red Hook and Canarsie? Because god KNOWS service in the area is sorely needed.

[checkmatechamp13]

@B61In2002 In the redesign report Red Hook is mentioned multiple times so I guess they have something planned for that area.

[B35 via Church]

On 7/3/2020 at 11:19 PM, Around the Horn said:

The B70 loop was honestly more useful than the current B37 and more frequent.

Yeah.... Quite honestly, while the B37 gets the patronage that it's been getting ever since it's been (partially) reverted, I favored the B70 along the Bay Ridge portion of 3rd av....  Between Bay Ridge av & 86th st, more people have gunned for the B16 (for obvious reasons) anyway.....

What I think may happen with the B70 (or whatever they'll dub the 8th av route) is a truncation to 9th av , and (hate to say it) an extension to somewhere in SI.... Either way, I don't see them keeping service along 39th st....

1 minute ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B61In2002 In the redesign report Red Hook is mentioned multiple times so I guess they have something planned for that area.

Sure, Cuomo has something planned for Red Hook alright.....

[aemoreira81]

I have to wonder if a shortened version of the B37 is warranted---not going all the way to Barclays. I would propose it as follows:

Northbound: start at the VA Hospital, then operate via 7 Avenue, 92 Street, 4/5 Avenues, Marine Avenue and 3 Avenue in Bay Ridge to 65 Street. But instead of continuing along  3 Avenue, the bus would then operate via 2 Avenue, to serve NYU Brooklyn, the industrial area along 2 Avenue and all of Industry City to Liberty View and the prison, running along 2 Avenue to the end of the street at 29 Street, looping around, and ultimately terminating at 36 Street .

Two subway intersections: 36 Street, and 95 Street .

Edited July 11, 2020 by aemoreira81

[Lex]

41 minutes ago, aemoreira81 said:

I have to wonder if a shortened version of the B37 is warranted---not going all the way to Barclays. I would propose it as follows:

Northbound: start at the VA Hospital, then operate via 7 Avenue, 92 Street, 4/5 Avenues, Marine Avenue and 3 Avenue in Bay Ridge to 65 Street. But instead of continuing along  3 Avenue, the bus would then operate via 2 Avenue, to serve NYU Brooklyn, the industrial area along 2 Avenue and all of Industry City to Liberty View and the prison, running along 2 Avenue to the end of the street at 29 Street, looping around, and ultimately terminating at 36 Street .

Two subway intersections: 36 Street, and 95 Street .

Industrial areas are notorious dead zones. If you want to have the route serve 2nd Avenue, your best bet is to not have it spend so much time on it, least of all if it has to swing around to get to/from 36th Street...

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, aemoreira81 said:

I have to wonder if a shortened version of the B37 is warranted---not going all the way to Barclays. I would propose it as follows:

Northbound: start at the VA Hospital, then operate via 7 Avenue, 92 Street, 4/5 Avenues, Marine Avenue and 3 Avenue in Bay Ridge to 65 Street. But instead of continuing along  3 Avenue, the bus would then operate via 2 Avenue, to serve NYU Brooklyn, the industrial area along 2 Avenue and all of Industry City to Liberty View and the prison, running along 2 Avenue to the end of the street at 29 Street, looping around, and ultimately terminating at 36 Street .

Two subway intersections: 36 Street, and 95 Street .

Industry City already has a shuttle bus transporting people to/from 36th st subway....

If you're trying to make some sort of unofficial Bay Ridge shuttle or whatever, you may as well turn it off at at Bay Ridge av (instead of 65th) and at 4th (instead of 2nd)...... From there, have it run along 4th to 59th st , to ultimately dead the thing somewhere around the hospital (or with the B11, after having served the hospital)....

2nd av from 65th to 29th is a dead draw in terms of ridership & on top of it, subjects the thing to all those double-parking vans/trucks (and forklifts).... Yeah, you have to deal with traffic exiting/entering the highway with 3rd, but at least it's moving.... 2nd av is also narrow as f***....

No thanks.

40 minutes ago, Lex said:

Industrial areas are notorious dead zones. If you want to have the route serve 2nd Avenue, your best bet is to not have it spend so much time on it, least of all if it has to swing around to get to/from 36th Street...

If not for solely, directly serving Lutheran (well, NYU Langone Brooklyn), I'd want no part of running the B37 even utilizing 2nd....

Keeping it on 3rd attracts residents.... running it on 2nd will obliterate the thing....

Edited July 11, 2020 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

I just thought of something regarding the B14 (since in the Queens redesign thread, I mentioned a reroute/extension to Cross Bay & Liberty via Sutter)

On the Brooklyn side, it would be rerouted to operate straight down Sutter Avenue to Ralph Avenue to Eastern Parkway to terminate at Utica Avenue.

The Pitkin Avenue & Mother Gaston portions would be replaced by an extended B45 (eastbound buses would take St. Johns - Strauss - Pitkin - Mother Gaston - Dumont - Powell - Sutter to end at the  station, and westbound buses would take Sutter - Junius - Dumont - Mother Gaston - Pitkin - Howard - St. Johns.

Is it worth a shot or is the loss of the direct connection to Eastern Parkway & Utica Avenue a non-starter?

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I just thought of something regarding the B14 (since in the Queens redesign thread, I mentioned a reroute/extension to Cross Bay & Liberty via Sutter)

On the Brooklyn side, it would be rerouted to operate straight down Sutter Avenue to Ralph Avenue to Eastern Parkway to terminate at Utica Avenue.

The Pitkin Avenue & Mother Gaston portions would be replaced by an extended B45 (eastbound buses would take St. Johns - Strauss - Pitkin - Mother Gaston - Dumont - Powell - Sutter to end at the  station, and westbound buses would take Sutter - Junius - Dumont - Mother Gaston - Pitkin - Howard - St. Johns.

Is it worth a shot or is the loss of the direct connection to Eastern Parkway & Utica Avenue a non-starter?

I've been clamoring for a B14 extension to Cross Bay/Liberty (I remember getting into back & forths with that infernal jackass QJtransit______ over it), so you're preaching to the choir as far as that part of it is concerned.... It carries way too light past Sutter/Crescent... The good folks at the Pink houses, Linden Plaza, and Cypress Hills houses out there are too worried trying to (primarily/majorically) catch B13's or B15's....

The rest of what you're mentioning, I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.... I don't see the need to straighten the B14 as a means of justifying extending it to Rockaway Blvd , nor do I think B45's should be running down to the projects' [plural] - even if you still maintain the connection to the ... The older folks that are heading Downtown from the PJ's would appreciate the 1-seat bus ride, so I wouldn't exactly call it a non-starter.... Most everyone else though, would still make the trek to your altered B14 along Sutter, for that almighty direct connection to the - yes, the is serious business around these parts... Lol....

B14 riders east of the that shop along Pitkin won't take too kindly to the changes, so there's that minor aspect of it also...

 

[Lex]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The rest of what you're mentioning, I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.... I don't see the need to straighten the B14 as a means of justifying extending it to Rockaway Blvd , nor do I think B45's should be running down to the projects' [plural] - even if you still maintain the connection to the ... The older folks that are heading Downtown from the PJ's would appreciate the 1-seat bus ride, so I wouldn't exactly call it a non-starter.... Most everyone else though, would still make the trek to your altered B14 along Sutter, for that almighty direct connection to the - yes, the is serious business around these parts... Lol....

B14 riders east of the that shop along Pitkin won't take too kindly to the changes, so there's that minor aspect of it also...

 

I'm also concerned that the B45 extension will cause its reliability to tank (can't imagine the route would fare too well with crossing Ralph Avenue and Eastern Parkway on top of the route west of Washington Avenue). (Even worse, because of how paddles are set up, the B65 could easily look a lot more like the B37. At least the present B45 makes it really easy for drivers to do one route in one direction and the other in the opposite.)

[Lawrence St]

Some ideas I thought of:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Carnarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

B60: Reroute the B60 from Rockaway Parkway to Carnarsie Pier, replacing B42.

B103: Reroute service to remain on Beach 80th St and then via Seaview Av, replacing B17 service.

B17: Reroute service via Avenue M and Flatlands Av to Spring Creek Towers, replacing the B103.

 

[Future ENY OP]

54 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Some ideas I thought of:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Carnarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

B60: Reroute the B60 from Rockaway Parkway to Carnarsie Pier, replacing B42.

B103: Reroute service to remain on Beach 80th St and then via Seaview Av, replacing B17 service.

B17: Reroute service via Avenue M and Flatlands Av to Spring Creek Towers, replacing the B103.

 

I hope your from Brooklyn saying this.. b/c if your not I don’t think you have any basis to what you just said about the B42. Although it doesn’t serve your purposes there are people who live in Canarsie utilize the B42 which serves as direct service to the   My question to is this. What do you replace direct service to the  with? (Not the B60) 
 

No need to reroute the B60. The 60 is fine where it is. 
 

Same with the B103 and B17. Most of the bus routes in Canarsie serve different demographics and have some form of adequate bus service. 

[B35 via Church]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

I'm also concerned that the B45 extension will cause its reliability to tank (can't imagine the route would fare too well with crossing Ralph Avenue and Eastern Parkway on top of the route west of Washington Avenue). (Even worse, because of how paddles are set up, the B65 could easily look a lot more like the B37. At least the present B45 makes it really easy for drivers to do one route in one direction and the other in the opposite.)

The B45's reliability's been tanked... It shows up *whenever* and it's been like that with that route for decades... St. John's isn't even a traffic nightmare like that & still the B45 crawls from end to end... Highly frustrating.... I actually find the B65 more reliable than the B45, regardless if I'm in Downtown or on the other end of the route waiting for the thing....

My problem with extending it over the B14 (b/w ENY av & Sutter ) has less to do with the added runtime & more to do with how useful the thing would really be for most folks past commercial Pitkin av, from Brownsville....

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Some ideas I thought of:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Carnarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

B60: Reroute the B60 from Rockaway Parkway to Carnarsie Pier, replacing B42.

B103: Reroute service to remain on Beach 80th St and then via Seaview Av, replacing B17 service.

B17: Reroute service via Avenue M and Flatlands Av to Spring Creek Towers, replacing the B103.

B17: Only way I'd have it running to Starrett is if a bridge were to be built, connecting [Seaview av in Canarsie] to [Seaview av in Starrett].... Otherwise, nah..... The thing toils along Remsen enough as it is, to have it meandering through Canarsie to get to Starrett....

B42: The claim that it isn't used that much, is just not true...

B60: Wanting to divert it away from the Breukelen houses is one thing, but If you're claiming the B42 isn't used that much, then there isn't much of a point to extend the B60 to Canarsie Pier via the B42's routing....

B103: I can understand wanting to shorten the route some, but I would not do it at the expense of the B17... The amt. of riders you'll get along Seaview vs. along Avenue M, at best, would amount to a wash IMO.... Considering that & considering that the B103 is a regional/commuter local, I would leave it on Avenue M, simply because it's more centralized in the neighborhood than Seaview is....

40 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

...Same with the B103 and B17. Most of the bus routes in Canarsie serve different demographics and have some form of adequate bus service. 

Remember when the B103 used to meander in Canarsie (E. 80th → Av. M → E. 105th → Av. J → Remsen → Flatlands) to end at 94th?

People tend to forget how long that route has come.

Edited August 19, 2020 by B35 via Church

[B61In2002]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Some ideas I thought of:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Carnarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

B60: Reroute the B60 from Rockaway Parkway to Carnarsie Pier, replacing B42.

B103: Reroute service to remain on Beach 80th St and then via Seaview Av, replacing B17 service.

B17: Reroute service via Avenue M and Flatlands Av to Spring Creek Towers, replacing the B103.

 

B42: fat lie, as someone who previously lived in the area I promise you during the day theres always a decent amount of passangers, even more so during rush hours. Don't eliminate it.

B60: again, no. The little stub served by the route before it ends is in the projects, and removing that section leaves them to walking a good distance for a bus or train.

B103: interesting idea, but nah. Central Canarsie (by this I mean everything between Av K and Av N and between 105 St and 85 St) pretty much relies on B103 service east to west wise. Moving it further South basically f**ks majority of the riders as they now have to take another bus to the 103 or just change their ride altogether.

B17: while more service to Spring Creek service can and should happen, your proposal is a no. Alternative idea for this: start some AM rush hour B17s at Freeport or Hornell Loop, and have it either/or:

-Follow the B82 to Remsen then regular route

OR

-Had south to the Belt Pkwy and operate on it until Rockaway Parkway & follow B42 until Seaview then regular route

(If the latter is used, that route will run via Av L & Rockaway Parkway station.)

 

[EastFlatbushLarry]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:32 PM, Lawrence St said:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Canarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

bredren... NO!

the B42, albeit short, is perfect as is. that line is dedicated to people who need access to the at ALL TIMES, not just rush hour. if that corridor (Rockaway Pky between the Pier & Flatlands) were served by another line (heaven forbid the B60 and it's consistently inconsistent ass) the cab companies/dollar vans would descend like locusts. people would constantly miss trains, simply put. speaking as a customer for a sec, I'm truly thankful that lines like the 42 & B74 haven't been combined with other lines which would completely decimate efficiency (people making it to their trains) in those areas. speaking from an operator perspective, the 82 Local/42 relief interline is one the bright spots of picking one of the few runs like that on the B82 local. it's definitely a positive change of scenery either way, because one can begin to feel overwhelmed on either side those runs... don't let the 42 fool you, there's really no letup. however, after doing, say, 2 round trips to CI local, the quick trips on the 42 seem like a piece of cake. 

 

[MysteriousBtrain]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:32 PM, Lawrence St said:

Some ideas I thought of:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Carnarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

This post you just made is exactly why I feel you lie or just look for something to post.

If you even touched Canarsie on the . Even if you never used a bus in your life. If you at least studied only the subway history and rode bus routes that replaced the subway. You would not be saying this.

[Lawrence St]

28 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

This post you just made is exactly why I feel you lie or just look for something to post.

If you even touched Canarsie on the . Even if you never used a bus in your life. If you at least studied only the subway history and rode bus routes that replaced the subway. You would not be saying this.

Ok, that's your opinion.

I'm going off based on what I've heard and seen. Perhaps I've used the B42 on a non-busy day, but this post really wasn't necessary.

[trainfan22]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:32 PM, Lawrence St said:

Some ideas I thought of:

B42: I understand that this route was created as a direct replacement for the to Carnarsie Pier, but it isn't used that much. I would eliminate the route.

 

 

 

B42 isn't used that much!?! The route is very well used, SRO buses OFF PEAK and Weekends is common, I've gotten flagged on the B42 multiple times. I live along the route, trust me it's very well used.

[B35 via Church]

55 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

This post you just made is exactly why I feel you lie or just look for something to post.

If you even touched Canarsie on the . Even if you never used a bus in your life. If you at least studied only the subway history and rode bus routes that replaced the subway. You would not be saying this.

After 4 other people, notice how your post was the first to be responded to, regarding these ideas of his...

 

[Lawrence St]

13 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

After 4 other people, notice how your post was the first to be responded to, regarding these ideas of his...

 

Is there something I'm not aware of that I have to reply to other posts first?

I'm well aware of what the 4 other have responded to so I am taking the time to review their responses and come up with a better idea.

Sheesh...😒

[Future ENY OP]

3 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

bredren... NO!

the B42, albeit short, is perfect as is. that line is dedicated to people who need access to the at ALL TIMES, not just rush hour. if that corridor (Rockaway Pky between the Pier & Flatlands) were served by another line (heaven forbid the B60 and it's consistently inconsistent ass) the cab companies/dollar vans would descend like locusts. people would constantly miss trains, simply put. speaking as a customer for a sec, I'm truly thankful that lines like the 42 & B74 haven't been combined with other lines which would completely decimate efficiency (people making it to their trains) in those areas. speaking from an operator perspective, the 82 Local/42 relief interline is one the bright spots of picking one of the few runs like that on the B82 local. it's definitely a positive change of scenery either way, because one can begin to feel overwhelmed on either side those runs... don't let the 42 fool you, there's really no letup. however, after doing, say, 2 round trips to CI local, the quick trips on the 42 seem like a piece of cake. 

 

AGREED..

Routes like B2, B42, B74 should not be in anyone's mention to extend, cut or whatever the case be.. Those routes have a specific service they are used for.

[B35 via Church]

11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Is there something I'm not aware of that I have to reply to other posts first?

Other than having a clue?

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Ok, that's your opinion.

I'm going off based on what I've heard and seen. Perhaps I've used the B42 on a non-busy day, but this post really wasn't necessary.

That only convinces me that you've never been on/seen the B42, and as a result, think its short length means it hardly pulls in riders. Perhaps that's true of the Q42 or the New Brighton-bound S42 (not putting too much stock in either, mind you), but based on the areas the route serves and how easily the buses fill up, the B42 is anything but a load. If anything, it complements the subway while still providing reasonable bus connections.

The really insulting thing, however, is trying to combine it with the B60, a route that's far less frequent and consistent (and, if you ask me, probably needs to be split).