Loving the B61
I love the B61. I ride it frequently, to the gym, the train, to Brooklyn Bridge Park, to Park Slope, to Fairway. Sometimes, I look for excuses to ride it! I find it to be convenient and fast and frequent. My elderly Grandmother uses it as her main mode of transportation, and she loves it as well. If my family had a bus nowadays (since the elimination of the B71), the B61 would be it.
However, the B61 has gotten a bad rap. A study commissioned by City Councilperson Brad Lander, City Councilperson Sara Gonzalez and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez ripped the B61. In fact, when I mentioned to Mr. Lander that my experiences differed from the conclusions found in the study, he told me that I was the first person with anything positive to say regarding the B61, out of hundreds of respondents and constituents. I was as shocked to hear that as he was to hear something positive about the B61!
How could my family’s experiences differ so greatly from the conclusions formed by this widely publicized study?
***
Let’s start with the positives first: the recommendations contained in the study. There are some great suggestions here. From signal priority for buses to eliminating stops which are bunched closely together to more buses to limited/express service to extending other bus lines to take some ridership off of the B61, all of the suggestions would serve to help the B61. But they would also help the B49.
And the Q1.
And the M10.
The recommendations would help ANY bus line’s performance. In fact, the only recommendation made that is germane to the B61 route, bus shelter and pedestrian improvements at the 9th Street stops (although very welcome and a step forward for our area) would have no effect on bus performance whatsoever, only rider comfort and perhaps safety.
But, as shown below, there is no proof contained in the study that the B61 deserves those improvements over any other bus line, nor that it is performing any worse than any other bus line.
***
In the Findings section of the report, is is stated that only 43% of B61 buses arrive in acceptable time on peak hours! The MTA says that that number for the B61 is 64%! Wow, what a difference. Typical MTA, like the DOT on Prospect Park West, always fudging the numbers, right?
However, footnoted in that finding is the fact that the MTA’s figures are for ALL times, not just peak times, which are the times that the report measured. This at least explain part of the discrepancy, and possibly all of it. Buses that run late at night and early in the morning are more apt to run on time; there are fewer passengers, hence fewer stops, as well as fewer other vehicles on the road. By extracting the peak hour statistics and comparing them to statistics for all hours, the report successfully compares Apples to Oranges, and actually provides no meaningful measure of the B61’s peak time performance. The statement that this “strongly suggests that the regularity of the B61 bus has significantly decreased” (the MTA’s figures were from roughly a year earlier than the report’s figures) is simply not proven by the facts presented.
Additionally, the figure of 43% is essentially presented in a vacuum, without giving the context of what the MTA’s overall average peak bus head time performance is, or what Brooklyn’s average peak bus head time performance is.
Found under Bus Crowding Findings: Buses don’t stop at Columbia and Union. 42% of buses don’t stop there because they’re so full. Between 8-9 am, which is prime commuting time. That’s a big percentage, no doubt. The report then goes on to call the percentage of full buses between 5-6 pm (23%) “…a clearly unacceptable level of bus service.” Is that so? Some good questions that might be answered from this conclusion: What is the acceptable level of bus service? What is the MTA’s system-wide level of service? What are the macro and micro levels of service to compare and contrast this with? Unfortunately, none of those questions are answered herein, so it is anyone’s guess as to what an “acceptable” level of service might be.
***
One factor which might have caused decreased performance on the B61 (again, the decreased performance of which has not been proven) is lightly referenced in the report: the temporary closure of the Smith-9th Street train station. The Smith-9th Street stop on the F and G lines has been closed since June, 2011, and is slated to reopen sometime in the spring of 2012. This station serves areas of Gowanus, many areas of Red Hook and some sections of Carroll Gardens; all areas which the B61 passes through. A train station which normally services over a 1.5 million trips a year is closed for close to a year, right smack in the middle of the B61 service area. Sure, some of those trips are absorbed by the B57, the Carroll Street stop and the 4th Avenue/9th Street stop (and maybe some people choose to drive or bike or walk to work for now), but it would stand to reason that a large portion of those trips would be absorbed by the B61. The idea that the levels of service found on the B61 would increase to “acceptable” levels once the Smith/9th Street stop is reopened in a few months is not addressed in the report.
***
It is not that I have very much doubt that the B61 is performing poorly; with the closure of the Smith-9th Street stop, the elimination of the B71, B77 and the B75 lines and the corresponding MTA service cuts, it is not surprising that the B61 is strained. It is just that in addition to the timing being odd, with the Smith-9th Street Station slated to reopen in a few months, and that none of the conclusions or statements in the report prove that the B61 is performing badly, or that it is performing worse than any other strained bus line which doesn’t fall within the districts of the report’s sponsors.
***
* Disclaimer: I have contributed to Brad Lander’s 2013 reelection effort
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/49/dtg_b61isbad_2011_12_09_bk.html
http://carrollgardens.patch.com/articles/city-will-install-shelters-along-b61-route
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/51/dtg_b61dry_2011_12_23_bk.html
There has been a partial building collapse at the corner of Columbia Street and Degraw Street. The building is non-residential and no people were injured or displaced. NYPD, FDNY and the Department of Buildings has responded to the scene to ensure that all safety measures are taken.
Gowanus Whole Foods Gets Some Land Use Setbacks
Whole Foods has been trying to finish up their development for years now on the corner of Third and Third. Last year, we analyzed their traffic study, which was laughable in that it proposed the minimum required “improvements” for the community, and also their pathetic responses to traffic generation concerns. In fairness to them, the response from Community Board 6 to their application was perhaps even more laughable than the application itself. Tomatoes were of larger concern to the Land Use Committee than transportation impacts.
Well, earlier this week, Whole Foods heard back from the BSA on their Variance application. Both Patch and the Brooklyn Paper covered this development. Unfortunately, both sources misidentify the reasons for the BSA’s continuation of the matter as having to do with environmental concerns related to the Gowanus Superfund cleanup.
While it is true that opponents of the project cited environmental concerns, the BSA correctly did not cite them in their statements. What they did cite, however, is the lack of appropriate parking mitigation and comprehensive land use analysis. The most important reason though, is that the BSA wanted Whole Foods to adequately demonstrate that their site is materially different from all other sites along the Gowanus Canal. This will be harder to prove, and is more important for the future of the Canal Corridor. If the BSA finds that the Whole Foods side is unique, that precedent could be used to justify a variance for ANY lot along the canal, which would then, of course, make none of the sites unique.
Also, there’s this.
