Bringing Back the B71

It's no secret that Red Hook and its neighbors were some of the hardest hit areas by the MTA's 2010 budget cuts. While some efforts - new bus shelters and service augmentation for the B61, an extension of the B57 - have been made to remedy the service losses, some losses are still noticeable. One of those is the B71, which ran primarily along Union Street from Van Brunt Street to Crown Heights. Without it, there is no crosstown service between Atlantic Avenue and 9th Street. This leaves large swaths of Park Slope, Prospect Heights, and Crown Heights inaccessible from Carroll Gardens or Red Hook on public transit, despite their proximity.

The B71 was, by most measures, an underperformer. Its daily ridership stood at barely 1,000 daily weekday riders prior to cuts, making it one of the least utilized routes outside of Staten Island. 30 minute headways (slightly shorter during rush hour) and operations that ended before 10pm every night certainly didn't help make the route popular.  But the route did provide a vital connection between neighborhoods - one that has not been replaced since. With the MTA still considering what to do with its surplus, its worth throwing the B71's hat into the ring. The question is, what can we change to increase ridership on this corridor and make its return a worthwhile investment.

1. Extend the route. The old B71 ended with a loop on Van Brunt Street on the waterfront. It could instead be extended along Columbia and Van Brunt streets, following the B61's route to the IKEA terminal. This would provide additional connections from Red Hook to the subway, add additional destinations, such as Fairway and IKEA, for riders in Park Slope or Crown Heights. It would also be a boon to the commercial district along Van Brunt Street, providing new customers with better access. These areas have grown since the route was cut in 2010, and it is possible that an extension would serve as a strong boost to ridership.

2. Reconsider the timetable. The B71 provides a vital link to subway stations, but it is mostly a neighborhood connector, rather than a commuter route. A revisited B71 timetable should recognize this role, particularly with more appropriate hours. An route through food and drink strips in North Park Slope, Smith Street, and Red Hook demands hours that work for restaurant goers and bar patrons. While a 24 hour bus would be excessive, late hours on Friday and Saturday nights could serve to boost overall use of the line.

3. Bus Time. This will ultimately be rolled out on all MTA routes, but it's worth noting that being able to track a bus with long headways makes the route considerably more useful than having to guess. In a perfect world the MTA would be able to run buses on a more frequent schedule but absent that, using technology to cut down on the interminable wait for the next bus would go a long way to making the route more useful to everyone who uses it.

Thoughts on Speed Cameras, from a Former DC Resident (and Driver)

Yes, it looks like New York may finally get past legislative obstruction in Albany and approve a (minimal) bill allowing speed cameras in some of the city's highest risk school zones. It's a small - and incomplete - step, but this being New York, getting even this modest proposal has been fraught with every imaginable challenge.

Speed cameras, you see, seem to bring the worst out in drivers. Let's face it, speeding is taken as a right on most American roadways; there is the speed limit, then there is the driver's discretion, an "acceptable" amount over that limit that we are "supposed" to drive. Thus, 25 mph becomes 30 or 35, and so on. It's a mindset that has also been enabled by ineffective measurement technologies that, in many parts of the country, still render enforcement under +11 mph impossible. So when we start talking about implementing a fixed, permanent, accurate, you-may-never-speed-here-again solution, drivers see it as taking away a right.

And to an extent, we are. We're forcing them to obey the letter of the law, not the implied discretion they were taught exists. They're meant to change behavior by forcing people to slow down if they don't want a ticket; with a comprehensive enough network of cameras, it means people are forced to obey the law virtually everywhere. Of course, what we always here is that it's a money-grab by municipal authorities, taking advantage of drivers with repeated tickets. But it's not a tax, and it's not mandatory: if you don't want to pay it, just obey the letter of the law. 

Once upon a time, I owned a car in the home of the speed camera, Washington, DC. I even picked up a sizable ticket for doing 45 in a 35 on a long downhill stretch of Massachusetts Avenue. I was understandably upset about the fine, but like most drivers, I altered my behavior. In fact, that was my most lasting impression from the implementation of cameras all around the District: most drivers did change their speed to avoid tickets. My favorite anecdote was Connecticut Avenue, which is a five-lane commuter corridor stretching from downtown to major residential areas in DC and southern Maryland. It also is littered with speed cameras. As a city street, Connecticut is subject to a 30 mph speed limit throughout the District. 

And guess what? Drivers tend to go that speed. Get in your car during a free-flowing period of the day (30 mph would be a fantasy during rush hour), and you'll find that the speed of traffic around you sets a pace within a few miles per hour of the stated limit. Through the magic of enforcement, a major arterial has free-flowing traffic at a safe speed, and pedestrians have a safer route as they access the many businesses and residences located along Connecticut. And that's the kind of result that we can expect in New York - slower vehicles making pedestrian access safer, and our businesses and neighborhoods prospering as a result.

Let's hope Albany does the right thing and gets us started on this path.