Brooklyn Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

Correction for you or typo. You meant turning right on 13th Avenue.

Not sure which part of my post you're referring to with this.

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

....And as far as sending the B64 to the VA hospital that was also part of my 1978 proposal that was not accepted. I proposed it to go around to Poly Place, left on 92 Street right on Fourth Avenue, right on 86 Street, terminate there, and right on 86 Street and right on Seventh Avenue back to the VA. I didn’t propose and combination with the B70. As I stated to Around the Horn, the additional traffic on 8th Avenue in the last ten or 15 years needs to be considered in determining if such a combination is still a good idea or would negatively impact too much on Bath Ave service. I also combined B8 and B64 services on Cropsey in 1978 as I did in 2003 and 2006.

Alright, screw it.... Correction then - that B66 of yours involves combining parts of the B70 with parts of the B64.

Edited January 6, 2019 by B35 via Church

[Around the Horn]

If we're going to merge the B64 with some other route on the western end, I wouldn't mind it going around to Poly Place, left on 92nd Street, left on 4th Av, right on Shore Road and then following the B37 to NYU Langone on 58th and 1st (with the B37 being eliminated and resources diverted to increasing B63 service)

I just don't like the idea of tying it to 8th Avenue traffic, as we've discussed earlier.

[B35 via Church]

30 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

If we're going to merge the B64 with some other route on the western end, I wouldn't mind it going around to Poly Place, left on 92nd Street, left on 4th Av, right on Shore Road and then following the B37 to NYU Langone on 58th and 1st (with the B37 being eliminated and resources diverted to increasing B63 service)....

In such a scenario, what would you do with 13th av, etc. portion of the B64?

Edited January 6, 2019 by B35 via Church

[Around the Horn]

2 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

In such a scenario, what would you do with 13th av service?

I guess make a new 13th Avenue route combining the B64 portion with the B16 portion on 13th and 14th (and the B16 moved over to Fort Hamilton Pkwy)...

Not quite sure what the end points of the new route would be at the moment.

[Interested Rider]

i have read the responses to my suggestions and comments and  I appreciate the points that the posters have raised whether I agree or disagree with them.

There are some questions and comments that I would like to raise in reference to some of the responses:

1) The B/9 has been impacted by the N Line partial shutdown of stations. Could this be the reason that the number of riders has increased as many of the riders would rather take the B/9 to  and from 4th Avenue heading east as compared with the N Line and thus have decided to take the B/9 on a permanent basis?  Could this be the problem with the failure  to put more buses on the B/9 during the work?

2) Since the B/64 is quite crowded (and I am referring to the portion between 13th Avenue and the expressway only) then why have the riders not shifted to the B/4 on Bay Ridge Parkway? The portion west of 4th Avenue is too far from the B/64 at that point. If you look at the schedules of the B/4 over many years on the Bay Ridge Parkway portion, it has remained virtually static for many years but the B/34,1, 64 has been cut over the same time period.

3) A s I stated before I remain opposed to the extension of the B/2, However, I would be interested in reading the comments as to changing the route from 65th Street to Bay Ridge Parkway from Bay Parkway west. (Avenue R, Ocean Parkway, Kings Highway, Stillwell Avenue) (Eastbound via Kings Highway to East 16th Street). The reason that I am asking about the change is that the ridership on that portion may already exist and yet is untapped. 

4) How does the TA collect statistics for each and every bus route. The bus drivers used to fill in a form that listed the farebox statistics and .then it was the twice a year persons checking the line. How do they do it now and is there a more efficient way to do it today.

I will be posting additional questions and comments on other points that were raised here in the future..

 

 

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, Interested Rider said:

i have read the responses to my suggestions and comments and  I appreciate the points that the posters have raised whether I agree or disagree with them.

There are some questions and comments that I would like to raise in reference to some of the responses:

1) The B/9 has been impacted by the N Line partial shutdown of stations. Could this be the reason that the number of riders has increased as many of the riders would rather take the B/9 to  and from 4th Avenue heading east as compared with the N Line and thus have decided to take the B/9 on a permanent basis?  Could this be the problem with the failure to put more buses on the B/9 during the work?

2) Since the B/64 is quite crowded (and I am referring to the portion between 13th Avenue and the expressway only) then why have the riders not shifted to the B/4 on Bay Ridge Parkway? The portion west of 4th Avenue is too far from the B/64 at that point. If you look at the schedules of the B/4 over many years on the Bay Ridge Parkway portion, it has remained virtually static for many years but the B/34,1, 64 has been cut over the same time period.

3) A s I stated before I remain opposed to the extension of the B/2, However, I would be interested in reading the comments as to changing the route from 65th Street to Bay Ridge Parkway from Bay Parkway west. (Avenue R, Ocean Parkway, Kings Highway, Stillwell Avenue) (Eastbound via Kings Highway to East 16th Street). The reason that I am asking about the change is that the ridership on that portion may already exist and yet is untapped. 

4) How does the TA collect statistics for each and every bus route. The bus drivers used to fill in a form that listed the farebox statistics and .then it was the twice a year persons checking the line. How do they do it now and is there a more efficient way to do it today.

I will be posting additional questions and comments on other points that were raised here in the future..

1) Yes, the B9 has had a recent uptick in usage due to that, but the thing has carried over 10k riders a day for at least a decade now.... Not exactly a lightly used route we're talking about here.....

2) I don't see why any significant amount of that ridership would.... To opine more on this question though, most likely because the majority of that usage on that part of the route live (or go to school) more proximate to areas north of Bay Ridge av, over that of areas south of Bay Ridge av (more proximate to Bay Ridge Pkwy).... Also, B4 service levels aren't anything to write home about, in comparison to the B64.... Poor tradeoff if you ask me.....

3) I wouldn't extend the B2, period....

But again, to opine more on this question.... While I have noticed more people xferring b/w the B82 & the B4 in recent years, I can't sit here & say that usage warrants a direct connection from Kings Hwy by the Brighton line to areas along Bay Ridge Pkwy... Nor do I believe there's existing untapped potential a direct connection of the two areas would exploit.... Besides, if there's to be any increase in BPH along Bay Ridge Pkwy, it should be with the B4 itself & not via a B2 extension.....

[Interested Rider]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

1) Yes, the B9 has had a recent uptick in usage due to that, but the thing has carried over 10k riders a day for at least a decade now.... Not exactly a lightly used route we're talking about here.....

2) I don't see why any significant amount of that ridership would.... To opine more on this question though, most likely because the majority of that usage on that part of the route live (or go to school) more proximate to areas north of Bay Ridge av, over that of areas south of Bay Ridge av (more proximate to Bay Ridge Pkwy).... Also, B4 service levels aren't anything to write home about, in comparison to the B64.... Poor tradeoff if you ask me.....

3) I wouldn't extend the B2, period....

But again, to opine more on this question.... While I have noticed more people xferring b/w the B82 & the B4 in recent years, I can't sit here & say that usage warrants a direct connection from Kings Hwy by the Brighton line to areas along Bay Ridge Pkwy... Nor do I believe there's existing untapped potential a direct connection of the two areas would exploit.... Besides, if there's to be any increase in BPH along Bay Ridge Pkwy, it should be with the B4 itself & not via a B2 extension.....

Thank you for your comments and I await comments from others on this subject.

Your response to item # 1 concerning the B/9 is related to my question concerning how the MTA makes its decisions concerning the number of buses needed for the route. Your response was the reason that I asked question # 4 as to how they get the statistics for each route? Since the route has been carrying 10k per day for at  least a decade then why has the route not been allocated more runs and buses as the justification is there? Were the statistics used taken on days when the ridership was much lower such as non-school days or religious holidays?

My response as to why I would not extend the B/2 period is that I believe in short routes. Too many routes are far too long and when there are traffic problems, it makes a bad situation far worse. It is for the same reason that I am in total opposition to the drivers driving the first half of the route on one route and the second half on a different route as it insures that if there is a delay on the first route that it will impact on the second route. I remember the days when drivers spent both halves on the same route and the service was far better than it is now as if there was a delay in service, it could be minimized just to that one route. It is also the reason that I believe those in Transit making these decisions should get out from  in front of their computers and out of their offices and let them try driving a bus where they have to work a split on two different routes. In my opinion  it is far more costly as it does not save money at all but results in a much larger decrease in revenue  and  a big reason that bus service has gotten so bad.

As far as your responses to questions 2 and 3, I will wait for more responses to appear before i will write a response.

[BrooklynBus]

16 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Thank you for your comments and I await comments from others on this subject.

Your response to item # 1 concerning the B/9 is related to my question concerning how the MTA makes its decisions concerning the number of buses needed for the route. Your response was the reason that I asked question # 4 as to how they get the statistics for each route? Since the route has been carrying 10k per day for at  least a decade then why has the route not been allocated more runs and buses as the justification is there? Were the statistics used taken on days when the ridership was much lower such as non-school days or religious holidays?

My response as to why I would not extend the B/2 period is that I believe in short routes. Too many routes are far too long and when there are traffic problems, it makes a bad situation far worse. It is for the same reason that I am in total opposition to the drivers driving the first half of the route on one route and the second half on a different route as it insures that if there is a delay on the first route that it will impact on the second route. I remember the days when drivers spent both halves on the same route and the service was far better than it is now as if there was a delay in service, it could be minimized just to that one route. It is also the reason that I believe those in Transit making these decisions should get out from  in front of their computers and out of their offices and let them try driving a bus where they have to work a split on two different routes. In my opinion  it is far more costly as it does not save money at all but results in a much larger decrease in revenue  and  a big reason that bus service has gotten so bad.

As far as your responses to questions 2 and 3, I will wait for more responses to appear before i will write a response.

What I can add to what B35 stated is that the MTA is relying more and more on Metrocard data and less on traffic counters to determine bus passenger volume. The reason of course is that it is cheaper to do this. One problem with using MetroCard data is that it assumes all passengers make the same return trip and that no passengers combine two purposes in a single trip requiring three buses or using a combination of buses to save a fare. They have to make the assumptions they make since they have no way of knowing from Metrocard data where and when someone gets off a bus. This automatically leads to some inaccuracies in the data. 

I oppose short routes because although they may be more reliable, they lead to fewer trips being able to be completed using one or two buses. They also do not guarantee reliability. Last year there was a story how riders had extraordinary long waits for the short B42. 

You obtain reliability by having dispatchers who know how to do their jobs correctly. Often they make matters worse. Off course you also need better parking and road enforcement which DOT and the police are not doing. As I previously stated, the answer is long routes with many short services on those routes. That  combines the best of both worlds. 

As far as drivers on split routes, the MTA doesn't see what you see because they plan asto what looks best on paper, not what works best in the real world. They assume that all drivers return to the depots on time so there is no delay on the second half of their run. 

It is this same type of paper planning that causes them to operate all those not in revenue service trips some of which can be ten miles long. They assume partial trips from the depot are not necessary because there is enough existing service to handle the crowding. The assumption is that all buses are on time. So the result is passengers waiting 20 or 30 minutes for a bus with a ten minute headway and them being overcrowded while a not in service bus passes after ten or minutes and doesn't stop. 

It makes absolutely no sense to have not in service buses at 10 PM at night when buses people are waiting up to 30 minutes and 10 seconds may be added to a not in service trip if the bus picks up a waiting passenger that could save them 15 minutes. One driver realized that and picked me up last year although he was not in service violating the rules. Bus Operators should not have to violate rules to do the correct thing. 

[Armandito]

Giving some credit to @BrooklynBus for getting access to some ideas from his Tripod website (http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/index.html) to incorporate into my own Brooklyn bus route revisions:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18mGoG746Zx6tbzpTHZR242h2BPicrg1j&ll=40.64129123690907%2C-73.9444605048821&z=12

(Note that I changed some of BrooklynBus's routing ideas here)

Edited January 25, 2019 by lara8710

[Bay Ridge Express]

10 hours ago, lara8710 said:

Giving some credit to @BrooklynBus for getting access to some ideas from his Tripod website (http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/index.html) to incorporate into my own Brooklyn bus route revisions:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18mGoG746Zx6tbzpTHZR242h2BPicrg1j&ll=40.64129123690907%2C-73.9444605048821&z=12

(Note that I changed some of BrooklynBus's routing ideas here)

My comments:

-Why shorten the B4 to just 3 Av? People actually have homes to get to just left of that, believe it or not.

-I like the B12, but still feel as if it should connect to the  .

-The B66 is nice but how would Bath Beach residents connect to it (like the B64)? And why make it go all the way to Brooklyn College?

-The B67 is way too long, would just encourage more issues with the route.

-Same with the B72. WAY too long.

-For the B80 I see you decided to make it an extension of the B31. What about the B2?

[BrooklynBus]

15 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

My comments:

-Why shorten the B4 to just 3 Av? People actually have homes to get to just left of that, believe it or not.

-I like the B12, but still feel as if it should connect to the  .

-The B66 is nice but how would Bath Beach residents connect to it (like the B64)? And why make it go all the way to Brooklyn College?

-The B67 is way too long, would just encourage more issues with the route.

-Same with the B72. WAY too long.

-For the B80 I see you decided to make it an extension of the B31. What about the B2?

I can see shortening the B4 to 3 Avenue provided the B9 is extended south on Shore Rd to 101 St and the B 16 cutback to Shore Rd and 86 St. More riders would have access to an express subway station at 59 St. I would cut it back to 4 Avenue if the B1 were extended to Shore Rd but would keep the B16 school specials. 

[JeremiahC99]

32 minutes ago, BrooklynBus said:

I can see shortening the B4 to 3 Avenue provided the B9 is extended south on Shore Rd to 101 St and the B 16 cutback to Shore Rd and 86 St. More riders would have access to an express subway station at 59 St. I would cut it back to 4 Avenue if the B1 were extended to Shore Rd but would keep the B16 school specials. 

Also we can extend Staten Island routes (S53/93, S79) from 86th Street to the 59th Street Express station to give SI residents another train to access instead of the  train if that line has problems. Would that work?

Edited January 25, 2019 by JeremiahC99

[BrooklynBus]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Also we can extend Staten Island routes (S53/93, S79) to the 59th Street Express station to give SI residents another alternative to the  train. Would that work?

In 1978 when the S53 was the only Staten Island route called the R7 or S7, CB 10 asked it be extended to 59 St. The MTA rejected the idea saying it would cost too much based on additional route mileage. What they should have measured was extra time not route mileage. If a route serves 86 St and 59 St, there is definitely extra time. But I wonder if extending one of those routes to serve 59 Street instead of 86 Street would involve any additional time. I would choose the lightest of the three routes if I would choose any.

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

My comments:

-Why shorten the B4 to just 3 Av? People actually have homes to get to just left of that, believe it or not.

-I like the B12, but still feel as if it should connect to the  .

-The B66 is nice but how would Bath Beach residents connect to it (like the B64)? And why make it go all the way to Brooklyn College?

-The B67 is way too long, would just encourage more issues with the route.

-Same with the B72. WAY too long.

-For the B80 I see you decided to make it an extension of the B31. What about the B2?

Question: where should the B66 end if Brooklyn College wouldn't be an ideal terminus?

Just to let you know, the B72 between Greenwood Heights and Coney Island was borrowed from BrooklynBus's B66 proposal to merge the lightly used B64 and B70 routes into a single route that could run more frequently and attract ridership over time. With the B80, I decided to extend the B31 instead of the B2 because merging it with the latter would make it more or less redundant to the B9 which already serves Kings Plaza and has drained some ridership away from the B2 after it was extended from Flatlands in the 90s. While KP already has lots of buses going to different parts of Brooklyn, isolated Gerritsen Beach commuters could get more transfer opportunities if the B31 was to be extended. In other words, I'd rather leave the B2 alone.

For the B67 extension to Borough Park, this was another idea derived from BrooklynBus, though his proposal suggests extending the B69 instead (which has lower ridership than the B67). It's supposed to replace the 16th Avenue portion of the defunct B23 while the B66 replaces the portion east of the train at McDonald Avenue.

Edited January 25, 2019 by lara8710

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, BrooklynBus said:

In 1978 when the S53 was the only Staten Island route called the R7 or S7, CB 10 asked it be extended to 59 St. The MTA rejected the idea saying it would cost too much based on additional route mileage. What they should have measured was extra time not route mileage. If a route serves 86 St and 59 St, there is definitely extra time. But I wonder if extending one of those routes to serve 59 Street instead of 86 Street would involve any additional time. I would choose the lightest of the three routes if I would choose any.

If it were up to me, I would extend the S93 to 59th Street, due to the fact that it serves College on Staten Island and the extension would make it easier for students of that college who live in Sunset Park and Kensington (such as my girlfriend) to commute there. In addition, the fact that it serves Victory Blvd would make it more ideal as an alternative to the Staten Island Ferry (since you are connecting with the  express over the Manhattan Bridge instead of the local  via the Montague Tunnel).

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, lara8710 said:

Question: where should the B66 end if Brooklyn College wouldn't be an ideal terminus?

Just to let you know, the B72 between Greenwood Heights and Coney Island was borrowed from BrooklynBus's B66 proposal to merge the lightly used B64 and B70 routes into a single route that could run more frequently and attract ridership over time. With the B80, I decided to extend the B31 instead of the B2 because merging it with the latter would make it more or less redundant to the B9 which already serves Kings Plaza and has drained some ridership away from the B2 after it was extended from Flatlands in the 90s. While KP already has lots of buses going to different parts of Brooklyn, isolated Gerritsen Beach commuters could get more transfer opportunities if the B31 was to be extended. In other words, I'd rather leave the B2 alone.

For the B67 extension to Borough Park, this was another idea derived from BrooklynBus, though his proposal suggests extending the B69 instead (which has lower ridership than the B67). It's supposed to replace the 16th Avenue portion of the defunct B23 while the B66 replaces the portion east of the train at McDonald Avenue.

BrooklynBus also proposed to reroute the B9 from Kings Plaza to Bergen Beach via Avenue N (a proposal also by BrooklynBus and one of my favorite proposal of them all), and reduce the B41 Bergen Beach Branch service to rush hours only. To accompany it, the B11 would be extended via Avenues J/K to Georgetown Shopping Center and the Fairway Grocer that opened there last year. This would give residents of Old Mill Basin, Flatlands, and Georgetown (such as myself, since I live a few blocks away from Avenue K and Avenue N) access to both the Nostrand Avenue  and the Brighton  service and provide alternatives to the B3, B41, and B82, especially the Avenue K route, which runs a block from where I live. I have a modified proposal which puts the B11 on Avenue K in both directions, and makes the B41 service on Avenue N a rush hour and overnight service, while still keeping the B9 reroute.

 

The B2 would be extended as BrooklynBus proposed to provide the Kings Plaza service in place of the B9.

[B35 via Church]

13 hours ago, lara8710 said:

Giving some credit to @BrooklynBus for getting access to some ideas from his Tripod website (http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/index.html) to incorporate into my own Brooklyn bus route revisions:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18mGoG746Zx6tbzpTHZR242h2BPicrg1j&ll=40.64129123690907%2C-73.9444605048821&z=12

(Note that I changed some of BrooklynBus's routing ideas here)

A B36 "express" (which'll be anything but) from CI, via the Belt, straight to exit 9a to serve the Nostrand av portion of Sheepshead (meaning, serving no subway station whatsoever), en route to Kings Plaza? Lmfao, I'm done.....

What did Coney Island residents ever do to you?

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

A B36 "express" (which'll be anything but) from CI, via the Belt, straight to exit 9a to serve the Nostrand av portion of Sheepshead (meaning, serving no subway station whatsoever), en route to Kings Plaza? Lmfao, I'm done.....

What did Coney Island residents ever do to you?

It's supposed to be an extension of the regular B36 route via Avenue U, but a glitch on Google Maps somehow erased my route modifications and routed it along Belt Parkway, so I had to start over.

Edited January 25, 2019 by lara8710

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

BrooklynBus also proposed to reroute the B9 from Kings Plaza to Bergen Beach via Avenue N (a proposal also by BrooklynBus and one of my favorite proposal of them all), and reduce the B41 Bergen Beach Branch service to rush hours only. To accompany it, the B11 would be extended via Avenues J/K to Georgetown Shopping Center and the Fairway Grocer that opened there last year. This would give residents of Old Mill Basin, Flatlands, and Georgetown (such as myself, since I live a few blocks away from Avenue K and Avenue N) access to both the Nostrand Avenue  and the Brighton  service and provide alternatives to the B3, B41, and B82, especially the Avenue K route, which runs a block from where I live. I have a modified proposal which puts the B11 on Avenue K in both directions, and makes the B41 service on Avenue N a rush hour and overnight service, while still keeping the B9 reroute.

 

The B2 would be extended as BrooklynBus proposed to provide the Kings Plaza service in place of the B9.

While the B9 reroute could work, I'd like to know what to do with the northern end of my B66 proposal, as in finding an alternate place to terminate it instead of routing it to Brooklyn College.

What could you say about the B79? This was my alternative to BrooklynBus's idea of extending the B16 all the way to Brownsville.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

14 hours ago, lara8710 said:

Giving some credit to @BrooklynBus for getting access to some ideas from his Tripod website (http://brooklynbus.tripod.com/index.html) to incorporate into my own Brooklyn bus route revisions:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18mGoG746Zx6tbzpTHZR242h2BPicrg1j&ll=40.64129123690907%2C-73.9444605048821&z=12

(Note that I changed some of BrooklynBus's routing ideas here)

 

B12: Streamlining the B12 and missing most of the hospital like that, does more harm than good. Yeah it's straighter, but are people on Empire gonna use it all of a sudden compared to New York Avenue and Albany Aves? You're also leaving a pretty big gap there, as your plan will replace the B12 there with.....nothing.

B66: If the point is to connecting people to Flatbush/Nostrand, people might as well make their way to the B11. I don't see the need for such a route to do all of that. Don't have an issue with a 13/14 Avenue route.

B67: The B67 needs to return to it's pre-2010 routing if anything. The B67 (especially in Downtown Brooklyn) is trying to do everything, which hurts reliability because of traffic conditions. I was thinking of combining the B57 south of Fulton with the current weekday B67 north of Fulton (except it would run daily), and extend that route north into commercial Williamsburg (not just the Bridge Plaza). Also, I'm not sure about ridership patterns on the old B23 too much, but I don't think that just because the B67 is covering said portion of the B23, the riders on that portion will just come back.

B72: Is this on top of the existing B70, or would it replace it?

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Armandito]

6 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

B72: Is this on top of the existing B70, or would it replace it?

This route is supposed to replace the B64 and B70 routes.

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, lara8710 said:

What could you say about the B79? This was my alternative to BrooklynBus's idea of extending the B16 all the way to Brownsville.

For the B79, I know that this is the Clarkson Av segment of the extended B16. However, this was done to replace the B7 in Bed-Stuy, but an alternative was proposed to have the B16 go along Clarkson Av and terminate at the Sutter Av station on the line.

 

1 hour ago, lara8710 said:

While the B9 reroute could work, I'd like to know what to do with the northern end of my B66 proposal, as in finding an alternate place to terminate it instead of routing it to Brooklyn College.

That was in response to your B80 proposal.

For your B66 proposal, this seems similar to BrooklynBus B21 proposal, where he had the route operate between Bay Ridge at 86th Street station and the intersection of Kings Hwy/Beverly Road. I wouldn't suggest it terminate at Brooklyn College. My idea for that was to have the B21/66 renamed the B23 and use the same routing you and BrooklynBus proposed (although he proposed the route continue with the B8 to Kings Hwy/Beverly Road). Rather than end at Beverly Road, I propose that the route continue east on Beverly Road, Avenue B, south on Remsen Avenue to the Canarsie Plaza Shopping Center and the BJs at Remsen Av/Avenue D, near the Brooklyn Terminal Market. This would provide new services to Canarsie Plaza. Therefore, I would rather have your B66 terminate at Canarsie Plaza.

[Armandito]

4 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

For the B79, I know that this is the Clarkson Av segment of the extended B16. However, this was done to replace the B7 in Bed-Stuy, but an alternative was proposed to have the B16 go along Clarkson Av and terminate at the Sutter Av station on the line.

 

That was in response to your B80 proposal.

For your B66 proposal, this seems similar to BrooklynBus B21 proposal, where he had the route operate between Bay Ridge at 86th Street station and the intersection of Kings Hwy/Beverly Road. I wouldn't suggest it terminate at Brooklyn College. My idea for that was to have the B21/66 renamed the B23 and use the same routing you and BrooklynBus proposed (although he proposed the route continue with the B8 to Kings Hwy/Beverly Road). Rather than end at Beverly Road, I propose that the route continue east on Beverly Road, Avenue B, south on Remsen Avenue to the Canarsie Plaza Shopping Center and the BJs at Remsen Av/Avenue D, near the Brooklyn Terminal Market. This would provide new services to Canarsie Plaza. Therefore, I would rather have your B66 terminate at Canarsie Plaza.

At first I was skeptical about such an extension as it would seem to duplicate the B8 along its eastermost segment, but since Canarsie Plaza is quite underserved, that could make up for the duplication.

Instead of the B79, would a B14 reroute to the be ideal? After all, a B14 extension to Parkside Avenue could be an alternative to the B12 for East New York commuters, at least on paper.

[Armandito]

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

BrooklynBus also proposed to reroute the B9 from Kings Plaza to Bergen Beach via Avenue N (a proposal also by BrooklynBus and one of my favorite proposal of them all), and reduce the B41 Bergen Beach Branch service to rush hours only.

I would also add in overnight service to the Bergen Beach branch of the B41 when the B9 isn't running.

[Brillant93]

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

BrooklynBus also proposed to reroute the B9 from Kings Plaza to Bergen Beach via Avenue N (a proposal also by BrooklynBus and one of my favorite proposal of them all), and reduce the B41 Bergen Beach Branch service to rush hours only.

Nah that is just stupid and is asking for trouble. Cutting the B41 bergen beach branch off from the 2 and 5 train to only rush hours? That doesn't even make sense. This is my neighborhood and people would literally be pissed off. No one here needs the B9 except those who need it to go in that direction and that is a select few. The bergen beach branch literally is a direct connection to a train in 15 to 20 minutes. The 41 is okay it just needs more buses or buses following a decent time schedule. On top of that there are better alternatives to other areas in this area. The B3, 6, 7, 82, and 100. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Brillant93
.