BM5 via Woodhaven

Given that The Bronx isn't as deprived of subway service like Queens parts of Brooklyn are, I honestly don't really see where any of those "rush" routes would work. Most areas in The Bronx just aren't that far from the subway like that. Of the few areas where you could make a case, the frequencies/service levels or service structure just doesn't make it ideal for implementing a rush route of sorts. The most I could see improving frequencies and/or making additional limited-stop routes. With the Bronx Bus Redesign, I don't take issue that they didn't include those "rush" routes, it's that it was incredibly watered down and largely maintained the same system in place. Sure there were a few changes here and there that weren't terrible, but there were also some changes which negated those more positive changes. Regarding the Bx12, I think one of the main issues outside the reliability and frequently packed (SBS) buses, is that the local doesn't do enough. Pelham Bay and Sedgwick Avenue are both stubs for the route, with only the latter being a convenient enough turnaround. They should do something with the Bx12 local on one (or both of the ends) to make it more useful if they insist on having only the SBS serving Inwood and Bay Plaza during the day.

Okay, so finishing off the local bus route comments (see Q11-Q36 and Q31,Q37-Q75 comments in their respective posts; I didn't have much to say about the Q1-Q10): Q76: Not sure how I feel about this change because while it serves more of (both commercial and residential) College Point, I don't cutting Whitestone out of a north-south option outside of Flushing being a good trade-off. Way I see, I doubt you'll see much of any change overall, if not perhaps may a bit of a dip. Something else would have had to been reworked up there because of the coverage losses and gaps, but had it been the Q31 running to College Point instead of the Q76, you would see more ridership on that section. There's more along Utopia Parkway the further south you go than on Francis Lewis Boulevard plus it hits Jamaica quicker. Q77: The extension was clearly compensation for the removal of the Q78 from this draft. Having the Q77 though just isn't the same as the Q78, because those two routes have different purposes. The Q77s section along Springfield Boulevard doesn't quite cut it to be considered an adequate crosstown. Given the reduction of the Q27 down in Cambria Heights by several stops to Linden, transferring is also not gonna be the most convenient either. Q82: Yikes, this is a huge downgrade from the current Q36/Q36 LIMITED setup. Every 15 minutes during rush hours is absurd for residents along the 212s, but that's because they're sending the thing to UBS Arena. From the get-go I wasn't fond of this route for multiple reasons. There's no reason for having two (four if you want to count the n1 and n6) UBS Arena routes to/from the with nothing to the . Also in addition to the other changes to the Q1 and Q36, Springfield Boulevard and 212th Street/Place lose overnight service, while Braddock keeps their service. That set up ain't right at all. The daytime frequencies are the worst part, but that's what happens when you duplicate multiple routes/purposes from start to end with very little unique segments. Q83: Completely pointless designation of a rush hour, the Q42 comes nowhere close to being a useful "local" alternative. This is probably one of the worst proposed "rush" routes, up there with the Q66. On the other hand, overnight service into Cambria Heights east of Springfield should have happened a long time ago. That late night Q83 branch is a relic of the past, that should stopped being a thing when they extended the overnight Q27 down to Cambria Heights. However taking a decade or so to do logical service/schedule changes isn't unheard of, such as changing the Q11/21's bunched up schedule. Q85: Overall I find it interesting that they're apparently operating the route 24/7 to Green Acres. I don't know, but with that along with the Q87 route it seems like they are trying to market/grow ridership from Valley Stream residents in that area or something. I don't know if it'll work at all, but whatever I suppose. Q86: Aside from the route itself, I have a feeling they're being a bit bullish with their proposed headways during most daytime hours on weekdays. I think a 10 minute peak/15 minute off-peak headway would have worked. I mean if they wanted to have both the Q86 and Q87 duplicate each other for as long as they do, they should have tried to keep the headways similar. Overall I see the Q86 beating out the Q87, but not by much as the MTA thinks with the proposed frequencies they have for each. Q87: Given the frequencies they're giving this route, I don't know whether this route warrants to even exist honestly (and in that case, the existing Q86's headways might be more warranted). The very far eastern part of Merrick Boulevard would have either the n4/n4X or the Q86 for "rush" options into Jamaica which would be faster than waiting for a Q87. Furthermore, I take issue with basically depriving all the Merrick Boulevard local stops from direct bus service to/from Green Acres. They can honestly just have some Q5 buses at that point go to Green Acres and call it a day. No need to dedicate an entire service solely for Green Acres Mall like that. Q88: I am extremely glad that it will continue to serve Queens Village, this goes far beyond what I expected with them insisting on making it more of a Horace Harding route. The Q88 is just a faster and more convenient option to transfer for buses or now the LIRR to points east out on Long Island, especially on weekends. I wish they would have kept the more frequent off peak service levels from the 2nd draft though, the Q88 I think gets short changed, more-so on weekends. Q98: See Q58 comments Q101 / Q103 / Q105 : All their routes in LIC are meh to me IMO. I guess they wanted enough coverage from Western Queens to Hunters Point Park and the ferry, which I suppose the Q101 and Q103 achieve (especially with the Q103 serving more of 21st Street). I was thinking that it would likely be better to have one of the three aforementioned routes cover the B32 section between Court Square and WBP (instead of the B53). There would be several differences from the existing B32, one being that instead of taking Franklin Street, I would have it take Manhattan Avenue between Freeman/Green Streets and Meserole/Wythe Avenues. Also I would have it use Grand Street instead of Broadway (SB buses taking Marcy Ave to Broadway and into WBP, NB buses taking Havemyer Street to Grand Street). Given how it was initially set to play out in the two previous drafts, I would be more inclined to have the Q101 be the route. That way Astoria and western Queens have decent coverage to/from northern Brooklyn. However, since the Q105 would be serving Rikers, I wonder if there would be demand using the bus from Northern Brooklyn as well (such as with riders connecting from other routes at WBP and to/from the B43 in Greenpoint). The Q103 has the closest service hours to the B32, however I'm not sure I'm too thrilled at having two routes from Western Astoria run close to each other like that. Unless they modify that Q68 proposal, I lean more on having the Q101 running to WBP via the modified B32. Q104: The headway decreases are welcomed, and it'll be interesting to see how that increased service span will play out. IDK how I feel that there's no direct bus between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Island though. Maybe RIOC can provide shuttle service or something to replace that service for residents, but I think there should have been something going between those two points. Q110: LMAO! As I mentioned previously, I want to see how it goes down when Floral Park finds out that the MTA's planning to extend a route into their neighborhood. I'll say this though, whether it's the Q110 or ultimately some other route, I can see the rationale for running buses out to Floral Park LIRR for the purposes of better transit connectivity. Since those Huntington and select Ronkonkoma branch trains now stop there, it'll be easier to hop on trains there instead of having to go out to Mineola in many instances due to the stopping patterns on the LIRR Main line. While the walk is not too far from Jericho Turnpike, Elmont station is still too cumbersome to get to and in many instances a 'forced' hub. Speaking of which, maybe they should have looked into sending something from SE Queens to Elmont LIRR station (from the UBS Arena end), with all the damn trains stopping that. Make it at least useful to get to and have some other purpose, because the lack of connection to anything makes the station close to useless outside of events. Also, not surprised to see that they're planning to eliminate the 179th Street trips. Not sure how the situation in the AM is, but in the PM the buses are infrequent, late, and in many occasions don't even show up. So you go from a 20 minute to 40 minute wait if you stay there after missing a bus. More often than not, what I see people doing is either walking down to Jamaica Avenue, or taking the Q2/Q36 buses. As a result, those trips just don't carry anywhere near what the regular route carries, and it's even more ironic when you have artics showing up on those 179th Street trips on some days. Q111/Q115: I think there's more proposed Q111 stops now along Guy R. Brewer compared to previous iterations. In either case, I am perfectly fine with that, as the previous proposals skipped way too much of Guy R. Brewer. Also, I don't see the need to have both the Q111 and Q115 operating during overnight hours, much less having any limited stop service at that hour. The current Q111 and Q114 setup (every 30 minutes each, all night) is fine. The proposed late night set up is excessive, especially when other corridors have lost or could use some overnight service. Also, don't know whether to LOL or SMH at the fact that they're keeping those two trips a day on weekdays that enter Nassau County, like really? Q112: So they have this route backdoor-ing it's way into Downtown Jamaica again? Personally I wish that they kept the Q57's routing along Sutphin and Jamaica/Archer Avenues to Parsons Boulevard and to/from the . Also, while the route now parallels the train more, IDK how I feel about having it be the route to replace to current Q7 west of Cross Bay Boulevard. The current Q112 while short is no easy route to deal with, and I would be somewhat concerned with reliability. B53: Enough mentioned about this damn route, I would have the segment between WBP and Greenpoint Ave replaced with either the Q101, Q103, or Q105 (see above). The Greenpoint Ave segment I would have it as part of a completely different route. One option I had in mind was to combine the Greenpoint Ave segment, to the Woodside Avenue portion of the Q68, but head north on 75th Street to Roosevelt Avenue. From there, maybe combine it with the northern portion of the Q47. The northern and southern portion (former Q45) of the Q47 honestly have no business being together. Perhaps riders along the Q47 north of Roosevelt might benefit from access to Woodside and Sunnyside in particular. Another option once getting to 75th & Roosevelt is running straight along Roosevelt Avenue until Corona (say 111th Street or so). I think there is demand for a route over the eastern part of Roosevelt Avenue. B57: I have no issue with cutting it back from 82nd Street as in previous drafts, although I wonder how it will turnaround and what spaces it will use at 74th Street. As far as everything else goes, I would rather have the B57 take Woodside and 69th over the Q47 if I had to choose one. The Q47 should still serve 69th Street though, there's a sizable amount of people getting on/off there and it's nowhere near an insignificant amount of ridership either. I can't agree with trading one for the other like that. B62: Aside from the changes on bypassing WBP (which I'm not too thrilled about), I can't get over the fact that they keep on insisting on routing buses on McGuinness Boulevard over Manhattan Avenue. Yes Manhattan Avenue is narrower and has a lot of traffic (especially trucks on weekdays), but that's not an excuse to not run service through there. Sometimes, that really is the least bad option, especially when Manhattan Avenue is a major commercial block in the area, and is about equidistant from the far east and west sides of residential Greenpoint. I also think they're getting away with this because Brooklynites may not be fully aware of the plan as it's being discussed more in the context of the Queens bus redesign (so far), than the Brooklyn bus redesign. That needs to change, hopefully enough people over there speak up. I'll comment on the express routes in a separate post.

Well, they gotta make back the money they lost from the delays somehow.

and service is already scheduled to run local in Queens daily between those hours. It's a regular service pattern while the existing construction is ongoing which is built in to the timetables, hence why it specifically mentions "midday local service". The interpretation I get from that is that they won't be needing to send the trains local. They've been doing this every so often too, this is the one time though where they happen to mention it ahead of time. I would be more inclined to agree if there was a note within service change notice indicating that and service is running local for the rest of the weekend. However that's not the case, and I do not see any separate notice for it either.

I think that means that the and will operate express during those hours as they normally do during all other hours. They're currently scheduled to be local during these hours because of the trackwork on the QBL. If they were running local all weekend they would post that.

Alright, so part two of my commentary (Part 1 was here) Q31: Forgot to mention it in my previous post, but I would perhaps have consider sending this route via the Throgs Neck Bridge and Tremont Avenue to Westchester Square, with maybe an extension (part time or full time) to Hutchinson River Center or some of the hospitals in that area. Given that the Q78 is nerfed, the Q31 is "centralized" within NE Queens and has connections to most east-west routes, and might take on the demand from the medical centers and the East Bronx into Queens (NE Queens in particular). Q37: I mean I guess I understand why they did the Q37 like that instead of maintaining the Q10 branches, I guess I'm indifferent to it all. However the added overnight service isn't bad. Would like to see how it plays out. Personally, with how much of a pain it is apparently to use the AirTrain (especially given the $8.25, soon to be $8.50 fare...smh), having both the Q10 and Q37 from Union Turnpike to JFK Airport may loom beneficial for both routes in the long run. Union Turnpike could potentially be a more ideal transfer point in terms of frequency and options (both on the subway and connecting service). Right now they're all terminating at the Lefferts Boulevard AirTrain, although they should be going directly to JFK Airport once the work is completed. Q38: One of the major problems with the existing route is that it attempts to put together too many different ridership bases with different demand levels/destinations into one route (that have no business being together), and serves them all in a mediocrely on top of that, for the sake of cost savings. I guess splitting the Penelope Avenue and Eliot Avenue segments is one step in attempting to fix that, but simply splitting the two segment isn't enough. While the Eliot Avenue split (Q14) will have its group of riders, the current Penelope Avenue segment isn't exactly that hot (not to say that it has low ridership though). Ridership to/from the tends to be relatively low during off-peak hours, and the route north/east of Queens Boulevard tends to have low ridership, even during rush hours too. You'd be better off walking to/from the Q88 to get to those apartments near the end of the route on 108th Street than wait for the Q38. If the Q72 wasn't going into LGA, I would probably suggest combining the Q72 with the proposed Q38 south/west of Queens Boulevard, and run it into Ridgewood/Bushwick (possibly Myrtle-Wyckoff for connections to the other Brooklyn routes, but not via Fresh Pond Road). Otherwise, I would look at either extending the Q38 somewhere into NE Queens, or give the Q59 the section of the route north/east of Queens Boulevard. Personally I think the part between Queens Boulevard and 108th Street shouldn't even be part of the Q38. It's attached for the sake of it. Q39: Cool that they kept it as is. I don't really have a critique of the route itself now, the one thing I can commend them on I suppose is that the LIC-bound stop on Eliot Avenue / 60th Lane will now be on Fresh Pond Road with the Q58 (similar to the setup headed south). Q41: This is more or less the former Q109 from the former draft, instead going to Lindenwood rather than Euclid Ave station. I honestly wonder though, if they're gonna have the Q11 running through Lindenwood, is there really a need for the Q41 to be doing all that? Couldn't it have served some of the areas the 11 won't go through anymore east of Cross Bay (between Pitkin and 157th Avenues), or just head straight down towards Howard Beach and serve that area? IDK, I don't think Lindenwood needs two routes, one route with a decent headways is enough (the Q11s proposed frequencies alone are decent for Lindenwood). I would also be fine with eliminating the Cross Bay/Lindenwood/Howard Beach section of the route and saying to hell with that. Also, for those who may have not noticed, take a look at the map on the big document. Notice how the thin green segment on 109th/Piktin Avenues is labeled B15. Were they cooking something up that they later changed but didn't do so here, or was it an error on their part? Q42/Q83: They have the Q83 acting as a "rush route" with no stops between 177th Street and Guy R. Brewer Boulevard, while the Q42 is the local??? The Q42 doesn't even run on weekends for anyone going specifically to Jamaica Center or the ...you gotta be kidding me, SMH. What I wanna know, is how much time is actually being saved with this setup. Screwing over people for virtually no reason. Q43: About time that Hillside Avenue will get effectively a full-time LTD route. The one thing I would say though (and this applies to a lot of these other 24/7 "rush" routes) is that I don't see the need to be skipping stops or operating limited at night as well, AND having another layer of local service to boot. Q44: I don't know if this was done out of spite because of the comments received from the previous draft or what, but it did surprise me how after all this time the proposal to Fordham Plaza was in the redesign, the thing was just dropped. Q45/Q46: While I don't necessarily have an issue with the Q45 route existing as is, IDK that it should run during late night hours. Again a similar criticism, is that there's no need for the local Q45 and LTD Q46 to be running (yeah I know they call the Q45 the "LIMITED" and the Q46 the "Rush", cool for them) as they are proposed during late nights. The Q46 should be all local, and should be running on whatever the combined headway is. Now they display the overnight headway right now is 48 minutes, but that is a crock of bullshit because buses during the overnight run every 64 minutes, which does not even meet their guidelines. The stop removal on the Q46 is also just pure laziness, instead of consolidating stops they're just eliminating stops that are close to another in one direction or the other. The result, uneven spacing and quite the gaps. Q47: Well, I am thankful that they finally listened and kept the connection from Middle Village to the and Jackson Heights, massively infuriating that for the longest it wasn't the case. Don't even get me started with the former Q80, smh. As if we didn't have enough buses already to the damn train. The one major downside to me though is that they insist on keeping the Q47 routing via Woodside Avenue, instead of heading directly to 69th Street for the . That might be the tipping point for me with the Q47 when headed to work; with all the construction along the way taking out lanes on 69th Street and 80th Street now, now add having to backtrack to 74th Street. At that point the Q14 to the would be faster, and it's a shame since the is more convenient for me than the QBL. Forget doing that transfer between the QBL and the at 74th Street, it's bad enough when all the elevators were working, but with construction taking out all the escalators on the 73rd Street side its rough. I'm indifferent with the swap with the Q33, although I guess it'll make the ridership on the north end consistently lower now that it won't serve Marine Air Terminal. While it wasn't the highest, there were times where buses at night would be close to SRO north of Northern Boulevard, with the bulk being airport goers and employees. Q49: Another route that was proposed for overnight service (in the second draft) that was cut out of the final. The Q49 should have been a 24/7 route yesterday, I don't see this reluctance, especially when it comes close to doing so right now. Q50: *sigh* This route's combo to LGA was already gonna be interesting to witness given the traffic that it contends with on its current segment, but now operators are gonna be thrown to the wolves dealing with airport traffic, the usual congestion in Corona, Citifield traffic during the spring and summer months, Flushing, Whitestone and I-95 traffic to/from Co-Op City. Those ECH drivers know how to drive but that's gonna be way too much for them to handle. When they have to deal with all of that in one trip, kiss the damn schedule goodbye. Those proposed frequencies are warranted now even with its neutered route between Flushing and Pelham Bay. The Q50 is one of several routes that are criminally underserved. The overnight service is welcomed, which is more of a reason for sending the thing back to Co-Op City on a full time basis and realigning that route within there in the process. That route becomes such a waste of time after going through the northern section (from Pelham Bay) more times than not. Q51: I'm not really too upset with the overall truncation of the route on its eastern end (I still say it should have gone up Springfield to Queens Village LIRR), and while I'm not too upset with the loss to Gateway Mall in particular, I still wish it connect to some of the Brooklyn routes for a faster ride into parts of SE Queens. However I don't know what other location in Brooklyn besides Gateway Mall would be worth sending the Q51 to. Q54: The boost they're giving the route is welcome and warranted, but looks like weekend service will still be crappy as hell. Also, the Q54 don't run every 30 minutes during overnight hours at all, lol. Where is this information coming from? Also, I have to say it's funny how they reroute and truncate the Q24 in Jamaica (and also in Brooklyn), yet this route and the Q56 are kept unchanged headed all the way out to 170th Street. I'm not necessarily opposed to leaving the Q54/Q56 as they are (route-wise) though. Q58/Q98: It's kinda annoying how this played out, as the Q98 only needed several adjustments to its stopping patterns and call it a day. The Q58/Q98 route proposals up until this draft were solid(the stops are another story). On top of this, the Q98 won't operate during overnight hours, which is a bummer. Every 30 minutes combined between the two during the late late night periods would have worked out (with the Q98 running local during overnight hours). I don't see the need of having some Grand Ave stops being skipped by the Q58 and only served by the Q59, they should just be consistent altogether. Q59: If the route is being streamlined to run along Queens Boulevard just past QCM instead of 90th Street & 56th Avenue, plus stop with the Q60 outside Queens Place Mall, how are they planning on making the left onto Grand? Do these people know you aren't able to do that from the service road, and you have to be on the main road to turn left? That's the only reason they operate that way to begin with. Talk about being penny-wise and pound foolish. As mentioned earlier, I would have this route take over the 62nd Drive/63rd Road portions on the Q38 between Queens Boulevard and 108th Street. Those areas would have more direct service to more commercial areas (QCM, Queens Place, Grand Ave), and there might some Jewish folks taking advantage of the (more) direct link between Rego Park / Forest Hills and Williamsburg. Q60: Lol, the 56th Avenue stop (towards Jamaica) was discontinued quite some time ago, they never put back the bus stop sign after whatever construction work there was completed that required the closure of that bus stop in the first place. It doesn't even show up as a Q60 anymore anywhere (although apparently there's an imaginary stop there for the Q59 only *shrugs*). Would have thought they would have known/realized that. Q61: Well, I guess span wise it's better than the previous rush-hour only proposals, but it still sucks how a part of the Q16 is gonna get shafted and have service only on weekdays. Even if it wasn't the case, they can't provide something on weekends along Willets Point Boulevard? Aside from the Q15, it's the only route directly to Flushing for most of its local segment. Q62: Alright, what the actual f**k is this shit? This is supposed to "provide a faster, more direct ride to and from Flushing" for who exactly?? Whatever time savings you even get by skipping everything south of 20th Avenue, you lose by crossing 20th Avenue in that wonky ass fashion to/from Whitestone and Beechhurst. Not like it wasn't evident, but I already know that they were gonna get rid of shit and create new problems in the process. This is very clearly one of those proposals to do so. You don't have much time to push back against this crap either. It would have been easier if they just kept the previous Q20 proposal from the second draft, and add a branch to serve the shopping center and run to 14th Ave & 132nd Street via 20th Ave and 132nd Street. Why did they need to complicate things like this? The shopping center doesn't need a non-stop bus to Flushing, come on. Q63/Q66: Nothing about the Q66 screams "rush", it's literally the same stops as the Q63 for the most part so IDK why they even labeled it as such. That put aside, it seems like the issue with them criminally underserving Northern Boulevard during evenings might no longer be a problem, if the frequencies as proposed go through. Also, I guess that's an attempt at compromise between the camp that wants to retain direct access between 35th Ave and Northern Boulevard, and those who don't. Either way I guess I don't have too much of a problem with that set up, route wise. Q65: This Q26/Q65 swap is pointless, especially when the overnight Q26 apparently is supposed to only run between College Point and Flushing according to the overnight map. Just send the Q65 back up to College Point and call it a day. They're so insistent on watering virtually everything down in this draft except in College Point for some reason, where they want to get "creative" and do more harm than good. Q67: I'll take a truncation from Queensboro Plaza to Court Square given the 30 minute weekend and evening headways. The only connection you're outta luck for is to/from the Broadway lines. However, the stop removal on this route is insane, it closer to a limited-stop service than even some of the so-called "limited" services in this plan. In most case you're not saving much of any time because the stops are not used like that, so it's not even that big of an issue to keep the stop around. Q68: I'm not as shocked as some other riders have commented upon seeing this route, as I get the intent, but it falls flat. It seems like a very poorly executed attempt to serve as both a Queens-Brooklyn interborough route and a community shuttle to Elmhurst Hospital in the same route. Not only should the two even be in one route, the latter shouldn't even be a thing. The problem with running along the length of Woodside Ave is what you're missing by routing a route like that in that fashion. Also, consider the changes over time between this Q68 and the previous Q68s, you really do get the sense that they're just filling in and drawing random lines without reason. Like how do you switch up from serving different markets like that. Lastly, you can't really market this as a Jackson Heights route if it doesn't actually even the neighborhood at all. Plus, you miss one of the biggest spots (74th Street area) and barely miss the next biggest spot (82nd Street area), along with Roosevelt Avenue, which is as far south as you can say that you're in Jackson Heights. Q69: With the Q100 no longer running, it is a service cut during overnight hours north of 30th Avenue since they're not adding overnight service on the Q69. Honestly even now I think the Q69 should have overnight service before the Q100. They should reconsider and add overnight service on the Q69 (which can make all local stops at night). Q70: Lol. This is like the only route that hasn't been messed around with in all three drafts of the Queens redesign in any way. Thank goodness I suppose. Q72: This is another one of those routes that gets criminally underserved which grinds my gears...and yet they're doing NOTHING to it in this draft plan . In most cases, the Q72 should be operating close to twice as frequent during the day. There is demand, but because the buses come so infrequent you get a lot of people walking to/from the , or taking other routes (Q66, Q58) to another subway route. That's also those who don't drive, of which there are a lot. They'll double, even triple park on the damn street and there will be so much congestion on the road + pedestrian on the sidewalk, yet the sorry ass bus is 30 minutes away. Q75: SMFH. Briarwood is an even worse terminal for this proposed Q75 than the Q20. Whatever riders end up using the Q75 for subway access to/from Briarwood will get real tired of that, real quick. It doesn't help when you have the Q45, Q46 and Q48 all going to Union Turnpike, which is a much easier station to transfer at, and has the stopping there all the time. I see people passing up Q75s for any of the other Union Turnpike local bus routes. Plus, does Union Turnpike really need all that service? What I would have considered, is to have the Q75 run to/from the 71st Avenue station, however via Horace Harding, either 164th Street or Kissena Boulevard, and Jewel Avenue. The rush segment could be west of 188th Street and serve the following stops: Horace Harding Expwy & Utopia Pkwy Horace Harding Expwy & 164th Street (via Kissena) Kissena Blvd & 64th Avenue (via Kissena) 164th Street & Horace Harding Expwy (via 164th) Jewel Avenue & 164th Street (via 164th) Jewel Avenue & Kissena Boulevard Jewel Avenue & Main Street 108th Street & 71st Avenue (connect to the ) It would serve the Queens Boulevard Line and be less of a backtrack headed north/south to get to the subway. Runtime would be about the same but overall travel time is reduced because riders get to Forest Hills instead of Briarwood in a similar amount of time. The other option is extending select Q45s out to Little Neck, although I would prefer to give them a limited stop route given that they are that far out. ---------------------------------- I'll provide comments for the rest of the routes + the Brooklyn routes mentioned another time.

Alright so going through a little more of the proposals more in-depth, here are my comments on the system Some of these new overnight routes/frequencies are excessive. There's no way 46th Avenue at night needs 15-minute headways between the Q26 and Q27 (every 30 minutes each). Also this is as overnight service from other routes were cut (like previously mentioned, the B57 and Q98). Individual Routes: Q11: I guess they finally gave up trying to serving that area north of the Conduit by the . While it does leave a bit of a gap there, it's not the end of the world I suppose. I don't have a problem with it serving Lindenwood, although at that point I would have called it a Q21 as it resembles more of that route but whatever. The overnight boost, it'll be interesting I suppose, although we'll see whether ridership catches on with the 30 minute headways. What I liked about the Q21 in the previous draft was that it directly served the Q29 route north of Queens Boulevard, including overnight hours. Given the proposed frequency boost I would extend it to 82nd Street at night, to cover that part of the Q29 and provide some semblance of Q29 overnight service overall. It would also give overnight riders the option of the for whenever the QBL is screwed. Q14: Cutting the route back from Fresh Pond Road is just outright dumb. That's not an easy walk and much of nobody is gonna do that for the subway. There might be an uptick in both Q58 and Q67 riders if that happens. Way I see it, this may also be a way to try to cut the route's popularity / potential before it begins. It's a relatively fast route between Ridgewood and Corona (runs on less congested streets than either the Q58 or Q98), and it serves a lot more of Corona than either route to boot. Speaking about Corona, while ridership on the Q23 tends to tank at Roosevelt, I don't know that I see the Q14 having more through riders there either. Q20: The previous draft plan probably had the best iteration of a Main Street local north of Flushing. My one gripe with the route as a whole was it serving the Briarwood subway station instead of Union Turnpike. Space issues I suppose, but still, there's more going on at Union Turnpike than at Briarwood. Anything ending there is a stub. Additionally, from the Main Street side it's also rather convoluted process to get to/from the platform. Not to mention the skips the station during most daytime hours on weekdays. This is basically them giving the Q20B full-time service, and replacing what was an IMO decent route with the Q20 to Beechhurst in draft 2 with a hodge-podge of routes (I'll get to those some other time). Q23: If you've ever been to Corona Plaza you'll know how much of a shitshow it can be with all the traffic, the parked vans/trucks, food vendors and pedestrians all over the place. Well they're apparently gonna terminate them there, and I have no idea how that's gonna. Even though from a ridership perspective it does make sense since most ridership from either direction get off at Roosevelt Ave, I still think it's gonna be hell over there to layover and whatnot. That spells disaster. If they're seriously considering this route, I would have gone with extending the thing to Junction Boulevard. I also think that there should be an eastern Roosevelt Avenue bus route from 74th Street (traveling via Elmhurst Hospital and Broadway/Britton Ave between 74th and 82nd) into Corona as well, which they haven't included. I don't know if the Q23 would be ideal since it may kill its reliability, but that is an option. Q26: Having the Q26 run up to College Point is even more pointless than the previous Q27 proposal to College Point. I don't think the previous Q26 proposal was necessarily a bad idea minus a few tweaks here and there. Also, they're giving this route overnight service on top of the Q27 and overserving 46th Avenue at night with 15 minute frequencies, JFC. The Q65 should have been kept going to College Point, it already has and is also proposed to continue having overnight service. What's the end game here? Q29: Glad to see they're keeping the route. Route wise it should not have been eliminated, although I wish they would have provided more frequent service during evening hours on weekends (and in particular on Sundays). Q30 / Q31: Utopia Parkway is getting SCREWED HARD. With the Q30 being split into the Q30 (which runs down Utopia) and Q75 (which does not run down Utopia), you only have the Q31 on weekends. Now that doesn't necessarily sound like the end of the world, until you look and see that they're keeping the exact same frequency and service span as it is now (8 AM - 8 PM Saturdays, 9 AM - 7 PM Sundays). This is a steep cut from they proposed on the Q31 in the previous draft. Now, 24 hour service from the very first draft was excessive, but JFC did they not realize this when assigning the frequencies/headways? It's a massive service cut on weekends, south of the LIE. It's not only on weekends though where they're seeing cuts, it's also during rush hours apparently. The Q31 will be the only local route along Utopia (since the Q30 only stops on Union Turnpike), and rush hour service is apparently being reduced? SMH. Q32/Q60: Buses skipping Queens Plaza North is something that I'm not surprised about them trying to get away with because it does get pretty congested and it is hard to make that turn off of Northern onto 41st Ave. However that stop at Queens Boulevard & Jackson is equally hard to get to from most of the Queens Plaza area, so something has to give. The bypassed stops are where any ridership into Manhattan is coming from. Also with the Q32, I personally think that this route should have overnight service. I think it would fair well. They can justify running overnight service on the damn B53 but not the Q32 (which is not even as duplicative to the as it the B53 is to the )? Q33: If any of the two NB routes between the Q32 and Q33 should be changed, is should be the Q32 to serve 83rd Street instead of vice-versa. You just miss the 82nd Street station, as well as the areas and businesses located there and points east, as well as along 83rd Street. I'm guessing it's the easy + cheap way to send the thing into LGA. Now as far as some other comments regarding the return of the Q33 back to LGA, I'm not exactly fazed by it because it serves a completely different area than the Q70, but also a compromise for those not near 74th Street and wishing to get to the airport (those of which got screwed over back in 2013). I'd rather have that and deal with the LGA shuttle buses, then trying to take it out to 94th Street and wait for a Q72 or M60. Q36: Quite honestly, if that's the proposed routing why bother serving Hillside Avenue. It could have still been a rush route or whatever they wanna call it, but it could have stayed on Jamaica Avenue, to then hit Jamaica Center and head up to the at Parsons Boulevard. Hillside Ave already has the Q1 and Q43, and the only segment you're left to cover with is Springfield Boulevard. With the Q1 frequencies I don't think branching it would be a big deal. Anyone that far out east needing Hillside Avenue in particular would have to hop on the n24 (which would be the case on weekends).

There's one proposal that I wanna see how it plays out in particular, and that's the Q110 to Floral Park LIRR. I'd like to see what folks end up doing once they catch wind of that proposal. Also, some of the routes proposed for 24/7 service up to now will no longer have it (B57, Q98).

They took out / watered down many of the better elements of the previous plan and the B53 still survived that?!? SMH

They're desperately trying everything they can to keep the 80, that they now have it running along more of the 62 route? They're literally gonna be competing for riders leaving Riverhead since they're timed together, SMH. The one thing I guess that isn't terrible is that it serves Calverton Hills, but that alone isn't gonna cut it. Just thought about it, if they want to have something to Calverton Hills, I would suggest looking into a Riverhead - Shirley type of route via the LIE. They can name it the 80 for all I care. Basically it would be the Riverhead transfer Point, via Nugent Drive, the LIE, and William Floyd Parkway. It would be a limited-express hybrid route, similar to that of Westchester Bee-Line's Route 17. Basically this would be the stops: Local stops within Riverhead Calverton Hills LIE Exit 70 (Manorville) Walmart Supercenter in Yaphank off the LIE by William Floyd Parkway (towards Shirley Only - to Riverhead one would ride through Shirley) Local stops down William Floyd Parkway to Montauk Highway Immediately back to Riverhead making same stops (minus Walmart) Here's what the route would look like. Not meant to compete with the 66, moreso to connect some areas with no public transit options (some which should probably have some). However it will provide connections to/from the 66 at Shirley for anyone who would need it. Without a doubt more useful than the existing or proposed rendition of the 80 that they are creating here. You could also do a round trip within an hour, it would be kinda tight at times but it's possible. If it wasn't so tight I would have also suggested having it serve Walmart on its way to Riverhead.

Didn't know the M100 was being truncated during certain hours on weekdays to 215th Street. Guess it'll become permanent at some point? Planned - Boarding Change M100 stops on Broadway at 219th St and 220th St, and the northbound stops on 10th Ave at W 207th St, Sherman Ave and W 215th St will be closed Weekday school days, 7 AM to 8 AM and 2:30 PM to 4 PM, until Jun 13, 2024 Northbound buses will make requested stops along Broadway from W 204th St to W 215th St, the last stop. The first southbound stop will be 10th Ave at W 214th St. See a map of the detour. Note: PM detour will not operate on the following half-school days: Nov 7, Apr 12 and May 9. What's happening? Heavy traffic congestion during school arrival and dismissal periods Posted: 11/29/2023 04:00 PM

The Brentwood - Bay Shore demand is divided amongst two routes, whereas the Brentwood-Babylon demand is still under one route. I would not write off the 5's segment between Babylon and Brentwood given how it serves it. The 5 is slated to garner most S29 ridership, a good chunk of S23 ridership, and some S27 and S33 ridership. Between Bay Shore and Brentwood, the 7 tends to replicate more of the S41 than the S45 (which was the busier of the two route). I also wouldn't count out the effect the H10 and H40 can have on total ridership on the 7, because they overlap directly or very close to it north of Jericho Turnpike. That's not to say the 7 wouldn't hold on it's own, but I can't see it being fourth. Keep in mind that statistics (performance) you're referencing are boardings per revenue hour. Revenue hours dependent on number of trips, route length, and frequency. It might be easier to compare when the frequencies are the same, but in the case of the 12 vs. 62, the 12 runs every 30 minutes during the day on weekdays while the 62 runs every 60 minutes during that same period. The 12 also primarily replicates most of the former 2B, and not much of the 2A. It's not necessarily close or feasible to walk between many of the individual segments of the former 2A/2B either. You'd basically have to almost halve the boardings per hour as a result. So realistically you're looking at most 2B ridership, plus some 2A ridership, plus whatever boost the route gets from doubling the frequency and extending the service hours (the latter which the S62 is also receiving). Again time will tell, but I could see the 62 pulling it off over the 12 for that reason. If the 12 was an hourly route I wouldn't hesitate to go with the 12.

The one time I went to American Dream to get some footage of the routes over there a while after it opened, I got there with the 160. I just walked from MetLife over to the mall. Round trip on the thing was still cheaper than the one way 355 fare SMH.

@checkmatechamp13I guess you're asking something akin to ridership per bus per mile here? I think it's a bit early to tell, but some of them I think are ranked a little low (like the 62). Time will tell although I predict it may play out as follows: 4 1 66 5 2 6 51 7 58 11 92 55 62 12 53 52A/52B 77/77Y 3 17 > 10 (barely though) ..... .... ... .. . 80 While the 1 has Route 110 and is fairly busy on its own, I could see the 4 beating out the 1 because it's a workhorse. It's basically an S33 if it went to Brentwood + the former 3D, both which part of the stronger routes in the system. The potential of the 4 is nothing to ignore. Reason why the 2 isn't as high, is because of the section west of Babylon. I don't see it carrying nearly as much per bus as points east. I get that the S20 wasn't the most ideal route, but even with the boost in frequency up to three times of that of one of the S20 loops, I don't think any increase in ridership would be proportional. The 51 while I think could hold up between Smith Haven and Port Jefferson, I'm still unsure about the segment between Patchogue and Port Jefferson. You'll get some S63 & S59, plus many of the 7A riders I suppose, but I still don't think it'll do too hot there. Might be a bit of a hot take, but I can see the 62 carrying more than the 12. It's not as busy as the 58 but it isn't anything to ignore, and it's routing through Riverhead may offset some of the losses by being truncated to Smith Haven. Even if the 12 gets 100% of the former 2A/2B riders, it wouldn't match up to the S62 ridership. And even though the 62 is a longer route than the 12, I still think it'll rank higher. The five routes I ranked below the 53 I see more or less around the same. The 52 I can potentially see it do better than the 77 by a bit, in part because with the 77, I'm not sure how many in Bellport would actually take the route if they need Patchogue vs. walking up to the 66. The 66 also I think will get more of the North Bellport ridership now that it's running in that area. Even though the 6A wasn't all that hot, I do think given that they're coupling Gordon Heights, sending the route to Central Islip LIRR, and serving some of those Casinos and commercial areas near the Motor Parkway and LIE, I see more going for the 52. However I wouldn't rank it above the 53, in part because of the frequency. Had the 52 been an hourly route I could predict it be neck and neck with the 53. The 17's frequency is part of the reason why it's ranked so low for the type of route it is, the other (as B35 also mentioned in a previous post) is that I don't really see much of the route warranting said frequency. Even on hourly headways it would not garner many people. So that relatively low ridership is further diluted by it's frequency. I think the 80 speaks for itself.

New Flyer C40LF 520 got into an accident on the B103 on Coney Island Avenue north of Cortelyou Road. Looks like a car tried to turn or merge in front of it.

5: Given the 11 would still run in this area from Brentwood, and that more people would end up gunning for the 4 and 7 because it serves the heart of Brentwood directly, I'm not too hot on this, especially going to Central lslip. I don't know if this is an attempt at trying to potentially interline the 5 and 17 together (instead of the 11), but I would leave the 5 out of it if so. There's more (potential and existing) demand to Brentwood than Central Islip. It's already enough that you would have the route running down Udall Road and not Deer Park Avenue to (almost by) Tanger Outlets. Not to say that running it down Udall Road is a bad idea, I've been a proponent of restoring service there, it's just that there's a smaller catchment area by running along Udall Road versus Deer Park Avenue. On top of that you would have it miss a major transfer point (and a timed one at that) for individual segments which may or may not work out, depending on the transfers needed. Ultimately, I see this being a weaker version of the S27, not particularly too useful north of the Ronkonkoma Branch during most periods. 3/9: This is something others have suggested in the past as well to some extent (including myself), although with some variances. I generally don't have issue with it (including the deviation to/from Tanger), and you get to keep 30 minute service on Deer Park Avenue south of the Ronkonkoma Branch. While I don't see the need for the 3 anymore along most of Deer Park Avenue by having the 9, the former S23 route north of Wyandanch carried air more often than not, if it wasn't for Five Towns College it would be even worse. I would prefer having it continue up Straight Path to Deer Park Avenue, then take Half Hollow (and vice-versa). That would still save runtime over the exiting alignment, and coupled with the elimination of the route along Hubbards Path, should provide sufficient layover in Babylon instead of what it currently is. 8: This is more or less similar to what I've mentioned in the past, the one difference that I would probably have a one-way loop through North Lindenhurst, Pinelawn, and Farmingdale to also serve some of the industrial sections and even some residential sections with the same bus. These are sections that lost all service, first when the S35 was eliminated and then when the S31 was also eliminated. Basically from Route 109, buses would take Route 109 > Wellwood Avenue > Conklin Street > Broadhollow Road / Route 110 > Route 109 > Albany Avenue to Amityville LIRR. The current 10 schedule suggests such a routing is possible, as Amityville LIRR to Albany/Sidney Court (just south of Route 109) is 13 minutes each way, 26 minutes total. Google maps says that such a loop is from 13-16 minutes, so with some padding that's maybe like 16-22 minutes. At its worst it'll be around 50 minute total runtime. 10: While I have no gripes with having a bus along Route 109, my question is what happens to Lindenhurst, which would be left with nothing (outside the 2 along Montauk Highway)? I don't agree with leaving it with nothing. 11: I don't know whether it should take on the 5 north/east of Hauppauge or from Brentwood (replacing it), but I would ultimately have the 11 do one of those. Reason being that even more coverage along Jericho Turnpike would be lost, unless something else runs in that area. It also isn't like Smithtown Bypass is completely far from parts of the former S45. I would also not trim the route in the area to take Adams Avenue, because it looks closer than it is on a map. That walk to Moreland Road is nothing to overlook (17 minutes). It's faster to walk from Motor Parkway to Oser Avenue, however I am not encouraging nor in agreement with having something cut along Motor Parkway either. 17: Out of the all the 30-minute routes that provided, I personally see the 17 as the weakest one out of all. I believe that part of the reason it even got it was because it managed to fit with the 11 in terms of total runtime, the timed transfers at the pulse locations and whatnot. With that said, I don't think truncating the route makes much sense without doing much else for the route. Even if it operate every 60 minutes I see this as a route that wouldn't get many people, more so with some of the changes you're proposing. As far as separating the 17 from the 11, I'm somewhere between indifferent and not opposed to it, because while I think the 11/17 interlining setup holds down the 17 in particular I don't know what could be done for the route. I don't think truncating the 17 though is the way, it will need as much direct service to as many locations as possible. Given that 2 doesn't connect to the 7, 11, and 12, extending the 17 out to Bay Shore may be an option because that may get you some ridership. If not for that, IDK what can be done going past the Hauppauge end of the route. However I would keep it serving Montauk Highway.

IDK how they went about scheduling things and at what point they started doing so, but as far as the pulse points, they should have started with the one with no through routes (Patchogue) and gone from there to see how it would play out. Babylon may have been able to work out a pulse point since the 2 passes in both directions around the same time, and then time the other routes could have been timed accordingly. I don't have a problem with Brentwood, especially since under this new system they ended up mixing up the segments of many of the former routes together (both north and south of the LIRR station). It should stay to allow riders to transfer wherever needed, and this will likely be one of the more useful transfer points. With Central Islip I'd be inclined to let the 4 just go through it without waiting for a connection if that timed transfer point makes it so problematic in terms of runtime/stopovers on the passenger side. Otherwise I'd leave it as is, because if anything it sounds like the runtime between timed points are the bigger issue. Riverhead I understand too, however what makes it stupid is: The 92 is a through route but effectively making a hefty stopover The 80 exists The 66 goes through Riverhead LIRR from Patchogue, runs to Peconic Bay and back to terminate at Riverhead LIRR (missing itself by 1 minute at the LIRR station on Saturdays) If they nerf the 80, have the 66 serve John Wesley Village (anybody going to Walmart will just have the transfer to the 62 at the LIRR or make their way to the 62), and split up the 92 at Riverhead, that pulse point would work out significantly better all routes would be better timed. Plus both splits of the 92 would have later service, the thing apparently lost some of its former service span under the new system SMH. It's actually insane how SCT's instance on pushing with the 80 actually ends up screwing the 66 in the process. I know it might be somewhat ad nauseam at this point, but if simply kept the 10C (relabel it the 94 I suppose) as a fixed route between East Hampton and Montauk Village, and as a flex route around Montauk Village and to/from the Lighthouse (depending on where riders want to go, with enough runtime padded), that would have been significantly more useful than the 80. I'm very glad the East Hampton microtransit zone was postponed and that they have some sort of equipment problem that's preventing the implementation, if they're gonna screw over the 10C like that I would prefer to keep both the 10B and 10C as is. If the microtransit zone was just simply around East Hampton and maybe some other sections further west (while keeping the 10C), I wouldn't be vehemently against it. However with SCT it's almost like talking to a brick wall, and when they end up responding to some comments they create another set of problems in the process. Speaking of the postponement though, it seems like the alert that mentioned on their page stating that it will be postponed through 12/31/2023 was quietly removed.

This would have been a non-issue if the to Forest Hills idea went through as initially floated around. I don't know why at night they don't just run the on its daytime route between Forest Hills and Bay Ridge, and to/from Jamaica Center. I think at that point, the amount of sets needed would be similar to existing and overnight requirements. Also Queens has at least ONE direct connection from areas of Lower Manhattan and even Midtown at night (plus the direct connection to/from JFK). Well for the winter service plan, it is last station possible for a reason, not just simply last underground station. Many of these segments cannot be service under whatever headways are in effect because it would require single-tracking for a distance which makes it impossible to keep the headway. On top of that, certain spots will also not available due to train storage. Regarding the Manhattan Bridge, it's a long segment which is not underground, simple as that. Tracks and signals are exposed to the elements and trains going through would be at the mercy of how well the tracks and signals work. It is a large stretch too, and should anything happen there it makes it much more difficult to deal with because of the outdoor conditions.

I think cutting it back to Queensboro Plaza would hurt the route. Even though it only goes to 2nd Avenue, those buses do tend to carry, especially from 2nd Avenue. Many of those people might have been able to take the Q32 but many are also going past Sunnyside into Woodside and Elmhurst. There's no subway along that part of Queens Boulevard, and dealing with the QBL is absolute horseshit on top of it. The Q60 runs better than the QBL local during parts of the day, moreso on weekends. I wouldn't have a problem with it serving both Jamaica Center and East Midtown.

For the weekend UBS Arena specials whenever there's trackwork, they typically don't check tickets at all on trains. So anyone taking those trains could basically get a free ride. Also, given that they tend to check your ticket once you cross over to the eastbound platform at Elmont, if you just exit from the westbound platform to the north you also basically get a free ride.

I replied to another comment and forgot to reply to this one. The southbound B103 is skipping all the major Downtown Brooklyn stops and all along 4th Avenue. It's only stopping at the first two stops IINM, near the courts. The next stop after those stops is McDonald Avenue & Canton Avenue. The official detour is Columbia Street to get to Hamilton Avenue, then get on the Gowanus for a short stint then take the Prospect. It'll essentially be a longer highway segment, and depending how confused/unaware people are, you may end up getting an empty bus or close. Depending how lucky or unlucky you are, however you see it, there may be an operator that takes the BQE from Atlantic instead of traveling via Columbia Street.

This year, it seemed that it initially wanted the M60 to travel via 86th Street Crosstown. They had the map and everything listed for that detour but changed it sometime this week. What's new this time around is that the M60 is making an actual stop in The Bronx at 149th Street - Grand Concourse (it used to get on the Deegan to then head to the Triboro bridge). That, and the Harlem - Astoria shuttle that they used to provide between Lexington Avenue and 31st Street is no longer being done.

There's an train reading on the countdown clocks along 2nd Avenue right now, apparently some train is going down to Metropolitan Avenue. Has to be some glitch or something.

Lots of stuff going on. The incident has been going on for a good chunk of the PM rush and is still ongoing. Seems like there may have been serious damage to something if it's lasting this long. Part Suspended No service between Manhattan and Brooklyn in both directions. For service between Manhattan and Brooklyn, take a or train. What's Happening? FDNY is responding to a track fire near Borough Hall. Additional Service Changes: trains are running via the line between 149 St-Grand Concourse and Nevins St in both directions. Southbound trains in Manhattan will end at Bowling Green. There is no service between Bowling Green and Crown Hts-Utica Av in both directions. Expect delays in service while they share tracks with rerouted trains. Posted: 10/26/2023 05:57 PM Part Suspended There is no and service between DeKalb Av and Brighton Beach ( ) and Coney Island-Stillwell Av ( ) Take an train or B68 bus. What's Happening? trains are delayed in both directions due to a loss of power near Sheepshead Bay. Additional Service Changes: Southbound trains are running via the line from DeKalb Av to Coney Island-Stillwell Av. Southbound trains are running via the line from DeKalb Av to Coney Island-Stillwell Av. Expect delays in service while they share tracks with rerouted trains. Travel Alternatives: For service between DeKalb Av and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr, take a B41 or B103 bus making nearby stops. For service between Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr and Church Av, take a B41 bus making nearby stops. For service between Church Av and Brighton Beach, take a B49 bus making nearby stops. For service between Church Av and Coney Island-Stillwell Av, take a B68 bus making nearby stops. Posted: 10/26/2023 08:08 PM While I was initially posting, the was also not taking passengers to/from Broad Street due to protests going on at street level, at the request of NYPD. Trains were terminating at Fulton Street. That ended a few minutes ago.

Saw it twice on the Q44 this weekend.