Bounad Hanhic

MTA Bus is not going move anything in the middle of a pick, that cannot happen. But maybe next pick

Probably a cross between Queens (and Bronx) route changes and the SBS proposal, but all 3 routes are Queens Division routes. Proposals:

 

1. Extend the Q52 to Woodside-61 Street and cut half of the Q53 runs, alternating the Q52 and Q53. Convert the Q52/3 to Select Bus Service duty to speed up service, especially at known chokepoints like Queens Center Mall, Roosevelt Avenue-Jackson Heights, and Liberty Avenue. This would avoid overserving Rockaway Park, evenly distribute passenger load between the routes, and provide Arverne and Hammels with better connections to points north of Liberty Avenue. During the rush, run additional service between Howard Beach and Queens Center in the peak direction only. Two stops would be eliminated from the Q53 only: Rockaway Beach Boulevard and Beach 102 and Beach 98 Streets.

2. Convert the Q44 to Select Bus Service duty and straighten out the route to reduce the amount of turns and crowded streets traversed in Jamaica. Buses would instead use Archer Avenue, 139 Street, Jamaica Avenue, and Queens Boulevard to operate between Jamaica and Briarwood. The following Q44 Limited stops would be eliminated: Sutphin Boulevard at Jamaica and Hillside Avenues, Main Street and Northern Boulevard, on Parsons Boulevard at 17 Avenue, and on the Cross Bronx Expressway frontage road at (southbound only, there is no corresponding northbound stop) Herrod, Beach/Taylor, Pugsley, Olmstead, (southbound only, northbound stop remains) Havemeyer, and (northbound only, there is no corresponding southbound stop) Zerega Avenues. Stops would be added at: Cross Bronx Expressway frontage road Gleason Avenue (southbound) and Ellis Avenue (northbound)...the thinking here being to have stops that can be used in both directions; the only eliminated bi-directional stop that would have qualified is Beach/Taylor.

3. Convert the Q113 Limited to SBS, with the following change made: Eliminate stops at Linden Boulevard and Foch Boulevard, and add a stop (combining those two stops) at 116 Avenue instead (driver changes would take place here, and this maintains service to the Baisley Park Houses).

 

The thinking here is that all of these routes are crosstowns where service could be made faster.

What about putting the Q44 on Whitestone Expressway like the Q50. 

 

I'm pretty sure it's 61 passengers divided over both directions. That's 30 passengers per bus if it was just one branch. 15 passengers if divided over 2 branches.

 

Most QM22 ridership was in the morning. Pretty much the pattern for the former Triboro express buses is that they carry heavy in morning and carry light in the evening. That trend exists among all Queens express buses, but on the Triboro express buses it is even more skewed than the others. The exception to this could be the QM24 and perhaps the QM11. 

Well, a lot of people on these forums never rode the QM22. If anyone actually rode the QM22 you would know that the 6th Avenue QM22 carried more than the 3rd Avenue QM22 this was especially true during the AM trips. It did well for a route that barely anybody in the community knew about and has the potential to carry a lot of riders. A Q69 Limited that runs into Manhattan would be a disaster given that the Q69 is a good performing route ridership wise and operating cost wise and suffers from service reliability issues already. 

It may give off a stint, but Im wasn't suggesting anything. Seeing the QM1 everyday like that makes me think if anything can be done about because te original point I was trying to te across was that this route might end up being a replica of some common known hit hard queens express bus route (QM10, QM12, and quite frankly, the QM10 had QM1 level ridership, and nothing is left but rush hour).

Because the QM10 got hit hard with the recession. It saw a major decline and continues to decline.

That would not work due to separate unions and other separate arrangements. 

I still don't get why they would cut express bus service to force nyc residents onto commuter rail, that is a rumor that I never heard of before. I also get the same feeling that Federick Wells is someone we know on here.

This.

 

The 75 I understood the axing of, the 74 I didn't.... At minimum, the 74 should've had a schedule & headway adjustment.... Granted it didn't need all the service it had before it got cut, but that route would've still flourished w/ reduced service.... Its cut is part of which is why you have so many ppl on 44's now from QB/Main..... Now even with artics, the 44 is a madhouse (in reference to how packed they are).....

 

...and would be made more unreliable by extending it to Queens College.

The best thing to improve access for Queens College (a portion of Q74 ridership) is to create a branch of the Q64 that runs between Continental and Queens College via the Q74 turnaround at Queens College. 

The problem that I have with the Q100 is that buses at times can be empty on a Monday but you can't even get on those buses at the same time of day on a Friday.

But the best thing with the Q69 is to give the Q69 its own limited instead of having the Q100 be the limited stop service. I would set up a Q69 limited to be a slower limited than the Q100.

Also the X51 should not merge with the QM3. NYCT and MTA Bus routes cannot merge and the QM3 as is a fast route, it is a route that is hard to revise regardless of the area that it traverses. Merging it with the X51 would make the route slower, taking it off Northern in the Auburndale Bayside area would get NIMBY opposition (we tried to address a possible express bus service that serves the more residential parts of Auburndale and Bayside unlike the current QM3 which runs on Northern and we met NIMBY opposition that ultimately killed any chance of us doing it). The best thing that can be done with the QM3 is to throw an extra bus or two on the line to expand the span of service on the QM3 and to see what happens as the later two AM trips on the QM3 can get seated loads (sometimes the QM3 can get SRO or people opt not to take the bus because of lack of seats)

I also heard about 3281 being pulled into CP from a friend.

And when you actually try to make those changes in reality you have to involve politicians and politicians can be very territorial about their areas/districts. However, if you know riders from that area and they complain or tell you about a situation and you want to be a citywide/regionwide transit advocate, then that is okay.