IAlam

On 9/15/2023 at 8:43 AM, MysteriousBtrain said:

Bumping this thread to talk about the Bx6 SBS, specifically its "extension to Soundview". 

So allegedly it's supposed to be implemented by the time the Metrocard is phased out. However as of recently full OMNY implementation has been postponed indefinitely, which most likely means the replacement of the Metrocard is postponed as well. Do we believe that the Bx6 SBS extension will be implemented in 2024? I take it as a no especially since it seems like OMNY is nowhere near done with even implementing simple things like the fare machine. 

Probably not, realistically I don't expect Metrocards to be fully phased put until 2026 at the earliest. 

6 hours ago, Kingsbridgeviewer382 said:

That will depend if things go well for them in Canada. It will be quite a while before Solaris enters the US scene and I doubt they would want to go to MTA for orders as a new player in the market.

6 hours ago, FLX9304 said:

Unless they do electric buses. 

Considering the MTA likes to split orders in order to get buses faster it's not out of the picture, but I do agree it would take a while before we could see a Solaris bus in NYC let alone the US.

I guess the company moving in to fill the void is Solaris, and no I'm not implying they're taking over from Nova Bus. But with the timing of Nova exiting the US market, taking over the Plattsburg plant could be an easy way in. 

https://www.solarisbus.com/en/press/tests-of-the-solaris-trollino-trolleybus-in-canada-2033

2 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Let’s be real, you just want the 61 to stay, and that’s fine, but I think more people would prefer if they have a route they already know rather than an entirely new route. Plus I don’t see the MTA extending the 61 to off peak hours so what’s the point of it? It just makes better sense overall to tank the 61 idea IMO 

No I don’t care what it’s called 34, 61 any other number you can come up with. I care more about the route itself number assigned to it. Whether or not it changes is irrelevant to me and regardless of if it changes or not people will have to readjust. While there’s a learning period people are smarter than we give them credit for. That on top of the fact people just rely on their phone for directions and will just get on whatever bus their phone tells them too. 
 
However you’re trying to say the route has to be the 34 and are trying to relate other issue with the route to it, when the reality is that the other issues are separate. While there are good reasons to continue calling it the 34 there are also good reasons to stop calling it the 34 as well, since it’s no longer the same route. Frankly any argument of keeping a route number here or there for familiarity is more or less useless with the large number of changes. Everyone is going for force everyone to unlearn the old system and readjust. 
 

The only real argument I can see for a route needs to retain its number, is if it’s virtually untouched. But again I will reiterate I do not care what most of these routes are called as long as they’re good and the bus shows up when I expect it to.

I’m having trouble posting more photos but the MTA flicker has a bunch. 
 

8 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

That’s why I say have the 34 go down there instead and they do not more forward with the Q61 Rush. It makes no sense for it to replace the 34 and only run during peak hours. It makes better sense to have the Q34 stay and just run between flushing and fort totten, without the need for the Q61. Tho via 31st Road, I agree that could be helpful to an extent. 

The only thing I hear from this is that you want the route labeled back to the 34. Whether you have a 61 that runs like the 34 or a shortened version of the 34 doesn't matter. You could advocate for the same with the new number as well. 

11 hours ago, Calvin said:

The question for the Q12: did the route actually gained more ridership because of their use of articulated buses? Or it's the same using both the standard and articulated buses on the line. I noticed that 6033, 6035, 6037 and 6039 gets switched from time to time between the Q12 and Q44-SBS. 

I'm not sure about ridership but they did cut the short runs to 165th st because the route became articulated. If CS is running 40ft buses on the line so consistently they should bring back the short runs.

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not certain on this, but IINM, the Q31 actually has better service during the rush (while the Q30 has better off peak service)....

Yeah the Q31 is just more reliable than the Q30 at this point.

2 hours ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

What the heck happened here

trains are running with delays in both directions and service is suspended after we removed multiple vandalized trains from service.

Posted: Tue, Sep 12 2023 06:46 PM

That's insane that if someone(s) is able to cause that much damage that they have to suspend an entire subway line these people need to be caught. At a certain point, crippling an entire subway network isn't just vandalism anymore.  

14 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

Ah you must be talking about JHS 185. Yea the 34 does pretty good bringing kids to and from that school. Another reason the 34 should just stay and become it’s own route away from the 25 entirely. Maybe they can just have the Q34 run between flushing and fort totten INSTEAD of the Q61, with school trippers starting or ending at its current terminal (not far from JHS 185)

What would that achieve? The 61 is exactly that just without Mitchel Gardens service. Although if it was up to me I'd make the 61 a local route with all-day service and straighten it out by going via 31st Rd instead of all the current twists and turns the current 34 makes. I'd have the 20 just continue down Union like it does today. 

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The Q30 back before the 2010 cuts use to run better from what I remember and it had overall had more service. Overnight service got slashed in 2010 and the routes frequencies were reduced slightly. Then when the QCC branch was created service past Springfield was cut and it seems nowadays more buses go to QCC than Little Neck.
The problem that I personally have with many bus routes especially those that share a decent part of its route with another route is that they tend to bunch together despite not being scheduled to do so and I deal with this all the time on my home routes the Q25/Q34.
One example I can give is I work in Long Island and during the evenings on my way back home I will sometimes take the LIRR to Jamaica instead of the n4. However my issue with taking the LIRR is occasionally I would need to backtrack to Parsons Blvd or down by 168th street. 99% of the time when I check bustime of course the Q6, Q8, Q9, and Q41 are always 15+ mins away and are scheduled arrive at Sutphin & Archer Ave at around the same time. Then I check for the Q54, and Q56 and sometimes it’s even worst for those routes. Then I check the Q44 and Q20 and or Q30/Q31 and I still see at least a 10 minute wait. Mind you this is pretty late at about 10pm but with the sheer amount of bus routes you mean to tell me they can’t run apart from one another to maintain decent headways so that if anyone needs to travel within Jamaica at that time of night they can easily jump on any of those routes and be where they need to be instead of being forced to wait for all these routes to arrive together. That’s why I’m personally done with the bus system. It works when it does but it can still be a real hassle getting around. Jamaica has so many routes that overlap but I still find it hard at times to get from one side of the neighborhood to the other and usually I just opt to walk because I end up out walking all those routes. 

Yeah for some reason backtracking from Jamaica LIRR to Parsons is a pain. Regardless of how many options I have even during the day I constantly find myself waiting over 5 min for a bus.
But I've noticed there are a lot of issues with traffic congestion and even small things like a B/O's driving habits can make a big difference. An aggressive op can get through pretty quickly but then there are others that just get paid by the hour and don't care, and that causes bunching. Then there is an issue like on the 20 where the actual runtime in the evenings is similar to the 44 but since the route is given more run time than is actually needed. Bus ops have 3 choices, run early and wait it out at a time point, drag their bus along the line, or leave late and make up the time. When the bus ops are all making different choices on how they want to approach it you often see buses bunching even without traffic congestion.

On 9/5/2023 at 7:13 AM, danielhg121 said:

https://share.icloud.com/photos/06aASiyT8BpUmXHKCXnIIT__w
 

anybody encounter this when you tap for OMNY. Under the trips tab, it just says Casey Stengel (STENG) instead of the route. Another one I got is it saying Other Route.

Was the bus signed up properly?

On 9/5/2023 at 1:38 AM, N6 Limited said:

An eastern Jamaica Ave connection to the Jamaica LIRR and  would be helpful in my opinion. There have been times where I missed the Hempstead train to QV and instead of waiting an hour for the next train , a bus would suffice, without first having to get from Jamaica to Jamaica Center or Jamaica Bus terminal.

The main benefit for me for the 57 is the connection to Jamaica LIRR so if I miss the Hempstead train I could just hop on that it’s much easier than gunning for the 36 or 110. But, even then the route takes long enough you don’t save much time. As for the  connection, it probably would be used more by riders from the Jamaica area only but I do agree it’s better than the current 112 route which uses a weird back door route.

On 9/5/2023 at 4:18 AM, Lawrence St said:

Is there a reason the Q70 does not serve Terminal A?

Honestly the viability of Terminal A in the long run is weak. Is it only spirit now? There aren’t many flights from there and from the 70 there are still a lot of options to get there from the other terminals. The 47 also doesn’t get much ridership and I doubt the 70 would improve that. Instead you’re jacking up the running costs/time for very little benefit.

19 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

How much demand is there for a Bronx-to-Great Neck route?   

18 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I'm not for any of those 3 suggestions....

• As for a Bronx - Great Neck route, I honestly don't know what the draw is even supposed to be, for either side of the equation....

From how I see it it's not capturing existing demand as I highly doubt anyone going from the Bronx to Eastern Queens or Nassau is currently using transit. But it opens the door for people from the Bronx to connect to routes like the proposed Q78 to get to SE Queens, it allows medical center and hospital workers to connect with the n25/26, and any students that may wanna attend the colleges along the n20H. While I doubt you'd get hoards of people on day one I feel like over time people would start to utilize it as they figure out how to use it. 
 

20 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

However, I do NOT see the MTA doing this right here. Bronx to Great Neck. They wouldn’t even think that deep and that’s their issue. I do like how you’re thinking tho. I just don’t think it will become reality

Me too honestly, even if a route like this could be on the table I could see both NICE and the MTA push the responsibility on to the other agency because neither of them would want to take the risk.  

On 8/25/2023 at 2:48 PM, Lex said:

I can't even remember the last time RIOC accepted fares on the Red Bus...

I think it was at least 10 years ago.

Curious anyone know anything about the current status of the Multilevel III's?

I'm just going to add this right here. CT ordered new passenger cars and the MTA ordered new engines, so once they start rolling in there will be equipment freed up to use for Hudson West. As for the line itself other than interest I don't think there's any funding set aside for it. However, there is a lot of commotion in the Amtrak forum land because Amtrak went ahead and ordered train sets that can run on battery-electric power in order to avoid having to electrify the line. Do with that information as you wish.

On 8/24/2023 at 11:51 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

@IAlam Definitely not on Day 1...they had giant gaps between peak and off-peak service (a few of which remain to a certain extent today). They copy-pasted a bunch of old schedules onto the new routes without double-checking.

Now that they fixed most of the issues, I do believe that it is somewhat better than the old system, but still nowhere near as good as it should be. There was too much "Give them what they had before" which defeats the whole purpose of a redesign. 

Yeah, day one wasn't great but at least they were constantly tweaking it until it got better. One complaint I kept getting was how the north shore was underserved and now it's a lot better off-peak. The one thing I still want to see is a SIM2c just with reduced service. Having it run hourly would finally give them a viable service, I feel like they gave it too much service for something people weren't used to yet. the old X17 was just a disaster that no one could really benefit from so for them the SIM2 was the first time they were getting real off-peak service. The other issue with that line was the fact it was downtown only during off-peak.

On 8/25/2023 at 11:17 AM, Nitro said:

It was a service cut in disguise. This is what they did to Staten Island before moving on to Brooklyn & Queens. Brooklyn & Queens residents weren’t having that shit with their bus routes being cut for supplementary and long unreliable bus routes. Ffs this is what BrooklynBus was trying to tell y'all before everyone bitched at him for it.

I can't speak for the peak service cause I rarely use it at all and when I do it's almost exclusively on the South Shore which I still feel had an overall win. But I mainly remember him complaining about the stops being eliminated more than anything else.

On 8/25/2023 at 12:51 PM, B35 via Church said:

I'm not fond of downtown circulators as part of an urban bus network... I find them to be too theoretical more than they are practical for their intended purpose; tending to deter daily commuters.... Although not part of the MTA network, that Downtown CoNNection circulator in Lower Manhattan does alright for itself, I suppose - Although it's structured more like a shuttle for Battery Park City patrons... Its routing is very similar to the Lower Manhattan portion of the old x90....

The issue lies in the fact that they're infinitely less interested in benefiting riders & far more interested in saving a buck..... Anyone that actually cared about bettering the system that knew the system (which is another problem; the MTA brass is rather tone deaf when it comes to these matters) would know that you're not going to force a route like the Q50 on Bronxites that want/need LGA & have them flock to it (like say, the booting of the Q33 from LGA upon the Q70's inception for Queens patrons)... I mean, it isn't like Bronx patrons in anything resembling noticeable numbers that are currently taking Q44's or Q50's to Flushing for Q48's to LGA.....

Mere theorists & data plotters that could give a f*** about the city, aren't going to have our bus network{s} succeed.... We need at least someone that knows the city, that cares about NYC.

What's funny about this is that you actually had a couple ppl. back in the day suggesting running Q27's to Green Acres..... Anyway, while potentially becoming "the" Springfield route, while it does make some sense to run it to Green Acres, I'd still leave it ending down around JFK Depot.... Yeah, it'll be a bit of a benefit to airport workers, but it'll also benefit those workers in those freight forwarding facilities & shipping services down around the DMV as well....

I think Jamaica is just too big for itself and the major hubs are too far spread apart. You have 179th St., the bus terminal, Jamaica Center, and the LIRR station. While it's possible to get from any one of those points to any of those other points in our current network it requires the knowledge of what route goes where. Then you have routes like the Q43 which feels like it's doing double duty. Having some sort of circulator/downtown connection for Jamaica makes it, so the route can just focus on serving people going in and out of Jamaica. Passengers needing to go to different parts of Jamaica could just use the circulator instead and aren't worrying about what route goes where.  

There was a day I'd be excited about the idea of a Q27 going to Green Acres but now I can't and imagine how poorly that would run. But what I do think is a massive improvement is the fact with the Q78 you won't need to 3 buses to get from Springfield to Green Acres anymore. That was just a massive flaw in local connectivity in the area and now being able to do it in 1 ride is a pretty big win for the area. While I would enjoy the Q78 going to Green Acres for personal reasons, I think having it connect with JFK and routes to Far Rockaway do far more for its connectivity in the area.

On 8/25/2023 at 9:30 PM, TDL said:

There should be a bus via the Throgs Neck Br. It would run from Westchester Square to UBS Arena via. Bell Blvd/Springfield Blvd/Hempstead Avenue

 

There should also be a Rockaway Pk-Sheepshead Bay bus

For Rockaway to Sheepshead, I really hope they do add that to the redesigns because it feels like something that should exist today. 

As for the Throgs Neck Bridge, anyone who finds themselves needing to drive over that bridge most likely doesn't have a good public transit option for their trip. But instead of a Q78 extension or a route that mirrors it down Springfield, I'd rather see a route connecting the Bronx with Great Neck. A route going from the Bronx could start somewhere along the  line and after going over the bridge cutting through Bayside and connecting with the Q78 around Northern and Bell before continuing over to Great Neck for people to connect with all the NICE buses over there. A route like that opens up connections and destinations that just aren't possible now without a car. 

On 8/24/2023 at 10:56 PM, Lawrence St said:

Which is disappointing that it even has to be like that.

Yeah, I suspect there will be changes once OMNY eventually rolls out since you need to tap on and off. Since you will need to be physically present at both endpoints it closes the door for abuse and might allow for a pricing structure in line with everything else. 

On 8/25/2023 at 11:50 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’m not a fan of the LIRR’s fare system because I find it flawed and it doesn’t benefit the riders at all.

There has been this idea with the LIRR that most people who use it are traveling between Long Island & Manhattan and as a result all other travel is discouraged and the flawed fare system backs that up. The amount of people traveling within NYC on the LIRR has increased as well as those traveling within Nassau but the LIRR has not fixed up service to promote this customer base. 

The fare system is flawed because how is it that I have to pay $6.50 (off peak) to go from the Laurelton and even Rosedale station to Valley Stream which in the case of the latter is one station apart but I also have to pay that same price to go from Jamaica to Valley Stream. However going from Jamaica to Laurelton for example is only $4.50 yet triple the distance of going from Valley Stream to Rosedale. If I needed to travel between Laurelton & Valley Stream for example why can’t the fare be $2.50 or $3.
The City ticket is useless if you brought a ticket but no one checks because they only last for that day. City ticket as you stated does not work if you want to go from a Port Washington Station in Queens to any other Station via a line that passes through Jamaica even though you are still in Queens. 
IMO even though the LIRR has been creating discounts for city residents, they still cater primarily to LI residents and that will always be their main focus before making service more accessible to those in Queens. 

Yeah, having exceptions for short-distance trips would be ideal. The zone system in general is pretty antiquated, but it was invented to make ticketing easier, Charging by distance is fairer but it's also more confusing for passengers, it offers less flexibility and generally makes service less attractive for further stations as those stations end up being far more expensive to ride to/from. (Why pay more at your station when you can take a bus/bike/car etc... partway down the line for cheaper service. I've ridden in the WMATA system a lot and I've seen often people take longer bus rides to further stations where they can pay less and then on weekends when they have flat fares ridership feels a bit more spread out. There are pros and cons for both the current zoned system and the pay-by-distance systems. There could be a compromise between the 2 but doubt the MTA would ever get it right.   

On 8/23/2023 at 10:46 AM, TDL said:

The Far Rockaway ticket is modeled after the CityTicket. While providing a great discount for Rockaway riders, it seems that the vending machines will only allow Zone 1 stations to be selected. I don't believe even Jamaica comes up as an option.

City Ticket does not allow passengers to change at Jamaica for trains going in the opposite direction (e.g. you cannot transfer from the Hempstead Branch to the Babylon Branch for a Queens Village-St. Albans trip, or from the Hempstead to Far Rockaway for a Rosedale-Queens Village trip.)

As Queens does not have adequate crosstown connections, it would be nice if these reverse trips were added to the CityTicket.

In the past, it could be argued that that might make you end up on a peak train paying a non-peak price. But now that CityTicket has a peak option, this is no longer valid reasoning.

 

Thoughts?

It never did the problem with changing directions is it opens the doors for abuse, that's why those tickets are sold with their own pricing structure.

On 8/23/2023 at 3:45 PM, Nitro said:

SIM Buses are one of the worst things the MTA has ever done all they did was slap a bunch of express buses with a new designation and cut service to important areas in Staten Island. What's even worse is the Staten Island Railway loses 500 million dollars annually which the NYCTA & the NYC Subway have to bail them out to keep their system running. They are the most underfunded division in the entire MTA aside from the buses of course which gain ridership. The major issues with the Staten Island Railway is underfunding and a car shortage crisis even before the budget cuts of 2010. I've seen the stations and a lot of them are deteriorating for nearly the course of a decade by now. What the Staten Island Railway needs is more subway cars, a new maintenance/storage yard, fare gates, and installing proof of payment machines if fare gates aren't feasible for all stations. The R44s never performed that bad on the line though which is it's only saving grace since this line is a shadow of its former self.

With the SIM System looking at the old system and the current system, heck even the day 1 route network after the redesign, I'd say overall it was a win for SI. While it's not perfect the South Shore got more direct routes and now the SIM23/34 are part of the MTA which is something was was really wanted back then. On the North Shore while people weren't happy with the route shuffling the off-peak network has a major boost. Before you only had the X1 to the east X10 to the north and X17 to the west. There was a push for X12 to have an off-peak service, but it never came to be. At its current state, the SIM3c and SIM33c basically cover the X10 and X12 and provide frequent service in the areas they overlap and are near each other. The SIM4c runs later into the day as opposed to the X17 I believe that ended around 4 PM and now it ends at 7 PM. While it's not perfect I still believe it was an improvement.

Also with regards to the SIR, they're getting new trains as we speak. They are currently testing the R211's and there are 75 cars on order (15 trains) if you want to discuss that I suggest going to the R211 thread on the subway forum.

 

23 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Yeah, that aint had nothing to do with no reliability concerns, that was nothing more than a swap; cut the route back from Co-Op to have it serve LGA instead, b/c the Bx23 already exists to run b/w PBP & Co-op... Said swap is a losing proposition AFAIC; the current mileage spent running b/w PBP & Co-Op Section 5 is far more valuable than the proposed mileage to be spent running b/w the heart of Flushing & Terminal A (even with the exponential growth & demand for that terminal now, compared to years past)..... Not that I care to defend the Q48's airport usage from Flushing inparticular, but at least the current Q48 serves all the terminals..... That's as far as I'm going to go with any type of a defense of sorts; as their extending of the Q50 to LGA is more than I would've done...

The compartmentalization that they did with the Coop City is just annoying shoving everyone into essentially one line, it reduces how well the area is connected. But even then it kind beings the need for free circulator routes. Honestly, instead of the free routes they proposed, creating free circulator routes would probably be a better use of resources. The Bx23 is a perfect example of a route that could benefit from being a free circulator. Heck if the MTA could create a Downtown Jamaica Circulator that would be a massive bandaid to most of the terminal issues. They could also finally get rid of a lot of those dumb 2 xfer policies they have in place there too. 

But going back to the Q50 yeah it's not the right route to be going to the airport. Even I'm a bit lost as to how to replace the 48, but it really should be an eastern Queens route with something else completing the M60 from the Bronx. But who knows, with all these delays in the next draft maybe they're actually making good changes.

10 minutes ago, Fire Mountain said:

Nooo, not the 13. Cause were they gonna send it? Citi field? Queens Center Mall? The 13 is good as it is but everything else I agree

At the end of the day, I don't care what route does as long as it's logical, the Q50 is not the logical route for this.

On 8/21/2023 at 8:29 PM, Q43LTD said:

Highly doubt that since the 25 is College Point and the 77 is Jamaica 

Well, there's a good chance routes will be shuffled between depots, especially since the proposal already has instances of combined MTAB and NYCT routes. 

On 8/22/2023 at 7:30 PM, Fire Mountain said:

I can honestly see them leaving the 9 and 10 alone, as for the 78 if you ask me, I think it may be a good idea to serve at least Bayside High School (I was class of 2018 there 🙌🏾) due to the fact MAD kids take the 31 and half of them get off on or near Bell Blvd. Maybe they’ll do short turns where some buses don’t run past northern and etc. when it’s not school hours or weekends? Idk, but I personally like the routing myself. Just don’t know if people would acknowledge the route and it becomes the next 79 (in terms of no one ever getting on that bus)

On 8/23/2023 at 1:53 AM, Fire Mountain said:

Hmm, I see what you saying about the southern portion of the 78, and I agree, it may attract more riders especially since for some it will be a one seat ride to Queens Village LIRR. About the northern portion, I used to work in bay terrace, and while it may be busy a lot, (at least where I was), there isn’t really any good spots except for where the 28 lays over to terminate, so it might just be a good idea to terminate the 78 at Bayside. I personally see that working IMO. Would say extend it fort totten, but that will just drag the route at that point. 

There's not much I can add to the 78 conversation that hasn't already been said, but the 78-serving Bayside LIRR will do a much better job connecting the community than the 31 does right now. I know people that will directly benefit from this change.

10 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

IDRC about the routing to LGA that this proposed Q50 takes, I simply don't see this attracting much of any Bronx riders to the proposed Q50 for service past Flushing.... It's a PITA to get to the Q50 for most Bronxites... It's akin to way back when the B13 was the only bus route that ran to Brooklyn's Gateway Mall... Getting to the B13 is a PITA for far too many Brooklynites.... Of course there are other reasons for it, but the floodgates opened when they finally extended the B83 there after all these years (dare I say decades).....

In any event, albeit being better than nothing, the Q50 proposal is a cheap way of replacing the current Flushing - LGA riderbase on the Q48 (which I personally think is a waste of money).... They'd be way better off running Bx15's (especially now that they scaled it back to the Hub, to have this M125 rolling around) or Bx41 SBS' to LGA if they were serious about attracting more Bronxites to LGA..... But nope, they're content with having Bronxites take 's, 's, 's, or 's, to 125th for the M60 - and the vast majority of Bronxites that need/want LGA will continue to do that....

They got these Q70's rolling around, but yet they're content with extending Q50's from Flushing to LGA.... If it's okay to have all these Bronxites descending down to Manhattan to catch the M60 for LGA access, then it's okay for Flushing area patrons to laterally take 's to 61st or 74th for the Q70 for LGA access.... When they came out with the Q70 ten years ago, is when they should've canned the Q48 & had the Q19's routing to Flushing altered, to where it'd run via 108th st & via Roosevelt av....

While I do agree the Q50 to LGA is going to be basically useless, mainly because of the poor frequency and reliability of the route. On a side note, the whole argument from the MTA of cutting the route to the north because of reliability concerns and then extending it to the south makes no sense to me. What I can't agree with is eliminating the Q48 for the Q70, people from the east are not interested in dragging bags up and down so many stairs just to get on another bus, which in the best case takes about the same time and in the worst case can take longer. The 48 might run like s*** but it's predictable and I see a lot of airline employees already using it, especially in the mornings. You don't make service "better" by cutting service and forcing people to take a more circuitous route. We all saw firsthand what happened with NICE after their cuts once they started fixing their mistakes and reinstating service those riders didn't really come back.  A bus-to-bus trip can already be annoying, but a bus-to-train and back-to-bus trip will basically kill any ridership from people who can afford to use other means. 

If there is one thing I've learned from my non transit-oriented friends is transfers are a burden. Each additional transfer you force someone to make for the sake of efficiency the less likely they are to use transit. Any rider that now has to pay a double fare regardless of due to this change or any other will less likely consider transit as an option.

But IMO I really hope they listen to the feedback and extend the Bx15 or Bx41 to LGA and instead of the Q50 just use another route already going down Roosevelt like the proposed Q13.

9 hours ago, Fire Mountain said:

About the 44, they were never gonna remove that route from Jamaica from jump unfortunately. However, I agree with you. If anything, they can have the 44 terminate at the station instead. Let me explain, the MTA wanted to cut the 20 from Jamaica due to congestion, however the 44 is articulated and it’s super frequent, which contributes to some of the congestion via Archer. It don’t even be packed in that area anyways. The last portion about the 25, damn, I didn’t even think of the frequency. Another good reason to keep the 25 at the Airtrain LIRR sta.

6 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

However I disagree about the Q20/Q44.

The Q20 shouldn’t be cut back to Brairwood because they will only end up extending it back to Jamaica when people complain that they need Jamaica and complain about how unreliable the Q44 and Q60 are. The Q20 however should only go to the LIRR. If the Q20 arrived first and there is no sign of the Q44 people will use the Q20 but if the Q44 is there, the Q20 carries air along Archer and what a waste of mileage. 

The Q44 actually sees decent Bronx usage from Jamaica believe it or not and that’s why the MTA had it running to 165th street & Jamaica Ave in the proposal plan. Ride the Q44 during the evening time from Jamaica and sometimes the bus will be packed with people heading to the Bronx. I’m really not opposed to having the bus run to Fordham but they need to get rid of that Whitestone detour and have Q44’s get on the Whitestone Expressway via Linden Place. I can’t say too many people along Union Street & Parsons Blvd want Bronx service in comparison to service to Flushing Main Street. 

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

You can deduce congestion as being a factor, but the main reason they're taking Q20's away from Jamaica lies in what you just said about the Q44 being very frequent & is an artic route on top of it... In other words, they're saving a buck cutting Q20's back to Briarwood to have everybody cram onto Q44's.....

Albeit not for their apparent frugal reasons, I'm against the consensus that the Q20 should stay running to Jamaica at this point (especially given the Q20's extension north & east of Flushing)... At the same time, I'm against running Q44's to Fordham...

Even still, What percentage of people, is the question.....

Even during peak times, the Q20 carries a lot of air along Archer (that's one thing I would notice on my commute home, looking down from the LIRR as the train was approaching Jamaica, when I used to work out in Nassau).... It's no different during the AM rush either, I'd notice that when I'd go rush off to the store before my train to Mineola would arrive...

Merrick/Archer, forget it - Q44's snatch up virtually 100% of that ridership.... Yes, at Sutphin/Archer, people do start boarding Q20's if there's basically no Q44 in sight (which isn't all that common) - but it still don't be anywhere near in robust numbers.... The general trend over there at Sutphin/Archer is to pay the Q20 no mind & bombard onto Q44's.... Trend over there on Sutphin/Jamaica isn't much different - with the exception of more of a willingness to board Q20's if both the Q20 & Q44 either [arrives simultaneously] or [if a Q44 arrives first & the bus is so dam crowded, you can't feasibly get on the thing]..... With trends like that, I'd take the Q20 away from Jamaica also if I was a public transit provider....

The Q20 north of Flushing is obviously where it'll gain more ridership (than the Q44 north of Flushing, within Queens), as there'll be no one in their right minds that'd want to walk over to the Whitestone expwy. service rd. due south (as in, towards Flushing) from all them co-op's in Mitchell-Linden, at minimum... Not to mention their having of it run up & over to the LeHavre apartments in Beechhurst (current Q15/a territory), which I think is a good tradeoff to have the Q20 do that instead of running to Jamaica  - where the Q44 is the king, queen, rook, and every other dam chess piece... lol....

I would also keep the Q83 as a local route... The idea to have the proposed Q42 & the Q65 act as cumulative local service along that part of Liberty, I don't see flying either.... The Q42 to Jamaica Hosp. is one of those ideal ideas (the general notion of having a route end at a hospital & what not), but that immediate area is a horrible place to end a bus route from a logistical standpoint... Just getting back to Jamaica av. (for the corresponding EB trip) would loom nightmarish...

The big issue I have with the Q20 being cut back is the fact there's decent ridership from the neighborhood to 84th Rd. The stop on 84th NB and 82nd SB both punch above their weight for a local stop and are constantly being used to get people to and from the neighborhood. Also in the case of the Q44, they're not rebalancing the stops to match the current neighborhood demographic. In the first draft they tried cutting too many stops and in the new draft, they're leaving them all in. Especially once you're in the Flushing area it's evident that the stop placements need to be adjusted. It feels tone deaf to the Briarwood residents to make their access to Jamaica more difficult.

If I had to rebalance the stops it would look something more like this.
The 139th St and Queens Blvd stop should be combined into a new stop by the library. The HHE stop and Reeves Ave need to be combined into one stop, I honestly don't care how it's done but they're too close to each other. If it's needed Q44 can do a courtesy stop to let kids off in the morning like they do now NB, and in the afternoon all the trippers can just be Q20 buses (I think there's at least 1 Q44 tripper atm). Elder Ave should be replaced by Franklin Ave with a new SB stop located there too this would serve downtown Flushing better where more of the busy commercial is located. The Q25/65 should be booted from their spot between Roosevelt Ave and 40th Rd in place for a combined Flushing Q44/20 stop. It's already too close to the Main St and Kissena Blvd stop and should be further back. Lastly, the stop at 35th Ave should be pushed down closer to Northern Blvd.