JerBear

If MTABC express routes were to be renamed following the company merger (or if the merger happened at this very moment), I propose the following renames:

 

I wonder what will happen when artics hit that route.

As for the QM1, no it wasn't mentioned in the NE Queens study.

So the North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study gets released at the end of September. 6 weeks later we get the announcement of cutting the midday QM1 bus. They had to have been working on the QM1 change before the study was released. Why would they leave it out? Because it was a cut? Or is it because the consultants hired to write the study were busy finalizing the writing of the study while Transit staff was considering maybe cutting the QM1?

For me personally, I'm trying to get the service expanded throughout the island, and I'm working with all three community boards to do so.

They expanded service to the Aqueduct Racino some years ago, sending buses all the way. Then last year they expanded the B13, B83, and Q8 to the new part of the Gateway Center Mall.

Other than these kinds of expansions for new visitor-generating uses, when does NYCT ever expand service? What I see is a lot of effort spent on SBS, minor street changes, and no new routes. The Q70 was only "new" because it was really just a branch of the Q33 named something different. Oh, and they extended something (Q19?) to Hallets Point (I don't remember why).

But will the Staten Island Bus Study really create anything big and new? Especially since the North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study created nothing new. Come to think of it: was the QM1 change part of the North East Queens Comprehensive Bus Study? I don't remember seeing it, but I didn't read it cover-to-cover.

Astoria is growing neighborhood with increase in people riding bus and increase service will benefit them too.

I don't spend too much time in Astoria, so this may sound naive: Can anyone explain why the Q66 goes down 35th not 36th? 36th just seems like it would have a bus route on it, and the walk from 35th to the stores on 36th seems weird.

https://queenstransit.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/flawed-proposals-off-street-bus-terminals/

 

A proposal to reroute all buses using Kissena Blvd away from Main St to avoid congestion.

 

Under this plan, Barclay Av between Union St and Kissena Blvd is converted to two-way bus-only operation. All buses turn off of Kissena Blvd onto Barclay Av, and then turn onto Union St.

 

The Q17 and Q27 make the loop around the Union St parking garage that the Q13/Q16/Q28 do in Flushing, making their terminal stops on 138 St.

 

The Q25, Q34, and Q65 make stops at Union St between 37-39 Av, and then continue on Union St until they turn left on 35 Av. From 35 Av, they turn onto their current routes.

 

Thoughts?

The proposal is for just some of the routes in Flushing to go through Main Street to an off-street terminal--I don't mean that proposal on that blog, I mean the Department of City Planning idea. At the public meetings at the Y, a Korean guy was going on and on about banning buses from Main altogether. Someone countered and said that that was what the bus terminal would do. Then a staff person (I don't know if he was City Planning or DOT or Queens Borough office or what) said that actually, the proposed bus terminal would just house some of the routes that terminate in Flushing, and then only after going through Main Street by the subway first. So imagine the bus boarding area in Jackson Heights for the Q49 and Q33, but triple it and add some layover space. Everybody is talking about this proposal like it's the PABT, but it's just supposed to be for a few routes and not actually get the buses off of Main. Maybe a better comparison would be that terminal in Jamaica just south of Hillside: it has lots of buses there but in no way avoids bus traffic on Archer and Jamaica Aves.

Since it's mostly legal issues separating the depots and the routes assigned, couldn't the state legislature just pass some law creating one entity and nullifying any outstanding legal issues?