B35 via Church

Great, so..... What's the actual change? Buses have been doing that shit for at least what, 2 years now.....

Or at the very least, an extensive enough an explanation (not those lazy ass explanations they typically give either).... Yup. Second draft - Local routes Second draft - Express routes Ridership, period to/from there is very low nowadays.... Once upon a time, ridership across the then 4 routes (as in, B13, B14, B15, and B20) was rather moderate.... Around the time they took the B15 out of there, overall usage across all the routes had already gotten low then..... At this point, I would only have the B13 running in & out of there, with absolutely nothing terminating in there anymore....

Oh shit, that is EXACTLY how I view paying the fare nowadays.... I say it all the time (to myself) when I dip or swipe my metrocard - "time to pitch my donation". I would be a massive damn hypocrite to heavily critique the MTA the way I do & for as long as I have..... Only to not pay the fare. It's like these mf-ers quick to be on that f*** the police shit, but when their loved one gets shot/stabbed or whatever, oh NOW it's time to "call 9.-1-1".... "call 9-1-1"... CALL NINE ONE ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Retorts across these 3 posts/replies are all in dark red.

Same way I felt taking the Q2 to UBS yesterday afternoon... Including myself, we only transported 6 people total.

Yup, I third that notion.

Oh, that wasn't an actual suggestion; I'm perfectly fine with leaving the Q19 where it is (as it's something I was advocating for, way back when it ended at Astoria blvd/21st st)... I was only saying that to express how much I'm against extending the M35. But as far as M60's continuing to serve Columbia U. & what not, ehh... The thing's got bigger fish to fry & not for nothing, but the terminal situation over there on W. 106th & Broadway isn't the greatest for it anymore, since it became an all artic route.... And that's putting it nicely. I'm pretty sure they would...

If anyone watching these videos are just there kee kee kee-ing & having a grand old time with this shit, just know that you're also a part of the problem.... Point tf blank.

I'm not seeing why the M35 in particular has to be an M60 supplement.... Hell, FWIW, I would rather take the Q19 from the Astoria PJ's & turn that up towards Manhattan, over having the M35 towards Astoria.... Nobody seeking "mainland" Manhattan from Queens wants to go on a tour of Randalls/Wards Islands before the fact. Perfect right where it is AFAIC. There's been proposals on these parts to extend the M35 along more of 125th.... No way would I support something like that, when just last year, the Bx15 got split at the Hub..... Having a Bronx - LGA route would most certainly alleviate matters.... On a more macro note, that's where the real issue lies... I'll continue to say this for as long as the days are long - This impending Q50 won't do shit for Bronx - LGA demand.... On a lesser note though, something else that would alleviate matters is to take the M60 from 106th & end it where the former Bx15/current M125 does, along W. 125th.... Whenever they get around to revamping Manhattan's network, that's something I fully expect to see proposed for the M60... But this whole extending the M35 to Astoria bit, I can't see that happening (or even proposed by the MTA) - especially as some measure to supplement the M60...

From Flushing, Q58 usage at Broadway/Corona in-particular is rather light. As for the uncertainty you express, well if the Corona av. route wouldn't go to go to Flushing, in terms of potentially generating (more) ridership, I'm taking my chances with connecting it to a relatively nearby mall, over that of stubbing it at whichever current Q38 terminal you're talking about.... Hell, the current Q38 (or anything else, for the matter) shouldn't be ending over there along that gas station along Otis anyway (which the final draft of the MTA proposal doesn't have anything doing btw), and to end a proposed Q59 of sorts at the other Q38 terminal (on 108th/62nd) would be even more of a stub.... If connecting the Q59 to Corona av would come at the behest of terminating it at either of the current Q38 terminals, then I'd just leave the Q58 local going to Flushing & leave the Q59 going to Rego Center via QB.... As for your point about a loop, it would only be so for Grand av. riders.... If those folks want to get off at QB & xfer to the Q60, they have that option.... Connecting Corona av to Rego Park isn't a loop; it's a mere descension from the neighborhood to that mall.... Especially for the latter, I don't concur with the premise that it wouldn't be of any benefit....

You knew what time it was when you started seeing people taking B103's over B6's... That would have NEVER happened during Command's run.

Yeah, it's rather evident they're slowly trying to kill off the n24 east of RFM.... While I don't think it should be killed off per se, I will say that the bulk of the service between the n22 & n24 east of RFM should go to the n22.... They need to have the n22 from Jamaica terminate at RFM & have the n24 from Jamaica terminate at Mineola.... Something else I've been thinking of when it comes to NICEbus lately, is the n22x... Not to pat myself on the back (when I saw the signs posted on the utility pole), but they're FINALLY going to have n22x's stopping at Glen Cove/OCR (the stop for the Country Glen shopping center).... Now that they got that Aldi's & that last mile Amazon bldg. up around Glen Cove north of OCR out there in Carle Place, I'm quite sure passenger activity at that stop has significantly increased.... Word is that that Macy's along OCR's about to close (it's pretty dead anyway) & only god knows what they're going to put in its place in the future... Fact of the matter is that nobody wants that stop for "1 Old County Road" (not only is that building not remotely sought after anymore, I'm not so sure if there's any tenants/businesses operating out of there these days! ) & the stop at Glen Cove/OCR is literally right in front of that shopping center.... So what if it's the next stop after RFM (which is the reason why I firmly believe that n22x's didn't originally/initially stop there)... I mean hell, for me, it's a 10-12 min. walk b/w the 2 stops - so for the average person, it's easily over 15+..... Hell, during peak mall hours, it can take buses 10+ minutes to get between the 2 stops with all that traffic spilling onto, off of, and already along OCR alone.... That n35 change I actually agree with, for whatever their reason.... Anything that comes close to splitting the n35 at Hempstead, I'd support - I never really cared for the old N35/N37 combination (that formed today's n35).... I'd just have all n35 service run between Westbury & Hempstead.... The n35 portion south of Hempstead (or, the old N37) would be used to form an n16 complement... Meaning, I'd have an n16/"n17" type setup that'd run b/w NCC & either Baldwin or RVC... Instead of doling out service equally south of Hempstead (current n35 routing vs. current n16 routing), I'd allocate more service towards the current n35 portion.... Yes, the n16 is quicker than the n15 b/w RVC & HTC, but the n15 simply carries more....

Sure man, I got it bookmarked. God awful QT remix map proposals {Local} God awful QMT remix map proposals {Express}

Not particular to that corridor, but as soon as I read that post/update, that general sentiment was the first thing I said to myself.... Those scanners are the least bit reliable.... Dwell times'll go through the roof.

Right... I mean FFS, the thing used to end on 94th & Flatlands - and as a courtesy/on request, it used to swing way over on Ashford & Cozine, going on a grand tour through Starrett City before the fact... All that, as an attempt to try to spawn patronage..... Now imagine today's B103 did all that shit And oh, there's always the myth of what was supposedly the BQM1.... Much of nobody knew just what the hell that was before it became the BM5... Anyway, it did so for other former PBL's as well, but since we're on the subject {B103}, the PBL takeover, moreso than any other former PBL route, exponentially made the route more popular.... But of course, we can kiss the B103 as we know it today goodbye if the MTA's proposal for it in the Brooklyn redesign becomes a finality.... Yeah man, I remember it like yesterday... Out of all the former PBL routes, the Command bus routes back then (at least IMO) felt much like the B110 still does today - in the sense that you may see it from time to time, but you never really knew if it was "for the public", or what.....

I wasn't trying to implicate that particular stretch carries lightly, but at the same time, I do see more people from Flushing have more of a use for a Q98 of sorts, compared to the current Q58 LTD.... So if they're going to do away with the Q58LTD, I would look to increase local service along Grand av & that section of the route b/w QB & 108th st. in Corona.... Basically what I'm getting at is that there's more usage along the Grand st. corridor than there is on the Q58 b/w QB & 108th.... As far as having the Q59 ending at Rego Center vs. ending it where the current Q38 does (which I thought about doing at first), the latter would be too huge of a deterrent - even more so than not retaining the Q58 local to/from Flushing for those folks b/w QB & 108th.....

Yeah, I remember the old terminal... Had only 2 lanes, but still did the job... Even the Hempstead bound N31 & the N32 went in there.... The city could stand to use more off-street bus terminals, but with greedy developers snatching up every nook & cranny they can find to prop up some development, we're heading in the opposite direction as far as that goes.... With the current situation (thanks to said hotel now occupying that space) with the current Q22 (and n33), I personally do not care for having anything remaining terminating on that corner at Mott/B. 21st... Now Nameoke/Redfern over there by the projects & the LIRR station isn't ideal, but I prefer sending the Q22 over there, than keeping the Q22 where it currently terminates....

Where else would you put the Q22 then?

You don't have to rely on talking points if the merits of what's attempting to be accomplished are on point. Nailed it... West of Fresh Meadows is definitely more dense than east of it.... Hmmm..... There's a game where you can create a (bus) network on steam? What's the name of it, if I may ask? And what's the ultimate point of the game (is it akin to sim city or something)? Q7: When I replied to @Ex696 post below, I was thinking about something similar, but different.... With the Q8 being shifted to New Lots , they're going to end up needing more B13 service south of the ... Which then led to the thought of, what if the B13 was split to only run b/w Jamaica av & Gateway Mall, to have the Ridgewood portion of the B13 run along Jamaica av to Lane H.S., to eventually run down Rockaway Blvd & end at the Casino or whatever.... Q8: Same... I see it being more useful as an interborough route, compared to the current Q8.... Just got through mentioning about terminal space in one of the posts I replied to yesterday.... Forgot they also had the B103 proposed to running up there... If they'd just have the proposed B5/B6 & the Q8 ending there, I think they could pull it off.... Throwing the B103 into the mix, there's not a chance in hell - especially with them wanting to cut the route from Downtown... Something would have to give... If push came to shove, I'd support the Q8 ending there, moreso than the B103.... Q111: Yeah, they kept those trips running to Cedarhurst.... For what, is the question I have. Q113/114: Being perfectly honest, outside of the flooding issues along snake road, I didn't have a problem with Brewer service when it was just the Q111/113. Yup, Spring Creek is still growing.... With the Q8 no longer masking the need for more B13 service south of Euclid subway, they're going to end up needing more B13's running b/w the & Gateway Mall.... Q8: 101st av riders in-particular? No..... But what I do think though, is that the Q8 would be a stronger interborough route in the network if you had people in close enough proximity to the taking the subway to the Q8 to get to Jamaica (or Woodhaven blvd., or Lefferts blvd), than how lowly used the current Q8 is, connecting Queens to Gateway Mall.... Most people taking Q8's to/from Gateway Mall are Brooklynites... Most folks that take the Q8 from along/around 101st av. due west, tend to not ride past Euclid ... Q11: Yes, that's correct... It runs via Hamilton Beach before terminating where the current Q11 Old Howard Beach trips do (165th/96th).... I always thought having anything ending in Hamilton Beach made no sense whatsoever anyway.... Q19: Yeah, having rescinded the Q19 in the previous draft to have the impending Q50 take on the majority of the current Q48 (instead of going straight to LGA after serving CitiField) is nothing more than them doubling down on (or otherwise their further justifying) having the Q50 run to LGA... I'm still of the belief that combination has more to do with knocking out two routes terminating in Flushing, than seriously connecting folks to the airport, but that's neither here nor there.... Q20: I haven't done the math, but doing a quick glance at the headways they got for the impending Q62 & Q76, it may be a wash with that of the impending Q20.... Q37: I don't think this has anything to do with wanting to interline Q10's & Q37's.... Nothing about the Q37 (even with the extension to JFK) warrants artics being ran on them.... The issue is that the current Q37 doesn't have the ridership to do what you're inquiring with that (branching & Q37/Q97-ing & what not).... Q39: It just takes a more direct course to Queens Plaza... Once it hits Jackson, it just does the current B62 routing, to terminate. Q49: Yeah, they previously had it as a LTD for some stupid reason... Q55: It was done to have it directly connect to the at 121st.... Currently, people just say screw it & take Q56's in either direction... That walk to 121st from the current Q55 terminal is a bit of a deterrent... Q58/98: Nobody in Corona's gonna take the Q98; which is kind of (part of) the point.... The Q98, among other things, is an attempt to get the core ridership of the Q58 (which is basically everything south of QB) to/from Flushing faster... Q60: The Q60 can't afford to be a limited.... That would've really gotten backlash if that made that a LTD.... I would've LMAO'd if they tried to make that a rush route (which would've really portrayed how tone deaf they are).... Q63: Yeah, it's the current Q66 routing. Q67: It got cut back from Queens Plaza... Now ends at Court Sq. Q68: FWIW, I'd end at at Northern Blvd ... I'll draw up a route on google maps if need be. Q75: I think it has more to do with the backlash that the previously proposed Q88 got... But aside from that, yes, agreed. Q77: It'll have its riders, but quite honestly, I don't see the Q77 doing all that well around JFK depot... Q111/114/115: I'm not all that fond of their attempt at shifting where the impending Q114 saves runtime at either.... Rockaway Tpke. south of snake road gets too congested, even during the middays... I don't at all believe the MTA would significantly expand the overnight bus network because of any influx of night shift workers (as logical as you would think that would be for a transit agency to do)..... You can relegate this to a conspiracy theory, but my initial response to this is subway safety (or, subway fear-mongering)....

I'd say the first draft was more worse than the 2nd draft, than the second draft having been worse than the final draft.... Putting that another way, each draft got progressively better (final draft > 2nd draft > 1st draft)... At the same time, there were more isolated concepts (portions of routings) that I liked from the first draft, more than there were isolated concepts that I liked from the 2nd draft (as in, concepts that weren't in the first draft, that were newly introduced in the 2nd draft).... To sum it up, it's plain to see that in all 3 drafts, they were trying to mix & match.... That's the problem I generally have with throwing shit on a wall & hoping that it sticks (which that 1st draft clearly was) - The more variables at play (in this case, the number of bus routes in the system), the higher the chance of swings & misses occurring, over that of homeruns - or even base hits, for that matter.... That's basically how I feel I'm disappointed that some aspects of/concepts in the 1st & the 2nd draft plans won't come to fruition, but I'd say I'm more relieved when it comes to this final plan (in comparison to the 1st draft plan overall & the 2nd draft plan overall), than I am disappointed (that the final draft wasn't better than what it ended up being).... That isn't to say that I'm satisfied with this final draft, because I'm most certainly not.... I know I sound like a broken record with this, but I'm still quite livid at the very core/foundation of the network of the 1st draft - which didn't change in the 2nd draft - which didn't change in the final draft.... For a large-scale bus network like we have here in NYC, I will never concur with pigeonholing, or confining every single route in a local bus network route to one service type.... Especially when way too many of the routes in the network are solely skip-stop services (LTD's & Rushes).... Hell, I wouldn't even have every local bus in Queens just be a local, with no LTD or rush variant..... I have no problem with the rush concept, I have a problem with an individual route along a given corridor ONLY being a rush route... That Routes like the Q10, Q43, & Q46 for example having a local variant & a LTD variant was NOT the problem with the network at all.... You create a bus route along a particular corridor first, then you determine if that route should have another service type (like local/LTD, local/rush, or even LTD/rush), a complement along some portion of it (like what they actually did with the impending Q63 & Q66 - although I don't concur with having done that for that particular corridor), and/or a viable supplement along some portion of it.... If you want to give branches or variants (like they did with the current Q85 branches) separate route numbers, I don't give a shit about that... I give a shit about the quality of the routes... Overall, I don't see this impending network fostering growth at all... I'm seriously worried that this new network would deter the status quo.... Don't talk to me (or any other poor soul) about stop removals making buses faster, when some of these routes will still travel along moderate to heavy trafficked corridors with only one lane of moving traffic in each direction... To sum it up, while I'm more relived than I'm disappointed, I'm still more miffed than I'm relieved.... - Yes.... That, and a number of other reasons as to why the old Q14 was eventually discontinued for the current Q15a - The rush portion b/w 49th & Main? That portion of the route represents the core riderbase of the route, so there wouldn't be much of a point if you had a route skipping a bunch of stops along that stretch.... IMO, Northern doesn't necessarily need a skip-stop service, but if I were to have one along the route, it would be to turn the impending Q66 into a LTD/red route (which is the route type they had it being in the previous draft).. With the amount of north-south routes that connect to Northern that run down to the , there's no real need for a rush route at all along Northern Blvd {west}... I said rhetorical for a reason... I didn't want to repeat to anyone that ended up replying to that, that it's just an unnecessary layer of service along Merrick. Alright, cool.... The best way to quell the general concern is to have bus routes all terminate at depots on both their ends (and have a bunch of routes split between depots all over the place)... Of course, that's not realistic... lol... I mean, as long as you have a limited amount of depots in any one region, there's always going to be some level of DH-ing.... I don't overly concern myself with that.... When I used to take the LIRR to the B12 home from Mineola 5-days a week, I used to get irritated seeing a bunch of DH-ing B17's, B45's, and B65's passing by, while waiting 15+ mins. for an in-service WB B12 at Pacific/ENY av (the 2nd WB stop).... It shouldn't be a thing, and I'm not excusing the concern by saying this (hell, it's quite sad that it's the case), but I've grown numb to seeing DH-ing buses all over the place....

I was surprised to see the new Q15 getting cut back to the old Q14 terminal also... 6-7 BPH during peak times circling in out of that area? I don't see that lasting long at all (when this new network gets implemented).... As for the Q26/Q65 ordeal, I agree with you... AFAIC, that was a passive way of conjuring up a Flushing - College point dinky.... Lol... Hell, everything this agency does is political. Damn, I completely forgot about that QT34... Good call... Yeah, I wish that route would've made the cut into the final draft as well Their having gotten rid of those dumb ass combinations is the main reason I say this draft was better than the previous draft... Having walked back a decent amount of previously proposed concepts to retain the current routings of some of these routes or not, I cannot stand frugality - especially when it's blatantly being portrayed at me.... Yeah, the previous Q17 & Q27 I also liked; that plan sure beats the hell out of the impending Q26/Q65 swap.... When I saw that they walked back the Q17 to its current state, I just smirked.... Having the Q52/53 end around Moore Terminal was just f***ing dumb (not dumber than having originally proposing axing the Q53, but it's still up there... lol).... I get wanting to see a good trainwreck (so to speak), but my anger having seen that just greatly supersedes any gluttony I might have wanted to get a good chuckle out of.... Interesting that you say the impending Q45 was a way for them to avoid having anything terminating at Union Tpke/Springfield.... I think the whole damn plan involving Union Tpke appeared to be formulated, as to not have anything terminate at Springfield... either way, it's BS, AFAIC..... As I mentioned earlier today, I'm strongly of the belief that whole B62 to Astoria bit is BQX influenced.... I get that was more or less a pipe dream, but it still would've been nice to have experienced that as an actuality.... As far as the Q72, what I didn't like about that proposal is that it wouldn't have served Rego Center & QCM in both directions.... Heading back north, anyone at Rego Center would've had to have walked way up to 59th to catch the bus back north... Not only not ideal, that would've been a deterrent. There's not a single route in this new network that has 2 service types... Not one. ...with coverage losses. There's going to be too many buses skipping too many stops along Brewer. Haven't seen any runtime projections yet, but I have no reason to doubt that the Q98 wouldn't amass less runtime than the current Q58 LTD.... Take that FWIW. On a bad day, given the divergent portions, I'd say it's actually a wash between the current Q58 LTD & the impending Q98 between Flushing & Grand/QB (which is actually what I'd be afraid of).... On a good day, I'd say the Q98 would smoke the Q58Ltd by a good 5-8 minutes... An average trip on either route, I think leans closer to being a wash b/w that particular stretch, over smoking it by a significant enough an amount.... We can't ignore the stretch of the impending Q98 b/w QB/Grand & QB/HHE (especially if it's going to use the service road along QB).... With the rest of the route (as in, south of QB), I'd *guess* there'd be a 5-7 min. savings or so b/w the impending Q98, compared to the Q58 LTD... More or less. Yup, there's most certainly demand from Queens to Fordham. Not that I'm defending the impending Q62, but it's very likely because they wouldn't have anything serving that mall from Downtown Flushing (like the Q20a currently still does) otherwise - i.e. if they were to say, have that Q62 either take [Union to Parsons to 14th] or [Linden pl to Whitestone Expwy serv. rd to 14th].... The Q66 actually has two rush portions (I'm glad I did my assessments using the PDF instead of via the remix map, otherwise I wouldn't have known).... One of the rush portions is west of 49th/Northern (like you mentioned).... The other rush portion is east of 114th/Northern... The problem with the former is that there are actually more people from points east (that don't tank out at Northern Blvd ) that disembark at 21st than at QBP/Queens Plaza.... As for the latter, it isn't much of a time savings - hardly anybody uses 126th & 127th (it's an unofficial bypass along that stretch b/w 114th & Main/Northern as it is)... I don't understand what it is you're asking that you have italicized there; wouldn't it be better for the Q66 to have a rush portion between where & Main st? Yeah, that's actually true; @QM1to6Ave's not wrong there... What I will say though is, the way they broke up express service along Union Tpke (from the previous QM1/1a) made far more sense than the way they're about to break up local service along Union Tpke.... I'm slowly trying to play catch up with these replies here..... Had to close this particular post out with a reply to your (partial) assessment of this new network.... Your quips to some of these changes I was CTFU at (the one regarding the Q16 really got me; you didn't 'eeeem think the Utopia branch was still a thing... Just goes to speak to how poorly performing that branch is ).... On a more serious note though, well, guess I'll just do this in paragraph from instead of line by line.... The new Q1 is basically a Q43 LTD down Braddock... Hollup, I just realized something - They got the Q1 starting at Jamaica/Sutphin?? I was under the assumption that it was gonna start over there with the Q43, along Archer at Sutphin.... That turnaround scenario to get from the SB direction of Sutphin back to the NB direction is gonna be nightmarish.... While better than that combined Q1/Q6 foolishness, the thing that does bother me about this new Q1 is that it overserves the shit out of Braddock... Your Q4 comment, man, you already know what time it is, fam - Knew that shit wasn't gonna make the cut.... The Q8, well IDK if they knew there was a demand there or not (or if they're just throwing a hail mary with that, so to speak), but there actually is a demand to get to/from Jamaica from along/around the .... Nobody likes that BS out of system xfer b/w the & the - to then have to xfer to the after all that? yikes.... As far as terminal spacing around New Lots subway is concerned, it's pushing it, but I still think there'll be enough space (the B15... and the dam B35 to JFK if that ends up making the final cut, will be along New Lots av... The layover of the B5/6 & Q8 will be along Livonia, under the el there...) The shifting of the Q20 off Sutphin, north of Jamaica av was likely done to accommodate the Q1 paralleling the Q43 along that stretch... That'll definitely add runtime to the route, compared to the current route... Don't even look at the Q22 to LIRR Far Rockaway as if it's actually for those commuters fam... Lol.... Guaranteed it'll be predominantly used by folks that live in (or around) the Redfern PJ's... I think that's a smart move for that reason, as well as (let's face it) the current Q22 terminal situation in Far Rockaway is quite bad - Bonus points if a Q22 & an n33 arrive at the same time!! With the Q23, I just wanna see how ending buses at Corona Plaza's gonna pan out.... Yes, the Q29 survived - it also "survived" being a bus that runs along narrow streets - too bad the hypocrisy remains strong, as the Q41 will no longer run b/w Atlantic & 109th av the way it currently does ..... Await the rest of your synopses...

Since they've significantly changed the traffic patterns in that area since I last fostered the idea, it's looking like it may have to go way up to 101st to turnaround Fair (on both points)... Hillside would attract/transport way more schoolkids, but I'm more a proponent of Union Tpke, given just how busy the Q88 is b/w Fresh Meadows (the neighborhood in general) and QCM..... They used to have short turns on the Q88, but now I believe every trip (aside from trippers, that is) runs the full gamut.... Aside from the Q24 & Q56 being B'way Junction - Jamaica routes (as Cait Sith pointed out), still, nah - As there's not much of a point to have it continue along Pitkin to Penn, en route to B'way Junction.... Outside of ADA access, that is.... Hell, even the Q24 from B'way Junction would be less of a slog than the Q112 for getting to Jamaica, and that's saying quite a lot....

replies in blue Q78, for reference purposes Currently, no.... Impending network, no... You're likely thinking of the Q48.... The current Q47 ends at LGA Terminal A (Marine Air Terminal).... - The impending Q11 I'd like to see work out (in terms of OTP/reliability); I'm just worried that it won't.... As with anything, we'll see. - Lol, yeah, those combinations were utterly asinine & served no other real purpose than to portray blatant frugality. - I prefer the Q41 over the previously proposed Q109, but I'm not at all fond of having it run along (much more of) Sutphin.... I get the whole wanting to remove buses off narrow streets bit (which they weren't consistent with in this new network, quiet is as kept), but I still prefer the current Q41 routing via Atlantic, over having it come up from 109th to panning up Sutphin.... - I don't think I've ever seen a Q112 to Euclid subway idea on these parts... Regardless, still smh at that eventually coming to fruition... - Yeah, thank f*** the Q44 isn't going to Fordham.... Avoided a potential unmanageable mess of a route with that one. - Nah, they just wanted to do away with buses on Nassau Expwy (although I will admit the free-flowing nature of traffic along it is hit or miss).... It's (one reason) why they're having the impending Q114 make so few stops along Brewer; it's an attempt to shift where buses will save time along the route at.... The whole doing away with nonstop service along the Expwy. is what I was worried about when they even came out with the current Q114.... Yeah, we're in bizarro land - where (a modified version of) the Q20B north of Flushing is retained over the Q20a... Go figure. I mean is that a good thing? There's so much deadheading in opposite peak direction, it would have been better utilization of resources with overall better frequency, like how the subway lines through Manhattan run. Not too long ago I was on a PACKED Q6 to Jamaica in the PM, which was followed and preceded by deadheads. This assumes that route would've ran out of JFK.... Even if it would have, Sutphin has no business being aligned to Hillside anyway.... There's a fine line between better utilizing resources within a network & going about constructing/assembling a network... Combining service along a significant enough a portion along Sutphin to a significant enough a portion along Hillside is a poor example of the latter.... Furthermore, you're never going to eliminate turnover anyway, so your point here is rather moot.... replies in orange... and green

Yeah, I'm probably the most disappointed at the previously proposed Q78 (the Springfield through route) & the previously proposed Q43 to LIJ not making the cut..... The stop removals & the pigeonholing (of a route only being of one route type & not having variants to them instead) were/are the two main things I vehemently disapprove/d of since the very first draft (with those "QT" routes & what not)..... Save your strength bro.... I've already been down this same road 3 separate times on this forum over the years... There are some route suggestions/discussions I'm just not going to delve down into bothering discussing anymore... The B36 to Kings Plaza, the B36 to the Junction, a B2/B100 combination, and some Sheepshead - Rockaways route are just a few..... I agree, to a point.... The branch of the current Q16 that should've been kept is the Francis Lewis branch IMO, not the Utopia branch.... This new Q62 though, yeah, I don't see it doing too well.... If you care to flip a coin as to whether which would perform the worst between the two (Q61, Q62), be my guest, Can't say I entirely disagree, but I have far more of a problem with this new Q75 than I do this new Q30.... It's as if they came out with this rendition of a Q75 as a compromise to the previously proposed Q88.... That QCM - LNP/HHE route clear along HHE would've been sheer murder... The Q34 will be gone, bro.... Phased out by an increase in Q25 service, Q20 service through Mitchell Gardens, and Q61 service along Willets Pt. With the Q37, that's not a branch (ending at the Casino).... Everything you see on the map is all one continuous route.... Buses already (currently) double back to serve the casino, before proceeding onward in either direction... With the Q112 replacing the current Q7 west of Rockaway Blvd , it's clear they don't know what to do with that segment.... They went from completely eliminating service along that part of Sutter in the first draft, to having that Q109 running along that part of Sutter, to ultimately having the Q112 running along that part of Sutter..... I'd like to believe that those communities (along the Q10 & Q64) applied pressure to have that previously proposed Q10 rescinded.... Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think folks in Bushwick & Williamsburg a] have that kind of clout & b] even care enough to muster up enough of a fight to have that god-awful B53 proposal be done away with.... Burnside/Rockaway Tpke is a poor area to have a bus terminate at on any basis, let alone a full time basis... I do wonder how many from along the current (and/or new part of the route, NW of Rockaway Blvd ) Q7 would've taken it to/from 5 Towns, or the rest of the commercial areas along Rockaway Tpke. though.... What I will say is, they may as well have ended it at 150th/133rd; just short of that gas station over there by N. Conduit there.... For me, it's that Q51 (regardless if it went to Gateway or not)..... I just don't see SE Queens patrons (particularly, folks east of Merrick) warming up to the in any significant amount.... The NIMBY element/sentiment in regards to having buses run to LIRR Floral Park, I honestly don't think is near as potent as it once was, back when the Q79 was still in service.... I'll even go as far as to say that I can gradually see riders taking buses from LIRR Floral Park (to what extent, of course, will be the question)..... ...of which there are few to none. Quite frankly, I don't think the Q33 or the Q47 should be serving 23rd st.... I'd have kept portions of the Q48 around (instead of them foolishly combining the Q48 & the Q50), to have it serve 23rd instead.... I would kick it out of the airport, to have it as an official (unlike an unofficial one, like the Q48 currently is) loop route though, basically doing this... This would work in conjunction with having the Q19 run the current Q48 b/w Downtown Flushing & Astoria Blvd/108th st (which is what they had the previously proposed Q19 do)... * You're only looking at the route numbering aspect of it... It's going to spawn more confusion because riders aren't going to know what variant stops where (along Merrick or along Brewer, respectively).... * In terms of runtime, absolutely it worsens the Q47.... Usage-wise OTOH, I don't think it makes a lick of difference as to whether the current Q33 or the impending Q47 serves 23rd av.... * ...and I'm one of them, lol..... But yeah, as much as I don't care for the Q51, I don't see it not serving Gateway as a major loss.... I really don't think SE Queens patrons would've bothered taking it to/from Gateway.... That's an issue with the current Q8 to/from Gateway; there's simply not a lot of Queens patrons using it to get to Gateway either.... * When you say you wonder how the impending Q104 & Q105 is gonna work, what particularly are you referring to? * To your general point there at the end, although I wish they'd kept some aspects/concepts from the previous draft, I also see this as an improvement over the previous draft (routings-wise anyway... On my own time, I have to take a deeper dive as far as the frequencies for all these routes are concerned)...

Final part of this assessment... Part one (Q1 - Q39) is in this post & Part two (Q41 - Q69) is in this post here.... Alright, so let's do this. Q75: I remember saying in my the first part of my assessment of this network that it was an odd choice to have the impending Q30 be a rush route.... This definitely explains the impending Q30... While better than the previously proposed Q88, it's still a stupid decision to split up the current Q30 into two rush routes.... This apparent trend of breaking up solidified current routes to form rush routes for a significantly lesser amount of people is irritating, at the very least... Sarcastically speaking, I also think its cute that they have it turning off Union Tpke. at Main st, so it can serve Briarwood subway (as a way to not further increase the amt of BPH at the current Q46 terminal at Kew Gardens subway) - never mind putting yet another route on Union Tpke. to begin with.... Q76: This is basically *whatever* to me.... Doing away with the portion north of 20th av. east of the Whitestone Expwy. to extend it deeper into College Point... I don't get this prioritization of the current Q20b over the Q20a, phasing out the (need for the) Q20a north of Flushing with the impending Q62 & having the new Q76 end over there by the current Q20a/b in College Point, but, whatever.... At least the Q76 won't have to jockey for position with trucks along 132nd (where it currently goes on layover & makes its first pickup at) anymore... Case in point, look at this bullshit; can't make this up... smfh.... Q77: Rush route or not, running this down the rest of Springfield I don't see accomplishing much of anything.... You'd be hard pressed to see any sizable amt. of people taking these Q77's over the Q3 to get to Jamaica or whatever, in that general area around the JFK depot.... One of the main, longstanding critiques about the current Q77 has been/still is its indirectness/roundabout nature.... It'd have been infinitely more beneficial to the network to have retained the previously proposed Q78 & to have had that run down the rest of Springfield (en route to the area around the JFK depot) instead.... Q82: My sentiment about this route hasn't changed; for the sake of repeating myself, I'm okay with this route having been kept (from the previous proposal) - even given the retention of the Q2.... The Q2 I still see garnering more patronage overall over it, but I am curious as to how many along Hempstead av. will end up ditching the Q2 for the Q82 (because on some notable level, I do see that eventually happening).... Right now, the Q2 is significantly more popular along Hempstead av. than the Q110... Not that it means too much of anything, but I think that popularity discrepancy/gap will narrow between the Q2/Q82.... As for the route's relation to the current Q36, I'm not going to complain over whether the impending Q36 or the impending Q82 should serve the 212's... Having the impending Q36 run along Springfield I see as an immediate benefit (especially compared to the current Q1).... The real issue out there isn't even whether the Q82 runs along the 212's to get to UBC (because the Q2 also runs to UBC) and/or the Q36 running along the 212's vs. running along Springfield.... For the love of all that is holy, it's about treating/running the Q110 far better than the muttley, odie, goofy, scooby, snoopy dog shit they've been running it like, since the god damn JBL days!!!!! Q83: The Q42 should be treated as another layer of service along Liberty, not some sort of complement to the Q83.... Few people use the Q42 & the Q83 interchangeably... If you can have two rush routes running along one corridor (there's a couple examples of that in this network), you can have two local routes running along Liberty.... Q85/Q86/Q87: Guess I'll lump this all into one, even though they involve both the current Q5 & Q85.... In the previous plan, they had the Q5 running down Brookville & 243rd to cover the Rosedale branch of the current Q85 (and then some)... the Q85 only doing the current Q85 Green Acres branch.... and the Q86 doing the current Q5 to Green Acres This final draft has the Q5 scaled back to just west of the Belt... the Q85 remaining doing the current Q85 Green Acres branch... the Q86 running down Brookville & 243rd to cover the Rosedale branch of the current Q85 (and then some)... and a Q87 that would do the current Q5 to Green Acres So to sum the above up, they split their previously proposed Q5 into two routes in this final plan - Which segues into the main thing I want to touch on... This impending Q86.... It's a slap in the face for a Rosedale rider - and I say that because I don't see it at all being competitive time-wise to the current Q85 Rosedale branch... that, and they also have the Q111 as a rush route... See, I never really cared for short turning the current Q5 at LIRR Rosedale in-particular - But basically giving it a new route number, to extend service down to residential Rosedale from LIRR Rosedale, from descending from Merrick, aint it... It's one thing to connect Merrick blvd. to Green Acres, it's quite another to connect it to residential Rosedale (which I personally see no need for whatsoever)... To sum up my thoughts on this part of the plan/network altogether, I like what they did with the current Q5 - breaking the route up to where the impending Q5 will end at Laurelton Pkwy/Merrick & the impending Q87 remaining running to Green Acres like the current Q5 does..... The Q85 remaining running to Green Acres, of course I also concur with... Instead of the impending Q86 running down to residential Rosedale from Merrick blvd. though, I would've simply gave the Q86 number to the current Q85 Rosedale branch (and incorporating the extension down Huxley, to terminate over there where the current x63 does).... Being that there's a lot of elderly folks down in Rosedale, I do wonder if the extending of local service (in general) down to that specific part of Rosedale would have folks taking x63's less & local service more... The current Q85 Rosedale branch stops dead at 147th (where the current Q111 runs along), leaving only the x63 in that immediate pocket south of 147th.... I'll touch a little more on the x63 (well QM63 now) later on though.... Q88: Relieved that they're not running it clear along HHE to LNP (as per the previous draft), but I still don't care for having this run to LIRR QV.... For as long as this route exists, I will always advocate stopping it dead at Union Tpke.... Q100: <petty> The baby mama express will be GONE.... Besides, what good is a baby mama express if the baby mamma's don't 'eeen use it no more </petty> Q101: Once I noticed that they had the impending Q68 running to Elmhurst hospital, my immediate thought was that they'd fully retain the Q101 - Only to scroll down to see the realization that they're finally going to take it out of Manhattan... I probably shouldn't be this elated about it, but I certainly agree with it; as the masses all line up/gun for Q60's in East Midtown anyway.... The Q32 of course garners an accumulation of interborough riders b/w Penn & E. Midtown.... I mean, overall, the Q101's been in a freefall for well over a decade now; I can only imagine having to actually commute on that route now post-covid, with all those outdoor dining sheds lining along Steinway st... I actually feel sorry for those folks.... It's truly embarrassing how many folks make their way from the more northern part of the route {Q101} to the current Q69.... When I'm around QBP, I always see Q101's carrying rather lightly, with much of no one waiting for it, regardless of direction.... Now I'm not advocating nothing running along Steinway, so what I will say is, as much as IDC for having anything run to Hunterspoint Ferry, they may as well have this route doing it... On the other end of the route, I suppose it'll draw more of those industrial workers up around Berrian to taking buses, but I'm curious as to why they're doing away with having anything end at 19th/Hazen.... Q103: In the previous plan, they split the current Q103 into [having the Q69 cover the portion south of 44th dr] & [having a weird rendition of a Q39 cover the portion north of 21st ].... With this final plan, while it won't run clear along Vernon, at least it'll be one route still connecting both ends of Vernon.... Although I've admittedly been in limbo over the years between [keeping the current Q103 as is] & [having the Q103 do the exact same thing this impending Q103 will], I have to say that this impending Q103 is the epitome of the word progression... The southern part of the current Q103, at best, is stagnant, and I certainly think having the route run along more of 21st st. would help with overall ridership of the thing.... As for the running of it to Hunterspoint Ferry, meh.... Q104: Routing-wise, I certainly agree with this; have been clamoring for it for god knows how long.... They say both the span & frequency would be increased to that of the Q102's, but that isn't saying shit, because the Q102 is still subpar service-wise (and that's putting it nicely).... An extension of this route to Roosevelt Island should at least come with 10 min, peak service & 15 min off peak service on weekdays, and 15-20 min. service on weekends.... Now I may be overrating this route (I don't think I am though), but AFAIC they're underrating it more than I may be overrating it.... Q105: The last draft had it ending at QBP... The final plan has it ending at Court Sq.... Regardless, whatever.... Q110: Well well, look at this... They finally decided to run *something* down to LIRR Floral Park from Jamaica av.... Push come to shove, I'd say it should be one of those red routes, as opposed to a local route though... Unless the thought process is that most people (east of Springfield) would still gravitate to Q36's & n24's? IDK, but the main thing with the Q110 is, if those folks can get some consistent, reliable service along the corridor, the popularity/patronage of this thing just might skyrocket... Won't hold my breath though. Q111/114/115: My immediate reaction to this part of the plan/network is that way too many stops along Brewer would (still) end up being eliminated... They got the Q111 & the Q114 as rush routes, making too few stops along Brewer, north of the Belt... They also got the Q115 as a LTD, only panning as far south as Farmers... Very strange... It appears to me that they're severely underrating the amt. of riders seeking Far Rockaway (or, the Rockaways in general) from along Brewer... The plan is a little too Jamaica focused. Way I see it, if they're going to base service along Brewer (or as they put it, "This new route would become the primary service along Guy R. Brewer Blvd") around the Q115, right off the bat, it should be a local - case closed.... Then we can talk about having Q111's & Q115's as skip-stop services.... They have the impending Q111 as a rush route; I don't necessarily disagree with that, as the current Q111 carries heavy & it does slog along Brewer... However, I still think they have it skipping too many stops along Brewer..... As for eliminating the current Q113 to have the impending Q114 make less stops (compared to the current Q114), I agree with the general idea..... I'd say the impending Q114 should be a LTD route instead of a rush route though, basically making the same amt. of stops south of the county line, but still with a couple more stops along Brewer,north of the Belt... As a side note, to eliminate the Doughty blvd. stop to keep the Monroe st. stop, **facepalm**.... A decent amt. of people that work in Inwood use Doughty (either direction).... But yeah, once the MTA even created the current Q114, I figured the current Q113 would end up being toast - And here we're about to be with it.... The fact that they seriously see the current setup along Brewer as redundant service (talking about avoiding redundant service with this impending setup) tells you all you need to know.... To sum up what I'm saying, the Q111 may as well be the rush route, the Q114 should be a LTD, and the Q115 should be a local if they're going to break up service along Brewer in such a manner..... Q112: I just deleted my rant to lay this out calmly imstead: If that portion of the current Q7 west of Rockaway blvd doesn't do much for the current Q7, why would it do much for the Q112? To retain what was lost with having the impending Q8 run to New Lots , compared to the current Q8 running to Jamaica from that part of Brooklyn? Vast majority of those folks (current Q8 riders) in Brooklyn aren't remotely riding to Jamaica anyway.... The thing with the current Q8 in Brooklyn in general as it is, is that it's majorically used as a B13 supplement (meaning, interborough usage is not all that great on the route).... I get that the Q112 is shorter than the Q8, however (and this is something that I have been clamoring for, for a good little minute in these spaces, even back during the RD days) - the B14 should be running along that portion of the current Q7... Not the current Q7, not the current Q112, not any 109th av route (like they had the Q109 in the previous draft run to).... You have a significant amt. of people from on/off B14's making their way to/from the ; that walk is an unnecessary PITA... The B14 running to Rockaway Blvd would also solve the problem of connecting East New York (the neighborhood) to the infamous Q53... I've seen ideas around these parts that has the B15 taking the exit off N/S Conduit at Cross Bay, just to have it connect with the SBS'... Absolutely unnecessary, given the amt. of traffic as it is in that immediate area... Lastly, they kicked the B15 out of the Brooklyn General Mail Facility some odd years ago... AFAIC, nothing should be terminating inside of there (like the current B14 & B20 does), and for all I care, just have the B13 run inside there.... The Q112 should be left right there where it is, regardless if they truncated the Q51 from the previous plan (from Gateway Mall) to terminate where the current Q112 does... ========================================= And that about wraps it up for my assessment of the local routes... The express routes will be commented on in another post.... I tried hard to not look at anyone's replies before completing my commentary, so I am curious to see what y'all got to say about this plan.... So I'll reply to some of yall's posts first (to try to catch up here), then I'll comment on these express bus changes.... Questions, comments, concerns? Have at it.