B35 via Church

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.

Continuing on from the first part of my sentiments about this final proposed network... Back this past Saturday, I realized they made a remix map for it, but I'll continue my assessment of the impending network by scrolling down this PDF containing the route profiles for all the routes here.... Q41: After noticing what's going to happen with the new Q11, I didn't think they'd retain the current Q41 south of Rockaway Blvd ... Nonetheless, IDC for the new Q41 routing on the opposite end of the thing.... Quite frankly, even with the Q24, Q8, and Q112 in close enough proximity of each other, I still see a need for something panning in a northerly-southerly fashion east of Lefferts Blvd making its way to Jamaica... Another way of saying this is that there should be something else west of the Q9 running north-south in that part of Queens..... I don't really see the need to have had that gap along 109th be closed, by connecting it to Lakewood av.... What I do see is a routing going 109th-Lakewood-Sutphin being a deterrent for current Q41 riders going in/out of Jamaica proper... If you're a South Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park patron, the longer you spend on Sutphin, the worse off your commute will typically be... I fully expect the new Q41 to be less popular than the current Q41 for that reason alone. Q43: I would be more supportive of this being a rush route if they kept the previously proposed running of it to LIJ.... To me, it doesn't seem worth it to have the (main catchment area for) the rush portion only be b/w Springfield & 268th.... I think the portion west of Springfield a] will be just as utilized as the impending Q1 b/w LIRR Jamaica & Hillside/Springfield, and b] more utilized than the portion east of Springfield.... Q44: Came in with the (unfortunate, IMO) expectation that it would end up running to Fordham... Instead, they retained the current routing.... I have no qualms here, because running it to Fordham would've made it that much more unmanageable.... Q45/Q46/Q48: Where do I even start with this shit? Right off the bat, I'm vehemently against the way service will be segmented along Union Tpke.... AFAIC, this is all being done to avoid having anything end at Springfield (because after all, they mention that combined service of these 3 routes will be an increase, compared to current Q46 service)... While I actually like the Q45 route, it shouldn't be part of any main segment along the corridor - Instead, it should be a SUPPLEMENT along the corridor (and a local one at that, not a LTD).... Even though there are a lot of riders that use the current Q46 west of 188th, Union Tpke shouldn't be segmented with a LTD west of 188th & 2 rush routes east of 188th.... The core of the riderbase along Union Tpke is b/w Kew Gardens & Springfield... All you really have to do with Union Tpke (if you want to create complementary routes along the corridor, that is) is have one complement run b/w QB & Springfield, with the other complement running the current LIJ branch of the Q46.... Since they're doing this pigeonholing shit with all the routes (meaning, one route can only be a green route, a blue route, a red route, or a purple route), the QB-Springfield complement can be one of those red routes, with the complement running past Springfield being a rush route or whatever... With that said, throughout the years, I have always thought that the Glen Oaks branch ran excessively; they do this as to not have have too many BPH running in/out of LIJ.... I personally wouldn't bother with the Q48 & (if push came to shove), just have the Q45 as a local & the Q46 as one of the red routes or whatever... If it means running more Q45 service over Q46 service (again, with the sentiment/surmisal that they don't want anything ending at Springfield) to avoid running too many buses in/out of LIJ, then so be it.... To sum it up, service shouldn't be segmented at 188th... If there's to be any line of demarcation along the corridor, it should be at Springfield. Q47: So, swap northern terminals with the Q33.... This just makes the Q47 a junk route in the network; kind of like back in the day before you had to separate recyclables from regular trash... You threw the empty Domino's pizza box, the empty 2-liter bottle of Sprite, and the empty container having contained honey BBQ wings all in the same damn receptacle... Lol.... I mean, if you're gonna take it out of LGA, just have the thing continue up 80th to the GCP service road, to end with the Q69.... I will say though, that I do concur with taking the route off Roosevelt b/w 69th & Moore Terminal.... It's "waste"ful .... The masses want 74th over 69th (subway stations).... Putting the thing on Woodside av. instantly makes it more useful in that immediate area.... The SB direction shift from 73rd to 75th I'm alright with.... It should've never been running inside Bulova to begin with, for there to be a proposal suggesting service be eradicated from there.... Q49: Thank f*** this is going to remain a local... With as dense as the southern part of Jackson Heights is, with the thing particularly running along 35th av, having it run LTD would've been dumb as hell.... Q50: This has fail written all over it... The previous proposal to even have it running to LGA was bad enough, this final rendition is actually worse... Sever it from Co-op during off-peak hours, to have it virtually swallow up the entirety of the current Q48.... As crazy as this sounds, I'm now honestly of the belief that this has less to do with serving LGA & more to do with merely taking a bus route away from terminating in the heart of Flushing.... Some of you may know that I've not been a big fan of connecting Flushing & LGA with a (public) bus route (e/g the current Q48), but I'm not at all relieved with this new Q50, because they are severely underestimating its use in Co-Op..... Not to say that they should revert to the old QBx1, but the Bx23 experiment has been anything but successful... Still far too many buses carrying too lightly.... To subject the Q50 to current Q48 patronage b/w Flushing & Corona is just plain stupid..... Q51: Well, I did say that I thought the previous proposal to have it running to Gateway would've been for naught, since SE Queens patrons patronize other shopping areas (such as Green Acres, and even RFM).... That much added mileage from Rockaway Blvd to Gateway IMO is just too big of a risk for an unknown (which I'd say is an extremely low) level of demand to have tried to cater to.... Yeah, you gotta start from somewhere in order to get somewhere (so to speak), which is what the rest of this Q51 route basically is - How many SE Queens riders are willing to abandon making their way to Jamaica for 's, 's, or 's, to embark on the instead... We'll find out soon enough, with how patronized this impending route will be.... Even though I'm not all that fond of it, I will admit that it's smart to not have it running on coverage headways to start out.... Q53: Yeah, retain the terminating of it at Woodside-61st.... The previous proposal to have both the Q52 & Q53 end in the general vicinity of Moore Terminal would've been chaotic. Q54: Quite honestly, I'd have tried my hand at segmenting service along Metropolitan before doing so with Union Tpke... Hell, the blueprint's already there with the current short turns on the route.... Q55: Sigh of relief that it won't run to Jamaica.... Absolutely makes sense to have it directly connect to the at 121st; curious as to what the turnaround scenario will be though. Q58/Q98: The thing about this coupling to me is that I don't have a problem with the routes individually - but I don't think there's necessarily a need for both these variants of the current Q58 to run between Ridgewood & Flushing either.... I would try my hand at combining the two core concepts into one route; as in, running b/w Ridgewood & Grand/QB making Q58 stops, to then doing the Q98 routing b/w Grand/QB & Flushing (putting it another way, maintaining the Q98 route, but have it make more stops south of QB).... If a concept like that ends up attracting more of the masses (than the Q58, which I would expect, because I find that significantly more of the masses that board in Flushing disembark at QB, moreso than any accumulation/total of pax that disembark along 108th or along Corona av, short of QB), then I'd have the Q59 run over the Q58 routing along Corona av, to circle back down towards the Rego Center, like this.... Q59: I can understand wanting to have it parallel the Q54 in Brooklyn... However, if it's going to do that, then I think the Q68 should continue along Metropolitan to at least Bedford/Driggs, to then get to/from WBP that way... I would not completely do away with having no east-west service west of the BQE in the immediate area - especially given that they have the proposed B62 bypassing WBP..... As for the "change" to have Queens bound buses utilize Gardner, they already do that now!!! Wtf are they talking about?!?!?!? In the PDF here it says "Queens-bound in East Williamsburg, the proposed Q59 would use Gardner Av to connect to Grand St to avoid a difficult turn."... I went to look at the stop list, and they have the current stop at Grand/Gardner eliminated due to the "new routing".... The change that they're actually making to the Queens-bound Q59 in the immediate area, is to ELIMINATE the turn onto Gardner Av, to instead have buses turn on Stewart Av to get to Grand st... (a change I actually agree with btw; that right turn off Gardner on the Q59 is a hassle, to say the least.... Buses spend too much time at that corner (Gardner/Grand, before the right turn) waiting for trucks (especially) making that left off Grand to turn down on Gardner - which impedes traffic turning off Gardner to get EB on Grand, since Gardner is a 2-way street).... Idiots.. Q61: They proclaim that frequencies would resemble the Willets Pt. branch of the Q16, but the problem (as I see it) is that it won't garner (near) the amount of ridership of that branch of the current Q16.... Hell, I actually think it's going to perform worse than the current Utopia branch of the Q16... By having this be a rush route, they are severely overestimating the potential of this thing..... I'd say it needs to serve all stops along Union at minimum, to even have a chance (of being worth its existence)..... Q62: This is a shortened, rush version of the proposed Q20 in the previous draft.... I mean, the only redeeming quality to it AFAIC, is that it reconnects Flushing to College Point Center (since in the previous draft, they got rid of both branches of the current Q20a/b to run it over to Beechhurst).... There's nothing that says "rush" about having riders sitting in traffic along 20th av b/w the Whitestone Expwy. & the shopping center itself.... On top of that, ridership along the service area of the thing (as in, at & east of 20th/132nd) simply isn't strong enough to even warrant a rush route.... All in all, with this new network, while they've closed some service gaps in NE Queens, they've simultaneously dismantled the feeder network in Flushing (which was all that was really necessary up there) - and it's going to loom detrimental.... Q63/Q66: It says that the Q63 would be a new route complementing the (new) Q66, but unless I'm missing something, it looks like the new Q63 is nothing more than a renumbered (current) Q66.... For all that, they could've just numbered the rush route along Northern the 63.... Aside from route nomenclature, while this will be the unpopular opinion, I don't see this need for skip-stop service along Northern... I see far more of a need for a greater concentration of service along Northern Blvd. b/w Northern Blvd & Flushing proper.... I also think 35th av, at best, should've been served with another route - but that's neither here nor there.... It's something to be said that they could have those current Q95's (the 21st - QBP shuttle buses) terminating at 21st , but they can't have the impending Q63 end at 21st .... You do not need the Q63 & the Q66 running from QBP - especially now that they're scaling the Q69 back from serving Court Sq, running from QBP to the Queensbridge & Ravenswood PJ's the same way the current Q66 does / impending Q63 would.... To sum my sentiment of this part of the plan up, I'm not in favor of the complementary nature of it all... If they're that hell bent on running/retaining having a Northern Blvd. service run to QBP, then have it run the new Q66 routing & call it a day.... The current Q66 from the east, dies at 21st & Flushing bound Q66's from QBP, are quite noticeably used interchangeably with the current Q69 - and at a lesser extent on top of it, because there's still a greater demand for the Q69 over the Q66 at QBP.... Q64: The route is short... Plagued by traffic along Jewel av traffic by the GCP & the Van Wyck during certain times moreso than others... Stop spacing isn't remotely an issue on a route like this.... It should've remained serving all the current stops that it does. Q65: I'm somewhat torn on this one, mostly in disagreement of it... Yes, the current route from end to end is a drag, but to swap the serving of the hospital with the Q26, to have it (the new 65) continue up 162nd to Sanford, yikes.... I'm not so sure if having the new Q65 do that would even be for the greater good... By that I mean, It may end up being a wash in terms of runtime, compared to the current Q65 routing b/w Downtown Flushing & 162nd/45th... I get decongesting that pocket of Flushing binding Kissena - Sanford - Parsons - Holly, but holy crap.... And not for nothing, but I do notice a fair amt. of patronage seeking Flushing Hospital from off the current route from points south.... Q67: Yeah, agreed with cutting it back from QBP to Court Sq... Come to think of it, this is something I used to advocate for the Q39 to do also (but, compared to the Q67, I will admit that the Q39 is far more sought after at QBP than the Q67 is).... Anyway, especially being that I take the B32 from the first stop from time to time, I always see a sizable amt. of people waiting for Q67's right behind it.... Very few people take the Q67 to/from QBP.... Those that work in industrial Maspeth prioritize the over the & the anyway.... Q68: Quite frankly, I think this route's footprint should be slightly expanded in Brooklyn (see my commentary for the Q59) & sent elsewhere in Queens... I see the Q47's short stint on Woodside av. doing more for that route, than having this thing run on Woodside av for a longer stint for, it.... And not for nothing, but the immediate area around Elmhurst Hospital is not the greatest of places to terminate a bus route at... FWIW, I think they were on the right track with the QT76 in the very first draft, as far as connecting (points south of) QB & (up to) Northern is concerned.... Instead of turning this off for Elmhurst Hospital, I'd end this at Northern Blvd , via 46th st & 39th st & call it a day.... I can definitely see people coming off the Q66 (well, the impending Q63 & Q66) & xferring to a route that pans south of QB on down to industrial Maspeth & Brooklyn (in general) without having to go through Queens Plaza or QBP.... Q69: Doing this to the Q69 makes sense, given that the B62 (and the Q63, to an extent) fills in the blank (so to speak) along the lower portion of 21st st... The problem I have with this has less to do with this Q69 (especially in juxtaposition with eliminating the current Q100) & almost everything to do with the B62 being the route filling in the proverbial blank.... The B62 goes too deep into Brooklyn & pans up too much of 21st st. for this type of a setup to be (as) effective along 21st st..... Not sure how else to express this general sentiment. For the sake of post length, I'll end this here & finish up my assessment of this new network in a 3rd post.

Circular argument... I get the basis of your outcry, but you'd have been better off leaving that part out.... These are two of the things that "punishes" those of us that you're trying to make a case for.

Shout out to @Cait Sith for shooting me a quick msg. about this. Let's see what we got with this: Q1: Far better than what was proposed in the draft plan, but AFAIC, they still got it wrong.... I get doing away with the Springfield Branch, but why the f*** is Braddock getting all that service???? Q4: I was actually looking forward to that slight extension to Elmont that was proposed in the 2nd draft; too bad it didn't fall through... Q5: While I still think they're unnecessarily butchering service along Merrick Blvd, I don't see why this wasn't an original short turn of the current Q5 (instead of running buses to LIRR Rosedale) to begin with.... Q6: Sigh of relief when I scrolled down to see how they would change this route that they didn't change this route (given that they did away with that frugally, moronic Q1/Q6 combination in the draft plan)... Q7: *nods head in agreement* upon looking at this new change.... It was time to cut the cord with the current routing west of Woodhaven/Cross Bay blvd's (as in, the Sutter av, etc. routing).... That part of Rockaway Blvd. north of the needs the service... Watch Q24 ridership in that immediate area almost instantly plummet (current Q24 needs less of a strain put on it anyway; route is rather long, drawn out, and rather sluggish...)... Also, the proposal in the draft plan that had it [Q7] running to Cedarhurst, glad that wasn't considered... It'd have been too much; tantamount to a waste of mileage AFAIC.... That shopping plaza over there at Rockaway Tpke/Burnside would've made for a poor terminal anyway.... I don't have too strong of an opinion either way about stopping it short of Cargo Rd.... Q8: Upon scrolling downward in this PDF, I thought that they'd maintain the current routing.... Instead, they maintained the routing in the prior draft of the proposal (as in, running it to New Lots instead).... I'm not complaining in the slightest, because I've been saying that the current Q8 in Brooklyn, for the most part, isn't much more than a B13 supplement... The new Q8 OTOH will fill a void in the current network that's going to instantly do away with having people take B15's to JFK for the Q3 to get to Jamaica (there are quite a number of people that do this; more than some of you might think).... Even if they would've added more stops than what was originally proposed, thank f*** they didn't revert back to what was proposed in the original QT5 routing-wise.... Q9: *snaps fingers*... I was hoping beyond hope for an extension to Lefferts AIRTrain... So it's just going to end where the current Q37 does, via 130th st.... It is what it is... Still will be a nice little route nonetheless... Q10: If I would've scrolled down to see that they still had this being extended over the current Q64, I'd have just stopped posting altogether.... If someone told me going in that they scrapped that BS, I'd have figured that they'd just have it be a full on Lefferts Blvd. route.... Q11: Always thought that every trip should serve both Hamilton & Old Howard Beach, I've been proposing that for ages.... Surprised that they decided to include serving Lindenwood with such a route... Don't dislike it per se, but I'm not exactly high on it either... This looks good on paper (definitely better than that QT88 bullshit that was proposed in the original draft plan), but I want to see how this is going to end up panning out logistically... Q12/Q13: Simply don't care for the Northern/Sanford swap.... I can see people in Flushing being quite pissed off at this. Q14: From the prior rendition of the draft plan, it looks like they just scrapped the portion along Fresh Pond.... Anyway, I get filling the void in Corona, but something about this route still bothers me... Can't quite put my finger on it.... The whole route just screams filler to me.... *shrugs* Q15: Ok, the demographics have significantly changed since the old Q14 terminated there, and I get wanting to scale the route [Q15] back from Beechhurst.... However, I still don't see having buses ending at Clintonville/7th on a full time basis being viable.... I'm not sure to what/where, but I don't see that particular change lasting all that long.... Q16: TBH, I wanted to see how things would work with having a route pan through the heart of Flushing, panning south along College Point Blvd.... In any event, I'm not sure I get the logic behind scrapping the more utilized branch of the current route (Francis Lewis) to overserve the branch that's significantly weaker... At least they have it still running to Ft. Totten & not stubbed to where the current Q31 ends at (27th/Francis Lewis), like as proposed in the prior draft plan... Q17: SMH.... This was one of the routes I didn't want to have be retained.... I personally liked the prior proposed Q17 between College Point & Fresh Meadows. Q18: Whatever. Q19: YGBFKM..... They retained the route [Q19], to have the Q50 go to LGA via Roosevelt & 108th???? I know that's more of a critique for the Q50, but that is utterly stupid... What would've been so hard to just have the Q19 diverted to run along that stretch in question? Q20: Figured they'd revert service to Jamaica, but why introduce it to Jamaica av? That is going to slow the route down quite noticeably in Jamaica... On the other end of the route, interesting that they're keeping 14th av service & canning 20th av service... AFAIC, for all that, they may as well just have it completely replace the current Q34 at & north of Flushing proper, instead of just having it replace the Q34 through Mitchell Gardens.... Q22: To hell with (for the purpose of) LIRR Far Rockaway, those project heads will be the main ones benefiting from that northward extension in Far Rockaway (I do agree with the idea though).... On the western end of the route, yeah, even Ray Charles saw that shit coming.... They could at the very least have service to Riis Beach during the summer season.... Q23: Lol, yeah right, truncating this to terminate at Corona Plaza.... That's going to be quite the adventure.... I honestly think they resorted to this b/c they couldn't think of what else to do with the portion of the route south of QB.... From a usage standpoint, it makes far more sense to truncate the route at QB from the north, than to truncate the route at Roosevelt from the south... Q24: Not surprised with the cutback to B'way Junction... The changes on the Jamaica end will have it spending less time in Jamaica, but at what cost to ridership... People do not use Q24's & Q56's interchangeably at all... I don't see many people bothering using Q56's to get to Jamaica Hospital.... Q25: Figured they'd maintain the current routing... Has no business running way down to Springfield Gardens, even if they previously proposed ending it over there by the Whitestone Expwy.... Q26: Previously proposing running it to Cambria Hgts. was just plain dumb, so I'm glad they rescinded that... At the same time, running this over the current Q65 route in College Point on those headways aint it. either.... The Q26 is a poor route choice to try to use as (what I like to call) a dual ended feeder; the demand for College Point & the demand for areas along it south of Flushing proper (especially sharing the same routing as the Q27 before turning off for Hollis Ct. Blvd) is quite stark..... Q27: Taking buses off of Holly was one of those things that was long overdue, but I didn't actually see them ending up doing something about.... The truncation to Springfield/Francis Lewis is *whatever*, I guess.... Q29: I didn't think they'd actually revert it; thought they were going to keep that proposed Q80 TBH.... Q30: Strange choice for a rush route... While I don't necessarily have a problem with having it end at QCC, I do think they're overemphasizing QCC.... And what is this about "Splitting the Q30 branches into two separate routes allows riders to better differentiate which route to take based on their destination."? Didn't know service to QCC was considered a branch, but whatever.... Q31: I mean it's straighter & all, and it won't end in the middle of much of nothing anymore (as in the current Q31 terminal in Bayside), ending over there at the Bay Terrace library with the Q28 via the shopping center instead.... At the same time, I see this losing overall ridership, compared to the current Q31... Q32: If you look at the strip map, it don't look like much of a change at all... But buses are gonna go straight to Manhattan from Queens Plaza, instead of serving Queensboro Plaza subway... I'm somewhat torn on that, agreeing with it more than disagreeing with it... Getting to Queens Plaza North from Queens Blvd heading west is very cumbersome.. That left turn off Northern onto Queens Plaza North is hell - and what exacerbates matters is cars going in/out of that parking garage for that Hilton.... Q33: LMFAO !!! This one came straight out of left field; didn't expect to scroll down to see this... This is likely an attempt to make it more useful, because north of Astoria Blvd, there is just too much air currently being carried on this thing.... Could also be an "answer" to the critique of the Q70 not serving Terminal A, who knows.... The Q33 was always more popular than the Q47 from Moore Terminal anyway... Q35: Yes, straighter (in Queens), but I honestly think this is going to be a deterrent... I see Newport riders being petty enough to not even bothering with the new Q35 b/c of the shift down to Rockaway Beach Blvd. (looking at that stop list though, I'll admit I didn't realize there were that many stops along Newport)... I also think ending it at the ferry terminal is much ado about a bunch of nothing.... Not looking forward to the stop removals at Av S Queens-bound & Utica Av Brooklyn-bound, as it makes it more infeasible for me to catch the thing coming off the B46... Oh well... Q36: Thank f*** they didn't retain that proposed Q57.... Also glad that they kept service along the 212's (212 pl, 212 st); albeit not being with the Q36, which will be shifted to Springfield, which is something I proposed (although I had it branched with the 212's, instead of it solely serving Springfield).... I'll admit, I'm surprised that they kept service to Little Neck with the Q36, instead of retaining that Q45... Q37: I'm not as surprised upon seeing this change, because I was previously apprised of this possibly happening to the Q37.... Anyway, this instantly makes it more useful, but at the same time, it's meandrous as shit.... Quite sure most will still gun for the Q10, but I'm curious to see how utilized the new Q37 will fare in/out of JFK.... Q38: Meh, So they just got rid of the Eliot half of the route (to have that new Q14 cover it, from E. Elmhurst).... It'll still have its riders, but my outlook for this new Q38 is not all that great... I didn't expect it to be retained, but at the same time, I expected more to happen with the route.... Q39: Hmm.... While I'm okay with it being basically retained, I scrolled down with the expectation that the route would drastically change.... Only change to the thing was the course b/w Court Sq. & QBP, which was meandrous anyway, which I hardly see affecting ridership one way or the other.... ----------------------------------- I'll stop here for now... Will get to the rest of this later on..... Still don't care for all the stop removals & the whole red/green/blue/purple shit as separate route types for each individual route, but as far as the routings are concerned, I'm not nearly as miffed as I came in expecting to be (largely because of what I'm seeing so far, routes are being rolled back & the more idiotic proposals in the previous proposal/draft have been thrown out)... Hope the trend continues upon scrolling down the rest of this PDF.

I'd say the larger issue is the waning demand for Jericho Tpke (namely, west of Commack).... Over the years, I've seen it completely crap out on the n79, come damn close to doing so on the old S29, and significantly wane on the old S54.... Only route that had/maintained any sort of decent demand for / patronage along it, was the S58.... I always thought there should've been a route b/w Whitman & Smith Haven anyway.... The dilemma was always that simply extending the S58 to Whitman would've that much more unmanageable.... AFAIC, the need to have the S6 specifically run b/w Patchogue & Whitman Mall has waned.... Simply put, the S20, especially pre-2016, had way more people utilizing it anywhere b/w Copiague & Babylon (I don't ever remember the S20 getting great usage west of Sunrise, when it ended at the Kohl's in E. Massapequa).... Overall, I'd say the amt. of people [not going to Sunrise] & those that [were going to Sunrise], was about 40/60 back then.... Either way, S20's used to be PACKED...... In other words, the route wasn't nearly as close to being wholly reliant on Sunrise back then, than how it ended up becoming after a] those 2016 cuts (that featured the 1b, 35, 71, 90, etc) in general & b] specifically, when they turned the S20 into a loop route to replace the N19 routing east of Sunrise.... What also didn't help, was the decreasing popularity over the course of time of the Great South Bay shopping center; that place used to be a pretty big deal back then.... As an aside, the damage was already done when they decided to extend the S29 down to that shopping center... Just wasted mileage all around. More to your concern/inquiry, TBH, I never really noticed much of anyone on the S20 from either end of the route xferring to the S1..... Now if people decided to take the train from Babylon to Amityville (instead of taking the S20) to get to the S1, IDK, but I wouldn't necessarily have doubted it..... Those from Sunrise (either of Suffolk patrons, or of folks coming off LIB's) that wanted the S1, would take the S33 for it instead... Why? Because the S20 stayed on Oak st. & didn't deviate to enter LIRR Amityville like the S33 did....

I don’t believe the 2 west of Babylon will do as bad as you envisioned. From my experience riding the buses out there n19 carried more ridership than the loop S20 along Montauk Highway, so hopefully this new 2 will get some of that ridership back. I happen to agree with him; that ridership west of Babylon is spent... Not that the old S40 was that high in the efficiency department, but having an Amityville - Patchogue route significantly makes a route of sorts that much more inefficient..... There's too big of a time lapse between [the current running of this new #2] & [the last time the n19 ran out to Babylon], to hope for this new #2 getting any of that ridership back... To be frank, the n19 along Montauk Hwy. wasn't all that strong anyway; the S20 was still the primary route of choice by most people b/w Babylon & Sunrise.... It is that rendition of the S20 (as in, before they turned it into a loop route) that lost more ridership throughout the course of time, I'd argue, than the n19 ever really garnered along Montauk Hwy.... I'd wholly agree with this take if the #7 wasn't the only route serving South Shore Mall.... I'd be surprised if there aren't currently a lot of people xferring in Brentwood or Bay Shore for access to that mall.... Whitman is too upscale for the everyday shopper (which is what killed demand from off all the bus routes still serving it) & Sunrise is dead (which saw more Suffolk patrons than you might think in its heyday).... The people that don't go to Smith Haven, either go here, or a little further up to Deer Park Tanger...

Alright man... Be safe, Yuki.

What was going on along rt. 46 yesterday afternoon? I took the #198 (4:33 trip out of Willowbrook, if it matters...and I'm glad it beat the preceding #197 that was supposed to come at 4:30, because there's no way all those people were getting on an inbound #197 at that time of day) after getting off the #705 at Willowbrook..... I actually saw the preceding 4:03 #198 trip back to NY when I was on said #705, but there was no way I could've caught it.... That bus left Willowbrook with about 10 people on it... smh... Anyway, the normal route back to NY is to take rt. 46 to rt. 3 before hitting 495.... Instead, we ended up taking I-80... to rt. 19... to the GSP... to get to rt. 3.... The crazy part is, after doing all that, even given the (normal) traffic jams at/on 495 to the tunnel approach, we were only 11 mins. late... We were flying on I-80; I was surprised to see it that empty, to be honest...