N6 Limited

Well many of these routes intersect with numerous routes, that opens up trip options. I mean that's going to happen with any restructuring of a mass transit network. But if you for example, have a route where 98% of riders transfer to a subway or another bus route, and they re-structure a route to follow the highest ridership portion and then serve another corridor to allow more connectivity. Why make this dramatic cry for 2% of riders who may not even mind the change to prevent improvements to the network? The entire network is already Piecemealed as a result of the way it developed. Every bus won't be in harmony, but with numerous connecting routes, dynamic route decisions can be made with BusTime and the Transit app, etc. "Oh I just missed my connection but I can stay on the bus for 5 more mins and transfer at the next connection point instead, there will be a bus a few mins after my arrival". Some of these changes actually streamlined some corridors. There are 4 different service types that compliment each other due to the demand in each corridor has and to allow connectivity between them. Due to the nature of some travel patterns and demand, you cannot have every route at the same headway, etc, it's not an efficient use of resources. Well yeah, almost anything is better than the current network . You have a disjointed service as is, routes that don't connect, routes that veer away from each other instead of connecting, routes that require unnecessary backtracking, routes that get tangled in Hubs such as Jamaica, Flushing, Jackson Heights, etc. Then, have riders, MTA and NYCDOT, etc, complain about congestion, while having 200 buses converging on the same area with redundant routing creating convoys of buses with light loads. Adding to congestion, adding to running times, adding to trip times, adding to fuel consumption, adding to rider discontent, adding to required vehicles to maintain service levels, etc. I can acknowledge that there are negative aspects to the design and that's fine, we may not agree on what the negative aspects are. Changing a route is going to affect SOMEBODY, but is it really as drastic as you all are making it? "OMG this route no longer goes here" Yeah, but if that segment carries air, then why not make the route more useful? This is like when the merge was being discussed. "OMG IT'S A SERVICE CUT ", "OMG Broadway Brooklyn riders want to go downtown", "Who's going from Forest Hills to Middle Village!!?", etc etc. Completely ignoring the reason for the merge, the service improvement and connectivity it provided, etc. Yes, Nassau Street and 2nd Ave lost service, but it was an overall improvement for Northern Brooklyn and it caused ridership to increase.

Yeah Remix can be updated at anytime basically. I wonder if they're going to have two remix pages for both drafts or make the old draft inaccessible. Yes, they would have the choice to transfer or walk, and BusTime would help them make the decision but transferring is not something they will "HAVE" to do. Yes, and also the QT18 would have a direct stop on Jamaica Ave where they can walk down and shop and return, and not have to alight on Archer Ave. They could add those stops in, but when you look at it, Foch Blvd is in the middle of Baisley Blvd and Linden Blvd stops and in close proximity to Guy R Brewer Blvd Routes, It's not like they have no choices. Exactly, you're on a nice express run, and you have to alight at Broadway Junction, and join the large queue to street level, then make your way over to the escalators, make the climb, then walk over to the platform stairs, walk down the stairs and wait for the , by the time you get to the platform the is already at Euclid Ave. To add to that. Euclid Ave (QT5) and Lefferts Blvd (QT67) are ADA accessible. Yes, since that was before everything happened. They mentioned they went through the comments and will use them for the new draft. Good points. Through-route in Jamaica - Makes sense. Connection to Linden Blvd - QT7 Portion of Q42 - Serves a portion, excessive turns removed. They mixed up the streets in the area years ago to prevent through traffic so, that's the furthest the route can get from Merrick while also reducing excessive turns. Some of these extensions are not as expensive as we think if they're avoiding congested roads and actually rolling to their terminals instead of queuing though numerous traffic signal cycles or bus queues 20 buses long.

1. You're making arguments that all Merrick Buses should go to Jamaica Center and no one could possibly want otherwise when said buses all used to go to Hillside in the first place. 2. The proposed stops are proposals, they can add a stop if necessary. But, if you look at the QT18 they wanted to implement stop spacing anyway, so there would be only 5 local stops bypassed by the purple routes on Merrick. 3. Do they fudge the numbers in the communities they're having meetings in to make the headways look better? 4. The QT18 gives Merrick another option of and Hillside. Maybe Merrick riders want to take the bus to IHOP, White Castle, various jobs along Hillside, Van Buren HS, etc, this would make that easier. Looking at the proposed stops, I doubt riders are going to transfer to take a bus one stop. Because from the look of it, the QT18 would have one stop between the purple route's limited stops. Maybe you and @B35 via Church can enlighten me, which of these local stops are so busy and have this dire need for Jamaica Center as if there would be no alternatives? The busiest stops that I see are the ones that the Purple routes are proposed stop at, except maybe 109th Ave, which they can simply add. 5. They noted they would monitor the implementation and make changes as necessary. (Probably not as quickly as NICE though) They're making a new draft with less dramatic changes but still implementing different route types, stop spacing, straightening routes, etc. I'm highlighting potential positives of the plan and the Idea behind a revamped network as opposed to saying "we need to improve the bus network but don't change anything and leave the spaghetti bowl mess that it is, as is!" Riders use the N4,N6, N24, N22 and backtrack because they're so much faster. The purple routes would increase ridership, of course some of their service spans would have to be adjusted as well. That said, being that the pandemic hit and dropped ridership, they may use this new draft to "right size" service even more. Now, they can hide it with a "familiar" map with just increased headway across the board. Right, it's like others who were bashing the QT7, "Riders want Jamaica, not the train. I'm sure there are riders that would rather stay on the Express where they could transfer to the QT7 or QT67 (The Q112 routing sucks) rather than transferring to the and vice versa. Everyone does not want to go to Manhattan. It's one route being shifted to the train on a corridor with 3 alternatives.., and the buses wouldn't be fighting for space on Archer Ave or Jamaica center. It gives the ability to through ride to Hillside Ave and vice versa, which is something not available at the moment. It makes sense to link two routes with Bus lanes and TSP to provide reliable service with limited resources. And, many riders are going to the QB Express anyway. That's an interesting idea, have you suggested that to them? Maybe the plan for the southern end of the QT65 was to Help students get to Jamaica HS?

There would be 3 routes going to Jamaica Center. QT40, 41,42. The vast majority along Merrick Blvd utilize the mostly because they diverted those same bus routes to Jamaica Center away from 169th street when Jamaica Center opened. Of course most riders on a route are going to use the train station they're forced to use. This gives the corridor both choices as well as added connectivity to routes along Hillside and Union Tpke. Guy R Brewer and Merrick would both have 4 routes. You forgot the QT40. They pushed one route to Guy R Brewer, the rest would still run on Merrick. Right now Guy R Brewer is Isolated with no connecting routes until Farmers Blvd by the airport. The QT43 would connect the corridor to other routes, and if they extended it to Green Acres it would open up the corridor to the mall. Also the QT7 would connect all the north-south corridors and connect to Gateway. According to remix, the majority would run at 10min or less headway at peak times, and 15-25 on the mid day and post 7pm time frame. Combined, on Merrick Blvd with the QT18 on 10 min headway, that seems reasonable, about 18 buses an hour outside of rush. The proposed service pattern would concentrate riders going past their break off points from Merrick, so they would't have to worry about serving "inner Merrick" because the QT18 would handle that and take the burden off each route.

Since the service is faster and most people on the outer ends of Queens want to get to the subway quicker and these same routes connect to all connecting bus routes, I'm not sure how it's detrimental to connectivity like you seem to suggest. I don't ride the bus in western Queens so they can tweak as necessary (which they are working on). In the area I use the service there are increased trip options in the proposal.

Those purple routes are local routes which become Limited along corridors they share with other routes, they also have stops at transfer points and busy stops. How does that not improve connectivity between bus routes? Some of these proposed routes with different O/D pairs make connections to new routes and corridors that currently do not exist nor have direct connections, this allows increased trip options where one either has a more direct trip to certain destinations or they have more route pair options to get to various places.

Speaking of which, do you think they'd open it in segments?

I was comparing ease of trip, not time, obviously driving in Queens is quicker than the bus. By nature of the current network, there are barely any "direct" trips to anywhere but Jamaica and Flushing. So if someone isn't going to transfer to the subway or shop at those destinations, the buses become a nuisance. At the same time you'll have activists crying about people driving instead of using public transportation. I want to go from Hempstead Ave to Green Acres, I can take the Cross Island Parkway/Belt to Francis Lewis Blvd to Conduit Springfield Blvd to Conduit Francis Lewis to Conduit Cross Island Parkway Service rd to Linden, to Elmont Road to Hook Creek Blvd, etc. Similar options for trips to 5 Towns, or even the DMV on Rockaway Blvd. The QT71 and connecting routes addresses all of that. By bus now, it would be the Q27> Q77 >Q5. - The Q77 sucks, no one takes it outside of rush hour. N6 > N1, -The N1 is on 45 min headway To 5 towns Take a bus to into Jamaica, then the Q113 all the way down Guy R Brewer to Rockaway. Take a bus to Farmers for the Q3, then take that down to Guy R Brewer to the Q113 If needed to go to Northern Blvd I could jump on the Cross Island Parkway, the closest bus that goes straight up to Northern is the Q76, but first you have to get to Hillside Ave and Francis Lewis first, and most likely need the Q12 once there. Q2 > Q76 with back tracking Q2/Q110 > Q77 > Q76 Q110 > Q36 > Q77 Q27 > 10 min walk to Northern or take Q31 Various bus to Jamaica > Q31 If they provide more connectivity in the network then they'd have more turn over on routes and reduce feeder ridership patterns.

That's like saying the and make the QBL disjointed. There are many more examples, which is why I put "etc, etc". It opens up travel because it increases route connectivity around the borough, something that the current network lacks. To be fair, most of my bus ridership has been in SE Queens, and the plan provides more connections in SE Queens and into neighboring sections (NE Queens, SW Queens, Far Rock) that I've needed at times. I cannot give experienced rider feedback in the other sections. But when I compare easy trips I've taken by car the current bus network makes those same trips cumbersome. So when people say "oh, no one is going from here to there", When the bus network makes it prohibitive then yeah, that's going to be the case. When people go "Oh I can go here with one transfer now" or "without going through Jamaica or Flushing", "Oh I Can get to Brooklyn quickly now" etc etc, trips start opening up. I understand the reason for the hub and spoke model, and on the subway that's how it is currently, but on a bus you really don't want to be on longer than you have to (especially NYC snail buses), so if a new network allows more connectivity where you no longer have to take a trip to the hub only to come back out when you could have taken a more direct trip with less traffic which could save up to 50% or more travel time, that seems like a plus.

They also had the same connection issue with the N23/N27 combo they had going on. I certainly agree. They basically ran the N6 ridership away.

Could be because the developers paid them. NICE likes to experiment, the introduction of the N6x was a disaster in the first place. Touché

They should have made the station a Hybrid Zone3/4 station. I see they have Ronkonkoma and Huntington Trains stopping at Queens VIllage now.

Lets just say I've been on enough N6 and N6 Limiteds with eastbound riders trying to get off in Queens, or yelling at the driver in Nassau for not stopping at local stops. Last thing they need are riders unfamiliar with the area complaining about that. I mean, it's really low effort/cost, all they did was add a stop to a route that already passes by the stop. They also use articulated buses on some express trips. I haven't heard of that account. That's crazy though

Many of those red routes have overlapping service, they're short turns for the busiest sections of a route, but the whole plan provided connectivity. The sections where the red routes run are limited sections for the purple routes, not complete bypasses. There probably wouldn't have been much of a problem because the busiest stops would have been accessible. QT71 covers Springfield Blvd and Bell Blvd. North-South route that connects all crossing routes and allows a connection to Merrick Blvd Bus (QT42), Northern Blvd (QT17) and various routes around Rockway Blvd for Far Rockaway, etc. For example. Hempstead Ave to Green Acres. Now: Q27 > Q77 > Q5. Plan: QT71 > QT42 Queens Village/Cambria Heights/Springfield Gardens to 5 towns Now: Various Buses to Jamaica or to Q3 > Q113 Plan: Qt71 > QT62 Etc, etc.

Probably not being that it's right by the CIP, driving around LI is simply faster. Though, I think you're making a bigger deal of the N6x stop than what it really is. It could be as simple as "We want potential customers to be able to get to the arena by boarding any N6 that they see". Could you imagine someone boarding the n6x and the bus just rolling by without stopping and the next stop is Elmont Rd or Springfield Blvd? All I'm saying is that it has better transit options over the Nassau Coliseum, and the N6 is the busiest and most heavily used NICE route. It may attract people along the route, (particularly those without a car and those in Queens that use the QBL.). As for parking, Who wants to pay $20 minimum for parking when you can park a few blocks away and walk? Amusement parks and other isolated venues get away with it because there's no other choice. At this point, the issue isn't lack of parking, but maybe too expensive parking, but they do have to pay for the garage they build which should be open in a couple of months, so..

Workers, etc, they're going to have concerts, etc, Haha, this is slightly different, The N6 connects directly to the subway, various Queens bus routes, is frequent, 24/7, and the arena is close to Hemp Tpke, and on the border of NYC and close to a City Ticket station (QV). The Nassau Coliseum is deep in the middle of a parking lot in the middle of nowhere. I've taken the N70/71/72 to an event at the coliseum and had to leave slightly early to make sure I caught the last bus to Hempstead. The arena has a LIRR stop as well so, the Coliseum stigmas don't necessarily apply. Though.... if the N6 somehow regains it's reputation of being SRO all day, and NICE can't supply sufficient service without flagging everyone east of 179th st during rush hours, then it's moot.

The QT18 Is logical, Frequent service on the inner portion of heavily used routes with bus lanes, basically the Subway Setup on a couple of levels, where the middle of the route is "downtown, get in and out of downtown Jamaica, and the purple routes are "express" to the outer end like the and . It also provides connections to many routes, goes direct from Hillside to Merrick, bypassing terminal operations in Jamaica, narrow streets like Archer, will get good peak ridership in both directions, nice turn over at 169th st , may encourage through ridership trips, provide options to riders on on Merrick between Jamaica Center and Hillside, would be helpful during G.Os to 179th, , excellent farebox recovery, and easy connection to Union Turnpike routes. Hillside ave Many of these routes open up travel across Queens and allow/simplify previously difficult or annoying trips that cars make very easy. The was a "service cut', not all are bad. The busways on Jamaica and Archer wouldn't be needed as much if 100s of buses weren't rolling down said corridors providing redundant service with light loads. Instead of riders at various stops letting various buses pass and get stuck in traffic, they could simply board the first QT67 they see to move along Jamaica Ave. Lets not forget most SE Queens bus service went to The Jamaica Bus Terminal to serve shopping, the at 168th St and the on Hillside, Jamaica Center stub kind of screwed that up. Also, we have free transfers now and they'd be smart to institute unlimited transfers within a certain time frame with OMNY.

It's a new trip generator, should they not do anything at all?

Correct, the N6 Limited stopped at Locustwood Blvd, they also have not reinstated Hillside and Francis Lewis. NICE is trying to attract customers... Kinda sorta, they've reconstructed Hempstead Tpke in the area around the Arena. They've.. Added a traffic light and crossing on the east side of the Cross Island Parkway. (Just before the westbound entrance to the Northbound CIP.) Added two bus bays. The Eastbound bay is like a bus length or two east of where the old Belmont Stop was, there is now a parking garage behind the stop. The Locustwood Blvd stop still exists as a separate stop, it was recently moved across the street by the Elmont Health Center, it was essentially merged with the Sterling Rd stop that was in front of Wendy's a block away. It will provide local riders with quicker service from Jamaica, or to Hempstead or other transfer points. The Westbound Bay is where the old Wellington Road Stop was (which they had previously removed). So it's technically a consolidation of the Belmont Park, Wellington Rd, and Locustwood Blvd stops. It will be useful to bus commuters because even when the N6 Limited was running, riders would get flagged at that stop. Now they have more and quicker service to the subway or from the east. Added two eastbound left turn lanes into Belmont Park with a pedestrian "refuge" in the middle on both sides of the intersection. (Although a median was already present on the west side) Yes Belmont Racetrack had separate Eastbound and Westbound stops which they removed in their "stop spacing" program. Now, it has been reinstated Eastbound, and consolidated westbound with Wellington Rd and Locustwood Blvd. Yeah the old LIB schedules were long for the busy routes. The font was "small" but there was a lot of detail. The PM was bold so it wasn't too difficult to read. They tried to have Saturday and Sunday at the end, so you didn't have to unroll the whole schedule all the time haha.

They haven't given an official reason, but it provides more service to the Arena.

I'd be curious to see the comments left on the interactive map.

I was asking in general if bus tracking helps with lower frequency routes, not particularly his situation. Don't forget, one of the goals is to speed up travel. I was thinking of the foamers on the board as well as some that go to every MTA meeting and voice their concerns. Not exactly, I don't use the buses like I used to, but the plan looks appealing due to the connectivity and faster (projected) services. Yes the MTA certainly does make it easier to bash anything they do. Yes I did see some coherent reasons for not liking the plan, the MTA did take into account congested corridors, etc. Although a route may be a block or two away there should be less delays, busses stuck in traffic , etc.

I was just asking a question. Yes, not necessarily a bad thing. I was simply replying to the comment, which made that a point. Yes, can't please everyone when serving a city of 8 million people... No, but there are people that bash anything the MTA does. I remember years ago, there was a news story that bus ridership was increasing but the MTA wasn't increasing service at the same rate. If there are 10 people per trip and bus ridership increases by 100% then the mta does not have to increase service at all.

The network has to be "re-imagined" if they want people to use the buses more, they also have to institute a better grid network. Right, it's not efficient to have empty buses rolling around, then complain that the MTA needs more funding. Would you say that the ability to track buses helps make these trips with lets frequent routes? Some of these routes look to increase turnover as they connect to many other lines. The B46 is different because it serves a few train lines and terminates at a mall. The Q5 would be a better comparison.

Lets also be logical, how many times has the MTA threatened to get rid of the Q84 in the first place? If they have to append the eastern end to a Francis Lewis route, then so be it. Yes, span times can be adjusted, and indirect routes were for coverage, many of those routes have low ridership, now that they're getting passenger counters they'll REALLY know where the ridership is. And yes, some complaints were due to a certain bus being "removed" but still covered by a route with a different number.