67thAve

Inspired by what the MTA did in regards to Queens, as well as by a university project I worked on this semester, I decided to come up with my own (probably shoddy) redesign for the Manhattan bus network. Feel free to roast me. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cnrGwH4jgXU9KeiFLqCTcyXatcMTfq7y&usp=sharing

No 1. It helps 2 save $$$ for d MTA, as u dont need 2 hir a prufreder.

This is shaping up to be a bigger disaster than Baltimore or Wellington. While Queens does need a bus network redesign, some of these ideas seem downright asinine, looking good on paper but not in reality, though the map is also very unclear. Route numbering is also going to be a big problem if these proposed changes are correct - relocating the Q83 from Eastern Queens to Woodhaven Boulevard will cause a ton of confusion. That being said, I do like the idea of a Q43 extension to LIJ. However, the big disaster with this will be the first day of operation. The MTA, befitting of its current state, will release an "interactive online map" with the bells and whistles, but no printed publicity. No schedules and no maps, because "everything is online". That's not a damn excuse when you're implementing the biggest changes to the Queens bus network in history. I would also opt to begin all Queens bus services with a set of numbers starting in the 200s, simply to avoid confusion upon implementation.

A lot of that increased traffic congestion is due to recent efforts to improve pedestrian safety through the reduction of speed limits and removal of traffic light synchronization along Hempstead Turnpike, similar to Vision Zero's negative impact on buses in New York City.

Never thought I would see the day that NICE became slightly more competent than the MTA at something (not that there's a high bar).

Anyone here wanting to take bets as to what gets to live and what gets to die, especially since these could be worse than 2010?

Printed publicity, in this day and age, is something that still needs to be taken seriously - even if the Internet has reduced how often people use it. By making customers wholly reliant on real-time tracking (knowing the MTA, they'll probably stop creating full PDF timetables for each bus route once the new site is fully up and running), the agency is no longer beholden to any set schedule - the only guideline for service the customer would be aware of would be the frequency charts listed on the back of the bus maps. Of course, that's only for Luddites, so the MTA thinks - everything is online, as everyone has (and loves!) to use their cellphones, even when they are sleeping. Who cares if the bus is 15 minutes late - whoops, it cannot be late any longer, for there is no longer any fixed schedule! Also, notice how little money this saves the MTA. Many transit agencies (more often abroad - in particular, this was the case when I went to Germany in May) are able to cover the costs of printed publicity by including advertisements and/or charging a nominal fee for the publication. Notice how many Guide-a-Ride cases have empty panels with nothing at all? Why not use that as ad space to cover the costs?

What should scare you is that the n31/32 are probably among the most reliable services that NICE operates.

I would say this is actually a very good set of service changes for NICE, especially considering that about a year ago, every service change was just a service cut. Splitting the n22 into a inner local section and an outer express section will speed up trips a lot for passengers going east of Roosevelt Field, but I'd local services to get more crowded because the n22x doesn't service 165th Street. Splitting the n24 into two weekday legs basically returns weekday service on the route to its previous form (minus the East Meadow branch). I'm not familiar enough with this route to see how it will play out. Swapping the alignments of the n41 and n43 services in Roosevelt is a solid booster for frequency along Main Street (since the n43 was not synchronized time-wise with the n40 along that leg), and since the frequency on the n41's Babylon Turnpike leg is about the same as the n43's frequency (every 30 minutes on weekdays, though with some minor variations in the case of the n43), the frequency of service remains the same. However, Babylon Turnpike and Grand Avenue passengers now have to transfer to reach Hempstead and Mineola, but they do gain a one-seat ride to NCC and Roosevelt Field (I'd say that the former two are slightly more important to the average passenger). NICE should've also done away with the n41 designation here, as the route is now the exact same as the n40. Shifting the n6 to a headway system isn't terrible due to the route's frequency: every 10 minutes weekdays and Saturdays, and every 12 minutes on Sundays. I saw that they only did the change for weekdays, when I think changing it for weekends as well would have been acceptable! Alas, I cannot praise the headway management system on my own route (the n31/32), as since September, despite the service increase to every 15 minutes (which it didn't need, if you ask me), what was likely once one of NICE's more reliable routes has really sagged (there are regular 30 minute gaps in service now). The Shore Road shuttle (basically an extended variation of the old n28) was not something I thought I would ever see coming to light, and the reality is that this route will likely not last very long. Based upon the different style of publicity (the online timetable is completely different from the rest of the routes in terms of layout, font, etc...), as well as basing the service around connections to the LIRR, the Shore Road shuttle is clearly an attempt to capture the LIRR commuter market... but the service's two main intermediate stops are a retirement home and an industrial park, which are places where LIRR riders will likely not be coming from or going to. And even if it was a commuter shuttle similar to the n57, it would almost certainly fail, because most LIRR passengers would rather not use a bus. If this route somehow manages to get some riders, I could see it becoming a secondary rush-hour branch of the n23 (the n23a?). Otherwise, I'll give it a year tops before it gets cut. If NICE really wanted to find a better place for its minibuses, mid-day service on the Elmont Flexi would be a good start.

Surprised that no big service cuts have been announced yet, especially since I have heard the budget is more dire right now compared to 2010. If that is the case, say goodbye to weekend Greenport service, all off-peak West Hempstead service, and so on...

I agree with your opinion on the new designs. They're solid! One strong point of Transdev seems to be graphic design. You should see some of the stuff (both PDF and paper... I could upload images of the latter) that they publish for their operations in the UK and France.

I don't think that increasing mid-day service on the n31/32 to every 15 minutes from every 20 is a smart idea. While it does benefit me as it is the nearest route to where I live, mid-day buses on the route are typically around 50-75% loaded. It doesn't need more frequent service, and assigning headway schedules would have been better for a busier route, such as the n4 or n6. Another thing that makes me wonder is how NICE is going to sustain higher frequencies on these routes, both with the fleet and with finances. Last time I checked, NICE hasn't bought any new buses in the last couple of years, and the quality of the fleet is still not the greatest. The financial situation has improved, but it is still not great, and increasing service now could dig an even bigger hole in the future. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that switching the frequency-based operations versus timed operations is an attempt by NICE to hide their poor on-time percentage...

The PDF file is littered with typographical and geographic errors (East Rockaway instead of Far Rockaway, for instance, is the terminal of the n31/32). But that's not the main point: I feel this plan is too ambitious. Frequent service: This category seems to be loosely defined, even in the current tense, as the n48/49 are listed, when they have a midday frequency of only 30-40 minutes combined, while the n25, which is more frequent mid-day and during peak hours, is not listed or shown. Regardless, I am going to infer the that a "frequent network" likely means service at least every 15 minutes Monday-Friday. I certainly don't think the n26 could sustain such frequencies, and it doesn't even have service outside of peak hours as of now. Other routes, such as the n1 and n25, as well as the n43 when NCC is not in session, possibly could sustain 20-minute headways, but I don't think there's enough ridership on these routes for service every 15 minutes. Other routes, such as the n22, n24, and n48/49, likely could sustain frequent headways through part of the route, but beyond, for instance, NUMC on the n48/49, I don't think the route could sustain anything more frequent than every 30 minutes. Express service: Now this makes sense in terms of the routes chosen for expansion. Many of them are long, and have heavy peak traffic flows going to/from Queens. However, I don't think that any of them besides the n4 and n6 could sustain off-peak service, and only the n6 could likely sustain weekend service. Direct service to Manhattan: Risky, but not a bad idea. Areas like Levittown, which have little in the way of train service, really benefit from this. I'd also add services from locations along the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, and perhaps open a park-and-ride or two. But even with the love/hate relationship Long Islanders have towards the LIRR, the bus still has a high risk of getting stuck in traffic in Queens, and unlike buses coming in from New Jersey, there is no gigantic bus station to feed the routes into, meaning that they have to navigate Midtown traffic. Still, I could see some people using these services, particularly heading to jobs located closer to the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. Evening and late night service: I see little problem here, except for the n43 having 24/7 service. The n26 could sustain perhaps one or two late night trips, provided they are timed for shift changes (if those exist) at the hospital on Community Drive. Weekend service: I see no problems... wait, where's the n15? How about the n31/32? Except for the mapping and typographical errors here, not bad. New Hempstead and NCC bus stations: In the case of the both, I agree. Hempstead's bus station is probably one of the worst I've ever used (terribly unclean, lots of people loitering, and often a lack of security), and could certainly use a new layout to handle the artics on the n6. NCC certainly has the passenger numbers to handle a bus station, and would also help to fix the spaghetti web of routes on campus - provided they eliminate a couple of current stops to speed up travel. "Smart stops": Not a fan. NICE is still on shaky ground financially (in my view), and things like these have high chances of being vandalized. Rather, simply improve current stops, with more benches, more shelters, and perhaps Guide-a-Ride-esque timetables at each location. If those are vandalized, it would cost a hell of a lot less to fix. County-wide Able-Ride: It's needed, but per passenger, it certainly costs a lot. Still, in my view, good thinking. "Flexi-zones/community shuttles": It's a mixed bag here. A few of the zones make sense (such as the train shuttle to Great Neck - would this possibly replace the n57?), but a few would be better off returning as fixed routes (such as the Elmont Flexi), others serve areas with relatively dense bus service and therefore there is little need (such as the Nassau Hub zones), and others serve locations that simply would never get enough ridership (for instance, West Hempstead station, with its uncrowded trains and infrequent departures, could not sustain such a service). Signal priority/BRT: Could make sense on the n6? Possibly. Other routes? Not so much. Even with the n6, I feel that mid-day and weekend express service would be enough. Overall impression: Very ambitious, but is there ridership? More importantly, is there funding? About a year ago, many of us here likely would have expected that NICE would consist of perhaps a few routes running in/out of Queens within five or so years. Certainly things have improved since then, but there's still a backlog of service that needs to be reintroduced, buses needing to be replaced and maintained in better shape, and Mitchell Field can't squeeze in any more buses. The idea for express service to Manhattan, likely the best part of this plan, very much resembles Transdev's commercial gamble in the UK with its CityZap services between Leeds and York, as well as between Leeds and Manchester. CityZap relies on a model where higher-quality buses compete with the train with lower prices, but in return, you sacrifice speed. Leeds/York has been successful so far, but there are signs that ridership is on the decline. The Leeds/Manchester service is shutting down this month after about a year of operations, despite high hopes and large amounts of publicity. Transdev is aiming way too high. The system simply has not reached a standard where many, if not most, of these elements can be put into place without significantly increasing costs - something that the county can't afford to do.

Out of all places and out of all things, I found a sizable amount of n35 and n70/71/72 timetables in a secondary hall of the M Building at Nassau Community College. The catch is that these were from the LIB days, with the n35 (or, as it was back then, N35) timetables dated from 2009 and the N70/71/72 timetables dated from 2011. They were in mint shape too, and there's still some left there.

Now comes one month of speculation as to what stops (or routes) are going to be cut before NICE releases its service changes. One stop that I honestly want to see cut is the southbound n15/31/32 stop at Hempstead Av @ Broad St, which is so close to Hempstead Av @ Westminster Rd that I have no idea why it exists. Nearly all riders at either stop use them for the same purpose (National Wholesale Liquidators).

Do you have a photo of that? Also, will there be schedule changes (besides timing, of course) as well?

Saw a broken-down bus on the 31/32 today (I think it was 1700-series, not certain) southbound at Hempstead Ave & Roosevelt Bvld.

I expect NICE to probably receive additional funding, which will be good in the short-term (possible return of cut service, better maintained buses). However, in the long-term, with her willingness to provide more government welfare services in a county that is still under financial strain, it will only hurt, as Nassau will likely emerge even more broke than before. Another thing to factor in when it comes to this is that she had no specifics as to how a funding source for NICE would be created, while Martins stated that he would impose a tax on ride-sharing services (no doubt beneficial to the cab companies as well).

I don't know... I have not seen the community meeting notes that you have mentioned. Is it possible for you to link them to me?

I've always wondered to myself - how are those Q111 services to Cedarhurst still in operation? I don't think that they're funded by Nassau County at all, and it's not well publicized, nor is it frequent. Is anything stopping the MTA from discontinuing the service?

A couple of tidbits of news from NCC in the last couple of days: 1) The school is planning on reworking the big southern parking lot. Part of the plan seems to include rerouting NICE service permanently to avoid travelling through the lot, even after construction. 2) I saw an artic (#1966, I think) operating as a training bus today on campus. Does this mean a possible return of n6x service to NCC next semester?

Does anyone else think that the n16 should no longer stop at Earle Ovington and Charles Lindbergh southbound? I rarely see people waiting there, and when I do, the n16 is 90-95% of the time so full that no one there can board anyway. This would also help to improve schedule adherence because it would permit the southbound n16 runs to cut through the parking lot and avoid the signal at the intersection of Earle Ovington and Charles Lindbergh, which always gets backed up around class change times.

They could, especially since the depot is not far away (so dead-heading is not really an issue). Another thing that could be done is to time mid-day service differently to reflect class change times. That was one of the pitfalls of the mid-day n6x pre-April, as some trips would be SRO one day and be empty the next.

I've known that the n6x does not serve campus for the last few weeks. I was discussing how if they were to use artics to service NCC, NICE would likely have to interline the n16x trips with n6x trips that do utilize them so as to not spend more than absolutely needed... Which means nothing for mid-day service (and more unreliable service during the rush on top of the current issues).