Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


checkmatechamp13 last won the day on April 24 2018

checkmatechamp13 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,079 Excellent


About checkmatechamp13

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Planet Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

5,244 profile views
  1. As discussed, the current span is about 19.5 hours, not 22 hours. The other thing is that the QT1 will operate 24/7 along 21st Street south of 30th Avenue, and the QT78 will operate 24/7 along 36th Avenue (and I do agree that the QT1 should stop at 36th Avenue). The route she was likely thinking of was the Q100, which does operate 24/7 along 31st Street. The QT1 & QT79 cover different portions of the Q100 and operate overnight. For the portion between 21st Street & 30th Avenue and 31st Street & 20th Avenue, the QT79 is available on 31st Street, half a mile away (and again, this is overnight and this applies to many areas of the city. If I'm not mistaken, you even said the MTA should consider consolidating some overnight routes and having double the spacing but double the frequency) The Q101 not going into Manhattan is partially the result of people at the Astoria workshop in the Spring advocating for better connections between Sunnyside and Astoria and asking for a route over the 39th Street bridge crossing the Sunnyside Yard. Between that and the congestion at Queens Plaza, I can see why that was done. If I'm going to create a document that I'm expecting people to put their signature on, you better believe I'm going to double-check for accuracy (and yes this applies to the MTA as well. You better believe I sent them emails whenever I spot an error in a document or on their website). I felt the one in Ridgewood was pretty productive. For us, both the planner at the table with the group and the planner at the board took both general and route-specific comments.
  2. @BrooklynBus The Q69 doesn't run all times. The person who wrote that petition needs to get their facts straight.
  3. And what does any of this have to do with the transit service the MTA offers to those areas?
  4. LeFrak got a route connecting the eastern portion of the complex to the train (QT82). Rochdale Village got a Downtown express route. Wavecrest still has the QT13. Redfern has the QT62. What is your point?
  5. Express bus changes in The Bronx have been postponed for a year while they reevaluate.
  6. @B35 via Church My bad. I was thinking of 61st & Borden. I forgot Laurel Hill is the service road to the BQE not the LIE.
  7. I have to double-check but I am pretty sure the S48 has a tripper from either I.S.27 (Forest & Broadway) or I.S.51 (Forest & Willowbrook) heading west.
  8. @B35 via Church 61st Street is a pedestrian bridge. Do you mean they would turn around on Hamilton Place? (And would this be in case the Q18 couldn't be maintained on 65th Place, or in addition to it?)
  9. The elementary school (P.S.14)? The S62 has a trip from Victory & Forest to Travis at 3pm to serve Notre Dame. I'm pretty sure the S51 has a trip from I.S.2 (Midland & Boundary) towards St. George.
  10. I think it's more for the sake of coverage. It's a 10-15 minute walk from the western edge of the neighborhood, just to get to Cross Bay Blvd, let alone get to an actual stop. I don't know enough about the current Q54 ridership patterns to give an opinion on this. Is the Woodhaven Blvd-Fresh Pond Road portion noticeably busier than the outer ends of the route? There's only two stops on 69th Street itself (it stops at Broadway/Roosevelt, then 69th Street/Queens Blvd, then 69th Street/Grand Avenue). So it's more of a side benefit to those living along 69th Street. I think that could work. The problem is Ithaca Street is pretty narrow itself, and in any case, the bus still has to get to Hampton Street at some point to cross the LIRR tracks. The QT10 passes through the QCM, but it stops at 53rd Avenue, not 57th Avenue or 59th Avenue, which would better-serve the mall (and also the connecting buses there, like the QT12, but also the QT52/83 for Woodhaven Blvd nearby, and of course the subway) The way they see it, if you want limited-stop service, you'll just take the subway. So the Q60 has to compete with the subway by offering convenience, rather than speed. I was referring more to the reliability aspect of having such a long route (and with the frequencies not being too great, you can't really split the frequencies between a local and limited) It is a backtrack, but given how the other routes are structured in that area, I can't see how they can realistically preserve coverage on that end of 20th Avenue with any other route. The QT69 heads east along Ditmars, and the QT79 heads east from 31st (unless you just leave people walking to/from those two routes). Yeah, I'm not wild about how they went about covering 48th Avenue (I would've personally had an LIC-Sunnyside/Woodside shuttle, instead of sending that route into Manhattan). But in any case, I don't think it's worth having buses to Maspeth run along the Q39 route through LIC (down 48th) vs. the Q67 route (down Borden). It's longer distance-wise/time-wise (plus, the areas along Borden are more isolated than those along 48th). I agree the Eliot Avenue portion should run into Ridgewood. I'd have the service pattern in Maspeth run as follows: QT77: Runs as proposed up until Fresh Pond/Eliot, but then continues down Fresh Pond to Metropolitan, takes Metropolitan to 69th Street to Juniper Blvd South to 80th Street to Penelope Avenue to 63rd Drive (and end where the current Q38 ends, since there's a lot of apartment buildings north of Queens Blvd). QT80: Takes 58th Street to Borden Avenue to terminate at 69th Street. A new route (say, QT89) from Hoffman Drive (basically, Queens Center Mall, Woodhaven/Queens Blvd, etc) to Ridgewood (I like your idea of running it via Gates. I'm sure the B13 route will be looked at during the Brooklyn redesign) via Eliot Avenue. Keep the Q29 as-is south of Queens Center Mall (call it QT90 for now, QCM-Myrtle/81st) Restructure the Q47 (call it QT91 for now) and run it from Atlas Park Mall to Woodside via 80th Street-Grand Avenue-79th Street-Calamus Avenue/Maurice Avenue-65th Place-Woodside Avenue. I think that diversion to the Astoria Houses is to cover Q103 riders seeking the . But yes, I do agree that they need to add 36th Avenue (for the Ravenswood Houses and QT78 connection). Honestly, though, with all of their focus on bringing people to the subway, I'm surprised they even came out with this route (in terms of travel time, I don't see how it would be much faster than taking the QT69 over to the ). It will be interesting to see what they have planned for the Brooklyn end (will they actually have a local complement for the B62 riders?) Honestly, I think the money used for this route could've been better-used towards fixing some of the span/frequency issues they created in other portions of the network. Traditionally, planners would assume the average passenger waits half the headway (the passengers who "barely make" the bus balance out those who "barely miss" the bus, with "barely make" being some wait time shorter than half the headway, and "barely miss" being some wait time longer than half the headway). But yes, real-time information does come into play to an extent. The thing is, though, that you can only plan so far. If your commute involved making a transfer, and you miss your intended bus, you may be able to take a different one (whether at that stop, or staying on the bus/train to a different stop) and walk further, but it is still adding some time to your trip. Interesting. I suppose if it were combined with @B35 via Church's suggestion of sending the QT4 via Broadway, it could work out (of course, the QT78 would need a service boost. I don't even think it has enough service proposed now, even with the QT4 helping it out on 69th Street). Then you still have a blue route along Grand, and you make the Ridgewood-Flushing route even quicker.
  11. On the weekday portion of the schedule (usually at the bottom of the second direction, before the Saturday schedule is shown), you'll see a note that says "Supplemental service is provided on school days between X:XX and X:XX". Those are the school trippers. Off the top of my head, the only Staten Island local route that doesn't have any trippers is the S40/90. (The S42/52 count as one route in the MTA's eyes, and I know the S42 has trippers to/from I.S.61 at Castleton & Brighton, but I'm not sure if the S52 has any).
  12. This is a Queens-specific thing. With The Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, the routes in general follow more of a grid. With Staten Island, most are already feeders (and many are timed with the ferry, which ends up playing a role in the scheduling). Queens is unique in its heavy mix of grid and feeder routes.
  13. Someone else can jump in with additional info, but I think the main thing is that they will add 8 extra tracks (and presumably some platforms) to the South of the existing station
  14. I would have the PM pattern be the same as the AM pattern. I get that you want to separate the 3 different groups of riders (riders heading to/from the subway, riders heading to Gravesend, and riders heading to Bensonhurst/Dyker Heights/Bay Ridge), but you also have to consider the local residents within Brighton Beach who need to travel further west.
  15. QT3: I don't think the limited-stop version should run a portion of the route while the local version runs the full length (that's the same problem I have with the SIM4X/8X out here on Staten Island). But I do agree with you that they went overkill on the service levels (at the expense of the QT54...the QT3 is the overnight route instead of the QT54? Huh?) I'd just run limited-stop service on the QT54 during rush hour and call it a day (if they want to call it the QT3 they can still do so). QT4: They are going to determine the Brooklyn stops as part of the Brooklyn Redesign, which likely means they will implement both Queens & Brooklyn at the same time (and so we will see what they have planned for the B57). I think the main purpose of this route actually was to connect Jackson Heights to Brooklyn. The Q58 (QT6/58) runs in that general area, but it only goes as far as the Brooklyn-Queens border. This one will actually connect areas deep into Queens with those deep into Brooklyn. QT6: I think the problem with that is you would bypass a significant portion of the ridership if you ran it down Eliot Avenue (also keep in mind the blue routes have a very long distance between stops, so you would still need a local counterpart along Eliot). QT10: The Q29 currently serves Hampton Street, and there's no other street you could realistically route it on (you could have it run on Broadway to supplement the QT63, but then you're making a left turn from Roosevelt onto Broadway, and sacrificing coverage along Hampton Street). But yes, I agree with you (I originally thought it terminated at the QCM, but it doesn't even have a stop near the QCM) QT12: The thing with this route is that there wouldn't be a local counterpart in the dash portion towards the subway (also, it would see some turnover along HHE, with the schools along the route). QT13: The Q113 is limited-stop along Guy R Brewer, not local. QT15: Agree with your proposed reroute through Flushing. QT19: Those are the current Q111 short-turns, and if they want to run the QT13/43/45 limited along Guy R Brewer then they need a corresponding local. QT32: I think they just renamed it to fit the pattern with the other feeder routes (generally speaking, heading clockwise out of Flushing heading south, the QT30s/40s-series routes are the feeders. Obviously, the QT35/37 are exceptions to this rule. Though I suppose they could've started this pattern with the QT48/49/51, renaming them at a lower number, but whatever) QT44: I hope this is some type of error/typo, because I don't see why they would eliminate weekend overnight service. QT50: The rush hour buses will (I believe they said 6-9am and 4-7pm) QT58: That's the night headway (on weekday nights, between 12am and 1am, it runs every 30 minutes). On weekdays, frequencies are every 8 minutes or better for most of the day, and weekend frequencies are 10-12 minutes for most of the day. (The other controversial thing is the lack of overnight service, especially if the QT6 will have the long stop spacing along Grand Avenue during overnight hours). QT60: I mean, the morning rush hour is pretty important considering that's when most people are rushing to get to work. I think even Jamaica-Midtown is too long, and it's good that they are cutting it back on the western end (plus, I have a coworker who could actually use it, since it would now pass by our office). QT74: Yeah, I don't get the backtrack on the northern end. In any case, if connectivity to the Jackson Heights subway station is an issue, you can always extend it a few blocks for that connection (plus, it would connect the non-ADA-accessible station at 90th Street with the ADA-accessible station at Jackson Heights/Broadway/Roosevelt). For 35th Avenue, you can create a separate route. QT76: I think it's because the QT79 doesn't run along 21st Street anymore, so they wanted some coverage around the 21st Street/20th Avenue area. QT77: This route isn't designed to be rode from end-to-end, so it's a moot point. Me personally, I like the connection to the Queensbridge subway station. That gap along 21st Street between 44th Drive and the Queensboro Bridge has always annoyed me (the Q69 only covers it northbound). I do agree that they should restructure the southern/eastern end, though. QT80: If you move the service off 58th Street, you've effectively isolated that area around 58th Street & Laurel Hill Blvd. I think one of their goals with that reroute is to provide better connections to Maspeth from the east (you can get there pretty easily from the LIC area and all the subway stations there, but if you are coming from areas like Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, etc, you have to backtrack into LIC for the Q39/67). QT81: I think the relatively short span of service is also an issue. Running from 6am-10pm weekdays and 6:30am-9:30pm on weekends is a span reduction for Q15/15A riders, and doesn't provide the extended span that is needed on the Astoria Blvd end. QT82: I like the northern end of the route, but similar to you, I have a problem with the southern end (I think the entire Maspeth/Middle Village area needs to be redone). QT85: The southern terminal provides local service to the areas bypassed on the QT6 that were formerly served by the Q58. I think it should extend a few blocks south to 59th Avenue, which has an easier turnaround, and also provides a same-direction transfer to the QT6, instead of backtracking to/from Flushing. QT87: I think they wanted to separate the QT14 from the QT87 as much as possible (Let the QT14 focus on the short-distance riders heading to/from Forest Hills, and I guess to areas further south along the Q10 route, and have the QT87 focus on areas further out). Though the idea of running the QT87 to Forest Hills with short-turns at 164th would be interesting (that would basically be extending some Q64 trips further east). I think one of the goals with the QT14 was to provide connections across Flushing Meadows Park (Lefferts Blvd riders now have a connection to the Q44 for instance). Though I agree reliability may be an issue. QT88: I agree. Actually, I just realized that the base headways on the QT34/36 don't correspond on the weekends (so it's not like the weekday base 24 minute headway where you can offset them 12 minutes apart). This won't work out well....if anything, the QT36 should be more frequent (even intuitively it makes sense, and the stats only back it up further, around 52,238 residents/12,373 jobs along the QT34, compared to 59,581 residents/14,871 jobs along the QT36). In any case, if a QT34 shows up before a QT18, then I would think most Hillside Avenue riders would pile onto that (remember that even if people don't want to walk....which I personally don't believe, even if others do...those stops are pretty big stops, and Francis Lewis Blvd & Springfield Blvd are major transfer points). One way to "resolve" it would be to have the purple routes run closed-door along that "dash" zone (drop-off only towards the subway and pickup only heading away from the subway). But then you're taking away frequency from the inner portion, and frequency is one of the big things they are advertising in these redesigns (and along Merrick Blvd, you've essentially forced all those people on the inner portion of Merrick to the train if they want to take the subway in Jamaica...obviously the QT7 comes into play in the background, since some riders may actually prefer the but that only helps people at Linden, not at Baisley, Farmers, or Springfield) Hacks like taking the N22/24 if your bus is too full to board are nice to have, and riders should know their backup options, but you shouldn't be planning your network on the assumption that people will use backup options. Just do your best at providing adequate service and in a worst-case scenario, some people can use backup options, but they shouldn't be resorting to them on a regular basis. I think that argument can apply to many proposed routes: For example the QT15 runs through Flushing and will likely see high turnover there, but at the same time, there is only a limited amount of layover space available, and in any case, through-routing does provide increased transfer opportunities, so some people (depending on their precise destination) have the option to avoid the pedestrian congestion in Downtown Flushing. I think just in terms of length. Plus remember that the Q27 currently runs between Flushing & Cambria Heights, and is far busier than the proposed QT73 (so delays are more of an issue). And the Q76 as-is is a pretty long route (both the QT73 & Q76 head west from Francis Lewis Blvd towards Flushing/Jamaica respectively, it's just that the QT73 covers areas south of Hillside, while the Q76 covers areas north of Northern).
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.