Queens Division Bus Proposals/Ideas

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 There are always alot of talks to continue to cut service on the 5/6 especially on weekends. I personally think a stop along queens blvd near Kew Gardens Station on the 1/5/6/7/8 could defer ridership from the F/E and onto express buses. 

You have a plethora of express buses making different stops in that area. IDK; I feel like some stops should be either streamlined or discontinued. There's too many stops in the area along the subway station (of course, most of this dates back to the days where the PBL's and NYCT kinda competed in the area).

 

Also, remember that riders around the Kew Gardens subway can take the LIRR on the weekends with the CityTicket (which is cheaper than the express bus). So, I don't think that any express should stop there on weekends. Areas further up on Queens Boulevard are a different story, because they don't have the LIRR as an option.

Edited October 19, 2016 by BM5 via Woodhaven Bl

[MikeC]

You have a plethora of express buses making different stops in that area. IDK; I feel like some stops should be either streamlined or discontinued. There's too many stops in the area along the subway station (of course, most of this dates back to the days where the PBL's and NYCT kinda competed in the area).

 

Also, remember that riders around the Kew Gardens subway can take the LIRR on the weekends with the CityTicket (which is cheaper than the express bus). So, I don't think that any express should stop there on weekends. Areas further up on Queens Boulevard are a different story, because they don't have the LIRR as an option.

I see your point. I think the QM4 reroute wouldn't be that bad of an idea. I mean it doesn't carry as much as the 5/6 but it makes up for alot of picks for the B/Os at Baisley so I personally wouldn't want to cut the service. Experimenting to improve ridership wouldn't be a bad gamble.

[IAlam]

While that's true, it's only after a certain time. If the last bus is at 5:10 PM, then the first QM5 via Jewel would be the 5:30 PM. By that time, ridership along Union Turnpike towards Manhattan is low enough that the QM6 can deal with said loads by itself. So service would be every 30 minutes on Union Turnpike west until 5:24 PM, then every hour until that 9:24/8:24 departure. 30 minute headways from Manhattan would exist until 7:00 PM for riders west of 188 Street. Keep in mind that most riders use the bus past 188 Street too. That segment of Union Turnpike gets the same headways as a Bronx express route during the weekends, which is reasonable.

 

QM5's via Jewel would displace one stop (188 Street and 75 Avenue), and relocate 3 to the opposite side of the street. From 75 Avenue, you can walk to either the QM5 or QM6 (I'm pretty sure people do that currently), so there's even less of an impact for not directly serving that stop.

I see where you coming from, although it is true, it better to leave service on Union, because in reality, it's turned into a Hylan Blvd situation. May riders seem to take the QM5/6 when they should really be taking the QM4, they do so because it's more reliable and frequent. No point of waiting hourly when there is bi-hourly service further down. To add on to that, yes you do increase catchment area, but you make it more difficult for riders who just want the next bus to Manhattan whatever it may be. It becomes a situation of hey where might the next bus depart from, do I have to go north or do I have to go south, and in the long run, it becomes tedious and annoying. The catchment area isn't the issue if people from Melbourne ave are commuting down to Union for the bus, it's an issue of reliability. If all express buses were required to stop by the Woodhaven Sta bus stop, you'd begin to notice over time people start to gravitate there because of the lower wait times. The same thing has been proven at Hylan, there are always people at the I278 waiting for the bus because that's where they all meet. 

[Around the Horn]

Wait a second, what does the QM4 have to do with the QM5/6?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Wait a second, what does the QM4 have to do with the QM5/6?

Simple. The QM4 runs near to the QM5 and QM6, but it doesn't get the same ridership.  A lot of people will drive and park near Union Turnpike for the more frequent service there.  The QM4 could use more ridership and could get some if it were more frequent and made more stops along areas of Queens Blvd.

 There are always alot of talks to continue to cut service on the 5/6 especially on weekends. I personally think a stop along queens blvd near Kew Gardens Station on the 1/5/6/7/8 could defer ridership from the F/E and onto express buses. 

And why is that?  I think it would be a terrible idea. Basically you have the QM5 and QM6 running every hour which means waits of 30 minutes at the stops that they both serve.  The QM6 serves the North Shore Towers, so it makes sense that it starts and ends when it does, and the QM5 serves those co-ops and such, so the set up works fine IMO. I use both on the weekends when going to Queens interchangeably, since I usually get off before they split up.

[IAlam]

Wait a second, what does the QM4 have to do with the QM5/6?

 

Look below 

 

I remember that proposal. The original proposal meant that QM4 weekend service would only run on Saturdays (and with no evening service; buses would operate from 7:10 AM to 5:10 PM to Midtown; 8:50 AM to 6:50 PM to Electchester), with the QM5 replacing it at all other times. I never proposed making the QM1 run on weekends; under that original proposal of mine, the QM6 would have been the only service during Saturday evenings and on Sundays along Union Turnpike. 

 

With an extension of the catchment area though, I would leave the current service as it is, to see how many more riders it gets per bus, and then see if it needs to be trimmed or not (if it gets trimmed, then the QM5 would replace whatever trip gets eliminated). Obviously, cutting trips in the AM to Queens are pointless if they go back to Manhattan anyway, so those would be kept. Same thing for Manhattan trips in the PM; if they go back to Queens, then they wouldn't be cut, no matter what the ridership levels on those buses are.

 

 

Simple. The QM4 runs near to the QM5 and QM6, but it doesn't get the same ridership.  A lot of people will drive and park near Union Turnpike for the more frequent service there.  The QM4 could use more ridership and could get some if it were more frequent and made more stops along areas of Queens Blvd.

And why is that?  I think it would be a terrible idea. Basically you have the QM5 and QM6 running every hour which means waits of 30 minutes at the stops that they both serve.  The QM6 serves the North Shore Towers, so it makes sense that it starts and ends when it does, and the QM5 serves those co-ops and such, so the set up works fine IMO. I use both on the weekends when going to Queens interchangeably, since I usually get off before they split up.

 

I doubt that'll go through after anytime soon

 

In the meanwhile, I wouldn't mind a stop at Kew Gardens for weekends

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Look below 

 

 

 

 

I doubt that'll go through after anytime soon

 

In the meanwhile, I wouldn't mind a stop at Kew Gardens for weekends

The QM5 and QM6 already stop in Kew Gardens (Union Turnpike and Main Street).  What line are you talking about? 

[IAlam]

The QM5 and QM6 already stop in Kew Gardens (Union Turnpike and Main Street). What line are you talking about?

I mean by the train station where the current x63-68 stop

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I mean by the train station where the current x63-68 stop

Ah yes.  I think the QM4 should definitely stop there.  I'm in Kew Gardens for meetings, and what I do is take the QM1, QM5 or QM6 and then back track with the Q46 a few stops or get a ride back to Union Turnpike and Main St.  Off-peak those buses are back in the city in no time.  Way faster over the subway.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

 

 

Perhaps the Q33 and Q70 SBS can swap. Obviously, it can't be done right away, but if it should, it should be done after LGA construction is completely done.

If I remember correctly, wasn't that the way it was before the Q70 LTD?

 

???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ????

THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ????

[78 via Stew Leonards]

the QM1/5/6/7/8/31/35/36 should use the LIE to Grand Central Pkwy to get to Union tpke.  They'll beat the Queens Blvd traffic

[IAlam]

the QM1/5/6/7/8/31/35/36 should use the LIE to Grand Central Pkwy to get to Union tpke.  They'll beat the Queens Blvd traffic

I've suggested doing a pilot test before, however, it shouldn't be all lines maybe just the QM1/31. That route si so much better in the winter when everything is more hectic. 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

the QM1/5/6/7/8/31/35/36 should use the LIE to Grand Central Pkwy to get to Union tpke. They'll beat the Queens Blvd traffic

I disagree. The Grand Central can get congested, and the LIE around the GCP area is very congested during the rush. Its much better during midday hours, but there can be delays.

[IAlam]

I disagree. The Grand Central can get congested, and the LIE around the GCP area is very congested during the rush. Its much better during midday hours, but there can be delays.

But not the service road

[Armandito]

The MTA once proposed a new bus route between Flushing and Fordham Plaza not long ago, but they've scrapped it afterwards. Why is that? I think it could be a profitable route in the near future...

[Gotham Bus Co.]

The MTA once proposed a new bus route between Flushing and Fordham Plaza not long ago, but they've scrapped it afterwards. Why is that? I think it could be a profitable route in the near future...

 

They proposed lots of interesting things back in 2008, including the Q94 LTD that you refer to.  Then some fiscal realities hit home (e.g. lower-than-expected revenues from sales taxes and mortgage recording taxes), all expansion plans had to be put on hold, and the 2010 service cuts happened.

[Armandito]

They proposed lots of interesting things back in 2008, including the Q94 LTD that you refer to. Then some fiscal realities hit home (e.g. lower-than-expected revenues from sales taxes and mortgage recording taxes), all expansion plans had to be put on hold, and the 2010 service cuts happened.

It's quite ironic they restored or expanded bus service to certain routes and neighborhoods back in 2013-2014, yet they still haven't debuted more beneficial routes like the Bx50 between the Bronx and LGA or even the Q94 I mentioned earlier... Edited November 6, 2016 by Q44SBS

[B35 via Church]

I was always indifferent to that Q94 proposal... One of those routes on paper that could see decent ridership, but at the same time, I don't see a serious need for it, per se.....

 

Anyway, the way I see it, they want to keep the masses piling onto the Q44 from Flushing, for Bronx-Queens travel.....

Hell, now that the Q44's SBS, we can forget about a Q94

[GojiMet86]

Did they ever make a diagram or a map of these proposals?

[Armandito]

I was always indifferent to that Q94 proposal... One of those routes on paper that could see decent ridership, but at the same time, I don't see a serious need for it, per se.....

 

Anyway, the way I see it, they want to keep the masses piling onto the Q44 from Flushing, for Bronx-Queens travel.....

Hell, now that the Q44's SBS, we can forget about a Q94

What can you say about the Bx50 proposal?

[bstar1]

They simply transfer to Q48 bus at Flushing or take to 74 St for Q70.

[B35 via Church]

Did they ever make a diagram or a map of these proposals?

Not that I know of....

 

What can you say about the Bx50 proposal?

Not all that fond of it....

 

And although I couldn't pinpoint the reason I felt that way (back when it was proposed), I can now.

I don't have a problem with a Bronx-LGA route, generally speaking.... I'm not fond of the proposed Bx50 b/c it would've been a north-south route (within the Bronx)....

 

I think a Bronx-LGA route should serve the Bronx in an easterly-westerly fashion (before diving onto any highways, I mean)....

Either that, or have an 'L' shaped routing (like the B15) w/i the Bronx; increase the catchment (area)....

 

They simply transfer to Q48 bus at Flushing or take to 74 St for Q70.

Lol....

 

While technically possible, I can't say that there is one Bronx patron that does that; Q48 riders are largely Queens residents making their way to commercial Flushing.....

 

Ask a Bronx resident (that isn't transit savvy as we are) where a train takes you....

...or if it even exists!!!

 

Bronx patrons are the ones that are (adding to the) crowding M60's along one-two-five (125th).....

Edited November 6, 2016 by B35 via Church

[bstar1]

They probably could have a bus from Bronx to LaGuardia Airport Queens. Either start from The Hub 3 Av-149 St or start from Hunts Point Av then cross RFK Bridge and follow M60-SBS to Airport.

[LegoBrickBreaker101]

They probably could have a bus from Bronx to LaGuardia Airport Queens. Either start from The Hub 3 Av-149 St or start from Hunts Point Av then cross RFK Bridge and follow M60-SBS to Airport.

 

I think the proposal to extend the Bx41-SBS south to LGA was quite interesting... (in fact, I'd like to know what happened with that idea).

 

But I think that a route from the Hub to LGS would be okay... that way, it would serve a popular transport area and still serve Queens.

[Lennyj17]

I think the proposal to extend the Bx41-SBS south to LGA was quite interesting... (in fact, I'd like to know what happened with that idea).

 

But I think that a route from the Hub to LGS would be okay... that way, it would serve a popular transport area and still serve Queens.

 

I think if they extend the Bx41 to LGA. It should run non stop in Qns except for 1 stop at the / ... After that it's straight to the the 3 terminal stops 

 

I feel like the M60 should have its stop count reduced as well in Qns especially around LGA. Both routes should be rebranded as LGA Links